What's Wrong With Cloning?

MHGinTN ^ | 1/31/2003 | MHGinTN

[MHGinTN]

The President called for a ban on cloning in his State of the Union Address. So, what's wrong with cloning?

Every individual life is a continuum hallmarked by growth and development. We are invited, through the media, to differentiate reproductive cloning from therapeutic cloning, but both conceive a cloned individual human being, in vitro. Scientists seeking to exploit therapeutic cloning would have us believe that, because their goal doesn't include life support to the birth stage, their 'form' of cloning is okay. Far from it; it's a worse application of the technology. Therapeutic cloning seeks to conceive 'designer' individual human beings, give them life support either in a growth medium or a woman's body, then kill and harvest from these individuals the target tissues for which the cloned being was conceived.

It is important to realize that an embryo IS an individual human being: goals of cloning scientists bear witness to the hidden truth that they are conceiving a unique human being, whether for reproductive or therapeutic aims. Giving tacit acceptance to a proven lie --that the embryo is not an individual human life-- is bad enough, we’ve done this for more than thirty years, but to embrace cannibalism founded on such a lie is far more degenerate.

Tacit acceptance for manipulating individual human life has lead from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide, proving the bankruptcy of continuing moderate acceptance. We are now staring at cannibalism in the name of whatever you care to call it. Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for their body parts? If you think that it is, at least know that it is cannibalism.

[MHGinTN]

I've been anesthetized nearly a dozen times. I was non-sentient during those procedures. I've never conversed with a non-sentient being. Your feint at courtesy is hollow. Good luck with your AM tasks.

[beavus]

Interesting points. Remember when it comes to law, however, the practicality of objective enforcement sometimes means setting a hard number within a continuum that doesn't necessary apply logically to every situation. Take for instance age cut-offs for emancipation, drinking, driving, marriage, etc.

So the Court said that somewhere during fetal development the qualities develop for which the law should recognize any rights. They don't tell us what those qualities are, or exactly how they can get it from the Constitution, but they know that 12 weeks gestation is about the time it usually happens.

[hocndoc]

Incredible resources! Thank you.

[beavus]

If someone clones you without your consent, who are the clone's parents?

Uh, that's "parent". It would, if the term has any meaning in this situation, be you.

[beavus]

When there is a heartbeat and brain activity.

My cat has a heartbeat and brain activity. Should it have the same rights as you and me?

[MHGinTN]

Good points ... and the law is the original reason for this thread. We are about to have a national deabte over banning human cloning at this time. As offered in the essay starting this thread, therapeutic cloning is cannibalism of individual human lives conceived for the purpose of harvesting their body parts. In order to have a truthful debate, some parameters must be hammered out. Jennyp offered the notion of form and function as the hallmark definitions for the different ages along the timeline/continuum of individual human life. Others have added the age they would consider relevant for defining 'worthy of legal protection'. Abortion enters the issues when/if cloned embryos are conceived and implanted, then killed and harvested for their body parts.

I offer that termination from a woman's life supporting body need not be the only application of the term abortion, for the support offered to cloned, alive, developing individual humans, though outside a human body, is life support, therefore to consciously remove life support (especially for an individual human life purposely conceived in vitro) is to abort an already existing individual life.

[hocndoc]

Good discussion you've started here.
Why is it that when I read some of these justifications I think of lobotomies? Is it from the movie "The Planet of the Apes" or remembering that lobotomy was legal for mental illness in the "60's? Unruly girls and "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" and Siberian dissidents were made "non-sentient."

[beavus]

At 7 weeks they can feel pleasure and pain so after that point im willing to consider them a person.

My cat can feel pleasure and pain. Should it have the same rights as you and me?

[hocndoc]

Self-awareness comes along somewhere around 6 - 9 months. Children are concrete thinkers until about 7 years old. (some of us later)
Your line is still one of function, rather than species.

[beavus]

It can be a scientific solution to feminism.

Good for them too since they would finally have a way to propagate without the use of the evil gender.

[MHGinTN]

Good question, Lady. I cannot answer them though.

I find it interesting that a med student cannot see when an 'arbitrary' designation is applied that splits a continuum that he himself agreed is a reality. But then, she/he hasn't taken the 'oath' yet, so there is hope. [BTW, have I made any 'biological' errors yet?]

