From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Dec 29 2002 - 15:25:42 MST
Suppose that there was a free country in which the government
did not dictate all moral decisions, and that furthermore a
large number of moral decisions were made by small communities.
For example, a woman's right to an abortion might be granted
by some communities, but not others.
In this extremely hypothetical large nation, communities are
even allowed to make decisions regarding cloning. In some
communities, there are no "moral" laws whatsoever concerning
things like abortion, cloning, and other mad-scientist
experiments only provided---the usual libertarian caveat---
that strictures exist against theft and murder, and that
property rights are enforced.
In other communities, the citizens have agreed to detailed
laws concerning how and when cloning may be performed and
by whom. In yet others, all novel experiments not sanctioned
by custom are completely prohibited, and only traditional medical
procedures and experiments are permitted.
You live in a certain community, and read about the amazing
developments occurring in certain other communities. I call
to your attention two such, A and B, which are otherwise
identical except in matters pertaining to cloning. (In both
communities, there is a shortage of children and a high rate
of infertility.)
In A, cloning attempts are permitted only on animals, until
such time as 100% of cloning attempts result in perfectly
normal animals. Only then will cloning be allowed for
humans.
In B, cloning of human beings is also permitted, but abortions
of faulty humans are allowed up to the end of the second
trimester. While quite a number of people have been successfully
cloned, for each success approximately ten abortions take place.
Two questions: (1) which legal structure most closely meets
with your approval? (2) which community more closely meets
your ethical or moral standards?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:56 MST