Human Cloning a Reminder of Nazis, Says Orthodox

Zenit ^ | 28-Nov-2001 | ZENIT.org News Agency

[patent]

28-Nov-2001 -- ZENIT.org News Agency
ZENIT material may not be reproduced without permission. Permission can be requested at info@zenit.org

HUMAN CLONING A REMINDER OF NAZIS, SAYS ORTHODOX

Reaction to U.S. Company´s Announcement

ROME, (Zenit.org).- The human cloning experiment announced in the United States brings to mind the "crimes against humanity of a Nazi brand," says an Orthodox Church leader.

"The destruction of an embryo is equivalent to an abortion, in other words, a homicide," said Father Antoni Ilin, a spokesman for the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow.

"We condemn human cloning, whether for therapeutic or reproductive ends," he said. "From the moment of conception, the embryo is invested with human dignity and blessed with the gift of life. So-called therapeutic cloning is nothing other than the worst instrumentalization of a human being, sacrificed for the benefit of others."

On Sunday, a U.S. firm, Advanced Cell Technology, announced it had cloned an embryonic human being but later destroyed it.

For its part, the Union of Muslim Communities in Italy stated: "We simply and absolutely condemn any attempt to modify or imitate creation."

"Even if they say that they do not intend reproductive but therapeutic cloning, they are sorcerer´s apprentices who don´t know where they will end up," the secretary of the Union, Roberto Hamza, said. "It is a defiance against God that will lead to grave disasters."

The new chief rabbi of Rome, physician Riccardo Di Segni, commented that he was following very closely "all progress related to procreation techniques and the possible applications in the human realm. Anguishing scenarios emerge, which are difficult to control and, therefore, extreme caution is necessary."

[aposiopetic]

But there are always people to whom any given phenomenon reminds them of NAZIs.

LOL. (This is my excuse for not driving a Mercedes.)

[Andrewksu]

You are naive if you believe that the definition of a “good” person is high I.Q., tall, and strong. etc. There are many, many more attributes that make a person, many of which we are in the dark about. Also you would be narrowing the gene pool, which leads to many problems (genetic defects, disease). Diversity of the species allows for greatest success and slow adaptation is the best way to get there. I myself have ADD (attention deficit disorder, which is not really a disorder, but a different way of thinking), which would be on your checklist for attributes to delete. Now I am not inclined to be an accountant or the like, but my way of thinking which is considered by some to be fragmented and without focus, helps in a creative field such as architecture, where multi-track thinking is beneficial. Also you are ignoring the effect of environment, which is as important, if not more so, than genetic makeup. Intelligence gets you nowhere without a good environment where you can develop to your potential. Finally, you are placing way too much faith in our knowledge of ourselves. We are far from understanding the depths of life. This is all in addition to the fact that if you give them an inch, they take a mile. Take for instance abortion and when do we believe human life begins conception, birth, graduation? The Gattica situation would only be a matter of time. Btw, my first post, had to say something

[Physicist]

You are naive if you believe that the definition of a “good” person is high I.Q., tall, and strong. etc.

And you are wrong if you think that it's not better to be smart rather than stupid, or strong rather than weak. You can say "diversity is strength"--and even be right about it--but that doesn't mean that no traits are more desirable than any others. Even the saying "diversity is strength" implies that strength is desirable.

As for the rest, I don't disagree with it, but it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody is advocating that traditional reproduction be banned in favor of cloning. The question is, are we willing--and do we even have the right--to restrict the freedom of people to make serious, moral use of this technology? Under what conditions are we entitled to say to someone, "I can't let you know this"?

I seriously doubt that this technology will shrink the gene pool. The number of copies of any one (or few) individuals it would take in order to crowd other alleles into extinction is gigantic, far beyond what would be economically or even technically feasible. If you are simply saying that it's "unfair" that some rich guy should gain an advantage in spreading his genes, you'd do much better to pass a law requiring NBA players to be sterilized.

In fact, cloning has the potential to save valuable new alleles that might otherwise be lost; in that way, cloning can actually widen the gene pool. Angus MacAskill died childless; the mutation(s) that gave him his unparalleled size and strength could have been preserved through cloning. The genius of Srinivasa Ramanujan likewise died with him. Many people with highly desirable traits are born infertile. All of these genetic gems could be saved with the right technique.

