|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Nov 15, 2005 12:54:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 17, 2005 12:31:06 GMT -5
if an animal or person dies then it was meant to be.Let them go.if God wanted us cloned he would of given us the knowledge to do so from the start of life.
|
|
|
Post by philosopher on Nov 19, 2005 4:00:36 GMT -5
Woohoo I'm one of the first members of this message board!
Ok, my question is about the possibility of freezing a cloned embryo that was done through seperation.
Would it be possible to seperate out a batch of clones and implant 2 or 3 using IVF, but freeze others for use at a later time?
If so would it be possible say for one embryo or twins to survive and grow up and then use IVF to give birth to one of their clones?
Or implant one batch, have a child or twins, and then later on, say a couple of years, implant the saved clones and end up with 2 - 4 children with the same gentic make-up but born at different times?
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Nov 19, 2005 18:45:17 GMT -5
Woohoo I'm one of the first members of this message board! Ok, my question is about the possibility of freezing a cloned embryo that was done through seperation. Would it be possible to seperate out a batch of clones and implant 2 or 3 using IVF, but freeze others for use at a later time? If so would it be possible say for one embryo or twins to survive and grow up and then use IVF to give birth to one of their clones? Or implant one batch, have a child or twins, and then later on, say a couple of years, implant the saved clones and end up with 2 - 4 children with the same gentic make-up but born at different times? Hi Philosopher, I assume by “separation” you refer to embryo splitting. If I may quote from the reference www.reproductivecloning.net/cloning.pdf “Embryo splitting involves the separation of an early human embryo into two or more parts. Each of these parts has the potential to develop into a blastocyst (late embryo), which, if implanted, can develop into a child. This is how genetically identical monozygotic twins are created. Artificial embryo splitting has been successfully implemented in various mammals including sheep (Willadsen, 1981), cows (Willadsen, 1989), mice (Agrawal and Polge, 1989) and monkeys (Chan et al., 2000), but has been performed only to the pre-implantation stages in humans (Hall et al., 1993)”. Embryos are routinely frozen in human IVF clinics for later usage, so I would argue that it is possible to split a human embryo into two semi-embryos, implant one and freeze the other for implantation at a later date. Assuming that you achieve successful implantation of both embryos you would obtain monozygotic twins that are born at different times. I can’t think off the top of my head of any specific reason for doing this, but it should be possible. One caveat I should mention, split-embryos tend to possess a lower developmental capacity than whole embryos and freezing embryos also lowers their viability, so combining both embryo splitting with embryo freezing would result in a significantly lower rate of implantation and pregnancy. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.net
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Nov 28, 2005 17:53:25 GMT -5
You know, I am not sure yet how I feel about reproductive cloning - but if God is against it, wouldn't God also be against IVF, and for that matter, C-sections? if an animal or person dies then it was meant to be.Let them go.if God wanted us cloned he would of given us the knowledge to do so from the start of life.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Nov 28, 2005 19:26:28 GMT -5
You know, I am not sure yet how I feel about reproductive cloning - but if God is against it, wouldn't God also be against IVF, and for that matter, C-sections? if an animal or person dies then it was meant to be.Let them go.if God wanted us cloned he would of given us the knowledge to do so from the start of life. Hi Jen, interesting point. While most mainstream religions are fairly neutral or even positive on the issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF), I believe the Catholic Church does in fact teach that God is opposed to it: “IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.” (Reference: The Catholic Insight) I certainly don’t agree with the Catholic view. I think IVF has been used to bring joy to countless infertile couples who’s only desire is to conceive a biologically related child. I should add that if reproductive cloning can be proven to be both safe and efficient then it may be able to bring the same joy to the small number of infertile couples would are unable to conceive with IVF. The primary difference between IVF and cloning is that IVF has a track record and is now socially accepted while cloning is unproven and villanized in the way IVF was back the late 1970s. If you are interested in reading up more on the subject I would suggest you read Prof. G. Pence’s seminal work “Who’s afraid of human cloning”. You can order a copy from the RCN book page: www.reproductivecloning.net/network/reviews.htmRegards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netPS. I don’t know the Catholic position on C-sections, but I would hope they do not claim God is opposed to these too. In certain cases the C-section is the only way to save a mother’s life!
