Text 12143, 78 rader
Skriven 2005-04-24 16:10:38 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 12134 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: RE: BO GRITZ
====================
24 Apr 05 13:01, Jeff Binkley wrote to John Hull:

 JH>> JH>> JH>>Wrong.  The primary reason against cloning is religious
 JH>> JH>> JH>>opposition.

 JH>> JH>> JB> I see.  So you don't oppose it ?  Because religion 
 JH>> JH>> JB> opposes it,  that makes them wrong ?  Are there any moral 
 JH>> JH>> JB> issues with  cloning ?  How  about legal ones ?

 JH>> JH>>Think about it.  All the laws against human cloning, if you
 JH>> JH>>break them down as to motivation, always come back to 
 JH>> JH>>religious prohibition at some point.

 JH>> JB> I'd rather stop something before it becomes a problem instead 
 JH>> JB> of after it becomes one.  

 JH>>If that was based on scientific evidence of a problem, then I would
 JH>>agree.  But without doing the basic research to find out what
 JH>>problems might be encountered, they are basing their prohibition on
 JH>>unfounded fear, supposition, and religious dogma.  

 JB> So you don't foresee any problems with cloning and you have no moral 
 JB> objections to it ?  What you wrote above is the same types of arguments 

Didn't say that.  And I didn't enumerate any objections either way.  I am only
pointing out that letting the religious types stop research in its tracks
before it ever gets started is stupid.  Also, as somebody pointed out, we're
talking about therapeutic cloning and not cloning to reproduce another person.


 JB> we often hear from the liberals.  Science is not the answer to everything 
 JB> and science is performed by humans.  It is often prone to errors, 
 JB> mistakes, revisions and more.  While we may think our science has 
 JB> advanced greatly, humans are not ready to take the place of God and we are

 JB> still quite naive in the spectrum of science.  We can't even answer the 
 JB> most basic of questions like "what causes gravity ?".  Science has a 
 JB> responsibility to humanity that should not be broken, lest we bring 
 JB> things upon the human race that we cannot reverse.  

Who said anything about playing God?  If you use that argument for cloning,
then you must also use it for any medical procedure that saves lives to be
consistent.  After all, God created viruses and bacteria.  


 JH>> JH>>I haven't said what my opinion on it is, either way.

 JH>> JB> I am against it.  

 JH>>Why?

 JB> I believe it is morally wrong.  Second, which doesn't really 
 JB> matter after the first, I foresee lots of problems with cloning, 
 JB> including the most basic, its rights.  While basic, rights are the very 
 JB> essence of our society.  We should be careful when treading upon them.  
 JB> What rights does a fully cloned human have ?  Or what rights does the 
 JB> original have to the clone, since the clone is a part of the original ?  
 JB> These just scratch the surface of the issues.

We are several decades at the least away from a viable human clone. Also, what
makes  you think it will be identical to the donor?  Identical twins share the
same DNA, yet they have separate finger prints, etc.  And a clone, even
assuming it was virtually identical in every aspect to the donor, would still
have to start as a child, and would not have the memories of its donor.  Our
brains and our memories are formed synapse by synapse as we age and learn.

Therefore there are no such things as identical clones, so there should be no
problems with identity and stuff.  Again, though, I must point out that we
aren't talking about human clones for the purpose of creating people, but only
about cloning certain cells to provide cures for certain illnesses.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)