Cloning as a "Reproductive Right" Liberals?

[myelo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Doubt it, your messing with Nature...whether your vacuuming out a womans womb of an unborn child, or encouraging cloning...

Messing with nature?

Please.

That’s as insincere as it is vague. You, I and everybody else know the pro-life group is against abortion because they believe it is killing an unborn child. Not because it is interfering with nature.

And what does “messing with nature mean anyway”? In vitro fertilization? Pre-natal care for pregnant women? Vaccination to prevent fatal diseases? Medical treatment that extends healthy life? Sounds anti-life to me. Don’t see many bumper stickers promoting that point of view.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Kieran
Why, I'm surprised. The lefties have hurled a few insults, but not one of the louder lefties has bothered to answer the questions, "What happens if you clone someone that doesn't meet your standards? Does it get destroyed? Is it an "it" or "he/she", and when does that distinction take place?"

You know darn well what you'd do- you'd kill it, just like you kill your unwanted children. Then you'd perform medical experiments on the corpse, and try to tell me I should be thankful because you might find the cure for cancer or some other disease in the process. No thanks.

Same goes for experiments on fetuses- I'd rather have the disease than to introduce a mechanism into society that rationalizes murder of innocent children.

Hardly Kieran.

I guess we should agree on what exactly a clone is. Like Dolly the lamb, a clone is nothing more than the insertion of a complete (all chromosomes present) nucleus into a host Ova (sans nucleus). I'm not sure how this thing starts cell division, but once that starts you have a normally developing baby.  Just like an invitro procedure.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm talking about cloning. Not DNA by numbers designer babies, which could be really cool, a sort of modern twist on eugenics.  But I imagine the real leftists would be against designer babies - at least those purchased by wealthy capitalist type individuals. Imagine the horror if somebody wanted a thin/phsically fit, tall, healthy (non cripple), visually abled, hearing abled,  intelligent, socially apt, blue eyed, blond haired, white, male, heterosexual baby. Did I cover the opposite of every current specially protected group?  Horrible!!!

Anyway lets hear about cloning. It is currently illegal in the USA, so will the whacko feminist movement declare this the next cherished female "Reproductive Right"?  And will the liberals come out in support?

Go ahead GRUNHERZ, name a law that specifically protects anyone of those groups.

You'll find that the vast majority of laws are written in such a fashion that they apply to anyone. Regulations may be a different thing.

(I have never heard of any law or regulation that mentioned social aptitude, height, hair color or eye color.  You're letting your Nazi leanings show again.)

[Kieran]

but once that starts you have a normally developing baby. Just like an invitro procedure.

Where do you stand on abortion? I happen to believe what you state suggests you should be against it. Yet, 2nd trimester abortions do happen.

[miko2d]

Sabre: As for Miko's assertion that he would be able to raise himself better than his parents, that's not born out by the evidence.  People tend to repeat the mistakes of their parents, even the worst of those.  Not everyone who was beaten as a child or has an alcoholic for a parent will do those same things to their child, but there is a very high incident of it happening just that way.
 Besides those considerations being irrelevant to my well-adjusted family, what cloning has to do with it? If people tend to repeat mistakes of their parents, they will do at least no worse with cloned children than with natural ones.

-dead-: I merely wanted to dispel some of the myths surrounding the clone thing. Like for example the myth that a "you" raised in the 2000's was going to end up thinking much the same as a "you" raised in the 50s / 60s / 70s / 80s - so two identical twins raised during the same time period is not the best example.
 Even if they were, didn't I specifically said that I would try to raise a clone differently than I myself was raised - besides it being a different times and me not being my parents and not living in the same place. Of course the personality will be different. But temperament, intelligence, character traits - those are genetic. There would have been much in common. Why would I look for making a copy of me? I would try for "better" me.

