Ethical hypocrisy in cloning

[fafalone]

First of all, let's start by using the proper term for what is being debated: somatic cell nuclear transfer.

 

Here are some arguments against this process and widely morally acceptable processes that work against reasons why somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong:

 

 

1) "It's unnatural."

-Ok and? Look around you, 99% of what you're looking at isn't natural. Hair coloring isn't natural, vaccines aren't natural, most prescription drugs you take aren't natural, your glasses/contacts aren't natural. Gene therapy isn't natural either.

-Identical twins occur naturally, so it shouldn't be unacceptable to reproduce this effect.

 

2a) "We should not interfere with the sacredness of life."

-Bible-thumper nonsense. By this logic, in vitro fertilization shouldn't be allowed either. People said the exact same thing when they came up with this. This leads to

2b) Embryos are destroyed in research.

-Embryos are lost in in vitro fertilization too, this is where existing stem cell lines come from.

 

3) "Clones would be outcasts in society."

-Completely off-base. Identical twins are not outcasts, in vitro people are not outcasts. While some ignorant people would initially treat them differently (assuming they even knew, which is unlikely because of the identical twins possibility), acceptance would take about as much time as it did for in vitro.

 

4) "Clones would have no identity."

-Again, off-base. They would have the same measure of identity as anyone else. So many factors in development are impacted by the environment, they would have different likes and hobbies. Once again, cloning produces the same end-result as identical twins.

 

5a) "Cloned babies would be deformed."

-This is why we perfect the process on animals first. By the time any organization got approval to work with humans, the birth defect frequency would be no higher than natural births.

5b) "We couldn't predict long term problems."

-Absolutely correct. News flash: WE NEVER CAN. Environment-dependent factors cause far more problems than genetic ones, especially given the aforementioned chromosome damage rate.

 

 

If you think somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong, but believe identical twins are normal seperate people, or that in vitro fertilization is acceptable, then you are a hypocrite.

[T_FLeX]

I agree with you 100% fafalone, a lot of the people that are against cloning still think humans are something special, but the fact is we are just very complex organic machines, that can be altered, duplicated, and manipulated.

[Glider]

First of all, let's start by using the proper term for what is being debated: somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Ok, but let's be sure we all know what that term means.

 

Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is known as therapeutic cloning and is used in the production of stem cells for research. The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) supports on-going research into SCNT and has endorsed legislation that would allow such research to flourish. Reproductive cloning, on the other hand, is intended to create human beings by cloning human embryos. There is a clear and distinct difference between the two procedures, and the AAMC and the National Academy of Sciences recommends a legally enforceable ban on all forms of this type of cloning.

Here are some arguments against this process and widely morally acceptable processes that work against reasons why somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong:.

I can't help but note you have carefully avoided most of the salient arguments against reproductive cloning and substituted them with simplistic, invalid (and easily rebutted) blanket statements.

 

"The National Academy of Sciences, Research!America, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of American Universities, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, and 40 Nobel Laureates all have called for continued exploration of the scientific and medical promise of stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer. All of these groups also have called for a ban on human reproductive cloning." (See here). These institutions and individuals have valid reasons for opposing reproductive cloning. They don't include your 'arguments against' 1 & 2a.

 

With respect to point 2b: "Embryos are destroyed in research".

The key is in the statement

2b) Embryos are destroyed in research.-Embryos are lost in in vitro fertilization too.

There is a clear and important distinction between losing embryos and destroying them. similar to the distinction between 'losing' a patient and 'destroying' him.

 

With respect to points 3 & 4: "Clones would be outcasts in society. Clones would have no identity."

Nobody said clones would be "outcasts in society" or that they would have "no identity". Among the points that have been raised are:

 

The potential for psychosocial harms introduced by cloning.

- These include "violations of privacy and autonomy. Human cloning risks limiting, at least psychologically, the seemingly unlimited potential of new human beings and thus creating enormous pressures on the clone-child to live up to expectations based on the life of the clone-parent" (American Medical Association Code of Ethics E-2. 147).

 

The possible impact on familial and social relations.

- "The family unit may be altered with the introduction of cloning, and more thought is required on a societal level regarding how to construct societal relations." (AMA Code of Ethics).

 

The commercialisation of Human Beings.

- In that it has been proposed that "The 'industrial production' mentality in which human life is used for its tissues is dangerous, reducing the tiniest and most vulnerable members of the human family to mere 'products'. Human beings should not beome a commodity and commercial interest in cloning should be withstood. If human cloning is permitted for any purpose, no matter how specific, there will be pressure on IVF clinics to produce more 'spare embryos', and on women to donate eggs and to offer their wombs as incubators. There is a serious potential for coersion." (Piercy, 1999. Scientific, ethical and regulatory Considerations relevant to Cloning of Human Beings. Submitted to the Australian House of Representitives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs).

