Credo
Spirit
Sense
of
Life
Objectivists Headquarters
War
People
Store
Forum



Forum
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, September 18 - 2:50amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
All the Reasons to Clone Human Beings
 
by Simon Smith, http://www.humancloning.org/allthe.php
 
Medical breakthroughs - Human cloning technology is expected to result in several miraculous medical breakthroughs.  We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation.  Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives.  You can read about many of the expected medical benefits in the essay "The Benefits of Human Cloning."

Medical tragedies - Many people have suffered accidental medical tragedies during their lifetimes.  Read about a girl who needs a kidney, a burn victim, a girl born with cosmetic deformities, a man who needs a liver, a woman who is infertile because of cancer, and a f-ather who lost his only son.  All these people f-avor cloning and want the science to proceed.

To cure infertility - Infertile people are discriminated against.  Men are made to feel like they are not "real men."  Women are made to feel as if they are useless barren vessels.  Worse, being infertile is often not considered a "real medical problem" and insurance companies and governments are not sympathetic.  The current options for infertile couples are painful, expensive, and heart-breaking.  Cloning has the potential to change the world for infertile couples almost overnight.

To fund research - People whose lives have been destroyed or have not been able to reproduce in this lifetime due to tragedy could arrange to have their DNA continued and fund research at the same time.  For example: A boy graduates from high school at age 18.  He goes to a pool party to celebrate.  He confuses the deep end and shallow end and dives head first into the pool, breaking his neck and becoming a quadriplegic.  At age 19 he has his first urinary tract infection because of an indwelling urinary catheter and continues to suffer from them the rest of his life. At age 20 he comes down with herpes zoster of the trigeminal nerve.  He suffers chronic unbearable pain. At age 21 he inherits a 10 million dollar trust fund.  He never marries or has children.  At age 40 after hearing about Dolly being a clone, he changes his will and has his DNA stored for future human cloning.  His future mother will be awarded one million dollars to have him and raise him.  His DNA clone will inherit a trust fund.  He leaves five million to spinal cord research.  He dies feeling that although he was robbed of normal life, his twin/clone will lead a better life.

Bad parents - Did your parents destroy your life?  Were they alcoholic, child-beating molesters?  Did you never have a chance?  Interestingly, human cloning allows you the opportunity to participate in choosing the parents for your clone.

A Child's right to be better than its parents - It's been suggested that parents have a duty to see that their children have better lives than they do.  This may mean making our children live longer, helping them to be resistant to cancer, heart disease, any f-amilial diseases, and all the other problems that can be cured using what we learn from human cloning technology.

To take a step towards immortality - Human cloning essentially means taking a human being's DNA and reversing its age back to zero.  Dr. Richard Seed, one of cloning's leading proponents, hopes that cloning will help us understand how to reverse DNA back to age 20 or whatever age we want to be.  Cloning would be a step towards a fountain of youth.

To make a future couple financially secure - With human cloning you could give a couple in the future both a child from your DNA and the financial assets from your lifetime to start out financially secure instead of struggling as most couples do now.

Because you believe in freedom - Freedom sometimes means having tolerance for others and their beliefs.  In America, some people believe gun control and some don't.  Some people believe in one religion and others in another.  In a free society we know that we must tolerate some views that we don't agree with so that we all may be free.  For this reason human cloning should be allowed.

To be a better parent - Human cloning can improve the parent-child relationship.  Raising a clone would be like having a child with an instruction manual.  You would have a head start on the needs and talents of your child.  We are not saying that a clone would be a carbon copy with no individuality.  Our talents and desires are genetic, developmental, and environmental.  We would have a head start on understanding the genetic component of a cloned child.

Endangered species could be saved - Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings.

Animals and plants could be cloned for medical purposes - Through the research leading up to human cloning, we should discover how to clone animals and plants to produce life-saving medications.

You want your clone to lead the life that was meant to be yours - The Human Cloning Foundation has been surprised by the number of people that write to say that they would like to have a clone so that it may lead the life that was meant to be theirs.  Typically, these are people who have suffered some terrible physical or mental handicap and feel robbed of the opportunities they should have had in life.  Some see this life as a sacrifice so that the life of their clone may be enriched.

