From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Dec 29 2002 - 17:25:58 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> 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.
If a healthy ovulating woman "owns" her own body in such a
society she seem to have "property rights" over all the raw
materials she needs to make a clone. All the medical apparatus
and assistance could be readily purchased (in such) a society.
It seems it would be very hard, (but perhaps not impossible),
to mount an argument that denies her the sovereignty of her
body, without undermining the "usual libertarian" "strictures"
"enforcing" "property rights".
I.E. The question would be begged if one doesn't own ones
body what can one really own?
>
> 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.
(NB: Natural human reproduction doesn't even approach a
100% success rate. Maybe around 20 - 30%.)
Does 100% mean 100.00000etc percent or is less than 1 failure
in 200 rounded to 100%. acceptable?
>
> 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.
(So by my reckoning cloning has a lower absolute success rate
in terms of live healthy births.)
>
> Two questions: (1) which legal structure most closely meets
> with your approval? (2) which community more closely meets
> your ethical or moral standards?
More info would certainly help re the 100%. As wanting better
than 1 success in 200 is different from wanting complete success
and this factors into other societal considerations like who covers
the risk, how informed could the consent of the mother be etc.
Also how healthy does the cloned child need to be to be
determined a "success"? As healthy as the parent?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:56 MST