Thursday, June 02, 2005

Human Cloning for Research?

Do they really think they're being great moral thinkers by trying to draw a distinction between human cloning for research and human cloning for reproductive purposes?? Isn't a life lost either way? Why in the world would human cloning for reproductive purposes be so reprehensible, if there wasn't a human life at stake? If it's bad then, it's bad when you do research with it too.

It's not just the moral depravity of this legislative action, it's the total absence of any honest deliberation. They are so warped within this culture of death agenda that they can't even see how illogical it all is. *Sigh*

Massachusets is going to clone human beings everyone! Is anyone even paying attention?

11 Comments:

At 9:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are not drawing the distinction based on the loss of a life. Believe it or not, not everyone thinks that cloned cells are the same as human beings. The distinction is that the cells cloned for research will never become human beings whereas cloning for reproduction has greater moral implications because a cognizant actualized human is produced. I know that you believe an actual human life exists at the moment of conception and thus cloning for stem cells is killing a life, but not everyone shares that view. So don't try to push the distinction into pro-life language and then call it illogical. For those who believe life is something more than a few cells, it seems illogical to call embryos human beings.

 
At 9:08 PM, Blogger Becky said...

There is no other logical distinction that can be made. Life begins at conception. Even if it wasn't the only possible point that one can say life "begins," I would say that even those that don't "believe" that life begins at conception would want to err on the side of life. It's the people who want to define life arbitrarily that have to explain their position, not the people who define human life according to scientific fact.

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger Patrick Roach said...

Anonymous' argument is laughable because he's basically trying to identify the scientific moment at which a human being has a "soul" or acquires "personhood." I think the self-evident truths that our founders recognized said that we were endowed with personhood when we were CREATED (see the Declaration of Independence).

Becky,

Be sure to check out my discussion of embryonic adoption on my blog. I think you'll like it!

http://patrickdroach.blogspot.com/2005/06/embryonic-adoption.html

 
At 4:52 PM, Blogger Patrick Roach said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Andrew said...

Ohhhh, I see. Cloning for reproduction has "greater moral implications" because "a cognizant actualized human is produced". It's spelled out so clearly. Premise 1: a cognizant actualized human is produced. Conclusion: Cloning for reproduction has greater moral implications. I say anonymous now has controlling market share on syllogistic reasoning.

Perhaps as a rider to the bill that would legalize the mass production/destruction of echem! "genetically-human cellular aggregates with self-autonomous potential" so we can live our wrinkled lives for a few more repetitive seasons, we should make sure to deny any accidentally-survived "reproductive" clones the right to vote and sit unsegregated at Denny's - I mean, after all, they were created under questionable moral circumstances.

I thought it was scary in the Matrix when the spider-machines harvested the energy from the vast fields of in utero humans. Who would have thought it was have been even MORE frightening in the version with Ted Kennedy reaping on our behalf for a better, faster weight loss pill. Too bad E.S.S.R. can't cure drowning!

Seriously, I will pay good money from my slowly growing stores of summer earnings to hear someone on the other side of this issue say something ALMOST COMPELLING before 2005 ends.

Thanks for listening. See you on the field.

 
At 7:34 PM, Blogger Patrick Roach said...

Andrew,

I would respond to anonymous' bafoonery in greater detail, but there's no way I can compete with that.

Wow...

 
At 9:38 PM, Anonymous Tara said...

This is quite interesting- I was following the embryonic adoption debate on Patrick's blog (I would link to it, but I can't seem to get to the old posts) and it seems like people on that blog (see Brian's posts) were making a similar argument as anonymous1. Essentially the argument is that the fudamental difference of opinion is the extent to which one is willing to humanize an embryo. If I'm reading anonymous1's argument correctly (though it is less articulate than it could be) it seems that he/she is making a similar distinction. Namely that an embryo itself is not a full human being (as Brian points out it is not saying the embryo is not of the human species but that it is different from a developed human being), so that there is no problem with using them for research, but that when the purpose of cloning is to create an embryo that's purpose is to become a human being- that raises different moral questions. For this reason I'm surprised at the hostility of the replies here, especially from Patrick who was involved in a very civil dialogue with Brian on his own blog. Maybe this is less a discussion blog than a forum for everyone who agrees with each other to pat themselves on the back. I think I'll stick with Patrick's blog since I haven't read a single good discussion on this one. Patrick if you read this and could link to the embryonic adoption posts, I think that would be great.

