When Clones Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Clones

Sierra Times ^ | April 24, 2003 | J. Neil Schulman

[MHGinTN]

No, it is more 'likely' that the scientists are conceiving through parthenogenesis using a 46 chromosome ovum, not a severely limited haploid ovum. If that's the case (why don't you go to their research and see), then such experimentation should not be done with human ova.

[Diamond]

... I am pro-life to an extent, but find arguments that a fertilized egg is a human being ridiculous.

What species is he or she, then?

Cordially,

[Skywalk]

let me clarify, a fertilized egg as equal in protection and value to a fully developed baby or adult is what I find absurd.

[Skywalk]

let me clarify, a fertilized egg as equal in protection and value to a fully developed baby or adult is what I find absurd.

[syriacus]

Some clones seem somewhat less than clonish. The outlaws might not get the results they intended.

---

April 2003 issue. Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DE213-6B0F-1E61-A98A809EC5880105&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Ma's Eyes, Not Her Ways

Clones can vary in behavioral--and physical--traits

By Carol Ezzell


One pig savors a ripe banana, whereas its cloned sister turns up its snout. Another always thrashes its trotters to get away when it is picked up, whereas the others nuzzle into a human embrace. Although clones have been described as identical twins, studies of the behavioral--and even physical--traits of cloned animals are showing that that is not necessarily the case.

Ted Friend and Greg Archer of Texas A&M University created the cloned piglets. They observed as much physical and behavioral variation among the members of two litters of cloned pigs (of four and five individuals, respectively) as among those of two litters of eight pigs bred naturally. Not only did the cloned siblings show distinct food preferences and temperaments, but they also varied in physical characteristics: some had more bristly coats or fewer teeth than others did.

The clones are "just like normal pigs," Friend concludes. "They're not at all like identical twins." Conditions in the uterus could play a role, he speculates. The two cloned litters were borne by different surrogate sows, and the dissimilarities are even more pronounced between the litters....[continued. Sorry. I read the article at the doctor's office the other day, but cannot access the entire digital version online without paying]

[Diamond]

I know that's what you mean. But I asked you what species they are, and you could not bring yourself to admit aloud the obvious scientific and ontological truth that they are human beings. What I find absurd is the notion that some human beings have more intrinsic dignity and worth than others.

Cordially,

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I spent a long post asking the question of what criteria we use to determine what is deserving of protection and how far that protection goes.

Humans deserve protection and no innocent human should be deliberately harmed.

Did that answer your question?

You ask me to define human, but ignore the fact that I question if "human" in the sense of possessing homo sapiens genetic material is the basis of the belief in the sanctity of "human" life. That's why I asked all those questions in that post.

That is why I asked you, “What is human?” If that is not it then what is it?

An individual lifeform possessing homo sapiens genetic material and capable of self-awareness. I suppose that is a good start.

Then Siamese twins are not human?

Once you move beyond the “homo sapiens genetic material” things get very murky. Which is why I draw the line there. I would rather error on the side of extending the protection rather then cause suffering to a fellow human.

My objection to cloning is simple, every time it is brought up it is always in the context of what "use" cloned humans will be to the rest of us.

There are two things in the universe. Humans and tradable commodities. Which is a human clone to you? You and every other advocate of cloning have expressed a desire to treat them as commodities.

I reject that a human can be a commodity. Human clones are human. Therefore I will do everything in my power to prevent them from being labeled commodity. I would rather not see the civilized world go down that path again.

No, you may not experiment on them. No, you may not tinker with their genes. No, you may not enslave them. No, you may not use them as living organ banks. No, you may not make use of them period.

Once it is accepted that you may not make use of a Human clone then the question becomes, Why would you clone?

Granted that there are a few vain people in the world who are sure that their genes are special and that they should continue on throughout eternity. But aside from them who would want to clone?