Posted on 11/28/2001 7:45:29 AM PST by patent
Cloning does not in principle have to result in the death of the embryo. Once that hurdle is overcome, it cannot be morally equated with abortion. It will be morally equivalent to any fertility treatment. Then what will you say? Will you object to it more, or less?
I object to fertility treatments which are unnatural. Like IVF. Not just because they lead to abortion ("selective reduction") and disposal of unwanted embryos, but because they are wrong in and of themselves.
In this sense cloning and IVF are both equally abominable. But in the sense that cloning will lead to "designer" babies and other sick societal effects, cloning is a bigger abomination.
I must say that the IVF baby or the clone is an innocent whose life should be protected. Regardless of how they came into existence.
SD
Do you really mean this in principle, or do you mean that it's horrible that embryos get discarded in the process as it is currently practiced?
Frankly, anyone who is opposed in principle to IVF cannot be called pro-life.
I mean what I said.
Frankly, anyone who is opposed in principle to IVF cannot be called pro-life.
Even is IVF would be used without "surplus" embryos in freezers and without "selective reduction" of surplus implanted embryos, it is still wrong. That is what I said.
Playing God by artificially making babies in test tubes is wrong. We have plenty of actually existing children in this world without people having to tickle their vanity by having one of their own genetic material. We have plenty of young girls aborting their offspring. When we have learned to respect existing life better, perhaps we can then go about creating life to satisfy our own whims.
SD
IVF is no more "playing God" than any other medical advance. Think hard: why don't you raise the same objection to heart transplants, or to antibiotics? (Or do you?)
We have plenty of actually existing children in this world without people having to tickle their vanity by having one of their own genetic material.
Read that sentence again. The same objection applies equally well to anyone who has a baby the old-fashioned way. And who are you--who is anyone--to decide who gets to reproduce, and how?
If God gave us our brains for a reason, it was to solve problems for our own survival (as a species, as individuals or as families). Infertility is as valid a problem for our solution as any other you can name.
Not to disrupt the debate, but doesn't this mean they destroyed two embryos? The original embryo would've been destroyed to get the cell nucleus for the clone. Guess I need to do a little searching.
Continue.
I raise the same objections to euthanasia. Doctors are expected to do what they can to heal the body. Doctors are not expected to decide when life should end. Likewise doctors should not be deciding when life begins.
If God gave us our brains for a reason, it was to solve problems for our own survival (as a species, as individuals or as families). Infertility is as valid a problem for our solution as any other you can name.
Infertility is not a problem for the species. It might even be a solution for the species.
In any event, we are not to play God in deciding who dies or in deciding who is brought to life. God gave us brains to figure out many things. Not all of them are pleasing to Him.
The technology pioneered by doctors "just trying to help infertile couples" is now leading us to cloning. Which will lead to future disasters. Yes, we have the brains to do this. Do we have the brains not to?
SD
It is clear from your comments on this thread that you have a very poor understanding of the pro-life movement. Therefore one can't take your pronouncements as to who can or can't be called pro-life very seriously.
For one thing you ignore the fact that the objection to cloning and the oppositon to abortion or killing of embryos come from different principles, both of them pro life. The objection to abortion is that it is homicide. The objection to cloning and the other activities involving the creation of human life varies depending on the religious or ethical background of the pro life person, but all find this practise to be unwholesome, and devaluing of the human person.
I find this particularly amusing. My position is to let God sort these things out. We can certainly use medicines or hormones to help infertile couples achieve normal function of their systems.
What decides now is whoever has the money to go through these high tech procedures.
SD
And yet even today, nearly 50 years after it was performed, the data obtained from the experiments of Dr. Mengele cannot be used in any way for the advancement of medical science.
This is not because of an objection to torturing or killing. There is no torture or murder involved in reading the data from these experiments It is not because the data is not scientifically valid, scientists who have examined it say that it appears to be valid, but for the reasons stated, a thorough review has not been performed.
It is because experimentation on human life is an abomination, not to be accepted. Dr. Mengele either did not realize this or did not care about it. Apparently you do not either.
Dodge. What about antibiotics?
Infertility is not a problem for the species.
Dodge. It is a problem for individuals and families. Now what?