To have a better sense of identity - If we had some information about ourselves, perhaps we could sooner or better discovery who we are.  A clone would have access to a tremendous amount of information about his or her parent that could greatly help in understanding one's psyche and physical attributes.  All of this information could provide a better sense of identity.

Because so many people want cloning - Please read the dozens of essays by people from all over the world in support of human cloning and published by the Human Cloning Foundation.

Religious Freedom - At least two religions, the Raelian Religion and the Summum Religion, believe in cloning as one of their tenets.

Because of the special relationship that twins have - Twins often have very special relationships.  While many people go through their lives never having a special relationship with another person, there are stories of twins in which they are so close they are perhaps psychically connected.  More than one person has written the Human Cloning Foundation (including a twin that feels close to her identical twin) that since a clone is virtually the equivalent of an identical twin, they suspect a very special relationship would exist between a clone and its DNA parent. Some twins describe their twin relationship as more wonderful and meaningful any other relationship in their lives.

Economics - Countries that f-ail to research human cloning will suffer economically. The industrial revolution and Internet revolutions enriched the United States of America. Biotechnology will lead the next economic revolution. Those countries that jump in first will reap the rewards. Those who f-ail to begin research right away will f-all behind. As an example: Japan f-ailed to jump on the Internet bandwagon and is now playing catch-up. Japan has banned human cloning and will probably suffer by f-alling behind during the biotech revolution. One day in the not too f-ar distant future, Japan may realize its mistake.

Gay couples - From one of our readers: "gay couples go through so much...not to mention all the controversy...when they decide that they are ready for a baby. People question their right to bring a child that technically isn't related to them into a lifestyle that f-alls below societies views of normal.....human cloning could allow two gay men to take 23 chromosomes from each male and put them into a single egg to truly have a baby of their own. also two gay women could use this technology to conceive a child of their own using their individual 23 chromosomes." (To our knowledge the type of reproduction described here has not yet been done, but someday it will probably be possible.)

A cure for baldness - From one of our readers: "But how about the possibility of using cloning technology to get more hair on a balding scalp. For example cloning can be used to get more hair from a few sample hair follicles or grafts from the patient's head and then grow them....later transplant the grafts where it is needed. This will eliminate the need to do an incision in back of the scalp for donor hair and will literally give the patient MORE hair."

Because the sick will demand it - Those resisting human cloning research will probably find themselves shouted down by the sick and the maimed who desperately need such research. Human cloning technology promises to cure many or all incurable diseases and the moral weight of the dying and infirm will undoubtedly sway the politicians more than the arguments of the healthy, who often remain ignorant of the potential of human cloning, because they have never been motivated by suffering to look desperately for a cure.

Hope - On the Charlie Rose television show on February 14th, 2001, three anti-cloners debated against one reporter. The anti-cloners made the case for stem cell research while alleging that cloning itself would not result in any major scientific breakthroughs. It is likely that the anti-cloners are quite wrong. Learning the process of reprogramming, differentiation, and dedifferentiation is likely to result in just as many medical miracles as stem cell research. The two lines of research go hand in hand and should complement each other. The three anti-cloners came across as people who would destroy hope. The kept alleging that things were impossible. They reminded me of the same types of people who proclaimed that cloning was impossible years ago. Furthermore, they seemed happy and willing to take away the hope of infertile couples and others with severe diseases that human cloning technology might one day lessen their suffering or save their lives. The anti-cloners also seemed to feel that they had the ability to predict the timing and course of science advancement, which history has shown to be folly.

Living on through a later-born twin - Some childless people feel that by being cloned by their later-born twin would help them or their DNA to live on in the same sense that people who have children live on.





Post 1

Sunday, September 18 - 3:39amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

I'm a supporter of cloning technology, especially human cloning. My personal reason is that human cloning can invalidate many stereotypes and terrible traditional moralities. This can bring us the f-re-edo-m of life. The so-called "Asian Values" always interfere people's daily lives. Orientals need the ethical breakthrough most. Human cloning gives us the chance. I'm also a supporter of male-pregnancy and artificial eggs for human. If men could be pregnant, woman would become more relaxed. If humans one day become oviparous, there would the no pregnancy, and women could get rid of birth pangs as well as much discrimination brought by pregnancy. All of these are good things.

