From: Edmund Grech (edmund@arclightentertainment.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 07:24:52 MDT
I said:
> > 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.
Emlyn replied:
> Well, hang on a sec. This assumes that the only viable model for parenting
> is a couple. I think that's an assumption which requires some strong
> justification.
Not at all - this statement niether supports nor condemns a single vs couple
relationship. Only that reproductive cloning would be desirable to someone
who didn't have a partner, and didn't want annonymous artificial
insemination; if they had either the former, or were prepared for the
latter, then they would have no need to resort to cloning is all I'm saying.
I said:
> > 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.
Emlyn Replied:
> I also think that your analysis of why a single person might not be in a
> couple is pretty simplistic. There are a lot of single people out there,
> encompassing probably just as many reasons for being single.
I agree, this was too brief and ill considered; more acurately I should have
stressed that this applied to someone who didn't desire artificial
insemination and indeed there will be other reasons besides these two, but
as you say;
> > Maybe they just happen to be fond of their own genome?
Well indeed which is why I went on later to mention human ego.
Emlyn said:
> There might be plenty of people, for instance, who know themselves to be
carriers, but not sufferers, of genetic disorders. Cloning would be a
prettyethical way to reproduce.
Conceeded, I can't argue that the prospect of that carried disease in the
child would be sufficiant grounds to avoid cloning the child.
I said:
> 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.
Emlyn replied:
> Also, you assume that all infertility is genetic, which it is not. An
> infertile person does not necessarily have the "infertility gene". In fact
I
> think genetic infertility is pretty uncommon. It'd hardly be selected for,
> after all :-)
Quite so, however I was highlighting a specific instance in which a person
was genetically infertile, because weren't they, say only marred by
accident, then a culture of reproductive cells could be cloned in a petry
dish and back to traditionall methods from there on in, hence the example is
extreem because it has to be.
I said:
> > In the latter instance they are at best mild
> > meglomaniacs with a
> > narcissus complex.
Emlyn Replied:
> there's no reason
> why it would only be chosen by the insane.
I said mild, suggesting they weren't clinically insane; only with
questionable motives, admittedly not clear on my part.
> People have many reasons for doing things.
> If cloning becomes a simple, safe method of reproduction>
> I fail to see any reasonable danger to a child who is born through a safe
> future cloning method in the material above. Reproduction is reproduction;
> how you mix the genes is just a technical issue.
I was attempting to look at the motives whereby one would defer to cloning
over shared genetic reproduction. Certainly someone may simply not want
another person involved in thier life for perfectly sound reasons of
lifestyle and personal conviction, and my moreover not desire some unknown
genetic material, after all a donor showing up wanting to see their child
after ten to twenty years isn't an attractive prospect. So this is an
instance were I will concurr that cloning will be a valuable recourse to
children.
On the whole my distrust, if you will, of cloned reproduction stems from my
own misgivings when I ask myself would I given cause desire a cloned child
myself? The answer is no. Thinking of it I wonder; if he succeeded where I
had failed, how would I feel, would I cherish my success at rearing, or
would I be bitter for my personal failures, perhaps at my parents for not
achieving what I had with me. Worse, if I failed, and the child was less
succesfull than I, how would I feel knowing that from the same starting
point I had done worse than my parents, the prospect of failing oneself in
the most thorough way. That I had in some respect cursed myself, self hate,
self love, both dangerous pitfalls either side of a tightrope act. My mind
boggles at the prospect. What neuroses would I unlock in myself and the
child? Perhaps I lack the sense of vision, or strength of character to be a
cloned parent; but if I were tempted to go through with it; who would be
there to stop me? And that is the question that weighs on my mind in this
matter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:47 MST