From: Wei Dai (weidai@eskimo.com)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 10:06:45 MDT
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 07:13:45AM -0700, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> Correction, US courts have ruled against turning someone into a parent without
> her consent, but in the case of his consent, US courts have not ruled against
> it, and men have indeed been turned into parents without their consent.
Are you sure about this? Wouldn't assigning different rights to men and
women violate the Equal Protection Clause?
> Not according to US law, where otherwise lawful acts, dependent upon unlawful
> acts, thereby become unlawful.
Are you saying that illegal clones would not have the right to clone
themselves? Why not, since it wasn't their fault that they were illegally
cloned. By applying this logic, people who are conceived as a result of
rape would not be allowed to procreate.
> By that time the evolutionary phase transition will have rendered organic
> carbon units obsolete, and biology will have transcended organic chemistry. As
> a consequence, cloning will have become a moot issue.
Maybe, but you will still have similar problems with other people stealing
your design specs and building clones of you without your consent.
> > I wonder if we might see anti-cloning technology that actually would work.
>
> Such technology already exists. It's called abortion.
How is abortion going to protect you from being cloned? Are you going to
go around testing every fetus and abort those that are your clones?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:53 MST