|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Mar 21, 2006 16:00:34 GMT -5
*** Update March 2006 ***This is the third cloning FAQ page. The first page can be found here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=1The second page can be found here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=2The main messageboard page can be found here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=generalRegards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netPlease post any new questions or comments here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1132077294This post is a reply to Amy’s critique of the Alonzo Fyfe cloning article, which can be found here: www.reproductivecloning.net/Articles/fyfe.htmTo begin with i should tell you that my critique isn't actually finished yet, my deadline is tomorrow, but i'll try and post it as soon as i can. I don't claim it is any good though, as i've never actually done one before. Hi Amy, good luck with your critique. I’d be very interested in reading it if you do get around to posting it. I would suggest that most of his arguments are relatively self-evident and do not require statistics and it seems unfair to claim he has little knowledge of cloning after comprehensively addressing nine common objections to cloning. I would like to know on which levels do you disagree with his theories? Whether his arguments are self evident or not i think is irrelevant, what's the point of writing it at all if it is already 'self evident'? He has nothing to back his points up, it seems to lack credibility without some demonstration of knowledge on the subject. It seems to me that he must have some knowledge of cloning if he and his wife have considered it, so why would he not include this? Otherwise it sounds like a rant, going on and on, with no real substance. The point of writing is that many self-evident points are only self-evident after they have been made. For example, his comment on the suggestion that cloning would result in “cloned armies” being created: “Cloned soldiers would still have to be carried to maturity by an army of mothers, and raised by an army of nannies and teachers. It would still take about two decades to come up with the first batch of useful soldiers or slaves.” (Fyfe, Against a prohibition on cloning) As far as my views are concerned, i'm against cloning from a religious point of view, i do believe it is 'playing God' - cliched as that sounds. But i would never tell a child they have no soul, or call them an abomination or anything like that, they would still be a person, they aren't responsible for how they came to be. I wonder, do you consider other reproductive technologies like IVF and life-saving medical advances like heart transplants as “playing god”. When human IVF was first considered many felt it was “playing god” and the Catholic church still maintains that position. Technically the USA government is out to stop Alonzo, his wife and other infertile people like them from having biologically related children. Mr. Fyfe and his wife can’t conceive naturally or though IVF, so the only method they could conceive a genetically related child is though reproductive cloning and the US administration has repeatedly called for reproductive cloning to be made illegal. It does not surprise me that Mr. Fyfe is “bitter and defensive”. Technically yes, there are some barriers to stop Alonzo having children, and i can honestly see how this would be very personal to him - i would take it personally. But he speaks like the authorities are trying to punish him by stopping him having a child. I think the issues surrounding cloning are still very much up in the air, so to speak, the question is whether it is safe, or more commonly, if it is morally right. It is not a question of just doing it anyway to avoid people feeling that they are being victimised. I don’t think he feels the authorities are targeting him personally, just targeting the relatively specific group (infertile people who can’t reproduce via IVF who want a biologically related child) of which he belongs to. Mr. Fyfe’s comment on pork was to point out religious prohibitions against cloning. I understand his way of thinking behind this comment, my point was that throughout the article Alonzo continually uses ridiculous comparisons to make his argument. Many times i found myself asking 'what does this have to do with cloning?' And if everybody 'selflessly' chose to adopt instead of having children naturally, there would be something of a shortage of children, i feel. ”Continually uses ridiculous comparisons” seems harsh. Which comparisons do you consider ridiculous? Regarding adoption. 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. 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. May I enquire as to which specific points are repeated? Well, for example the first three sections ends with the same point, how the government should not be allowed to prevent so-called 'imperfect' children to be born and how they shouldn't dictate who can have children. He seems to ignore the fact that sometimes nature dictates who can and can't have children, it's not always the government. It appeared to me that the first sections were all making the same point in different ways. Ok, there may some overlap in the first sections, but each section is a response to a separate cloning objection. Again, all of the objections that Mr. Fyfe addresses are actual objections raised by contributors by post and email. None are straw men. That is precisely my point. I am aware that 'people' feel this way about cloning, but the argument holds no weight if all the quotes appear to be from one persons opinions of what other people might think. If there is a reference to a person actually saying this, it makes the argument far less onesided and i would be more inclined to emphathise with him. I can’t quote a specific person off the top of my head who said cloning would be used to create cloned armies, but many many people have and still do. So can I address this issue as a “general” objection to cloning, or do you feel I should not be able to address it unless I can remember a specific person who said it? I would suggest that it is both an aggressive and defensive article (I don’t think that is an oxymoron?). However, I believe he repeatedly backs his claims with metaphors and detailed explanations. 'Detailed explanations' that are all from his own ideas, 'metaphors' that distract from any good points he might make, not actually supporting cloning, just turning the story round so that it becomes completely irrelevant. There is no discussion, it is completely one sided. I realise he is going to be bias, he is for cloning, therefore he is going to have an angle on it. But he doesn't even try to look logically at the other side of the argument. He backs his own ideas with his own opinions, making it pointless writing the piece to being with. It is definitely partisan, but I don’t in any way feel it is “pointless”. Mr. Fyfe comprehensively addresses the nine most commonly raised objections to cloning from a thoughtful, forceful and deeply personal position and this I feel is the article’s main strength and point. Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netQuestions can be posted here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post
|
|
|
Post by Libfemme repost on Mar 22, 2006 19:53:29 GMT -5
The fundamental objection to cloning is an opposition to ending illness.
