abortion - cloning

[mr d]

hello

 

would you consider it if a woman retained cell samples from a fetus that was aborted, but used the cells to clone the fetus at a later date and brought the child to term.

 

ain't science wonderful

 

strange thoughts

 

mr d

[Dr. Dalek]

I would think she wasted a ton of time and money, instead of cloning a fetus why not just have sex like she did the first time?

 

It would be quicker, more pleasant and cost effective.

[AzurePhoenix]

It does seem like an irrational waste, and I don't think it in any way lessens the issue about the original abortion, which I take it you were insinuating?

[mr d]

hello

 

what if the woman is young and ill equiped to care for a child, but believes in a childs right to life. would you consider the cloned child to be the first terminated child.

 

mr d

[insane_alien]

she should have used a contraceptive or made sure whoever slept with her wore a contraceptive. condoms are cheap. abortions and cloning are not.

[AzurePhoenix]

what if the woman is young and ill equiped to care for a child' date=' but believes in a childs right to life. would you consider the cloned child to be the first terminated child.[/quote'] Personally I'd say that it's her own damn fault and she's got to live with the consequences of the pregnancy whether she keeps the kid or gives it up for adoption.

 

Otherwise, even if the abortion was for reasons I did find acceptable, the cloning is still just a waste of time and money (and the reasons I have in mind would probably mean she either wouldn't be able to or wouldn't want to carry THAT baby anyway).

 

Obviously she's fertile. Why go through all of that just for the novelty of "resurrecting" the "same" embryo out of what seems to me like guilt instead of just getting pregant again? Should be easy enough, and it'd be more fun.

[AzurePhoenix]

what if the woman is young and ill equiped to care for a child' date=' but believes in a childs right to life. would you consider the cloned child to be the first terminated child.

[/quote'] Can't believe I overlooked this. In my opinion, the "right to live" applies to the original embryo, not the simple continuation of the genetic material. Now, I don't need it pointed out that it's just a bundle of tissues at that point, and I'm not particularly compassionate to embryos, but trying to say "I'll save the genes for later and just reboot the superficially identical kid" seems like a sad attempt to moralize a likely unnecessary abortion to me. And the simple fact is, that embryo was still aborted. A clone doesn't change that.

[Dr. Dalek]

but trying to say "I'll save the genes for later and just reboot the superficially identical kid" seems like a sad attempt to moralize a likely unnecessary abortion to me. And the simple fact is, that embryo was still aborted. A clone doesn't change that.

Bravo!

[Gypsy Cake]

hello

if a woman retained cell samples from a fetus that was aborted, but used the cells to clone the fetus at a later date and brought the child to term.

 

Has there been any research into this...would this appeal to women aborting?

I don't think it should be available on the NHS but there's no reason it should be illegal.

[Gypsy Cake]

I would think she wasted a ton of time and money, instead of cloning a fetus why not just have sex like she did the first time?

 

Furthermore, what everyone seems to have overlooked is that abortion can lead to a woman being infertile. I realise this is her risk, but this would ensure she could still have a baby of her own if she chose.

[Sisyphus]

Having the same DNA is not the same as being the same person. Identical twins have the same DNA.

[ecoli]

Furthermore, what everyone seems to have overlooked is that abortion can lead to a woman being infertile. I realise this is her risk, but this would ensure she could still have a baby of her own if she chose.

 

 

got any stats for that?

[Gypsy Cake]

I'm afraid no more than you. I'm not one for remembering stats nor do I really no the best places to find them.

 

But I checked, and infertility is always mentioned as a possibility after abortion. And it was merely my point that because of this, a woman may wish to keep the possibility of having her own baby in case became infertile.

[JohnF]

Suppose the woman had cancer. Without treatment she will not live long enough for the child to survive. Treatment will damage or kill the foetus. She and her partner want to have a child and conception occurred before diagnosis of the cancer. After treatment she will be unable to carry a foetus. A surrogate will then be able to carry the clone through to birth. This sounds OK to me. It won't be the same child but it will be genetically the child they created originally. If they were to remove an egg before treatment and fertilise in-vitro later then the gene combination would not be the same this time around.

