What's Wrong With Cloning?

MHGinTN ^ | 1/31/2003 | MHGinTN

[MHGinTN]

The President called for a ban on cloning in his State of the Union Address. So, what's wrong with cloning?

Every individual life is a continuum hallmarked by growth and development. We are invited, through the media, to differentiate reproductive cloning from therapeutic cloning, but both conceive a cloned individual human being, in vitro. Scientists seeking to exploit therapeutic cloning would have us believe that, because their goal doesn't include life support to the birth stage, their 'form' of cloning is okay. Far from it; it's a worse application of the technology. Therapeutic cloning seeks to conceive 'designer' individual human beings, give them life support either in a growth medium or a woman's body, then kill and harvest from these individuals the target tissues for which the cloned being was conceived.

It is important to realize that an embryo IS an individual human being: goals of cloning scientists bear witness to the hidden truth that they are conceiving a unique human being, whether for reproductive or therapeutic aims. Giving tacit acceptance to a proven lie --that the embryo is not an individual human life-- is bad enough, we’ve done this for more than thirty years, but to embrace cannibalism founded on such a lie is far more degenerate.

Tacit acceptance for manipulating individual human life has lead from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide, proving the bankruptcy of continuing moderate acceptance. We are now staring at cannibalism in the name of whatever you care to call it. Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for their body parts? If you think that it is, at least know that it is cannibalism.

[beavus]

an individual human lifetime begins at conception...The time to discuss issues involving the right to life for the embryo...

Okay, so a human life begins at conception (or whatever it is called with cloning). But my hope has been to try to get you to tie this in with rights. A cat's life begins at conception too. You say an "individual" human life means a human "organism". But cats are organisms as well. What is it that distinguishes humans from cats so that humans have rights but cats do not? If an alien landed on this planet and travelled amongst its creatures and rocks, how would he know which of them had rights?

[MHGinTN]

Wow, Beavus, you're over my head ...What is it that distinguishes humans from cats so that humans have rights but cats do not? If an alien landed on this planet and travelled amongst its creatures and rocks, how would he know which of them had rights? Could it be that we are the ultimate predatory species on Earth? If so, should we preying upon our own members for sustaining lives? Implicit in your questions there appears to be the notion of 'why are we any better than the rest of the animals and plants on Earth?' I will leave that to the ethicists and philosophers to answer on their level. But I will offer, humanity has the axiom that we are above the rest of the species on Earth, yet, if we stoop to preying upon our own species members, we will be more like the other species than we will be different from them. To my mind, that represents a degeneracy from our recent advance.

[unspun]

No one can prove that a human spirit does not exist along with within a PIZZA, simply by saying that the PEPPARONIS do not seem to support sentience.

I can say that. Can't you say that? I can say that.

We have no right to genetically engineer (or cookie-cut) human beings. Neither to discard a fertilized ovum.

[sneakypete]

So if not brightness and rationality (which your previous post suggested), then what should rights be based upon?

Is this some type of trick question? This implies that rights have to be earned or deserved. They don't. They exist as a "thing" in their own right.

BTW,I'm tired of playing your obsession. I am sure you have 137 pages of links ready to go at any time,and that this is a well-practiced routine of yours. You think you are clever,and all you are is practiced and dreary. This might be YOUR only reason for living,but it isn't mine. Find somebody else to play with. All you are doing is using the slightest excuse to "give a speech". You bore me. Go away.

[MHGinTN]

So far, you've added zero to this discussion. And you instruct others to leave it? Amazing!

[realpatriot71]

*bookmark*

[MHGinTN]

Good evening to you. I trust your studies went well.

[hocndoc]

The analogy is not propaganda: one group of humans decides another group is not "persons" and proceeds to kill the "non-persons."

Human history is full of the injustice of discrimination, usually for the supposed, and shor-term -benefit of the one(s) in power. Science fiction, a sort of alternative future-history is equally rich with examples. The Truth is a recurring theme: humans do not kill and exploit other human lives without risking their own life, liberty and property. Because when the inalienable rights are weak, the strong will be the ones defining "person."

[realpatriot71]

The studies are "on going" but I needed a break. I'll be checking in periodically, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time to do much responding tonight.

[hocndoc]

We can tell whether it's of the human species. For the benefit of protecting the inalienable right not to be killed, we should not allow the killing of any human who is no immediate danger to life.
If we codify which humans are human enough to be protected and which are not, we codify discrimination and build a system to justify discrimination, we end up in conversations such as Peter Singer's monologues on the ethical equivalents/equivalency of adult chickens and neonates. Or geriatric value versus young adult value.
There are no clean cut lines other than 'living' and 'dead' and 'human' and 'non-human.'
I'd be willing to give any species which engages in this sort of discussion the designation of 'human.' But, I wouldn't require that each member of the species be competent at all times to engage in the discussion to my satisfaction.
Go read the portion of Dr. Spitzer's book that is sampled on Amazon. He begins his discussion on defining and naming in those pages.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898707862/ref=lib_rd_next_7/002-4150258-6226432?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=7#reader-link

[MHGinTN]

I do wish you well, despite my rudeness last night.