[Physicist]

Oh! I forgot to say, "Welcome to FreeRepublic!"

If the only effect of my post was to bring you on board, it was a post well worth making.

[SoothingDave]

. If he thought that a clone was invested with the same human dignity as any other embryo, he wouldn't have singled it out of the many millions of others. Had the baby been brought to term, I'm sure he would have objected even more strongly.

My man, you have such good arguments and pure reason versus superstition at your beck and call. Why do you insist on casting aspersions on the beliefs of others?

We went over this yesterday, and I thought that if you didn't agree with me, you at least understood that pro-life people really do exist and really do care about conceived souls being treated with dignity. This means that even those created by abominable means deserve no less than to be brought to birth and live a normal life. Why do you insist that pro-lifers don't believe this?

SD

[Physicist]

You're missing my point. There are millions of embryos being destroyed, and while there are many who care about them and wish they hadn't been destroyed, the one we hear people discussing overwhelmingly is the one that just happened to have been cloned. This tells me that people are bothered millions of times more by the fact that this embryo was cloned than by the fact that it was destroyed.

Maybe you're right that this particular priest would have been mollified by this clone being brought to term. But overall, you must admit that most of the people who are objecting to this experiment would be far more strenuous in their objections had that occurred. (In fact, when it does finally occur, I'm expecting violence.)

[SoothingDave]

You're missing my point. There are millions of embryos being destroyed, and while there are many who care about them and wish they hadn't been destroyed, the one we hear people discussing overwhelmingly is the one that just happened to have been cloned. This tells me that people are bothered millions of times more by the fact that this embryo was cloned than by the fact that it was destroyed.

Are you surprised that the "newest" thing in science is the one drawing the attention? The others being killed are routine, this is a new chance to speak for them all.

People are indeed disturbed by the cloning. In and of itself. Outside of the destruction of the clone. This is true. Because of the nightmare scenarios. I know you have a rosy view, but many of us can indeed see the State taking over control of reproduction. It happens in China.

Maybe you're right that this particular priest would have been mollified by this clone being brought to term. But overall, you must admit that most of the people who are objecting to this experiment would be far more strenuous in their objections had that occurred. (In fact, when it does finally occur, I'm expecting violence.)

The idea of an actual born, breathing, ready to live till old age clone is indeed a landmark event. Some people will react in fear, some in joy.

But I am telling you for the third time that this priest, and anyone else following the Catholic pro-life model, would be pleased for any embryo to be brought to term. Any embryo. We really do value human souls from conception to natural death. Honestly. Really.

SD

[Romulus]

You mean like this?

[Physicist]

many of us can indeed see the State taking over control of reproduction. It happens in China.

That's a very grave danger, but it's a political concern, not a technological one. Cloning is neither here nor there.

But I am telling you for the third time that this priest, and anyone else following the Catholic pro-life model, would be pleased for any embryo to be brought to term. Any embryo. We really do value human souls from conception to natural death. Honestly. Really.

Those chips are going to be down within our lifetimes. I look forward to the pro-life people standing with me to defend the rights of the clones. I hope both you and I are not too disappointed in this.

[SoothingDave]

Those chips are going to be down within our lifetimes. I look forward to the pro-life people standing with me to defend the rights of the clones. I hope both you and I are not too disappointed in this.

I hope as well. It's been nice talking with ya.

SD

[Bonaparte]

"The genius of Srinivasa Ramanujan likewise died with him."

So high intelligence is an inherited trait?

[Physicist]

The 'disfunctioning' of the body? How is infertility dysfunctional?

Smoke what?

Bodies function as bodies function. To speak (meaningfully) of the dysfunctioning of the body requires the speaker to assume that bodies ought properly to function a certain way, as if they were designed to work in a manner the speaker can identify if not indeed define.

That objection pertains to any to any medical intervention. Any.

[Physicist]

So high intelligence is an inherited trait?

Typically, yes. That there is a genetic component to it is beyond dispute. Read The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray for more information, particularly the part that discusses twins studies. The correlation is striking, even for twins raised apart. A clone of Ramanujan would be his twin.

[Physicist]

It's been nice talking with ya.

