From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Tue Nov 27 2001 - 06:14:38 MST
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 06:46:33PM -0500, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Anders Sandberg wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 12:38:19PM -0500, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > > All these alleged 'ethics experts' claim that there is some moral reason
> > > against reproductive cloning, but I've never actually seen anyone detail
> > > the philosophical principles for such a claim. Can anyone point to some
> > > arguments against reproductive cloning that are not just "because it's
> > > so" statements?
> >
> > I think the basic arguments fall into a number of classes:
>
> Thanks, Anders. If anyone has any ideas, please post them up. I think we
> should put this all together as a sort of FAQ or 'talking points' memo
> for clone proponents to study at length, especially before giving
> interviews or taking part in debates.
Thanks, and a good idea! I think there are several pages out there with
arguments for cloning that could be incorporated into such a FAQ.
> > 1) Threats against human dignity.
> >
> > - By interfering in the reproductive process humans become
> > manufactured rather than just born, and this makes the child subject to
> > its parents or whoever is doing the cloning rather than a truly
> > independent human being. This weakens human dignity, as virtues and
> > flaws become merely features and misfeatures of the "manufacturing" and
> > might carry over in other spheres of human culture as a genetization of
> > humans.
>
> Yet the manufacturing of human embryos already occurs in in vitro
> fertility clinics around the world. What difference is there if the
> embryo has one or two genetic parents? Do you propose that all in vitro
> medicine be outlawed?
I think many anti-cloning proponents actually fall into the camp that
dislikes IVF, but since it is widely accepted they concentrate on the
area where they are most likely to make "good" by causing a cloning ban.
IVF comes later, just look at Leon Kass.
Others likely point out that there is a profound difference between
having one and two parents, suggesting that this causes the resulting
human to be different from all other humans. This invokes both worries
about the natural order and how the clone will fare.
> > - The Kantian ethical idea that humans must be ends in
> > themselves, and not tools for other ends is sometimes invoked by
> > suggesting that clones are created for other reasons than simply being
> > themselves.
>
> Show me any parent who claims that the don't have their children either
> a) accidentally or b) for entirely selfish purposes of self fulfillment.
> No parent has kids specifically to produce independent beings. Each has
> hopes and intentions of producing the sort of kids THEY think should be,
> and many highly resent letting go of their dominion over their kids.
On the other hand they also (with some exceptions) accept that kids will
become independent beings.
> > 2) Threats against the natural order.
> >
> > - There is something inherently sacred or otherwise valuable in
> > natural reproduction, and this is damaged by cloning. The damage may not
> > be directed at the people involved, but could affect others who would
> > suffer from living in a world where aspects of the natural order have
> > been disrupted.
>
> If 'sacred' is referring to religion, every religion has myths about
> virgin births, and celebrates them as wonderful occurences. Any 'virgin
> birth' that would occur would most certainly be a clone of the mother,
> therefore, cloning is to be celebrated as a wonderful sacrement.
With the exception of Rael, cloning done by humans is simply infringing
on God's domain, i.e. something BAD. Most religions doesn't have the
idea that humans can be the cause of the sacred - humans can be channels
for the sacred to enter the world, but humans cannot create the sacred.
Hence they would not agree with your idea of cloning as a sacrament.
> > 4) Practical threats to the child
> >
> > - Cloning is likely to produce miscarriages and deformities,
> > and in humans certain changes might not become apparent until puberty or
> > later, when the clone is already an individual and will suffer from
> > them.
>
> Conventional conception already produces miscarriages and deformities to
> an alarmingly high degree. A significant percent of the population is
> unable to conceive children due to incompatibilities, or refrains from
> doing so due to fears of passing on known genetic defects from one or
> the other parent. If reproduction is truly a right of all people, as so
> many claim, then technology should be used to allow those who cannot
> naturally conceive to have children. To instead claim that some people
> should not reproduce due to natural limitations is a very Arcadian sort
> of romantic genetic elitism, and a denial of the primary characteristic
> of mankind: the ability to overcome natural hurdles with their minds. On
> this basis, any ban on cloning for reproductive purposes is inhumane.
Good points (including those I have snipped). We should remember that we
are doing "unnatural" things for humane reasons, and that being
"natural" often means being both elitist and cruel. I prefer to live in
a world ruled by rationality and humanism, with all their flaws, than a
world ruled by "natural law". The later doesn't care about humans.
That said, there is a common view that people will do cloning "because
it can be done" rather than for some good reason (like helping childless
people), and it is less clear cloning should be done for such a reason.
But much of this is a misunderstanding of what research is actually
being done and what motivates it. Unfortunately information is not
enough, we have to show really what motivates biomedical researchers and
the place of science and humanity in the big picture before people can
really trust these developments. Hard but necessary work.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:14 MST