|
|
|
Post by Russell V on Nov 30, 2005 12:52:00 GMT -5
uh...hi everyone! I'm a college student and i was just wondering how reproductive cloning works as i am working on an essay/speech for cloning. My email is mrhoohaa777@hotmail.com . thanks
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Nov 30, 2005 13:16:25 GMT -5
uh...hi everyone! I'm a college student and i was just wondering how reproductive cloning works as i am working on an essay/speech for cloning. My email is mrhoohaa777@hotmail.com . thanks Hi Russell, could I suggest that you read the “Commentary on human cloning” for the background information on both reproductive and therapeutic cloning. You can find the article here: www.reproductivecloning.net/cloning.pdfI would suggest that for more general articles on the ethics and other issues surrounding cloning you check out our “Selected Cloning Articles” section: www.reproductivecloning.net/network/selected_articles.htmIf you have any specific questions you can post them on this board and I should be able to answer them fairly quickly. Good luck with your essay. Regards, Roger Moorgate Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.net
|
|
jen
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jen on Dec 1, 2005 14:27:21 GMT -5
You know, I am not sure yet how I feel about reproductive cloning - but if God is against it, wouldn't God also be against IVF, and for that matter, C-sections? Hi Jen, interesting point. While most mainstream religions are fairly neutral or even positive on the issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF), I believe the Catholic Church does in fact teach that God is opposed to it: “IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life.” (Reference: The Catholic Insight) I certainly don’t agree with the Catholic view. I think IVF has been used to bring joy to countless infertile couples who’s only desire is to conceive a biologically related child. I should add that if reproductive cloning can be proven to be both safe and efficient then it may be able to bring the same joy to the small number of infertile couples would are unable to conceive with IVF. The primary difference between IVF and cloning is that IVF has a track record and is now socially accepted while cloning is unproven and villanized in the way IVF was back the late 1970s. If you are interested in reading up more on the subject I would suggest you read Prof. G. Pence’s seminal work “Who’s afraid of human cloning”. You can order a copy from the RCN book page: www.reproductivecloning.net/network/reviews.htmRegards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netPS. I don’t know the Catholic position on C-sections, but I would hope they do not claim God is opposed to these too. In certain cases the C-section is the only way to save a mother’s life! Thanks Roger - for your cogent response! Yes, I've read the Pence and it makes a clear, concise and tidy arguement for reproductive cloning (though I have some quibbles with it). As for me, the God arguement is never expanded upon in a logical way - that is, I do relate c-sections, or for that matter any human interventions in the act of human sexual reproduction directly to cloning. Those who are prepared to interpret the bible as saying that God is against human cloning (and IVF!) need to be prepared to explain where the bible says any intervention in this "natural" process is acceptable. In other words, where do you draw the line? And, by extension, I would argue that, actually, God has always supported human intervention in the birth process - Mary after all was allowed to search for shelter - and she was accompanied by Joseph in her labor -- this, to me, counts as intervention. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment - if I was to make the God arguement, what I might say is that the bible can be interpreted to support a what-is-to-us a familiar, patriarchal family structure - one requiring sexual reproduction - that is, reproduction through the father. Cloning offers the chance to evade that structure - indeed to eclipse the role of the father entirely. And that, for sure, could be considered a threat to traditional, Christian power structures. p.s. Thanks for hosting this site - I'm dying for some actual, informed discussion of cloning - and I notice that the Human Cloning Foundation listserv has degraded a bit - maybe this one will catch more interest?
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Dec 1, 2005 16:30:04 GMT -5
Thanks Roger - for your cogent response! Yes, I've read the Pence and it makes a clear, concise and tidy arguement for reproductive cloning (though I have some quibbles with it). As for me, the God arguement is never expanded upon in a logical way - that is, I do relate c-sections, or for that matter any human interventions in the act of human sexual reproduction directly to cloning. Those who are prepared to interpret the bible as saying that God is against human cloning (and IVF!) need to be prepared to explain where the bible says any intervention in this "natural" process is acceptable. In other words, where do you draw the line? And, by extension, I would argue that, actually, God has always supported human intervention in the birth process - Mary after all was allowed to search for shelter - and she was accompanied by Joseph in her labor -- this, to me, counts as intervention. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment - if I was to make the God arguement, what I might say is that the bible can be interpreted to support a what-is-to-us a familiar, patriarchal family structure - one requiring sexual reproduction - that is, reproduction through the father. Cloning offers the chance to evade that structure - indeed to eclipse the role of the father entirely. And that, for sure, could be considered a threat to traditional, Christian power structures. Jen, I agree that a single woman who conceived through cloning would indeed be well outside of the concept of the Christian patriarchal family structure; as are single mothers and same-sex couples. But family structure is a relatively minor factor compared to whether the child is loved and well taken care of. Indeed, I could mount the opposing devil’s advocate position that children conceived through cloning would in general tend to be better cared for by their parents than children conceived through sexual reproduction. Poor Catholic families are often forced by a faith that bars contraception to raise more children than they can actually support. Unplanned pregnancies can result in children that are neither loved nor wanted. Cloning is a very difficult and expensive option and only the most determined parents with sufficient resources would be able to consider it. It’s highly probable that the vast majority of children conceived through cloning would be loved, wanted and very well taken care of. Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.net