 

{BTW}  There is one objection to human cloning, which says, if males can have babies alone, females will lose the necessity of existence. I found many rejoinders from human-cloning supporters do not hit the point. Some say because the embryos also need uteri, women are still useful. Many women are afraid of human cloning because of the "conceivable"  "value losses". But every woman is an end in herself. She is a full-fledged human being as man. She is not any sort of "tools" of reproduction. A woman's value doesn't lie in reproduction. So women need not afraid of human cloning. This is a technique which leads to liberty.




Post 2

Sunday, September 18 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Adam,

My heart dropped when I read this:
Therapeutic cloning was banned in the United States in July 2001. Shortly thereafter, under pressure from the Bush Administration, it was banned nearly everywhere around the world.
Jordan





Post 3

Sunday, September 18 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

I'm a supporter of cloning technology, especially human cloning. My personal reason is that human cloning can invalidate many stereotypes and terrible traditional moralities. This can bring us the f-re-edo-m of life. The so-called "Asian Values" always interfere people's daily lives. Orientals need the ethical breakthrough most. Human cloning gives us the chance. I'm also a supporter of male-pregnancy and artificial eggs for human. If men could be pregnant, woman would become more relaxed. If humans one day become oviparous, there would the no pregnancy, and women could get rid of birth pangs as well as much discrimination brought by pregnancy. All of these are good things.

Well, there are several problems with mere cloning of men (besides that it hasn't been done ever). Who will take responsibility for the cloned person? The Person, the cloning facility? This is a truly interesting thing. I also find it hard to see, how cloning could be kept away from state claws. I don't want to see an army of clones like the one in Star Wars, because whenever we clone a human being, we create a human being (although very similiar to the original) and thus it has the same rights, we have.There are many good reasons for stem-cell research and cloning, but the actual cloning of human people is not the best, imo.

If the rights of those clones were already written down and guaranteed, there wouldn't be much complaining from my part ;)

 

{BTW}  There is one objection to human cloning, which says, if males can have babies alone, females will lose the necessity of existence. I found many rejoinders from human-cloning supporters do not hit the point. Some say because the embryos also need uteri, women are still useful. Many women are afraid of human cloning because of the "conceivable"  "value losses". But every woman is an end in herself. She is a full-fledged human being as man. She is not any sort of "tools" of reproduction. A woman's value doesn't lie in reproduction. So women need not afraid of human cloning. This is a technique which leads to liberty.


 

That's good an correct, nothing to say to this part.

 


 




Post 4

Sunday, September 18 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
     Every moral aspect depends upon whether the clone is regarded as a 'person'/human-being...or not.

     Most religious people argue the supernatural view that upon conception (however done) one has a supernatural 'soul.' Presumably, a cloned-person would have one; interestingly, some (though few, as American Muslims, and, I believe Jehovah's Witnesses) of the religious argue that if it's conceived outside of the normal womb, it doesn't have one. What this portends for cloned-people later on, one can only guess, since some clones may be born either way; but I digress...

     I'd argue that IF it (of human species) has a consciousness then it has a human consciousness, ergo has actual existence of (some degree of) rationality (not to be confused with ratiocination, a later-developed 'adult' use of rationality --- see Piaget), ergo, has a 'natural' soul, ergo is a 'person', ergo has a 'right' to have it's existential rights recognized (meaning: moral obligation of others to recognize such), even if it is a later-born 'twin' (or...whatever number.) --- We don't want to go the route of The Island, hmmm?

     However, o-t-o-h, IF a human consciousness does NOT exist (and the situation in The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler is ambiguous on this; I mean, 'born' lobotomized? That's a toss-up question-area)... then harvest all organs one can store.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: Sorry; I just can't seem to make a post without editing something afterwords.

(Edited by John Dailey on 9/19, 12:44am)




Post 5

Monday, September 19 - 2:37amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Well said, Adam.