[hocndoc]

I've played that violin - at least the one about study.
But, in the long run, you will need to find a way to be more consistant about human life than this. Much of medicine may be considered a "grey" area, but the right to life and the physician's duty not to abridge that right is black and white.

If you get a few seconds, take a look at the "sample pages" for Dr. Spitzer's book on Amazon,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898707862/ref=lib_rd_prev_12/002-4150258-6226432?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=12#reader-link
and Dianne Irving's articles about embryology. She began her PhD dissertation with the perception that human life was not "human" before 14 days.

Some things in medicine require you to learn your own lessons, but when others are willing to share their experiences, and you can verify their integrity, learn from them.

[beavus]

To use words as vague as "life" and "human" when asking questions such has "When does life begin?" or "What is human life?" in the debate on rights application is a testament to the fact that the questioner can't put his finger on the germaine qualities that make the issue relevant.

The proof of this, by example, are the facts that a tree is a life, and a human lymphocyte is a human life. If a person had any idea what he was talking about, he could phrase his question with meaningful descriptors.

[hocndoc]

He's (she's?) young and has come much farther than many of his/her colleagues. Remember, minds and hearts can be changed if they're alive and have a reason.
Cloning and its consequences may be a good reason.
Your facts are good, but you were rude, one time.
Be good!
(And Remedy's posts are fantastic!)

[beavus]

What is sad about the whole debate is that people engaged in it don't even seem to know what it means to be human. A mushroom is a "life". A human fibroblast is a "human life". My dog feels pain and pleasure. My cactus ages.

The fact is that most people are almost completely clueless about how to articulate the concept of rights. They know, more or less, how to behave among people, and sometimes why, and yet they attribute rights to the mere label of a species rather than understanding what it is about that species that gives meaning to the word "rights".

[cpforlife.org]

A thought...

Absolutes have been replaced with “gray areas.” Soon everyone’s opinion is equally as valid—and equally worth very little. In the area of the sanctity of life, America (and the world) is increasingly becoming blind to absolutes or “black and whites.” We go about seeing only gray, blind and numb to atrocities going on in every major town/city in the land. I believe that we are at a precipice with regard to human cloning and related. We cannot begin to imagine the implications if this were to take off. If we think disregard for life dropped since 1973, this will make matters FAR worse.

To those who have not, please read THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT

"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth."
Bill Clinton - University of Connecticut, October 15, 1995

[Consort]

Transitory Blue

We're about to begin mankind's last generations
Of humans with unaltered genes.
The Dawn of the Clone will change every nation;
Transition by unnatural means.

We've started a process that can not be reversed.
We've determined our destiny.
We can only hope that the world is not cursed
With a lesser mentality.

What will this New Man be like in his psyche,
In his heart, in his mind, in his soul?
How can we know that he's like you and me;
Have we finally lost all control?

Will he have new perspectives on science, on art,
On religion, on learning, on love?
Will he feel for another from deep in the heart;
Are emotions what he'll be void of?

How will he treat us when we're the outnumbered
As we near final atrophy?
Will he show an impatience to be disencumbered;
Will he feel any empathy?

Was it in our genes to alter our genes;
That made us do what we did?
Uncontrolled changes to be made by all means;
Our Monsters from the Id?

The die has been cast; we've reached the last scene;
Our temporal existence unfurled.
Will the New Man evolve to a mindless machine
When he enters the Brave New World?

[cpforlife.org]

You are correct, and I offer my apologies where I failed to meet your standards. I will point to the venerable Remedy’s post of 159 and reference the link which best expresses my position on this matter: Personhood Begins At Conception -- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. , then offer you you my website, Christian Patriots For Life to back-up my position(s).

[beavus]

I offer my apologies

Not your fault, you were quoting Reagan. He didn't invent the language either. I was just giving my 2 cents about why the language is so vague. It's vague because the people using it really don't have a clear thought about what they are talking about.

[beavus]

Self-awareness comes along somewhere around 6 - 9 months.

Should self-awareness be the criterion for recognizing rights? I supposed I'd be pretty hard-pressed to demonstrate that my cat is self-aware. So you think recognition of rights developed out of a recognition of self-awareness?