From nature's standpoint the clone is the clone, I'm afraid. The clone's fingerprints would be different, the retinal patterns would be different, the brain pathways and therefore the mind would be different etc etc...
 Those things you've mentioned would have been substantially the same - may be only slightly different. I do not care much for retinal print or fingerprints. Intelligence is highly inheritable - that is more important.
 Genetic code would be the same. Children by that clone would not be distinguisheable from my children in any way. Of course I would know which one of us is a clone. For a child in 100 years time there would not be any difference.

Or you could just have kids like everyone else... it's much cheaper, less faff, and evolutionary (or doesn't that count for anything to a rational man?).
 Who said I don't? Except that I am not sure about that "like everyone else".  I am afraid my views on Eugenics may be even less palatable to some than my views on cloning.

Why bother? They wouldn't be that person at all.
 That is not an argument. That person is not "that person" anyway. Ever seen Altsheimer victims? Just senile people?
They would also be several years younger than you.
 Great - we could care for them in return for their care of us!

and a bad evolutionary strategy - ie your clone is every bit at risk of dying from whatever diseases you're genetically at risk from.
As are your children - they will inherit the same genes.
Biology 101: they only inherit half your genes, and sometimes there are pleasant mistakes: that's how evolution works, remember?
 Not true. I do not have genetic deseases. So my children will be at risk of having one but my clone would not be! As for evolution, it works not by improving someone living but by someone living going extinct. I am interested in genetically improving my progeny, but I believe old-fasioned evolution is not the way.

Right now I've said all that - I'd still support your right to clone yourself, however deluded I feel it to be. I'd just urge you to think carefully - if it's immortality you're after, cloning is a complete waste of cash.
 I appreciate that. I am also fully aware of a difference between a personality and a genetic identity. I still consider it may be attractive to am individual to preserve it - but there are plenty of other reasons, some of which I presened here.
 I would not be much upset if I fail to clone myself, but if it becomes affordable in my lifetime, I would give it a shot. I would not exchange a chance of having two normal babies for a single clone - so it would have to be reasonably cheap.
 I would never want government to subcidise research or finance it in any way - neither do I want any regulations.

 What happens if you clone someone that doesn't meet your standards? Does it get destroyed? Is it an "it" or "he/she", and when does that distinction take place
 I guess a person would do exactly the same he/she would do to a naturally or IV-conceived child. Cloning has nothing to do with it - other than it being much less likely to not "meet standards". Unlike with regular conception, with clone you know exactly what genotype you get.

 miko

[GRUNHERZ]

Seig Heil Karnak...  

Well yes the blonde tall blue eyed watermelon is deliberatly meant to invoke the evil nazi stereotypes in liberals like you. No doubt you would call any family who wanted such a baby a bunch of Nazis, or how did you say it have "Nazi leanings "...

My example worked perfectly, thanks for participating.

[-dead-]

-dead-: I merely wanted to dispel some of the myths surrounding the clone thing. Like for example the myth that a "you" raised in the 2000's was going to end up thinking much the same as a "you" raised in the 50s / 60s / 70s / 80s - so two identical twins raised during the same time period is not the best example.
Even if they were, didn't I specifically said that I would try to raise a clone differently than I myself was raised - besides it being a different times and me not being my parents and not living in the same place. Of course the personality will be different. But temperament, intelligence, character traits - those are genetic. There would have been much in common. Why would I look for making a copy of me? I would try for "better" me.

So again - why not just stick with kids instead?
And who says temperament, intelligence, character traits are genetic? I've not seen the research. They still can't say for sure whether sexuality is . Even if these traits were genetic: Take for a scandalous example - Homosexuality - your clone would have a 48% chance of being gay, according to recent studies of identical twins that indicated that sexuality was genetically defined. This of course doesn't take into account the fact that a clone would have a different womb to grow up in from the original, so the figures may be worse still.

From nature's standpoint the clone is the clone, I'm afraid. The clone's fingerprints would be different, the retinal patterns would be different, the brain pathways and therefore the mind would be different etc etc...
Those things you've mentioned would have been substantially the same - may be only slightly different. I do not care much for retinal print or fingerprints. Intelligence is highly inheritable - that is more important.
 Genetic code would be the same. Children by that clone would not be distinguisheable from my children in any way. Of course I would know which one of us is a clone. For a child in 100 years time there would not be any difference.