Illness, in christian theology, is good because it is a punishment ordained by God. Only God can heal (Christ's primary fame while on earth was as a faith healer)and therefore only God can give an illness.
Before the "modern" era families were ashamed of deformed children and kept them hidden from sight. Neighbors judged the birth defect as evidence the parents were being punished for committing some sin.
In many families that is still the case, such as catholic families from peasant societies in Mexico or central america. They will refuse special education help when offered by the public school because it is God's will that the child is the way he is. It would be going against God's will to try to change him.
After all God has a plan for everyone, and if his plan for you is to live a life lame and deformed then learn to live with it. Which may be ok if there is not you can do about it, but it has become a self-fullfilling prophecy. You shouldn't go looking for something to do about it either.
At every step of history medical breakthroughs have been opposed by religious fundamentalists. If people do not suffer what point is there in being christian? Suffering is good for christainity. Churches fill up during times of national crisis, disasters, times of grief.
In this philosophy people who cannot concieve are not suppose to have children. God has determined them unworthy of being parents. Their infertility is His punishment and therefore should not be tampered with. Except of course by prayer.
Now why some crack-head prostitute should be deemed worthy to reproduce while a normal couple are kept in agony wanting a child is the weak point in the God argument, but there it is.
Cloning is opposed because cloning would end suffering, would make people happy. And happiness, that doesn't come as a boon from God, really pisses off christians.
|
|
|
Post by Alonzo Fyfe on Apr 7, 2006 15:40:43 GMT -5
Amy:
So, I am wondering how your critique went . . . if you are still around.
My personal history includes 12 years of college studying moral philosophy -- so I am fairly well versed in what an ethics paper requires. It would appear that your objection to my paper would be like raising an objection that somebody is not a particularly good football player because he has not scored any home runs -- a strange objection given that hitting home runs is not typically a part of a standard game of football.
With respect to the lack of statistics, I am wondering what type of statistics you would require in order to make a point such as, "it is wrong to lie," or "it is wrong to torture young children." Would you cite statistics if you were to write a paper defending claims such as this? If not, then there is no need for me to cite statistics to use claims like, "It is wrong for the state to deprive a person from having a child of his own on the basis that the child may not fulfill the state's definition of 'perfection', or 'it is not fair to prohibit a person from having one child while it allows somebody else to have 15 or 20 children.' These are moral principles that do not lend themselves to statistical analysis.
Either way, I have an interest in reading your essay if it is available.
Alonzo Fyfe
|
|
|
Post by FYI on Apr 7, 2006 18:27:23 GMT -5
"Schatten Stole Patents From Hwang" By Kim Tae-gyu (The Korea Times)
A newly unveiled manuscript of an investigative TV program made by domestic broadcaster KBS generates more disputes on Korea's disgraced stem cell scientist Hwang Woo-suk.
KBS producer Moon Hyong-ryeol disclosed the manuscript of the investigative TV program ``In-Depth 60 Minutes'' via a local Internet media outlet Thursday.
The manuscript contains allegations favorable to Hwang _ Prof. Gerald P. Schatten at the University of Pittsburgh is suspected of stealing Hwang's technologies to apply for patents as if they were developed by him.
Schatten was formerly one of Hwang's closest research partners but bid farewell to him last year, claiming the Korean veterinarian had lied to him about ethical violations in recruiting the human eggs.
The manuscript also raises a high possibility that Hwang did clone an embryonic stem cell line, negating the conclusion of Seoul National University, which fired Hwang last month.
Early this January, a peer-review committee at the university found Hwang had fabricated information in two articles on cloned stem cells that were publish in the U.S. journal ``Science'' in 2004 and 2005
``Schatten applied for patents on April 9, 2003 in the United States for a technology needed for nuclear transfer of animal somatic cells, about nine months ahead of Hwang,'' Moon said.
``On April 9, 2004 Schatten added the technique of Hwang's team of gently squeezing out nuclear contents from eggs in the process of cloning to its patent lineup,'' he added.
Hwang was once famous for the technology, which he claimed was developed by his underling, by gently squeezing genetic materials out of human eggs before cloning a somatic cell.
Moon contended that the country is required to prevent the U.S. government from issuing patents to Schatten by refusing his patent application.
