From: Christopher Whipple (crw@well.com)
Date: Wed Sep 11 2002 - 12:12:40 MDT
I'm glad that you qualified your objection. :)
Like any new technology, cloning will take time to perfect. Meanwhile,
we need to remember that nature isn't perfect either. I'm not a
doctor, but I'd wager we still see natural deformities.
A single natural deformity hasn't set back sexual reproduction, why
should the same be true for cloning?
-crw.
On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 01:27 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 10:58 am, Christopher Whipple
> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,55043,00.html
>>
>> A new study on cloning shows more than ever it's probably a very bad
>> idea to replicate human beings.
>>
>> The study, performed by researchers at the Whitehead Institute for
>> Biomedical Research in Boston, found that cloning to create new
>> animals will almost always create an abnormal creature.
>
> This is my objection to cloning _at_this_time_. It doesn't work most
> of the time. We hear the successes of a cloned animal, but don't hear
> about dozens of deformed or aborted creatures that didn't clone right.
> While we have more failures than successes, I think cloning people
> should be off-limits. Any program to clone humans today is pretty
> much guaranteed to produce failures and maybe birth defects. We can
> wait until the technology is perfected. A single deformed human clone
> would set back human cloning for decades.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:57 MST