My genetic code is mine. If I choose to propagate my code in an attempt to supply tissue or organs that will alleviate or curtail my own suffering, then that is my right.

I have psoriasis. It's why I'm an objectivist. I thank a metaphorical God for my condition. The connection is linear, although, to the uninitiated, perhaps obscure. Nevermind.

I don't want to grow embryos to human proportions and then sacrifice them for my own benefit. I can see the manifest difference between raw material, a blastocyst, a potentiality, and the individual human. Rand had the same perspective, I think. She commented that the tertiary was different from the primary or secondary trimesters. I agree. There is a point at which our SOLs forbid us from certain actions. Within Objectivist ethics I think this still needs to be clearly argued. The abortion debate has larger ramifications than a simple "right to choose" issue. It segues into the genetic debate. There will come a time, and that right soon, when we can recreate & recombine ourselves, when we become *that* which has created us; when we become a factor of nature itself.

It's at that time that Objectivism should provide answers that other philosophies can never do.

Ross









Post 6

Monday, September 19 - 6:55amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I think clones would be a great idea.  They could do the dishes and take out the garbage and provide body parts, when mine fail.  More cloning!



Post 7

Monday, September 19 - 7:13amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Wonderful article, Adam.

I never thought about "democide" before. When I first started getting my head around the concept, it started sounding a lot like "sin of omission." However there is no omission in a prohibition backed up by guns.

Democide is killing by enforced omission, so to speak.

I also liked the term, "therapeutic cloning" and the emergence of a consciousness as the defining characteristic of a human being with rights (especially right to life) under a rational concept of ethics.

TOC's loss is Solo's gain (including Free Radical) with this one. In spades.

Michael





Post 8

Monday, September 19 - 11:16amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
From the article:
Therapeutic cloning was banned in the United States in July 2001.
President Bush has promised to veto any repeal of the cloning ban as long as he remains in office.
What are you talking about? From what I read about the first, a bill was passed by the House that month, but it has not passed the Senate and so is not law.
From http://www.genetics-and-society.org/policies/us/index.html:
There are currently no federal bans on either human cloning or inheritable genetic modification in the United States.





Post 9

Monday, September 19 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Merlin,

"Not law" is a technicality when FDA "regulations" promulgated on behalf of the president have for all effects and purposes the power of law - and the president has promised to veto any law that would over-ride those regulations. In any case no businessman or scientist will invest money or time in a technology already formally banned by the House, ready to be approved and signed if the majority manages to get it released for a floor vote in the Senate. Do you seriously propose to claim that just because the current prohibition is not a constitutionally valid piece of legislation, the 30 million people killed by it are any less dead?




Post 10

Monday, September 19 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Adam,

Great article. With any luck, you—and all of us—will benefit from Chinese attention to the opportunity this irrational ban provides to them. (Or did they sign a ban? Doesn’t matter, because they won’t honor it.)

Jon




Post 11

Monday, September 19 - 4:46pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Max:

"Who will take responsibility for the cloned person? The Person, the cloning facility? ...I also find it hard to see, how cloning could be kept away from state claws. I don't want to see an army of clones like the one in Star Wars, because whenever we clone a human being, we create a human being (although very similiar to the original) and thus it has the same rights, we have."

Well, I think you've answered your own question, Max. You say correctly that when we clone a human it has the same rights. It's pretty simple as far as I can see.

If I clone myself, I become the parent or guardian of that clone. Hey, it's just a baby like any other. Only difference is that it's a replica of me, not a semi-capricious amalgam of genes. The problems I see are simply attitudinal conflicts from others if say, I decided to clone myself ten times over. But really, what's the difference between identical twins or triplets and clones?

Now, if I decide to sell my DNA to a company for cloning purposes, the situation is essentially the same. Every child has a parent or guardian who is legally responsible for it's welfare. The only caveat you may make, as I would, is the guardian or guardians of a child must always be individual adults, not a corporation or other such entity. So, although MegaGene Inc. may pay for all of a clone's upbringing, the actual legal responsibility for the clone's care and welfare resides in an individual. Furthermore, that clone cannot be *owned* or in any other way have legal obligations to it's parent or guardian over and above what any other individual has.