Yes the code is the same, but genes don't transfer things in a binary on/off way - as an example Parkinson's Disease, or even type 1 diabetes are genetic diseases, but not all identical twins of those affected will develop them. They just have the same percentage chance of developing them. It's called 'penetrance'. Look in to it. So for the purpose of our argument - maybe you have the gene for type 1 diabetes, but you lucked out and didn't develop it: you don't know - if so, however, your clone may not be so lucky.

Or you could just have kids like everyone else... it's much cheaper, less faff, and evolutionary (or doesn't that count for anything to a rational man?).
Who said I don't? Except that I am not sure about that "like everyone else".  I am afraid my views on Eugenics may be even less palatable to some than my views on cloning.

Let's just hope your ideas on Eugenics a bit more accurate than your views on cloning.

Why bother? They wouldn't be that person at all.
That is not an argument. That person is not "that person" anyway. Ever seen Altsheimer victims? Just senile people?
They would also be several years younger than you.
Great - we could care for them in return for their care of us!

If you're that happy caring for someone different in exchange for a friend caring for you, why not just pick an existing stranger instead of going to all the trouble of creating a new one? There are plenty of people in the world who would be delighted to get this kind of care and monetary support. And the world would be a better place for it.

and a bad evolutionary strategy - ie your clone is every bit at risk of dying from whatever diseases you're genetically at risk from.
As are your children - they will inherit the same genes.
Biology 101: they only inherit half your genes, and sometimes there are pleasant mistakes: that's how evolution works, remember?
Not true. I do not have genetic deseases. So my children will be at risk of having one but my clone would not be! As for evolution, it works not by improving someone living but by someone living going extinct. I am interested in genetically improving my progeny, but I believe old-fasioned evolution is not the way.

Like I said earlier - while you haven't manifested any genetic diseases (yet - who knows what the future holds?), you may still have the genes for them. Both your kids and your clone may be at risk.
I fear evolution is a far more successful strategy than design: evolution when applied to the design of microchips totally outclassed any human designers in terms of efficiency, use of space and resources. Can't remember the refs for the study - I think it was in New Scientist - do a search on their site.

Actually having gone through this - a new justification for cloning has come to mind: to properly investigate the genetics nature/nurture argument more completely than using identical twins - clones raised in different wombs would certainly be able to shed light on the affect of the womb environment on development, and characteristics.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Kieran


Where do you stand on abortion? I happen to believe what you state suggests you should be against it. Yet, 2nd trimester abortions do happen.

Are you sure you want to get into this? In front of the children?

Abortion is bad. Making abortion illegal is worse.

[miko2d]

-dead-: So again - why not just stick with kids instead?
 I've already listed a few reason that apply only to the clone but not to regular children. The most important is the advance knowlege that I would have about his personality and abilities that I would not have about other children.

 How about this one - have you ever heard of regression to the mean statistical phenomenon? It may be all the same to a low IQ person, but for someone with IQ of 130 (top 2%) coming from a population with average IQ of 100, the average IQ of his children would be expected around 115. Isn't that a disappointment?
 Of course you can try to marry someone with much higher then yours or from a population with higher average IQ but that is all a matter of chance. At the same time a clone would have intelligence almost exactly the same as you. My clone would have had better than mine, actually - more fully realising his genetic potential - since I could provide for better nutrition for his surrogate mother, breastfeeding and mental stimulation.

And who says temperament, intelligence, character traits are genetic? I've not seen the research.
 There are quite a lot of studies of twins - rared together or separately. There are quite a few studies on full or partial siblings as well. They may not have conclusive results yet - in part because any such studies are not politically correct. But I am willing to assume their preliminary conclusions work out - I do not have time to wait for definitive results. Lot of people base their life decisions on faith, why shouldn't I rely on educated guess?