|
|
jen
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jen on Dec 2, 2005 13:07:31 GMT -5
Hi Roger, Yes, I agree with you on that point - certainly cloning can be and, I think will be, a viable reproductive solution for the infertile(whether because of biology or social, familial structure)- taking its place alongside IVF, artificial insemination, etc. -- and that these children do tend to be the wanted, loved and well-cared for ones. But this leads me to my actual concerns - maybe thats too strong a word, but wariness about human reproductive cloning. Gregory Pence includes in his book a number of story "examples" as to ways reproductive cloning might play out. One tells the story of a Jewish woman who has lost her son and husband (a son produced through IVF - so as to avoid Tay Sachs disease) - to clone her son is the only way she can have another child who is genetically related to her husband, and to ensure that this child doesn't have Tay Sachs. Sounds great - and, I say, if this were a true story - more power to you, lady. Go for it. But here's the rub - life is rarely actually so tidy. That is to say, in general, I suspect motivation. I *like* the fact that we reproduce through the coming together of difference. Yes - I know that clones are actually less similar then identical twins - and would have different personalities, and all of that - but as a general philosophical point, the coming together of difference, of biological unexpectedness is a good thing. More, I suspect that many who are interested in reproductive cloning talk out of two sides of their mouth. They both think they understand that their hypothetical cloned child would not be exactly the same, and at the same time, hope that they will. You can see this in the pet owner testimonials on the Genetic Savings and Loan site - folk are very careful to say they don't want to xerox their pet - but at the same time, they go and on about how similar the two are - indeed, one kitten supposedly responded immediately (with no training) to the same noise the "original" had. Underlying this concern is, of course, the fear of a eugenics movement. Not necessarily the culmination of the Eugenics movement - that is, Hitler, nor necessarily the question of genetic engineering (which I think I understand less well) - but instead the compulsion that created Eugenics in the first place -- a desire to make the human race better through actively selecting who can be a parent. As a theory, its really not such a terrible idea - except that it turns out, we are really really bad at deciding on the criteria for what "better" is. Indeed, for the most part, we tend to think that "better" means "someone like us." And the promise reproductive cloning holds out seems to be that our progeny can be not only someone like us, but someone who *is* us. Does this mean that I'm going to be the one to say to an infertile couple - no way - no genetically related child for you? Absolutely not - indeed, I write this as a mother who did struggle with infertility. But I do question the need for us to have genetically related children. Its a question, not a judgment. Do we need to have genetically related children - and what about the way our society is structured makes us think that this is so important? OK. I've gone on long enough... Jen
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Dec 2, 2005 15:43:30 GMT -5
Hi Jen, what a great post! I am going to break it down into sections in order to respond to each point: I know that clones are actually less similar then identical twins - and would have different personalities, and all of that - but as a general philosophical point, the coming together of difference, of biological unexpectedness is a good thing. I agree. Diversity is actually the primary reason sexual reproduction evolved from asexual reproduction in the first place. Sex increases diversity and therefore enables a population to survive large scale environmental changes. For instance, a clonal population would all be resistant or susceptible to the same pathogens or environmental variables. Thus, when a pathogen arrives that a clonal population finds lethal the entire population is wiped out. In a diverse sexually reproducing population a percentage of the individuals would be resistant to this pathogen and therefore the population would survive. Diversity is the lifeblood of evolution. However, in order for the same situation to occur in our current human population, we would require the utter extermination of 6 billion sexually reproducing humans who would then be replaced by 6 billion clones of a SINGLE person; a ludicrous proposition. Far more likely, reproductive cloning would be adopted by a tiny minority of the human population that have trouble conceiving through IVF while the vast majority of the human population continues to reproduce via sexual reproduction. The effect on diversity would be negligible. I suspect that many who are interested in reproductive cloning talk out of two sides of their mouth. They both think they understand that their hypothetical cloned child would not be exactly the same, and at the same time, hope that they will. This is a tricky one. I see your point. If potential parents are provided with all the relevant information about how a cloned child would not be a Xerox, about how personality and other phenotypes are determined by both genetics and environment, and they pay lip service to these caveats while secretly hoping the cloned child will be an identical copy; what can we do here? I’m obliged by my personal social libertarian philosophy. As long as the parents are *fully* informed, then they have the right to make their own reproductive decisions, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Underlying this concern is, of course, the fear of a eugenics movement. Not necessarily the culmination of the Eugenics movement - that