The producer also claimed there is a high possibility that the No. 1 stem cell line, code-named NT-1 documented at the 2004 Science paper, is indeed cloned.
``Many scientists point out the No. 1 line was established through cloning, rebuffing the previous conclusion that it was made through the unisexual reproduction,'' Moon said.
The Seoul National University panel said in January that the No. 1 line seems to be created through parthenogenesis, or reproduction without a father.
Moon disclosed the controversial manuscript as KBS decided not to air the special documentary produced by him, citing a likelihood of lawsuits.
Moon said he would allow people to watch the program on the issue by uploading it to the Internet.
``Now I am now working to post the program to the Internet. I think I will be able to finish the job soon,'' Moon said.
|
|
|
Post by Deepak on Apr 25, 2006 4:45:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ajeet on Apr 28, 2006 3:03:28 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? I have quoted this
|
|
|
Post by ajit on Apr 28, 2006 5:47:52 GMT -5
The fundamental objection to cloning is an opposition to ending illness.Illness, in christian theology, is good because it is a punishment ordained by God. Only God can heal (Christ's primary fame while on earth was as a faith healer)and therefore only God can give an illness. Before the "modern" era families were ashamed of deformed children and kept them hidden from sight. Neighbors judged the birth defect as evidence the parents were being punished for committing some sin. In many families that is still the case, such as catholic families from peasant societies in Mexico or central america. They will refuse special education help when offered by the public school because it is God's will that the child is the way he is. It would be going against God's will to try to change him. After all God has a plan for everyone, and if his plan for you is to live a life lame and deformed then learn to live with it. Which may be ok if there is not you can do about it, but it has become a self-fullfilling prophecy. You shouldn't go looking for something to do about it either. At every step of history medical breakthroughs have been opposed by religious fundamentalists. If people do not suffer what point is there in being christian? Suffering is good for christainity. Churches fill up during times of national crisis, disasters, times of grief. In this philosophy people who cannot concieve are not suppose to have children. God has determined them unworthy of being parents. Their infertility is His punishment and therefore should not be tampered with. Except of course by prayer. Now why some crack-head prostitute should be deemed worthy to reproduce while a normal couple are kept in agony wanting a child is the weak point in the God argument, but there it is. Cloning is opposed because cloning would end suffering, would make people happy. And happiness, that doesn't come as a boon from God, really pisses off christians. I quoted Second quoted
|
|
|
Post by Agatha on Apr 29, 2006 7:18:23 GMT -5
Ok, I know I don't belong to this message board, and that I'm really intruding, but I read this post while I was surfing the net and it really ticked me off. I am a Roman Catholic, and I might presume to say that I know more about the Church's stance, and Christianity's stance, on medical solutions than some people on this site.
First of all, at least in mainstream Christian theology, illness is not a punishment from God. You may have been refering to the Church's doctrine on suffering -- that is, that one can offer up his suffering to help others, to the glory of God -- but this doctrine does not in any way continue to the fanatical extreme of professing all suffering as something that should be endured, embraced, and never alleviated. South American principles, moreover, should not be taken as an absolute example of Christianity, because their beliefs are often archaic, even superstitious -- however true their hearts may be to God.
In no way is there any opposition to medical help by Christianity. But the help must be moral. If, say, the only way to save my grandmother would be to kill her neighbor, then, yes, Christianity would be opposed. But otherwise medical help is without question acceptable, and prayer too -- although, by the twenty-first century, I imagine most Christians have realized that praying alone will probably not cure their ailments.
Cloning is not opposed because it would end suffering. Cloning is opposed because it would begin a fresh wave of it. Christianity recognizes life at conception -- which, scientifically, is where it starts -- and realizes that cloning would, almost certainly, begin a craze for beginning little lives, ending them, and using the body parts provided to help humans more widely agreed to be human. Christianity recognizes that drawing such a fine line between sacred life, to be conserved at all costs, and worthless life, to be manipulated at will for those who are considered to deserve it, will in too many ways blur the line between what is right and what is terribly wrong.