Likewise! This is the beauty of FreeRepublic: there isn't another place on the internet where such a controversial topic could be discussed this civilly.

[Andrewksu]

My point is, is that there are many types of intelligence. Also maybe they are infertile for a reason, too large a leap for a single generation. Also there has been some connection with extremely high IQ and mental disorders, i.e Schizophrenia. Our need to control everything will get us in trouble. Do you see any chance for abuse? Or do you beleive that such technology will not be misused.

[Bonaparte]

"Read The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray for more information, particularly the part that discusses twins studies."

You can't be serious.

Neither Murray nor Herrnstein were qualified to do such a study in the first place. Murray is nothing but a political scientist. And Herrnstein has spent his entire 36-year career studying pigeons and rats, not genetics and IQ. His few published articles on this topic appear only in popular literature, not in peer reviewed journals. Both of them ducked peer review before publishing and have been lashed from pillar to post ever since -- by those who are qualified to conduct such studies. Burt, Rushton, Bouchard, Lynn, and Jensen are the five "investigators" H & M relied heavily on for their (secondary) data. All of them have been discredited in one way or another, eg. Bouchard refused to allow his data and methodology to be examined by peers, Burt's was later shown to be fraudulent, and Rushton has devoted much of his career to arguing for a correlation between intelligence and penis size (and breast size and buttock size). A choice Rushton quote from a Rolling Stone interview: "It's a trade-off. More brain or more penis. You can't have both." What a genius.

BTW, did you know that Murrary is an admitted cross-burner? It's right there in the pages of the New York Times Magazine.

[untenured]

I seriously doubt that this technology will shrink the gene pool. The number of copies of any one (or few) individuals it would take in order to crowd other alleles into extinction is gigantic, far beyond what would be economically or even technically feasible.

Besides, courtship is so much fun.

[Physicist]

My point is, is that there are many types of intelligence.

That's true. It's also an experimental fact that every trait that can reasonably be called a form of intelligence is very strongly correlated with everything else that can reasonably be called a form of intelligence. Again, I refer you to The Bell Curve. (I'm not sure how this is relevant to the issue of cloning in any case.)

Also maybe they are infertile for a reason, too large a leap for a single generation.

That's a cause, not a purpose. In any case, it's a good argument in favor of cloning. It's a way to preserve good things that would, if left to nature, necessarily be lost.

Our need to control everything will get us in trouble.

Who do you mean when you say "our"? Almost all the objections to cloning center on the loss of control. People don't want the individual to have the power to do such a thing.

Do you see any chance for abuse? Or do you beleive that such technology will not be misused.

Every technology has the potential for abuse. The recognition of that fact cannot serve as an argument against any specific technology, because it applies to all technologies. It's an arbitrarily anti-technology argument. The decision to live with technology--even the technology of language--was a decision to live with the consequences of technology, and that decision was made a long time ago.

Probably everyone could name a technology, the consequences of which they find do not justify the benefits. The problem is that you must be willing to use force to prevent anyone else from using the technology, who thinks the benefits outweigh the risks. But if you're willing to go down that road, rest assured that you must be ready to accept the yoke from others who don't like your technological choices.

Some don't want you to have guns. Some don't want you to have decent encryption programs. Some don't want you to burn gasoline, or to wear leather. Some don't want you to use artificial sweeteners. Some don't want you to use disposable diapers. You can make this list as long as your arm, I'm sure. I say we should stop the madness, and allow the individual to decide what he thinks he needs.

[Physicist]

BTW, did you know that Murrary is an admitted cross-burner? It's right there in the pages of the New York Times Magazine.

Well, then it must be true. The Grey Lady is always right.

Look, if all the twins studies that have been done have been discredited, then my example was bad, but if you doubt that there is a genetic component to human intelligence you need look no farther than the difference between humans and chimpanzees.

[Andrewksu]

This is more than an individual's choice, it is a choice for human kind. This could have a great long term effect, for good or bad, to the human race, and I do not think that we are ready to take that step. This is something that we should be jump into just because it is cool and shiney, the imapct is much greater, not only for the clones, but for how society regards life and creation. We are not ready for menu babies and sport package kids. Just cause we know, doesn't mean it is a good idea.