[realpatriot71]

I do wish you well, despite my rudeness last night.

I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, not a bad thing. I was a bit offended when you questioned my "sentience," but I'm over it :-)

[hocndoc]

I'm glad to see you're getting along.
Good night, guys.

[cpforlife.org]

Hello MHGinTN,

I just checked this thread. WOW!

I'd like to suggest a book: "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives" by Dr. William Brennan at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0829408223/ref%3Dase%5Fjuanaalmagugalle/002-7314919-8643246

I read it a year+ ago as Pro-Life research and there is alot related to this thread.

[MHGinTN]

I was rude to do so, even though I was seeking to make the point of 'my assessment would be arbitrary', yet I wouldn't remove your right to life over my arbitrary assertion.

[realpatriot71]

I support the right to life, but we obviously disagree when that right begins. I would have to grudgingly agree that protection of life from conception is a more consistant approach to the issue as you don't have to draw any lines here or there. However, I personaly see the issue as being more complex than that.

I'm thinking about it.

[beavus]

Could it be that we are the ultimate predatory species on Earth?

So did tyrannosaurus have rights? On the savannah do lions have rights? If so, what would it have meant to violate the rights of these creatures?

Implicit in your questions there appears to be the notion of 'why are we any better than the rest of the animals and plants on Earth?'

By saying "better", you seem to be saying that the notion of rights is ultimately a value statement. So, rights requires the ability to form values? Make judgements? How then could mere predation be sufficient?

humanity has the axiom that we are above the rest of the species on Earth

What do you mean by above? Do you mean that humans value humans over all other species? As a matter of survivability, one might argue that bacteria, or insects would have the more hardy species.

if we stoop to preying upon our own species members, we will be more like the other species

So the characteristic that makes humans unique from other species is that humans (potentially) don't kill members of their own species? What about oak trees? Do they kill their own?

I'm not convinced we know what we are talking about when we use the word "rights". I wonder the same about the word "human".

[beavus]

We have no right

We incessently talk about rights, but no one seems to know what they are.

[beavus]

If we codify which humans are human enough to be protected and which are not, we codify discrimination and build a system to justify discrimination

Is this the belief, the fear, that causes people to avoid giving meaning to a word they seem to hold very precious--"rights"?

If we codify which humans are human enough to be protected and which are not, we codify discrimination and build a system to justify discrimination

What do you mean by this? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I'd be willing to give any species which engages in this sort of discussion the designation of 'human.'

I wonder if you aren't onto something here, since surely no other creature we've encountered has this ability. I wonder if we can generalize this statement (beyond "this sort of discussion") to finally identify the critical uniqueness of humans that endows them with rights.

[hocndoc]

Beavus, since you have so many questions, perhaps you should read Dr. Spitzer's book.
The concept of rights is an ancient one, which (like a fresh reading of the Declaration of Independence) may seem subversive to the current "powers that be" who would rather reduce the definition of "rights" to one of bread and circuses.

In one of my posts to realpatriot71, I explained (using my paraphrase of Dr. Spitzers' analogy and words to summarize a very complex history of thought) that the unique quality of humans - at least as far as we know - is that our species is the only one which yearns for and seems to "know' that there is an Ideal Love, Beauty, Truth, Justice, Knowledge. As I said, even a 4 year old seems to "know" the concept of "That's not fair!" even if he's never experienced justice. And no other species has members who have these sorts of discussions.

I agree that and understanding of the definition of rights is very important. Without the protection of rights, a community is at the mercy of the powerful, however power is expressed in that community.
Rights can be broken into 2 categories, inalienable or intrinsic (those necessary to continue being a human being, such as life, and liberty and which can only be infringed, not given away or taken away) and extrinsic rights that may be more of an agreement of the community and may be changed, or bargained with, because these "rights" do not effect whether or not the human lives and lives free.

Any being that is human - whose genetic heritage (parent) is human, must be assumed to be a human. History is full of the injustice that results when some humans are deemed not "human." The last 30 years are particularly illustrative of this fact. "Pro-choice" advocates speak of "abortion rights" and "right to die" and "quality of life" and the "intent" of the parents. For thirty years, the legal definition of human is "mother chooses to keep him alive." And now, the discussion and acts have moved into the realm of "greater good" or 'for the good of the people in power" and legislatures such as New Jersey are writing laws that will allow the *intentional* creation of human beings for the *intention* of killing the organism and harvesting his or her parts.

Because of the razzle-dazzle of media and power-seekers, any discussion - even in a forum such as this- we have to go back to the ABC's of ethics before we can get to the question at hand.