We do not oppose cloning because it will end suffering. We oppose it because it is immoral.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on May 1, 2006 17:33:44 GMT -5
Ok, I know I don't belong to this message board, and that I'm really intruding, but I read this post while I was surfing the net and it really ticked me off. I am a Roman Catholic, and I might presume to say that I know more about the Church's stance, and Christianity's stance, on medical solutions than some people on this site. First of all, at least in mainstream Christian theology, illness is not a punishment from God. You may have been refering to the Church's doctrine on suffering -- that is, that one can offer up his suffering to help others, to the glory of God -- but this doctrine does not in any way continue to the fanatical extreme of professing all suffering as something that should be endured, embraced, and never alleviated. South American principles, moreover, should not be taken as an absolute example of Christianity, because their beliefs are often archaic, even superstitious -- however true their hearts may be to God. In no way is there any opposition to medical help by Christianity. But the help must be moral. If, say, the only way to save my grandmother would be to kill her neighbor, then, yes, Christianity would be opposed. But otherwise medical help is without question acceptable, and prayer too -- although, by the twenty-first century, I imagine most Christians have realized that praying alone will probably not cure their ailments. Cloning is not opposed because it would end suffering. Cloning is opposed because it would begin a fresh wave of it. Christianity recognizes life at conception -- which, scientifically, is where it starts -- and realizes that cloning would, almost certainly, begin a craze for beginning little lives, ending them, and using the body parts provided to help humans more widely agreed to be human. Christianity recognizes that drawing such a fine line between sacred life, to be conserved at all costs, and worthless life, to be manipulated at will for those who are considered to deserve it, will in too many ways blur the line between what is right and what is terribly wrong. We do not oppose cloning because it will end suffering. We oppose it because it is immoral. Hi Agatha, you do not have to be a member of this message board to post your opinion and I assure you that you’re not intruding. As I understand it your position is that as a Christian you oppose therapeutic cloning because it is “immoral”. I would like to include a pertinent paragraph from the Commentary on Human Cloning by Byrne et al: "The scientific debate regarding therapeutic human cloning revolves around the therapeutic benefits against the ethical cost of destroying the early cloned embryo. Many allocate to the early embryo the status of an individual with fundamental human rights and consider the destruction of that embryo equivalent to murder (Shenfield et al., 2001). Several details should be considered when debating the issue. The early mammalian embryo is a ball of cells without even a rudimentary nervous system, and the division of this ball of cells into two or more parts results in two or more monozygotic twins. Thus whether this early embryo can yet be classified as an ‘‘individual’’ is questionable. Abortion legislation in most countries has already established that the rights and choices of grown adults supersede the rights of the early embryo. Most embryos (>70%) that result from natural sexual reproduction do not implant into the uterine endometrium. If each of these embryos has fundamental human rights, this would make premeditated attempts at pregnancy by natural sexual reproduction the logical equivalent of mass murder. The ethical considerations basically come down to our society’s value system. Which is of greater value, the life of an adult or child dying from a degenerative disease, or a 5-day-old embryo that is little more than a ball of cells?" (Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157).I wonder, in light of this information would you still maintain your opposition to therapeutic cloning, and if so, how can you justify the loss of “life” that accompanies sexual reproduction? Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netQuestions can be posted here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post
|
|
|
Post by Agatha on May 1, 2006 19:29:03 GMT -5
Hi Agatha, you do not have to be a member of this message board to post your opinion and I assure you that you’re not intruding. As I understand it your position is that as a Christian you oppose therapeutic cloning because it is “immoral”. I would like to include a pertinent paragraph from the Commentary on Human Cloning by Byrne et al: "The scientific debate regarding therapeutic human cloning revolves around the therapeutic benefits against the ethical cost of destroying the early cloned embryo. Many allocate to the early embryo the status of an individual with fundamental human rights and consider the destruction of that embryo equivalent to murder (Shenfield et al., 2001). Several details should be considered when debating the issue. The early mammalian embryo is a ball of cells without even a rudimentary nervous system, and the division of this ball of cells into two or more parts results in two or more monozygotic twins. Thus whether this early embryo can yet be classified as an ‘‘individual’’ is questionable. Abortion legislation in most countries has already established that the rights and choices of grown adults supersede the rights of the early embryo. Most embryos (>70%) that result from natural sexual reproduction do not implant into the uterine endometrium. If each of these embryos has fundamental human rights, this would make premeditated attempts at pregnancy by natural sexual reproduction the logical equivalent of mass murder. The ethical considerations basically come down to our society’s value system. Which is of greater value, the life of an adult or child dying from a degenerative disease, or a 5-day-old embryo that is little more than a ball of cells?" (Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157).I wonder, in light of this information would you still maintain your opposition to therapeutic cloning, and if so, how can you justify the loss of “life” that accompanies sexual reproduction? Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netQuestions can be posted here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=postSo cloning, like abortion, boils down to the question: When does life begin?And we each have a different opinion about the state of the human embryo. You say it is not alive, because 1) it does not have all the characteristics of an older human; 2) most countries have already agreed it does not deserve the same rights as an adult; 3) A sufficient majority of embryos do not survive anyway. My replies to each argument are as follows. 