What's Wrong With Cloning?

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.

Great points. I agree that we have to go back to the ABC's, although putting it that way makes it sound easy. When I say that people who use the word "rights" don't know what they are talking about, I don't mean to be insulting. The answer may be simple, but simple answers are not always easily discovered.

our species is the only one which yearns for and seems to "know' that there is an Ideal Love, Beauty, Truth, Justice, Knowledge

This is the most fascinating point. It seems like it could be simplified though. If I understand correctly, it means that rights only apply to things that can idealize values--i.e. that can abstract out the essential concepts of those things they value.

This is actually more than one quality. A thing must be able to conceptualize, and hold values.

Although it seems to describe essentually unique human qualities, when it comes to rights, it still seems lacking. For example, imagine you (who can conceptualize and hold values) are living alone on an uncharted desert island. What are your rights? The question seems incongruous in such a situation.

If I am alone, there is no one to infringe my rights. They are moot, since rights are only relevent as negatives

So where are we now. Rights apply only to situations of at least two interacting things that each hold values and conceptualize? Is it safe to assume that the two or more things interacting must have some way of perceiving and affecting each other's conceptions and values--like communication, for instance?

Seems reasonable as far as it goes. It describes a situation where rights exist, some necessary conditions, but it doesn't really define what we mean by "rights".

We have a simple situation (2 things as above). How does the notion of rights emerge from such a situation?

I shouldn't have said that rights are moot when a person is completely isolated. Rights exist and apply in all situations. It is difficult, however to have the problem of infringement of rights when one is completely isolated from all other humans.

Again, I highly recommend Dr. Spitzer's book, where he devotes chapters to the subject of rights. The topic is difficult to cover in this forum.

But, (since I am human), I will try.

We have discussed the difference between humans and all other beings that we know: humans are the species which has a drive or impetus toward unconditional love, beauty, truth, justice and knowledge. As far as we know, this impetus is innate, intrinsic and unconditional in the representatives of the species.

I have the right to live because I am a human, whether anyone else is around or not. Whether we can communicate is irrelevant to the fact that we are human. We are of human origin, that should be sufficient to assume the rights of another, otherwise, we risk doing unconditional harm to human beings by infringing their rights.

Rights are mostly negative. No one may kill another human, because killing him causes unconditional harm: he is no longer living and cannot be restored to life. No one may enslave another human being in such a way that he cannot express his humanity, at the threat of loss of life or self potential, self-direction. So, the right to life is the right not to be killed. The right to liberty is the right not to be enslaved.

Rights exist and apply in all situations.

Seems like too broad a statement to be true. Do rights exist among trees? Rocks? In the dead of space?

And if the possibility of rights infringement cannot exist (in the 1 person example), what meaning do rights have?

humans are the species which has a drive or impetus toward unconditional love, beauty, truth, justice and knowledge. As far as we know, this impetus is innate, intrinsic and unconditional in the representatives of the species.

I don't understand what "unconditional beauty", or "unconditional truth" mean.

I have the right to live because I am a human, whether anyone else is around or not.

You have the right to live because you have "a drive or impetus toward unconditional love, beauty, truth, justice and knowledge"? How does this follow?

No one may kill another human, because killing him causes unconditional harm

Our soldiers are rights violators? People using deadly force in self-defense are rights violators?

No one may enslave another human being in such a way that he cannot express his humanity, at the threat of loss of life or self potential, self-direction.

Are we violating the rights of prisoners?

Seems we've taken a few steps back. I don't think I follow your explanations of what rights are or when and why they are relevant.