 

Eugenics

- "Like other interventions that can change individual's reproductive patterns and the resulting genetic characteristics of a population, human cloning has the potential to be used in a eugenic or discriminatory fashion -- practices that are incompatible with the ethical norms of medical practice" (AMA Code of Ethics). "Philosphically, pre-implantaion screening is a modern form of eugenics and is therefore to be shunned" (Piercy, 1999).

 

With respect to point 5a: "Cloned babies would be deformed"

It's not just about the babies. The 'Dolly the sheep' clone was the result of 277 failed attempts. "Since animal cloning experiments thus far have been fraught with many mishaps and failures, it would be unjustifiable to subject human emryos to such research. The risk of major structural abnormailities occurring would be high in surviving embryos. This would lead to further loss of the lives of embryos, and physical and psychological risk to mothers if induced abortions were then procured" (Piercy, 1999).

 

You state that "By the time any organization got approval to work with humans, the birth defect frequency would be no higher than natural births". The problem here is one of responsibility. Where defects occur in natural births due to happenstance, to (attempt to) remove the element of chance by cloning means that we will be responsible for any and all defects that may from the cloning process.

 

With respect to point 5b: "We couldn't predict long-term problems".

You are right, this is absolutely correct. However, most of us realise that we have a responsibility to avoid creating them. Moreover, the problems we created may not be restricted to the clone itself. "...human cloning could alter irreversably the gene pool and exacerbate genetic problems that arise from deleterious genetic mutations, resulting in harms to future generations." (AMA Code of Ethics). Whilst environmental factors may at some point result in the same, the question is once again one of responsibility. It is one thing to have environmental factors exerting random forces (however potentially harmful), but it is completely different to cause such problems ourselves, especially when the negative effects of such probelems would be suffered by others.

 

If you think somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong, but believe identical twins are normal seperate people, or that in vitro fertilization is acceptable, then you are a hypocrite.v

...and if you can't tell that there is a fundamental difference between reproductive cloning and invitro fertilisation or MZ twins with respect to both procedure and implications then you are an idiot, and a potentially dangerous one. Your (apparent) lack of ethics and ethical reasoning ability provide some cause for concern in light of your previously expressed aim to graduate as a medical doctor. I take (some) comfort in the fact that should you ever achieve that aim, you will be obliged to abide by the AMA Code of Ethics (See here), whether you agree with them or not. My personal opinion however, is that if this isn't a wind-up, and this really is the height of your ethical reasoning, then you shouldn't be allowed within a country mile of a patient.

[Glider]

Originally posted by T_FLeX

I agree with you 100% fafalone, a lot of the people that are against cloning still think humans are something special, but the fact is we are just very complex organic machines, that can be altered, duplicated, and manipulated.

This may be true, and in any event, you certainly have the right to see yourself and other people that way. However, acting on that opinion could be problematic, as a fundamental flaw in your assertion that Human Beings are merely "organic machines" is that Human Beings are capable of suffering. Many people do not see themselves or others as merely "organic machines", and you have to acknowledge that you don't have the right to impose your beliefs concerning the nature of Human Beings on others, against their will and without their consent. This is precisely what you would be doing to a clone by treating it as a "machine" to be "altered, duplicated and manipulated" on your whim.

 

By your own admission, you are nothing more than an organic machine that can be altered, duplicated and manipulated. By this definition, it should be perfectly acceptable to you if somebody were to take you off the street and remove one of your kidneys for grafting into someone in end-stage renal failure (and there are many who would gladly take that opportunity). After all, they'd only be taking a spare part to fix a broken machine, and you can function perfectly well on one, as long as you restrict and strictly control your diet, avoid all alcohol and drinks containing caffine, restrict your levels of physical activity and accept a significant reduction in your life-expectancy, but hey, what the hell...you're only a machine.

 

Is it possible that your definition of Human Beings applies only to others, and not to yourself?

[fafalone]

I can't help but note you have carefully avoided most of the salient arguments against reproductive cloning and substituted them with simplistic, invalid (and easily rebutted) blanket statements.

 

Exactly, but these are still the arguments of the ignorant.

 

There is a clear and important distinction between losing embryos and destroying them. similar to the distinction between 'losing' a patient and 'destroying' him.

 

Freezing embryos from accepted reproductive methods will the full knowledge they will more than likely never be used is essentially equivalent.

 

Nobody said clones would be "outcasts in society" or that they would have "no identity". Among the points that have been raised are:

 

People on this forum have said this.