1) We look different at different stages of growth. Just because an infant does not look like an adult does not mean that the younger is not "alive." Likewise, an embryo would not necessarily resemble an infant. 2) Just because other people do it doesn't make it right. Need I say more? 3) Recognizing life by its chance of survival seems a strangely Spartan method for differentation. Imagine if, say, a weird syndrome caused most babies to die when they began toothing. Would we then decide that babies weren't "alive" until they had successfully sprouted a mouthful of teeth? My belief is that conception is when life begins; and my explanation is simple. Conception is the point at which, with only natural maternal nurturing to help it along, the human will have the chance of maturing into a fully-grown human being. So you know where I draw my line, and you know why I draw it there: But I still do not know where you draw your line, and your reasons for it. Because you must have a line drawn somewhere. Even if you do not believe life has any sanctity, you must have decided life at some age or stage was worth preserving -- or else you would not be promoting therapeutic cloning, which you seem to believe preserves.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on May 2, 2006 0:22:50 GMT -5
So cloning, like abortion, boils down to the question: When does life begin?And we each have a different opinion about the state of the human embryo. You say it is not alive, because 1) it does not have all the characteristics of an older human; 2) most countries have already agreed it does not deserve the same rights as an adult; 3) A sufficient majority of embryos do not survive anyway. My replies to each argument are as follows. 1) We look different at different stages of growth. Just because an infant does not look like an adult does not mean that the younger is not "alive." Likewise, an embryo would not necessarily resemble an infant. 2) Just because other people do it doesn't make it right. Need I say more? 3) Recognizing life by its chance of survival seems a strangely Spartan method for differentation. Imagine if, say, a weird syndrome caused most babies to die when they began toothing. Would we then decide that babies weren't "alive" until they had successfully sprouted a mouthful of teeth? My belief is that conception is when life begins; and my explanation is simple. Conception is the point at which, with only natural maternal nurturing to help it along, the human will have the chance of maturing into a fully-grown human being. So you know where I draw my line, and you know why I draw it there: But I still do not know where you draw your line, and your reasons for it. Because you must have a line drawn somewhere. Even if you do not believe life has any sanctity, you must have decided life at some age or stage was worth preserving -- or else you would not be promoting therapeutic cloning, which you seem to believe preserves. When does life begin? Perhaps we should explain some definitions here. Of course an embryo is alive, the sperm and oocyte that combine to create the embryo are alive, the embryonic cells that generate the germ line that eventually becomes sperm and oocytes are alive, even the skin cells we scrape off our bodies in the morning as we shave are alive. Perhaps I am splitting hairs (no pun intended), but “when does life begin” is actually a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy, each life is just a continuation of life, genes pass immortally from generation to generation, life does not spontaneously generate de novo, life does not “begin”. Once we accept that the embryo is alive, as is every other living biological cell, we next have to move on to what status should society grant the human embryo and is it immoral to ALLOW the usage of embryos for potentially life-saving medical treatments or is it immoral to NOT ALLOW the usage of embryos for potentially life-saving medical treatments. We all seek the ethical path. This is the crux of the aforementioned Byrne et al paragraph: "The scientific debate regarding therapeutic human cloning revolves around the therapeutic benefits against the ethical cost of destroying the early cloned embryo. Many allocate to the early embryo the status of an individual with fundamental human rights and consider the destruction of that embryo equivalent to murder (Shenfield et al., 2001). Several details should be considered when debating the issue. The early mammalian embryo is a ball of cells without even a rudimentary nervous system, and the division of this ball of cells into two or more parts results in two or more monozygotic twins. Thus whether this early embryo can yet be classified as an ‘‘individual’’ is questionable. Abortion legislation in most countries has already established that the rights and choices of grown adults supersede the rights of the early embryo. Most embryos (>70%) that result from natural sexual reproduction do not implant into the uterine endometrium. If each of these embryos has fundamental human rights, this would make premeditated attempts at pregnancy by natural sexual reproduction the logical equivalent of mass murder. The ethical considerations basically come down to our society’s value system. Which is of greater value, the life of an adult or child dying from a degenerative disease, or a 5-day-old embryo that is little more than a ball of cells?" (Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157) Here I feel that your three responses all address a straw man, namely your prior assumption that I do not think an embryo is alive, which is incorrect. Regarding your question of where we should draw the line. Philosophically I'm opposed to drawing lines in ethically complex fields. I would suggest that drawing lines can be a somewhat narrow-minded potentially dangerous approach; I can give examples if you wish. Ideally, each case should be evaluated rationally based on it's pros and cons. However, pragmatically, society dictates that generalized rules and lines be drawn. So, reluctantly, scientists came up with the 14-day rule. Embryos can be used for stem cell research while they are in their pre-implantation stage where they are an undifferentiated ball of cells, without even a single differentiated body cell. No heart, no brain, no body. This would allow us to obtain stem cells from these early embryos to potentially cure or alleviate the symptoms of degenerative disease. Getting back to the question I don’t feel has yet been answered: Why do you consider it UNETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to save lives but consider it ETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to procreate? Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netPlease post any new questions or comments here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1132077294
|
|
|
Post by deltacor on May 2, 2006 3:38:36 GMT -5
how much does reproductive cloning cost?
