From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 06:29:47 MDT
It appears that "Edmund Grech" <edmund@arclightentertainment.co.uk>
wrote some silly things which included..
<<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.>>
A truly anonymous donor, without having significant amounts of data
concerning their health history and family health history is a considerable
risk. I wouldn't recommend trying THAT at home.
Obtaining high-quality gametes could be fraught with any number
of difficulties. Particularly if the purchaser/procuring party is male
and the gametes they need are female cells, which are limited in
number (at least with present technology).
Obtaining genetic material with a specific phenotypical potentials
(height, eyes/skin/hair, IQ, psyche, etc.) may not be possible.
It's all a matter of just how choosy the aspiring parent is. It might
be simpler to use a known set of genes, if the parent's pass muster.
<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.>
Pardon me, but you are being foolish, allow me to help you defrag your
headspace.
You assume a relationship is of key importance.
Perhaps the aspiring parent does not wish to introduce custody issues
with a "co-parent". Perhaps it would be "simpler" to have only one
genetic parent for the child.
Another thing. You say if one hasn't time for a relationship, one hasn't
time for a child.
I might have time for work and time for a relationship, but yet not have
time for a child. I might have time for a relationship and a child, but
not for work!
I might also have time for parenting and working, but not need the
distraction of maintaining a simultaneous relationship with the other
parent. Get the picture?
Additionally to address the "socially introverted" angle...
The sort of person one might choose for a casual lover or romantic
partner is not neccessarily the ideal scource of genes for a child.
Neither of these is neccessarily the sort of person who would be
talented in the emotional art of being a co-parent.
Solution?
Here's a possibility.
Work your ass off for lots of money.
Use your own genes alone for the child's heredity.
Hire a long-term nanny (a regular caregiver need not be a rocket
scientist,
just a good, kind human being who is responsible and trustworthy) to
fill the co-parent role.
"Date" whomever suits you.
<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).>
Not extreme at all. Unusual but highly rational IMHO.
<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.>
Who want's to raise someone else's offspring at no benefit to yourself?
Ugh!
< 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.>
Unless we are ..ahem... certain aurally challenged individuals in an
alternative
lifestyle LOLOL
< 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. >
How exactly is this different from most parent-child relationships?
<snip>
<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.>
Artificial selection is vastly superior in it's possibilities to natural
selection.
Cloning allows the possibility of pure continuance of useful genetic
strains,
without dilution of those traits to no good purpose.
<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.>>
The well-being of my child is my concern thank you very much. I will
feed, nurture and comfort my offspring to the best of my ability, and
concerned citizens can be damned. I truly dislike those who see fit to
stand in judgement over another household's rightful affairs.
I look forward to using the coming procreative technologies,
and hopefully I won't have to go offshore to employ them.
A near-clone (same basic genes plus assorted tweaks)
would seem the best mixture of options to me. We shall see.....
regards,
Brian
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:48 MST