 Take for a scandalous example - Homosexuality - your clone would have a 48% chance of being gay
 You mean being a clone of a homosexual? That's OK - I am not one.

So for the purpose of our argument - maybe you have the gene for type 1 diabetes, but you lucked out and didn't develop it: you don't know - if so, however, your clone may not be so lucky.
 The same with a regular child.

If you're that happy caring for someone different in exchange for a friend caring for you, why not just pick an existing stranger instead of going to all the trouble of creating a new one?
 First, you are twisting my words quite a bit. I made an illustration how concepts of "same" mean very different things for people based on what aspect of a subject they view.
 From personality perspective 70yr-old granny is different than 50yr-old granny or her clone. From human species sample perspective, it is absolutely the same.
 So my choice is that I am willing to care for the same person genetically while different personality (BTW, I do have a baby and his personality changes every week - should I just put him in a common pool and every morning select a kid at random to raise?)
 
 I do help strangers but in serious matters I am a strong believer in only mutually beneficial cooperation - both parties should gain more than they contribute.

Both your kids and your clone may be at risk.
I fear evolution is a far more successful strategy than design: evolution when applied to the design of microchips totally outclassed any human designers in terms of efficiency, use of space and resources.
 Successfull for whom? If I was a deity breeding humans for some purpose, sure. Since only humans can have interests and motivation, show me one personally interested in evolution that you describe? Of course I would like to ensure that my progeny gets healthier and smarter and leads more fullfilling lives. But through your method I would get the opposite of my wishes even if it worked on humans.
 Tell me this - in that "far more successful strategy" what is the ratio of successfull chip designs (no need to even produce silicon to test it) to those discarded(/aborted?)? 1%? 0.001% And - if I remember correctly, chip designs can be tested in software simulation without actually producing one.

 I am afraid that kind of techniques is not acceptable to me. Each baby would have to be produced, evaluated over at least 30 years - and than what? Eliminated? Not allowed to breed? Limited to fewer children? How else do you ensure differential propagation of "good" genes necessary for evolution?

 That is disregarding the fact that our society already works in the opposite way - less intelligent breed more. Evolution has stopped among humans with creation of welfare state.


 Just a general observation, guys - many of you calling themselves conservatives and democrats produce amasingly communist arguments on that purely personal topic.
 You provide good reasons why it is not in my interests that some people had any children - for being bad parents or genetically defective or whatever. Then you make conclusion that my ability to have a clone but not a regular child should somehow be limited. I do not see any connection whatsoever.

 Punishing successfull for fear of making less successfull envious? Equality of outcome? Making decision for others in deeply personal matters? Communism, here we come...

 miko

[Sabre]

Sabre: As for Miko's assertion that he would be able to raise himself better than his parents, that's not born out by the evidence. People tend to repeat the mistakes of their parents, even the worst of those. Not everyone who was beaten as a child or has an alcoholic for a parent will do those same things to their child, but there is a very high incident of it happening just that way.
Besides those considerations being irrelevant to my well-adjusted family, what cloning has to do with it? If people tend to repeat mistakes of their parents, they will do at least no worse with cloned children than with natural ones.

Miko, did you not offer this claim, that you would be able to raise a cloned child better than a naturally conceived one, as an argment in favor of cloning?  I was merely offering a counter-argument.  If it has nothing to do with cloning, then why did you bring it up as a supporting argument?  In any event, I offered that counter-argument as a general statement, and was not implying any disfunctionality withing your own family.

I would not be much upset if I fail to clone myself, but if it becomes affordable in my lifetime, I would give it a shot. I would not exchange a chance of having two normal babies for a single clone - so it would have to be reasonably cheap.

Statements like "give it a shot" and "have to be reasonably cheap" are telling.  They point again to a further eroding of the sanctity of life such technology will accelerate, whether you intended them to or not.  We are talking about manufacturing human beings.  As such, they become commodities, rather than unique and precious creations...either of God or nature (take you pick).  Again I'll point out the past spectacularly tragic attempts at social engineering.  Moral beliefs aside, should we rush to embrace something with such far reaching social and ethical implications?  I'm not ready, and I have far more confidence in my own mental and emotional stability than I do in the rest of society.