In any event, we are not to play God in deciding who dies or in deciding who is brought to life.
Catch 22: by banning IVF or cloning, you are deciding who is brought to life.
Not all of them are pleasing to Him.
It's not for you or the State to be the arbiter of what's pleasing to Him. When you say it's not pleasing to Him, what you mean is that it's not pleasing to You.
The technology pioneered by doctors "just trying to help infertile couples" is now leading us to cloning.
That completes the logical circle. I suppose it carries weight with anyone who objects to the ideas of IVF and cloning in the first place.
It's like saying that Harry Potter books are evil mainly because they promote reading skills, which can then be used to read other evil books, such as the sequels. (The solution, of course, is illiteracy.)
Which will lead to future disasters.
Name some.
Why is this different, in your mind?
What decides now is whoever has the money to go through these high tech procedures.
Excellent. I was wondering when the class warfare rhetoric would be brought into play.
I hereby invoke the Godwin clause.
Dodge. What about antibiotics?
I thought I was clear that my objections to science are related only to life and death issues. Transplants and antibiotics are good. They do no harm to anyone and they help people live better lives.
Infertility is not a problem for the species.
Dodge. It is a problem for individuals and families. Now what?
Some people are infertile and always will be. You can't always get what you want.
Like I said, medical advances which help to make people functions normally are good. If a woman is miscarrying because of a hormone imbalance, medicine can correct this. It is counteracting a symptom of a medical disfunction. It is not an end run around the natural functioning of the body. IVF is.
In any event, we are not to play God in deciding who dies or in deciding who is brought to life.
Catch 22: by banning IVF or cloning, you are deciding who is brought to life.
I am sure the laws against murder also prevent certain "life or death" decisions. I'll stand by letting God or nature sort itself out.
Not all of them are pleasing to Him.
It's not for you or the State to be the arbiter of what's pleasing to Him. When you say it's not pleasing to Him, what you mean is that it's not pleasing to You.
Are you a proponent of anarchy? Then you realize that cultural norms find themselves expressed in law. If this country were composed of folks who felt like me about the subject then IVF would probably be banned. It isn't and it isn't. That doesn't mean I have to accept the morality of it. Of course, you do not have to accept my definition of morality either.
The technology pioneered by doctors "just trying to help infertile couples" is now leading us to cloning.
That completes the logical circle. I suppose it carries weight with anyone who objects to the ideas of IVF and cloning in the first place.
Are you denying that cloning technology is sitting on top of the shoulders of the entire IVF, articifical reproductive technology industry?
Good grief, man! They use the "products" of IVF to perform their cloning experiments. If they didn't have the IVF toys to play with then cloning wouldn't be where it's at today. QED.
It's like saying that Harry Potter books are evil mainly because they promote reading skills, which can then be used to read other evil books, such as the sequels. (The solution, of course, is illiteracy.)
No, it's like saying that playing around with human life in embryo stage leads people to want to play around even more with human life in the embryo stage.
Which will lead to future disasters.
Name some.
Folks will lose a child in an accident and then "clone" him to try to make a new "Timmy."
A Woody Allen type will clone his wife and then dump her when his daughter/wife starts to remind him more of the girl he fell in love with.
People will abort their accidental "natural" babies in order to order the latest genetically pure baby from Sears.
Like Gattica, "naturally" conceived people will be relegated to second class status, as they will be deemed too short lived to be worth the bother of educating.
SD
Why is this different, in your mind?
One is using medicine to help the body function as a normal person's does.
When normal people reproduce in a petri dish, then IVF will be using medicine to help peoples bodies function normally.
What decides now is whoever has the money to go through these high tech procedures.
Excellent. I was wondering when the class warfare rhetoric would be brought into play.
Even if HillaryCare covered it, I would still be opposed. But you have to admit that IVF is largely used to reproduce people who have the money to spend on such things.
SD
Do you stop for a moment to read? It's about Orthodox Christians.
Actually there were a number of people who opposed using the V-2 rockets or even allowing the rocket team (von Braun, et. al.), into the country. The eventual decision was that the Vengeance weapons were no different in moral principle from other forms of the bombardment of civilian targets. There has not been much controversy when it comes to suppressing the results of Mengele's work -- hardly anyone opposes the surpression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.