One other caveat is that a clone would not be able to have the state as it's guardian, except as is done now on a temporary basis when a minor is being abused or mistreated by it's legal guardians. Since statists tend to see individuals as a means to an end and not as ends in themselves, this is where the only danger lies.

It's easy to lack clarity re cloning, I think, because generally speaking, clarity is lacking in existing relationships between individuals and the state or with each other.

Surely, this is a "problem" that Objectivism & Objectivists should be able to solve quite easily, otherwise what the hell are all of our discussions & research good for? Objectivism should be able to provide the definitive answers to these questions. Answers that can be rigorously tested against objective principles.

Ross





Post 12

Monday, September 19 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Adam Reed:
Do you seriously propose to claim that just because the current prohibition is not a constitutionally valid piece of legislation, the 30 million people killed by it are any less dead?
I sought references to back up your assertions (which you did not provide), not your baseless insinuations.


(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/19, 7:11pm)

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/19, 7:12pm)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, September 19 - 9:23pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Merlin Jetton,

2002:
2,443,387 deaths
28.5% 696,947 Diseases of heart
22.8% 557,271 Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
6.7% 162,672 Cerebrovascular diseases
...
others

This is from page 7 of Deaths: Leading Causes for 2002 (pdf), you can find a link to it on The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. As you can see for yourself, .7 million people die from heart problems a year. 30million/(.7 million/year) = 43 years to sum up to 30 million.

Note: these are US statistics, not world.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 9/19, 9:36pm)




Post 14

Monday, September 19 - 10:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Merlin,

The main links are:

For successful proof-of-concept fetal organ transplantation:

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=5911

The above link also documents the fact that all medical experiments (even with full informed consent of the patient) in the United States require permission from the FDA. President George W. Bush has made it clear, in July 2001 (at the press conference commending the House on passing the legislation to prohibit human cloning) that under his administration the FDA will not permit experiments involving human cloning.

The cause-of-death statistics are from

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_17.pdf

The links were in the submitted manuscript but do not appear in The Free Radical.




Post 15

Monday, September 19 - 11:11pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
     Re a question that Ross Elliot brought up, "If I clone myself..." :
     At the risk of subject-changing of this thread, then let me comment that barring world-catastrophes, we know that cloning, not just merely organs, but also fully-actualized people WILL occur, possibly within our children's generation (definitely within their childrens'), via laws allowing 'exceptions.' (What societal-law in history has NO exceptions?)

     Given that, and all sociological turmoil (religious and whatnot) that WILL be involved, then, apart from govt (or corporation) leaders worrying if some rogue sub-department (or...'competitor') has access to the leader's cells (guess why?), has anyone thought about the psychological ramifications of raising a clone of one's self? --- May give an added dimension to the meaning of 'self,' no?

MTFBWY...especially on this subject
J:D




Post 16

Tuesday, September 20 - 6:15amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Gore,

Humans live longer now that at any point in history.  You appear to want them to live longer still.  Is there a cut off, or is the goal that people live forever?  Would there be any copy fatigue over the centuries, i.e., would each seceeding copy be inferior to the original magnifying 'mistakes' over time?




Post 17

Tuesday, September 20 - 7:38amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dean,

Thank you for showing the absurdity of Adam's 30 million.

You probably noticed (as I did) that he used world population to try to pin blame for 30 million deaths on George Bush. Last I heard Bush isn't dictator of the world. :-)

Adam,

Again your allegations are very strong and evidence very weak . The link you gave was about sight-saving, not life-saving, and says only the following about the FDA: "The team has received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to carry out further transplants on people with less advanced disease."

When I need an example of how to lie with statistics, I will use yours.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/20, 8:36am)




Post 18

Tuesday, September 20 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Merlin

Adam fudge things, impossible. ;-)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, September 20 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Merlin,

You wrote: "The link you gave was about sight-saving, not life-saving."

When I need an example of concrete-bound, pre-conceptual mentality, I'll use yours.




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password or create a free account.