 

These include "violations of privacy and autonomy. Human cloning risks limiting, at least psychologically, the seemingly unlimited potential of new human beings and thus creating enormous pressures on the clone-child to live up to expectations based on the life of the clone-parent"

 

Parents frequently pressure their kid to live up to them anyway. This happens without clones already.

 

"The family unit may be altered with the introduction of cloning, and more thought is required on a societal level regarding how to construct societal relations."

 

This is a social acceptance factor I already debunked.

 

"Like other interventions that can change individual's reproductive patterns and the resulting genetic characteristics of a population, human cloning has the potential to be used in a eugenic or discriminatory fashion

 

Eugenics is a separate issue; it can be accomplished without cloning, and cloning can be done without eugenics.

 

The problem here is one of responsibility. Where defects occur in natural births due to happenstance, to (attempt to) remove the element of chance by cloning means that we will be responsible for any and all defects that may from the cloning process.

 

The chance of damage in the cloning process is still CHANCE.

 

 

However, most of us realise that we have a responsibility to avoid creating them.

 

Sufficient development will reduce them.

 

 

 

If you can't realize the hypocrisy in typical arguments, then you are a cretin. I highly suggest not calling me an idiot in the future, or you'll fast find yourself in a flame war I promise you will lose. I recognize the difference, most peoples arguments lack the fortitude to elucidate this difference. That's what my post was about, you fool. Consider this a policy violation warning, your misinterpetation of a post led to uncalled for disrespect, and future incidents of this nature will not be tolerated. Your post was a great counter argument until you digressed into a moron.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

Your post was a great counter argument until you digressed into a moron.

"Regressed".

 

[fafalone]

Digress works too.

[Sayonara]

I'd have to call Glider a moron to agree to that

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

I'd have to call Glider a moron to agree to that

 

It all comes down to your idology. ANYONE who says that they have no bias is either one of two things:

 

1. An idiot;

 

2. A Liar.

 

I have a bias, we all do. However..is there AMPLE reasons to halt, or, overselly continue this research based on either side??

 

Beats me.

 

Bill

[Sayonara]

No offence DocBill, but I don't feel I need to restrict myself to rules laid down in your opinion in order to decide what I think of people.

[fafalone]

I don't like people who claim their ethics are absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees is unethical.

[Sayonara]

If you think somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong, but believe identical twins are normal seperate people, or that in vitro fertilization is acceptable, then you are a hypocrite.

Originally posted by fafalone

I don't like people who claim their ethics are absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees is unethical.

Lay it down, faffy-o.

[blike]

The problem here is one of responsibility. Where defects occur in natural births due to happenstance, to (attempt to) remove the element of chance by cloning means that we will be responsible for any and all defects that may from the cloning process.

 

fafalone "The chance of damage in the cloning process is still CHANCE. "

 

You sidestepped this issue twice. It is not ethical or acceptable in any way for us to clone unless we can eliminate any chance of error. We don't have to take the chance. This is a human life we're dealing with, not a rat in a research lab. Mistakes and errors have real consequences, and someone has to live with these defects. Imagine living as a terminally ill child. Now imagine that the only reason you're ill is because you were a mistake in a test tube.

 

Yes, genetic defects are natural and kids are born every day with terrible medical problems. However, this does not give us the right to take the same chance in a test tube.

 

What happens when life/health insurance companies start charging clones more / month because they have a higher risk of problems? Who gets to tell the child that he has severe deformaties, that he will never walk and run like normal kids, and that he will probably not live passed twenty-five because "we" felt it "worth the risk" and that CHANCE is just CHANCE? It is quite sickening that some of us are willing to take this risk with a living, breathing, feeling person.

[blike]

I highly suggest not calling me an idiot in the future, or you'll fast find yourself in a flame war I promise you will lose.

 

He didn't call you an idiot, unless you agree that "you can't tell that there is a fundamental difference between reproductive cloning and invitro fertilisation or MZ twins with respect to both procedure and implications"

 

Even so, you announced blanketedly that everyone who is against SNT and believes that twins are normal people is a hypocrite. Not only does that offend me, but it shows your lack of thought on the issue, especially since you sidestepped any moral objections.

 

[T_FLeX]

Originally posted by Glider

This may be true, and in any event, you certainly have the right to see yourself and other people that way. However, acting on that opinion could be problematic, as a fundamental flaw in your assertion that Human Beings are merely "organic machines" is that Human Beings are capable of suffering. Many people do not see themselves or others as merely "organic machines", and you have to acknowledge that you don't have the right to impose your beliefs concerning the nature of Human Beings on others, against their will and without their consent. This is precisely what you would be doing to a clone by treating it as a "machine" to be "altered, duplicated and manipulated" on your whim.

