Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Nov 26 2001 - 10:38:19 MST

• Next message: Lee Daniel Crocker: "Re: WAR: appropriate first use (was: If we do get Afghanistan...)"
• Previous message: Jacques Du Pasquier: "Re: Praxeology Data"
• In reply to: John Clark: ""Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Next in thread: Anders Sandberg: "Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Reply: Anders Sandberg: "Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Reply: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Reply: John Clark: "Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

All these alleged 'ethics experts' claim that there is some moral reason
against reproductive cloning, but I've never actually seen anyone detail
the philosophical principles for such a claim. Can anyone point to some
arguments against reproductive cloning that are not just "because it's
so" statements?

• Next message: Lee Daniel Crocker: "Re: WAR: appropriate first use (was: If we do get Afghanistan...)"
• Previous message: Jacques Du Pasquier: "Re: Praxeology Data"
• In reply to: John Clark: ""Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Next in thread: Anders Sandberg: "Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Reply: Anders Sandberg: "Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Reply: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Reply: John Clark: "Re: "Cloning Breakthrough" not one"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:12 MST