From: Nick Bostrom (nick@nickbostrom.com)
Date: Fri May 24 2002 - 16:21:20 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, May 22, 2002, at 02:08 am, Nick Bostrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was thinking that it would be possible to practise therapeutic
>>>>cloning in a way that overcomes this objection. The idea is to insert
>>>>some kind of biological "time bomb" in either the ovum or the sperm, so
>>>>that the zygote they form is set to self destruct before it becomes a
>>>>human person. Since neither egg nor sperm is a potential human person,
>>>>it would not be immoral to insert such a time bomb - one is not harming
>>>>any potential human person. Then the zygote itself will not be a
>>>>potential human person either, since it is not set on a course that may
>>>>lead to the birth of a human person.
>>>
>>>How is this any different than any abortion process? You are
>>>introducing outside forces to prevent the zygote from growing into a
>>>human. This is the exact process that anti-abortionists object to.
>>
>>In the abortion process there is a potential human person that you kill,
>>and that is what is allegedly wrong. In the procedure I suggested, no
>>potential human person is created so that objection doesn't apply. The
>>reason why the zygote wouldn't count as a potential human person is that
>>it is not (as opposed to a normal zygote) set on a natural course that
>>may lead to the emergence of a person; that is the usual definition of
>>'potential person' used by those who employ this argument.
>>
>>All my procedure involves is a decision not to create a potential human
>>person, but that by itself is no more problematic than sexual abstinence.
>
>You are using faulty logic. By *your* definition, you are killing the
>zygote before it becomes a person.
According to the objection against therapeutic cloning that I'm addressing,
the wrong consists in killing a potential human person. On my approach no
potential human person is killed. The same definition is used in both these
sentences, namely that a potential person is one that is set on a natural
course of development that may result in the emergence of a person. I
didn't make that definition up, it is one that is used by those to whom my
suggestion is directed.
>definition. By *their* definition, life begins at conception and aborting
>a zygote equal murder. By *their* definition, you are still creating life
>at conception, and you are still aborting that zygote later which they
>equate to murder.
It depends on who you refer to by "they". As my original post made clear, I
am referring to those who assign a zygote moral status on the grounds that
it is a potential person. Their objection is met by pointing out that in my
scenario the zygote is not a potential person (according to their
definition of potential person).
>Also, there is a bit of circular logic in your reasoning. You claim that
>since you are aborting the zygote, it isn't a potential human, and since
>it isn't a potential human, you can abort it. This is similar to arguing
>that murder is OK because the victim is about to die anyway.
You have misunderstood my proposal. The zygote doesn't fail to be a
potential human because it will be aborted, but because, lacking certain
necessary genes, it is not set on a natural course of development that may
result in a person.
>Besides, all logic aside, the religious or non-rational arguments would
>never be persuaded by logic anyway. Those who don't think we should be
>tampering with conception or fetal development would object more
>strenuously to your extended tampering.
That is quite conceivable. But it is also possible that there might be a
few who would accept the method I propose. Since the legislature is about
evenly balanced, those few could make a difference. In any case, the
suggestion can help those who object against therapeutic cloning be clearer
about what exactly it is that they don't accept.
>>> A better approach would be to duplicate stem cells instead of
>>> duplicating zygotes. Use adult stem cells.
>>
>>That is an alternative approach. At the current time, however, there are
>>many things we can do with embryonic stem cells that we cannot do with
>>adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are, for many applications, much
>>more promising in the near term. By contrast, my suggestion is something
>>that we could use now.
>
>We do not have the technology now to genetically modify sperm and ova to
>implant timebombs that will abort the resulting zygote after a specified
>length of time.
As I said in the original email, we DO have the technology to do that. We
can knock out specific genes that will cause the zygote to cease developing
at a given stage (specifically, later than two weeks but before it can have
turned into a person). I also mentioned that I had verified this with one
of the leading experts in this field.
Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy, Yale University
New Haven, CT 06520 | Phone: (203) 500-0021 | Fax: (203) 432-7950
Homepage: http://www.nickbostrom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:20 MST