is, Hitler, nor necessarily the question of genetic engineering (which I think I understand less well) - but instead the compulsion that created Eugenics in the first place -- a desire to make the human race better through actively selecting who can be a parent. As a theory, its really not such a terrible idea - except that it turns out, we are really really bad at deciding on the criteria for what "better" is. Indeed, for the most part, we tend to think that "better" means "someone like us." And the promise reproductive cloning holds out seems to be that our progeny can be not only someone like us, but someone who *is* us. The eugenics argument really is an embryo selection/genetic engineering question at it’s core. Reproductive cloning won’t be much use for eugenicists other than trying to clone “exceptional” people, and with so many phenotypes strongly determined by environment, I suspect the eugenicists might be quite disappointed. I’m happy to discuss human genetic engineering if you wish. I haven’t given it quite as much thought as reproductive cloning, but my initial liberal stance would be to let informed parents do whatever genetic engineering they rationally felt was in the best interests of their future child. If this results in smarter, fitter, disease-free children then so be it. Even if they want a child that is “tall, dark and handsome” it should be their choice to make. Obviously this is highly hypothetical discussion as human genetic engineering is even further into the future than human reproductive cloning. Does this mean that I'm going to be the one to say to an infertile couple - no way - no genetically related child for you? Absolutely not - indeed, I write this as a mother who did struggle with infertility. But I do question the need for us to have genetically related children. Its a question, not a judgment. Do we need to have genetically related children - and what about the way our society is structured makes us think that this is so important? First of all let me say that I have only the highest respect for parents of adopted children. I think adoption is one of the most altruistic acts that a person can perform. However, I also understand the deep-seated Darwinian desire for a genetically related child. I think it could be more evolutionary pressure than society that makes people so desperately want a biologically related child. Having said this, people should have the right to adopt or not adopt their children, or not have children at all. What is at stake here is reproductive choice; a theme I think you will find reiterated multiple times in this post. Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.net
|
|
jen
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jen on Dec 8, 2005 12:39:14 GMT -5
Hi Roger - I've been offline for a couple of days - thanks again for your comprehensive response! Now's here's another question. I'm wondering what draws you personally to cloning as a reproductive technology. For me, cloning, is totally fascinating - as you can probably guess - but my investment in it, as a *reality* for either reproductive purposes, or such things as stem cell research is limited. That is, I like watching the show, but have no plans on getting involved. I am most interested, perhaps, in WHY people feel so strongly about cloning and genetic enginering, one way or the other. What is your motivation behind the website, the message board etc? How did you first become interested? And for total disclosure - I am a grad student, and I am writing about cloning not in its ethical (or not) sense, but in its more general cultural profile. But don't worry - I am not out to quote or misquote you (I would ask permission first)- indeed, actually, this message board is a little off topic for me... a pleasant form of sort of productive procrastination! BTW - anyone else out there and wants to talk about this stuff - please jump in!
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Dec 8, 2005 15:39:07 GMT -5
Hi Roger - I've been offline for a couple of days - thanks again for your comprehensive response! Now's here's another question. I'm wondering what draws you personally to cloning as a reproductive technology. For me, cloning, is totally fascinating - as you can probably guess - but my investment in it, as a *reality* for either reproductive purposes, or such things as stem cell research is limited. That is, I like watching the show, but have no plans on getting involved. I am most interested, perhaps, in WHY people feel so strongly about cloning and genetic enginering, one way or the other. What is your motivation behind the website, the message board etc? How did you first become interested? And for total disclosure - I am a grad student, and I am writing about cloning not in its ethical (or not) sense, but in its more general cultural profile. But don't worry - I am not out to quote or misquote you (I would ask permission first)- indeed, actually, this message board is a little off topic for me... a pleasant form of sort of productive procrastination! BTW - anyone else out there and wants to talk about this stuff - please jump in! Hi Jen, I oppose racism, homophobia and misogyny. I regard my support for racial minorities, homosexual rights and equality for women as parallel to my support for both therapeutic and reproductive cloning. While I neither suffer from a degenerative disease nor am I infertile, I support both therapeutic cloning to produce isogenic stem cells to potentially cure degenerative diseases and reproductive cloning as an option for infertile couples who are not able to conceive a biologically related child through IVF. In all of the aforementioned cases ignorance and bigotry have clouded the collective judgment of society. Prejudice based on race, sexual preference and gender are long-term problems that have, at least to some extent, been resolved through progressive legislation. However, ignorance and irrationality still encompass contemporary issues, and none more so that reproductive cloning. I was appalled by the divergence between rational scientific thought and public opinion. For this reason I decided to set up a website to edify the hoi polloi. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Roger Admin The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.net
|
|
Teacher In Tennessee
Guest
|
Post by Teacher In Tennessee on Jan 17, 2006 13:41:47 GMT -5
|
|