 
At 9:39 PM, Anonymous Tara said...

Patrick- I do see the link in your post above. I didn't see it before. But from your web page, I wasn't sure how to get to the old posts. Perhaps I'm just missing the link to archived posts?

 
At 5:32 PM, Anonymous Andrew said...

See, you use a little bit of satire, and you're called hostile, read intolerant. Tara, I appreciate your commitment to dialogue, but I think you only reproduced anonymous argument. Yours was more detailed, but most of us familiar with the debate could have understood the same underlying the previous post.

If we isolate one instance of cloning apart from mass-cloning, the moral gravity of ESSR far outstrips the "different" (granted) moral questions between ESSR and reproductive cloning (RC). Aside from some argument that each man is entitled to his own face, the created-to-live clone is little different than the test tube baby. In both cases, whatever moral improprieties occur as a result of playing God (creating life outside the sexual relationship of loving parents), the willingness to treat this new human entity with care and love ought to mitigate them.
Now in the isolated case of ESSR, one embryo is created for the purpose of destruction. If we assume, for the purposes of dialogue showing us arguments that lead nowhere (so we may eschew them and articulate others), that the embryo is an independant human entity, then it seems quite inane to argue it is reproductive cloning - creating an actualized human - that has the GREATER moral implications.

I don't want an army of clones being created (especially if the template is Hayden Christenson), but the likelihood of that occurring is about as dangerous as us beginning an interstellar slave trade.

Lets be real. ESSR is about money and power. Old people get upset when they find they may actually die one day, and it might hurt a little. People who can't accept that will give their vote and money (qualified "their" of course ;) ) to whoever can turn on the fountain of youth for a few more petty years (like I can't catch season 128 of "24" in heaven ! (or season 9 of Friends in . . . well.).

Promises by our Great Society liberals that they will stay away from RC are just smokescreen creating an untenable moral distinction to cloud the ultimate problem: mass producing human entity embryos for the purposes of mass harvesting of (to date unavailaing) stem cells.

That is the question we need to be focusing on. I will not let "anonymous" make the dialogue more difficult with the wave of a magic wand called "greater moral implications."

The sad thing about a bad argument is that it doesn't just justify a bad practice, it poisons the public mind. Can I get a witness, Roe ?

And please spare the whip on the hostility accusation. Be realistic. To stand up for life amidst a world of aging, sympathetic (albeit selfish and cowardly) stakeholders in ESSR, is to ask for a spit in the face (soon to be legalized as non-battery per se in Massachusettes). A little satiric humor is as close as you'll get to charity from an Outlaw.

 
At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Tara said...

Andrew,
You miss my point entirely. If you read the posts on Patrick's blog you see Patrick responding in a perfectly civil manner to a poster (Brian) making a very similar argument as anonymous is making here. Patrick it seems is completely reactionary to the tone taken by the poster. He will take a civil, intellectual high road when the poster does so first, but when the poster makes a very similar argument in a sarcastic tone Patrick reacts with the tone we see here on this blog.
I am not wrong to say there is hostility here. That's fine if the point of the blog is to draw arguments that go much like they are going here: "we must stand up for life in order to protect the masses of little human children being created" met with the response "you are all on crack to think that a hunk of cells is the same as a child." I see little point to this type of exchange. It is nothing but a shouting match between people want to insult each other. Satisfying- yes. But also pointless b/c let's face it, we have all heard the rhetoric from both sides. If that's what this blog is- great, I'll leave you guys to it since as I mentioned there are other blogs for dialogue absent what you call satire. I was merely trying to say that the core of anonymous's argument stems from a fundamental difference between the two sides that could be grounds for discussion.

 
At 4:32 PM, Anonymous Andrew said...

Please don't let my ramblings discolor this good blog. Still, I think it's fair to draw a distinction between a satirical argument that leaves the opponent with a bit of egg on their face (qua Ann Coulter prose) and a mean-spirited accusation like "you are on crack." I certainly recognize that the latter is unproductive of truth or civility. When we think irrationally, it sometimes takes a bit more than reason to cure us (after all, we are living out an unreasonable premise or conclusion), it takes a bit of a sting. A humble heart can laugh it off, and admit being bested - I would hope if someone returns my parry with a strike that causes me to reconsider my overconfidence, I would concede the match. It's time for me to get off this train for a while folks, sorry for leaving a bittersweet taste.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home