From: Edmund Grech (edmund@arclightentertainment.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 06:45:25 MDT
Emlyn wrote:
> The only problem I have with reproductive cloning is that it is likely,
> currently, to produce malformed offspring.
>
> I fully expect that at some point in the (near) future, these issues will
be
> resolved, thus removing any argument I'd have against it.
I assumed in my message a time where cloning was safe, agreed that until
that time; reproductive cloning, without some truly wierd and wonderful
reason, shouldn't be attempted.
> Really, what else is an issue with respect to reproductive cloning? Why
> would it be intrinsically any more abhorent than "natural" methods, or
IVF?
> It would seem to be a perfectly legitimate way to create a new human to
me.
Consider, were we capable of safely cloning a person; then we have part and
parcel of the technology the ability to produce viable genetic material for
natural (should I say traditional?) reproductive proceedures even without
the availability of functional reproductive cells. There is only one
situation where reproductive cloning would be an alternative. When ther is
no sperm/egg donor; and let's assume the patient doesn't want an anonymous
one.
Reasons for this? The patient is too busy with work for a relationship, in
which case they're certainly too busy to look after a child. Or the patient
is too socially intraverted to succesfully pair off in society.
Note how extreem these situations are. Let us for a moment say that by some
quirk the patient can't reproduce, and no genetic material can for some
reason be procured for reproductive purposees using cloning technology. So
the only way to have children is to adopt or clone themselves (assuming this
remains possible despite the other complications).
The person in this case would chose cloning either because they simply don't
want to raise another person's child or for egotistical reasons. In the
first instance they would of course in cloning themselves be condemning that
child, a whole new person, to the same reproductive bar in latter life; we
abort downs babies, much less entertain concieving purposefully a defected
child. In the latter instance they are at best mild meglomaniacs with a
narcissus complex. The child's life would be a nightmare under a control
freak's belief of doing thier own life right using a clone. And at this
stage we're back to 'the lives and loves of Tiarella Rose': a story about
precisely this (though with an almost happy ending).
Additionally, by cloning; whatever mechanism of evolution that exists in us
is suspended, retarding the gene pool; assuming breeding is possible in the
cloned subject. Not such a big deal I think that one though.
Reasons pro cloning, see my original post. Certainly one can say there
remains the attitude, let people do what they will and enjoy thier own
successes or failures; but as Hal pointed out, there is the well being of
the child to be considered; asuming we cast ourselves in the role of
concerned citizens, and by discussing the topic, we do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:46 MST