 

By your own admission, you are nothing more than an organic machine that can be altered, duplicated and manipulated. By this definition, it should be perfectly acceptable to you if somebody were to take you off the street and remove one of your kidneys for grafting into someone in end-stage renal failure (and there are many who would gladly take that opportunity). After all, they'd only be taking a spare part to fix a broken machine, and you can function perfectly well on one, as long as you restrict and strictly control your diet, avoid all alcohol and drinks containing caffine, restrict your levels of physical activity and accept a significant reduction in your life-expectancy, but hey, what the hell...you're only a machine.

 

Is it possible that your definition of Human Beings applies only to others, and not to yourself?

 

My definition for human beings applies not only to myself, but also for every other type of animal on this planet.

 

I know people don't see themselves as machines, because in most cases, it tends to be taken as an insult. I don’t think of my "beliefs" (as you put it) to be beliefs at all, but simple observations.

 

A clone should have about as much say into the way he was brought into this world as any other child (which is none). Yes, a deformity may occur, what can I say, shit happens; something can go wrong with any child birth. Simply dispose of the infant, learn from your mistakes, and try again.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by blike

You sidestepped this issue twice. It is not ethical or acceptable in any way for us to clone unless we can eliminate any chance of error. We don't have to take the chance. This is a human life we're dealing with, not a rat in a research lab.

 

Not 100% safe with in vitro. There's still a chance of an error that will cause damage to the cell. PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO IT FOR GODS SAKE.

 

Gene therapy, that's acceptable... but that carries a high risk. Humans do plenty of things that are high risk if there's a good chance of a benefit.

 

 

And your lack of careful reading has made you miss the exact same point Glider did. I was referring to people who use the arguments I gave. What's with people on this forum and reading comprehension skills?

[fafalone]

And I thought I made the point clear that if human cloning was approved there would not be a higher risk of deformity, apparently you missed that too.

[blike]

Originally posted by fafalone

Not 100% safe with in vitro. There's still a chance of an error that will cause damage to the cell. PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO IT FOR GODS SAKE.

 

..and damage to the cell is cell death. We don't see too many in-vitro children dying at an early age or major genetic defects. Most of the problems are failed fertilizations.

 

Gene therapy, that's acceptable... but that carries a high risk. Humans do plenty of things that are high risk if there's a good chance of a benefit.

 

Consentual or necessary. Cloning is neither.

 

And your lack of careful reading has made you miss the exact same point Glider did. I was referring to people who use the arguments I gave. What's with people on this forum and reading comprehension skills?

 

"If you think somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong, but believe identical twins are normal seperate people, or that in vitro fertilization is acceptable, then you are a hypocrite."

[blike]

And I thought I made the point clear that if human cloning was approved there would not be a higher risk of deformity, apparently you missed that too.

 

What makes you say that? We can clone rats all we ant, but we still can't get it right.

[blike]

Speaking of reading comprehension, I dont' think I need to point out you misreading glider's post, again.

[fafalone]

Takes time to get a complex procedure right.

 

 

Consentual? In vitro isn't consentual on the childs part, and since some people are morally opposed to it... what gives us that right? Just because the majority is for it?

 

 

It was inferred the conclusion was only towards people using the aforementioned arguments. Making inferences is something you really have a problem with.

 

You are the one misreading posts.

[blike]

It was inferred the conclusion was only towards people using the aforementioned arguments. Making inferences is something you really have a problem with.

 

You are the one misreading posts.

 

"Here are some arguments against this process and widely morally acceptable processes that work against reasons why somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong:"

 

Alright, now, since you used "some arguments" instead of 'the arguments' you infered that they were more arguments that are not included in your post.

 

Now, since we infered that there were other arguments that existed outside the realm of the arguments that you presented, it is your duty as the writer to specify that your conclusion only applies to the arguments that you presented, and not the other arguments that exist.

 

For example, if said:

 

"Here are some reasons that the Earth is flat:

 

People under the earth would fall off

 

It looks flat

 

If I jump, the earth doesn't move under me, therefore the earth isn't spinning on an axis.

 

If you believe the earth is flat, you are a moron"

 

NOW. It is infered from the context that I am referring to ANYONE who believes the Earth is flat. I just presented some of their arguments.

 

And that, my friend, is your lesson in English composition.

(apparently miami.edu doesn't do a good job)

[fafalone]

The reader should assume if those are not their arguments, they are not who the author is talking to.

 

And if you believe the earth is flat, you are indeed a moron

[blike]

And if you believe the earth is flat, you are indeed a moron

 

am not

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

No offence DocBill, but I don't feel I need to restrict myself to rules laid down in your opinion in order to decide what I think of people.

 

It was not an Opinion..it is a fact. Unless you are devoid of any reasoning and historical experience, your bias has been shapped.

 

It is really as simple as that.

 

Bill