|
|
|
Post by Agatha on May 3, 2006 9:42:42 GMT -5
When does life begin? Perhaps we should explain some definitions here. Of course an embryo is alive, the sperm and oocyte that combine to create the embryo are alive, the embryonic cells that generate the germ line that eventually becomes sperm and oocytes are alive, even the skin cells we scrape off our bodies in the morning as we shave are alive. Perhaps I am splitting hairs (no pun intended), but “when does life begin” is actually a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy, each life is just a continuation of life, genes pass immortally from generation to generation, life does not spontaneously generate de novo, life does not “begin”. Once we accept that the embryo is alive, as is every other living biological cell, we next have to move on to what status should society grant the human embryo and is it immoral to ALLOW the usage of embryos for potentially life-saving medical treatments or is it immoral to NOT ALLOW the usage of embryos for potentially life-saving medical treatments. We all seek the ethical path. This is the crux of the aforementioned Byrne et al paragraph: "The scientific debate regarding therapeutic human cloning revolves around the therapeutic benefits against the ethical cost of destroying the early cloned embryo. Many allocate to the early embryo the status of an individual with fundamental human rights and consider the destruction of that embryo equivalent to murder (Shenfield et al., 2001). Several details should be considered when debating the issue. The early mammalian embryo is a ball of cells without even a rudimentary nervous system, and the division of this ball of cells into two or more parts results in two or more monozygotic twins. Thus whether this early embryo can yet be classified as an ‘‘individual’’ is questionable. Abortion legislation in most countries has already established that the rights and choices of grown adults supersede the rights of the early embryo. Most embryos (>70%) that result from natural sexual reproduction do not implant into the uterine endometrium. If each of these embryos has fundamental human rights, this would make premeditated attempts at pregnancy by natural sexual reproduction the logical equivalent of mass murder. The ethical considerations basically come down to our society’s value system. Which is of greater value, the life of an adult or child dying from a degenerative disease, or a 5-day-old embryo that is little more than a ball of cells?" (Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157) Here I feel that your three responses all address a straw man, namely your prior assumption that I do not think an embryo is alive, which is incorrect. Regarding your question of where we should draw the line. Philosophically I'm opposed to drawing lines in ethically complex fields. I would suggest that drawing lines can be a somewhat narrow-minded potentially dangerous approach; I can give examples if you wish. Ideally, each case should be evaluated rationally based on it's pros and cons. However, pragmatically, society dictates that generalized rules and lines be drawn. So, reluctantly, scientists came up with the 14-day rule. Embryos can be used for stem cell research while they are in their pre-implantation stage where they are an undifferentiated ball of cells, without even a single differentiated body cell. No heart, no brain, no body. This would allow us to obtain stem cells from these early embryos to potentially cure or alleviate the symptoms of degenerative disease. Getting back to the question I don’t feel has yet been answered: Why do you consider it UNETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to save lives but consider it ETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to procreate? Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netPlease post any new questions or comments here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1132077294Roger, there is a fundamental point that seems to have escaped your argument. You say that a skin cell is alive, and an embryo is alive: and then you say they are the same. You say that life is just a never-ending cycle, and does not ever simply start. My only reply is: DNA. A skin cell is alive, but it is merely a part of the whole, one of countless cells making up the human body, sharing the DNA of the rest of the body’s cells. The only future it ever has to hope for is to be, like you said, scraped off in a morning shave. An embryo, on the other hand, from the moment of its fertilization, has its own DNA – completely unique from that of either parent, and with a much more hopeful future then that of the skin cell. Likewise, because it has separate DNA, it is not simply a continuation of its parents’ lives, as you claim, but its own separate entity. This is a side note. I assume that you are not a Creationist, and remind you that according to Darwin’s natural selection, genes do not “pass immortally from generation to generation.” So, since a human embryo is not just like any other cell, I see no reason to move on to considerations about what rights we ought to “grant” it. I am surprised about your response to my question about drawing the line. Philosophically, you say, you’re “opposed to drawing lines in ethically complex fields.” This is almost comical, considering that just as I am arguing the ethical reasons against embryonic research, you are arguing the ethical reasons for embryonic research. You say that it will help people. Well, logically, if you say that if one stage has no worth (embryonic), and that a further stage has enough worth to deserve help (adult), there must be some place in the middle where you have to choose between the two. You say that each case should be evaluated individually – and I understand your reasons, but I also wonder at your unabashed trust in your own judgment. You asked: Why do you consider it UNETHICAL to destroy embryos to save lives but consider it ETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to procreate? First of all, might I ask how the the <70% figure was found, because I have seen statistics much lower – as low as 15%. The vast majority of those lost are abnormal embryos which could not have developed and are screened naturally by the body. This is an early miscarriage. I would like to point out the difference between what is intentional and unintentional. I consider it unethical to destroy human life for whatever reason; but the loss of embryos for the purpose of procreation is not destruction. It is not intentional. The destruction of an embryo for the purpose of therapeutic advancement, however, is intentional, and this is wrong. There is a difference between death and murder.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on May 3, 2006 10:29:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Moorgate on Jun 11, 2006 14:40:28 GMT -5