[Eagler]

miko

I don't think NY is big enough for two of you LOL

[Elfenwolf]

How do you feel about theraupedic cloning research, where the ultimate goal will be to grow kidney tissue or liver tissue or maybe even heart and lung tissue so your body won't reject transplanted organs? Do you think we should stop all medical research into the area of cloning based upon moral grounds and, if so, what are the moral objections specifically?

[midnight Target]

Well, PETA might object.

I have seen an experiment where a human ear was grown on the back of a lab mouse. This 'natural cartilage' was then used as a replacement ear for a man that had none. The mouse didn't survive the ordeal.

Consider having "your" genetically matched heart, lungs and kidneys in a lab pig. (Pigs are the right size for human organs). Would make quite a pet.   Until a certain need arises.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Well, PETA might object.

I have seen an experiment where a human ear was grown on the back of a lab mouse. This 'natural cartilage' was then used as a replacement ear for a man that had none. The mouse didn't survive the ordeal.

Consider having "your" genetically matched heart, lungs and kidneys in a lab pig. (Pigs are the right size for human organs). Would make quite a pet.   Until a certain need arises.

Lets hope your noodle replacement will be on something bigger than a mouse

[miko2d]

Sabre: As for Miko's assertion that he would be able to raise himself better than his parents, that's not born out by the evidence. People tend to repeat the mistakes of their parents, even the worst of those. Not everyone who was beaten as a child or has an alcoholic for a parent will do those same things to their child, but there is a very high incident of it happening just that way.
Miko: Besides those considerations being irrelevant to my well-adjusted family, what cloning has to do with it? If people tend to repeat mistakes of their parents, they will do at least no worse with cloned children than with natural ones.
Sabre: Miko, did you not offer this claim, that you would be able to raise a cloned child better than a naturally conceived one, as an argment in favor of cloning? I was merely offering a counter-argument. If it has nothing to do with cloning, then why did you bring it up as a supporting argument?
 I did say that I would be able to raise a cloned child "better" than regular one because of more knowlege about him. That advance knowlege directly derives from him being a genetic copy of existing person. Even raising someone-else's clone I would have extra knowlege from knowing the "original". In case of my clone a lot of my own experience growing up would be usefull and applicable.
 I said that your couter-argument had nothing to do with cloning because your counter-argument appies to any child. Why would "very high incident of it happening just that way" be more likely with a clone than otherwise?

Statements like "give it a shot" and "have to be reasonably cheap" are telling.
 They are not telling anything - especially with a non-native speaker like me. By "give it a shot" I ment that I would be likely to attempt a cloning if my wife supported my decision - after most carefull consideration and planning.
 By "have to be reasonably cheap" I ment that the financial burden imposed by cloning should be light enough as not to negatively affect having and rasing other children of ours.
 If I inaproppriately used conversational vernacular in a solemn discussion - I am sorry for misunderstanding.
 As for "manufactured human beings" and "commodities" - what a row over nothing. I am not sure of your parental status but as even a recent parent I can tell you that the way a baby got into this world pales in significance compared to effort and time invested in raising one.

Again I'll point out the past spectacularly tragic attempts at social engineering. Moral beliefs aside, should we rush to embrace something with such far reaching social and ethical implications? I'm not ready, and I have far more confidence in my own mental and emotional stability than I do in the rest of society.
 You echo my sentiments. I do not wish to engage into any kind of "social engineering" either with cloning or any other action of mine - just in a family planning - for the exact reasons you just provided.

 The only social implication I see from cloning is that intelligent people would be more likely to engage in it thus slightly increasing average level of intelligence. Besides not being a danger but a benefit to all, that would still be a drop in the bucket compared to opposite trend going on due to current social engineering practices that we are coerced into subcidising.

 miko