[Gypsy Cake]

A very interesting idea.

 

Though in this case, they wouldn't know what the child was going to be like so whether they used a surrogate for a clone or another baby wouldn't make a difference.

And I don't think the thought that it is an identical child to the one they lost would matter.

[Sisyphus]

Suppose the woman had cancer. Without treatment she will not live long enough for the child to survive. Treatment will damage or kill the foetus. She and her partner want to have a child and conception occurred before diagnosis of the cancer. After treatment she will be unable to carry a foetus. A surrogate will then be able to carry the clone through to birth. This sounds OK to me. It won't be the same child but it will be genetically the child they created originally. If they were to remove an egg before treatment and fertilise in-vitro later then the gene combination would not be the same this time around.

 

I don't understand why it being genetically the same is any different or better than a genetically different one. But I guess people can be weird and crazy about stuff like that.

[JohnF]

I don't understand why it being genetically the same is any different or better than a genetically different one. But I guess people can be weird and crazy about stuff like that.

 

I agree with you. I only put that in as a way of keeping as close as possible to the original child. Each of the subjects, abortion and cloning, are very emotive and so my objective was just to find a way of providing a possible sollution to the original idea that might be more acceptable than just doing it because it was possible.

 

For someone that believes that life is created at the moment of conception I thought it would be important to them that the child they had created was not entirely lost. I know that there are plenty of other factors that mean the clone will not be the same as the original, had the original been born, but these would only ever be known if you could compare the two, side by side. How children are is something that unfolds through time for us. We can imagine the original and the clone will be different, and both logic and reason support that, but we would never really know.

[AzurePhoenix]

For someone that believes that life is created at the moment of conception I thought it would be important to them that the child they had created was not entirely lost.

I'm having some trouble understanding this... identical to the clone or not, the original died, it's just as dead cloned or not... seems to me the clone is just a misguided and naive sentimentalist attempt to pretend the original never died... like having twins, and when one dies, it doesn't matter cuz you have a spare that looks the same... doesn't make Timmy any less dead if Billy is still around...

[blike]

I'm having some trouble understanding this... identical to the clone or not, the original died, it's just as dead cloned or not... seems to me the clone is just a misguided and naive sentimentalist attempt to pretend the original never died... like having twins, and when one dies, it doesn't matter cuz you have a spare that looks the same... doesn't make Timmy any less dead if Billy is still around...

"Original" is just a mental construct. If we're going to play originals, all of your original atoms are long gone. There is no functional difference between a perfect clone (intangibles et al) and the "original". One could reasonably, I believe, argue that there is no philosophical or functional difference, and thus the distinction is an arbitrary idea.

[AzurePhoenix]

Yeah, and especially at that stage, there's really nothing you're saving (if cloning could even really save the important bits of someone, which it can't anyway) so why not just have another one? Less time consuming, less difficult, alot cheaper, alot more fun, and you'll never know the difference

[JohnF]

I'm having some trouble understanding this... identical to the clone or not, the original died, it's just as dead cloned or not... seems to me the clone is just a misguided and naive sentimentalist attempt to pretend the original never died... like having twins, and when one dies, it doesn't matter cuz you have a spare that looks the same... doesn't make Timmy any less dead if Billy is still around...

 

I suppose you would need to answer the question "When does life begin?" to decide on what happened. It seems that people have different ideas on when life begins.

 

What about people that believe there is a soul. I don't happen to believe in such a thing so have no idea when it becomes a part of you; I assume the answer is part of the belief. If I was asked to choose a moment when it occurred then I could only pick the moment of conception. I don't care whether I'm right or wrong, it's just a choice I made. But following on from that choice I may then choose to believe the soul will stay attached to the material removed from the foetus once the remainder of the foetus had died. Any clone that was produced from that foetus would have the original soul. Regardless of the truth of the matter it may be important to me; it may be what I believe.

 

Yes I know it's all a bit daft but like I said before the whole subject is very emotive. Without accepted definitions of what life is and when it begins the medical community has to take in to account peoples beliefs regardless of how obscure or illogical they may be. Isn't that what ethics is all about; wrestling with the emotion.