*** UPDATE MAY 2006 ***This is the fourth cloning FAQ page. The first page can be found here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=1The second page can be found here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=2The third page can be found here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netPlease post any new questions or comments here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1132077294You can register as a new member of this board here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?action=register(You can post without registering, but only members can edit their posts) The rest of this post is part of an ongoing discussion with Agatha regarding the ethics of therapeutic cloning. The discussion started here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3#1146313103Or perhaps it actually started back here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1132077294&page=3#1143075209 When does life begin? Perhaps we should explain some definitions here. Of course an embryo is alive, the sperm and oocyte that combine to create the embryo are alive, the embryonic cells that generate the germ line that eventually becomes sperm and oocytes are alive, even the skin cells we scrape off our bodies in the morning as we shave are alive. Perhaps I am splitting hairs (no pun intended), but “when does life begin” is actually a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy, each life is just a continuation of life, genes pass immortally from generation to generation, life does not spontaneously generate de novo, life does not “begin”. Once we accept that the embryo is alive, as is every other living biological cell, we next have to move on to what status should society grant the human embryo and is it immoral to ALLOW the usage of embryos for potentially life-saving medical treatments or is it immoral to NOT ALLOW the usage of embryos for potentially life-saving medical treatments. We all seek the ethical path. This is the crux of the aforementioned Byrne et al paragraph: "The scientific debate regarding therapeutic human cloning revolves around the therapeutic benefits against the ethical cost of destroying the early cloned embryo. Many allocate to the early embryo the status of an individual with fundamental human rights and consider the destruction of that embryo equivalent to murder (Shenfield et al., 2001). Several details should be considered when debating the issue. The early mammalian embryo is a ball of cells without even a rudimentary nervous system, and the division of this ball of cells into two or more parts results in two or more monozygotic twins. Thus whether this early embryo can yet be classified as an ‘‘individual’’ is questionable. Abortion legislation in most countries has already established that the rights and choices of grown adults supersede the rights of the early embryo. Most embryos (>70%) that result from natural sexual reproduction do not implant into the uterine endometrium. If each of these embryos has fundamental human rights, this would make premeditated attempts at pregnancy by natural sexual reproduction the logical equivalent of mass murder. The ethical considerations basically come down to our society’s value system. Which is of greater value, the life of an adult or child dying from a degenerative disease, or a 5-day-old embryo that is little more than a ball of cells?" (Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157)Here I feel that your three responses all address a straw man, namely your prior assumption that I do not think an embryo is alive, which is incorrect. Regarding your question of where we should draw the line. Philosophically I'm opposed to drawing lines in ethically complex fields. I would suggest that drawing lines can be a somewhat narrow-minded potentially dangerous approach; I can give examples if you wish. Ideally, each case should be evaluated rationally based on it's pros and cons. However, pragmatically, society dictates that generalized rules and lines be drawn. So, reluctantly, scientists came up with the 14-day rule. Embryos can be used for stem cell research while they are in their pre-implantation stage where they are an undifferentiated ball of cells, without even a single differentiated body cell. No heart, no brain, no body. This would allow us to obtain stem cells from these early embryos to potentially cure or alleviate the symptoms of degenerative disease. Getting back to the question I don’t feel has yet been answered: Why do you consider it UNETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to save lives but consider it ETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to procreate? Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netPlease post any new questions or comments here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1132077294Roger, there is a fundamental point that seems to have escaped your argument. You say that a skin cell is alive, and an embryo is alive: and then you say they are the same. You say that life is just a never-ending cycle, and does not ever simply start. My only reply is: DNA. A skin cell is alive, but it is merely a part of the whole, one of countless cells making up the human body, sharing the DNA of the rest of the body’s cells. The only future it ever has to hope for is to be, like you said, scraped off in a morning shave. An embryo, on the other hand, from the moment of its fertilization, has its own DNA – completely unique from that of either parent, and with a much more hopeful future then that of the skin cell. Likewise, because it has separate DNA, it is not simply a continuation of its parents’ lives, as you claim, but its own separate entity. This is a side note. I assume that you are not a Creationist, and remind you that according to Darwin’s natural selection, genes do not “pass immortally from generation to generation.” So, since a human embryo is not just like any other cell, I see no reason to move on to considerations about what rights we ought to “grant” it. The immortal gene is the central tenet of Neo-Darwinism (Dawkins (1976) The Selfish Gene). I should include the caveat that over extended periods of time genetic mutations will slowly change the gene and if those mutations are beneficial then they will be selected for by natural selection, mutation being the fuel for evolution. But