From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 18:36:29 MDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edmund Grech [mailto:edmund@arclightentertainment.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2002 10:15 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: Reproductive Cloning
>
>
> Emlyn wrote:
>
> > The only problem I have with reproductive cloning is that
> it is likely,
> > currently, to produce malformed offspring.
> >
> > I fully expect that at some point in the (near) future,
> these issues will
> be
> > resolved, thus removing any argument I'd have against it.
>
> I assumed in my message a time where cloning was safe, agreed
> that until
> that time; reproductive cloning, without some truly wierd
> and wonderful
> reason, shouldn't be attempted.
>
Ok.
> > Really, what else is an issue with respect to reproductive
> cloning? Why
> > would it be intrinsically any more abhorent than "natural"
> methods, or
> IVF?
> > It would seem to be a perfectly legitimate way to create a
> new human to
> me.
>
> Consider, were we capable of safely cloning a person; then we
> have part and
> parcel of the technology the ability to produce viable
> genetic material for
> natural (should I say traditional?) reproductive proceedures
> even without
> the availability of functional reproductive cells.
Ok, sounds fair.
> There is only one
> situation where reproductive cloning would be an alternative.
> When ther is
> no sperm/egg donor; and let's assume the patient doesn't want
> an anonymous
> one.
>
> Reasons for this? The patient is too busy with work for a
> relationship, in
> which case they're certainly too busy to look after a child.
> Or the patient
> is too socially intraverted to succesfully pair off in society.
Well, hang on a sec. This assumes that the only viable model for parenting
is a couple. I think that's an assumption which requires some strong
justification.
I also think that your analysis of why a single person might not be in a
couple is pretty simplistic. There are a lot of single people out there,
encompassing probably just as many reasons for being single.
>
> Note how extreem these situations are. Let us for a moment
> say that by some
> quirk the patient can't reproduce, and no genetic material
> can for some
> reason be procured for reproductive purposees using cloning
> technology. So
> the only way to have children is to adopt or clone themselves
> (assuming this
> remains possible despite the other complications).
>
> The person in this case would chose cloning either because
> they simply don't
> want to raise another person's child or for egotistical
> reasons.
Well, if you say so. Maybe they just happen to be fond of their own genome?
There might be plenty of people, for instance, who know themselves to be
carriers, but not sufferers, of genetic disorders. Cloning would be a pretty
ethical way to reproduce.
> In the
> first instance they would of course in cloning themselves be
> condemning that
> child, a whole new person, to the same reproductive bar in
> latter life; we
> abort downs babies, much less entertain concieving
> purposefully a defected
> child.
Many people have reproductive problems... many, many people. It's not a good
reason to abort a child, *especially* in the context of these future
alternative procreation technologies. If you can create a child "naturally",
who cares?
Also, you assume that all infertility is genetic, which it is not. An
infertile person does not necessarily have the "infertility gene". In fact I
think genetic infertility is pretty uncommon. It'd hardly be selected for,
after all :-)
> In the latter instance they are at best mild
> meglomaniacs with a
> narcissus complex. The child's life would be a nightmare
> under a control
> freak's belief of doing thier own life right using a clone.
> And at this
> stage we're back to 'the lives and loves of Tiarella Rose': a
> story about
> precisely this (though with an almost happy ending).
>
Urh, well, again, if you say so. People have many reasons for doing things.
If cloning becomes a simple, safe method of reproduction, there's no reason
why it would only be chosen by the insane.
> Additionally, by cloning; whatever mechanism of evolution
> that exists in us
> is suspended, retarding the gene pool; assuming breeding is
> possible in the
> cloned subject. Not such a big deal I think that one though.
No, not at all. Biological evolution in humans as an important method of
species survival is yesterday's news. Maybe even last week's.
>
> Reasons pro cloning, see my original post. Certainly one can say there
> remains the attitude, let people do what they will and enjoy thier own
> successes or failures; but as Hal pointed out, there is the
> well being of
> the child to be considered; asuming we cast ourselves in the role of
> concerned citizens, and by discussing the topic, we do.
>
I fail to see any reasonable danger to a child who is born through a safe
future cloning method in the material above. Reproduction is reproduction;
how you mix the genes is just a technical issue.
Emlyn
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:47 MST