Do a google search on rights or the history of the ethics of rights in the US. This is not virgin territory.
Here's a quote posted on another forum on Yahoo!, today:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VUSA/message/866?expand=1

(more from Bastiat at
http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/main.htm )

""As Frederic Bastiat observed over one hundred years
ago:

Each of us has a natural right to defend his person,
his liberty, and his property. These are the three
basic requirements of life, and the preservation of
any one of them is completely dependent upon the
preservation of the other two. For what are our
faculties but the extension of our individuality?
And what is property but an extension of our
faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by
force -- his person, his liberty, and his property,
then it follows that a group of men have the right
to organize and support a common force to protect
these rights constantly. Thus the principle of
collective right - its reason for existing, its
lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the
common force that protects this collective right
cannot logically have any other purpose or any other
mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.
Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force
against the person, liberty, or property of another
individual, then the common force -- for the same
reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the
person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases,
contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us
to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare
to say that force has been given to us to destroy
the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual
acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy
the rights of others, does it not logically follow
that the same principle also applies to the common
force that is nothing more than the organized
combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident
than this: The law is the organization of the
natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution
of a common force for individual forces. And this
common force is to do only what the individual forces
have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect
persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the
right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us
all.

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to
me that order would prevail among the people, in
thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that
such a nation would have the most simple, easy to
accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just,
and enduring government imaginable -- whatever its
political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would
understand that he possessed all the privileges
as well as all the responsibilities of his
existence. No one would have any argument with
government, provided that his person was respected,
his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor
were protected against all unjust attack. When
successful, we would not have to thank the state
for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful,
we would no more think of blaming the state for our
misfortune than would the farmers blame the state
because of hail or frost. The state would be felt
only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided
by this concept of government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the
non-intervention of the state in private affairs,
our wants and their satisfactions would develop
themselves in a logical manner. We would not see
poor families seeking literary instruction before
they have bread. We would not see cities populated
at the expense of rural districts, nor rural
districts at the expense of cities. We would not
see the great displacements of capital, labor, and
population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and
precarious by these state-created displacements. And,
furthermore, these acts burden the government with
increased responsibilities.""

beavus: "Rights" are [BLANK]. The necessary and sufficient properties (possessed, for example, by humans) that give rise to rights are [BLANK], and those qualities lead to rights because [BLANK].

Bastiat: Each of us has a natural right to ... These are the three basic requirements of life

So, "rights" are freedoms to those actions that a human must take to preserve his basic requirements of life.

Bastiat then gives some examples of rights, but I don't see where he explains the necessary and sufficient qualities or explains how those qualities lead to rights.

I suppose inherent in 'freedom to act' are (1) the ability to act (on one's surroundings) and (2) volitional capacity. Inherent in 'preserving his life' are (3) mortality and (4) being alive.

So are these 4 items the necessary and sufficient qualities? The only one that might be contrued as uniquely human is (2).

Then, I still don't see how rights are relevent or could have emerged in a one-person situation, or in a situation where people cannot communicate with one another but just run around bumping into each other.

Even if the definition of "rights" and the qualities required for them are presented, I still haven't seen it explained how those qualities lead to rights.

Seems like we're making progress though.

Does this technique always get others to do your work for you?

When I'm asked to be a mind reader, the only technique I know is to ask.

Humans are unique as a species because, as you demonstrate so well, they have an unconditional drive to discover better (Unconditional) qualities (such as Truth, Knowledge, Beauty, Justice, and Love).

I can't take credit for making this demonstration, or even understanding it. I don't know what "unconditional drive" means. I assume that what you mean by "better" is that humans value things. So I think what you are saying is that humans are unique because they have a drive to form values.

If humans kill humans, the dead humans suffer unconditional, irreversible harm to their ability to be human. Therefore humans have the right to life. All creatures of human origin have the right to life because they are human. Otherwise, some of those unique creatures may suffer unconditional, irreversible harm.

Here again I don't know what you mean by "unconditional". But, I think you are saying that humans have a right to life, because without life they irreversibly cease to be human. Therefore humans have a right to whatever prevents them from irreversibly ceasing to be human.

So by combining the above, I think I can distill your position to:

'A thing that has a drive to form values has a right to whatever prevents it from irreversibly losing that drive.'

Do I understand you correctly?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.