for our limited purposes, from our perspective and due to our extremely limited time on this earth, the gene can be considered immortal. Certainly, we are almost sure to contain exact copies of specific genes from our parents, the exact identical DNA (albeit with a mutation here and there) this is the essence of my argument regarding life not beginning de novo and the immortal gene. If you are referring to the new ordering of genetic alleles in the zygote as being worthy of some special status then you must afford each sperm that status, as each sperm has also (through meiosis) received a unique array of DNA. I do not, as you suggest, claim that an embryo has no worth, only that I believe a child is of infinitely greater worth and I would never consider sacrificing that child’s life through my refusal to utilize stem cells derived from what is, when we get right down to it, an undifferentiated pliable ball of cells. And the early embryo is not necessarily a “whole” it can split into parts each of which can result in a child, this is how identical twins result. Indeed, when we biopsy a cell or two from an embryo to test for genetic diseases (prenatal genetic diagnosis) those cells had the potential, if implanted into a uterus, to develop into a child. Are you against prenatal genetic diagnosis? Just as a point of interest, thousands of embryos are discarded by IVF clinics each year. Are you also opposed to scientists trying to develop potentially life-saving stem cell based medical treatments from those embryos that are going to be discarded anyway, and if so, why? I am surprised about your response to my question about drawing the line. Philosophically, you say, you’re “opposed to drawing lines in ethically complex fields.” This is almost comical, considering that just as I am arguing the ethical reasons against embryonic research, you are arguing the ethical reasons for embryonic research. You say that it will help people. Well, logically, if you say that if one stage has no worth (embryonic), and that a further stage has enough worth to deserve help (adult), there must be some place in the middle where you have to choose between the two. You say that each case should be evaluated individually – and I understand your reasons, but I also wonder at your unabashed trust in your own judgment. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, I do have unabashed trust in my own judgment. I’m rational, educated and well informed on the issue at hand, plus I’m a passionate advocate of individualism. Who’s judgment do you suggest I put my trust in, the Catholic Church? Almost comical it may be, but I stand beside my statement that drawing lines in ethically complex fields can be a somewhat narrow-minded potentially dangerous approach, and the Catholic Church in particular has an exceptionally bad history in this regard. Let us brush over the line draw under the incorrect geocentric universe, the Inquisition and the Crusades, and move on to the questionable lines the Catholic Church currently draws. The current so-called pro-life policies of the church dictates against using embryos for medical research and against using condoms in AIDS-infected sub-Saharan Africa, both lines will directly result in the miserable existence and premature death of millions of adults and children. I think I will stick to my own rational and informed judgments. I should also mention that lines do NOT have to be drawn, we can perform informed comparisons of information and decide on the ethically correct course of action without drawing some arbitrary line whereby something supposedly goes from being absolutely ethical to absolutely unethical. Each case should ideally be decided, as I mentioned before, on merit. However, as I also previously mentioned, scientists did, under pressure and somewhat reluctantly, come up with a line for embryo research, the 14-day rule: Embryos can be used for stem cell research while they are in their pre-implantation stage where they are an undifferentiated ball of cells, without even a single differentiated body cell. No heart, no brain, no body. This would allow us to obtain stem cells from these early embryos to potentially cure or alleviate the symptoms of degenerative disease. As an interesting aside, you claim that life begins at conception, when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte, but conception does not occur in nuclear transfer (cloning). Are clones not alive? You asked: Why do you consider it UNETHICAL to destroy embryos to save lives but consider it ETHICAL to destroy embryos in attempts to procreate? First of all, might I ask how the <70% figure was found, because I have seen statistics much lower – as low as 15%. The vast majority of those lost are abnormal embryos which could not have developed and are screened naturally by the body. This is an early miscarriage. Not that it is particularly important from an ethical standpoint whether the number is 70% or 15%, embryos are still destroyed in both cases, but I’d be interested to know where you got 15%? If only 15% of embryos fail to implant, then we can logically conclude that 85% of embryos do indeed implant. And, if 85% of embryos implant, why on earth does it take on average several cycles of IVF, each with multiple embryos transferred, to obtain a single pregnancy? For the record, my reference for the >70% of embryos failing to implant is: Byrne and Gurdon (2002) Commentary on Human Cloning, Differentiation, 69;154-157. I would like to point out the difference between what is intentional and unintentional. I consider it unethical to destroy human life for whatever reason; but the loss of embryos for the purpose of procreation is not destruction. It is not intentional. The destruction of an embryo for the purpose of therapeutic advancement, however, is intentional, and this is wrong. There is a difference between death and murder. I’m having trouble grasping how you ethically distinguished between the two based on “intention”. When people attempt to procreate, their intention is to obtain a child, the embryonic destruction that accompanies this is unfortunate but certainly not their primary goal. When parent’s attempt to save their child’s life using stem cell based medical treatments, their intention is to save their child’s life, the embryonic destruction that accompanies this is unfortunate but certainly not their primary goal. Regards, Roger Admin, The Reproductive Cloning Network www.reproductivecloning.netPlease post any new questions or comments here: cloning.proboards77.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1132077294
|
|