Human cloning
 

Should we do it? I personally think it's less ethically problematic than human embryonic stem cell research, and I'm all for the latter.

How is it less ethically problematic? I see it as moreso. I mean, at least in embryonic research, we have the argument of "they're not really human YET" but with an actaul living, breathing, eating, shitting clone it's a little trickier to say we aren't "playing God".

I. Therapeutic cloning - somatic cell nuclear transfer does not occur in nature, as far as I know. Therefore you are not interrupting the natural course of events. SCNT requires a causally significant act - implantation - in order for a child to develop. However, the destruction of a pre-embryo could be construed as a causally significant interruption of the development of human life.

II. Reproductive cloning - you are creating a human life, not interrupting it, in the case of embryonic stem cell research. This is supposing that you consider a pre-embryo a "human life".

III. The "argument" that cloning is repulsive is not an argument at all. It is stupid.

which means fuck all to your average bible belt voter.

What do you guys think about the idea that "human life begins at conception"?

i think it's bullshit but a LOT of people disagree :(

Why do you think it is bullshit?

One has to admit that there is a certain "tidiness" to defining human life as beginning at conception. None of that slippery slope stuff. Robert George argues that a zygote has the "intrinsic capacity" for developing into a human being, so it therefore is already a human being. Remarks?

You've read my coeternalist stance, so I guess I don't really need to repeat it. I personally think that there should be no legal qualms about cloning, since it doesn't destroy life, but at a personal level it falls to religion to call it immoral or whatever. I see it sort of like pornography... religion can say it's bad, but it's not so socially destructive that the state should ban it.

But yeah, I oppose embryonic stem cell research as an idea in MOST circumstances for reasons of that dreadful slippery slope. However, I don't oppose current research into it since there is no legislation that would make it sensible to throw away such stem cells.

http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html

I like #4. But I think I'm too uniformed to convicingly argue for any particular point. I think it's bullshit to latch onto some arbitrary point though and say "this is human, this is not".

We, as a people, really don't know, if we're being honest.

Defining life calls for context. In what context? Socially? Biologically? Philosophically? 'at conception' doesn't cover everything. At best, it's an argument for biological definition. And that DOES have slippery slopes to it even there. Life, self-awareness and freewill all come into play for more challenging philosophical or social definitions.

I am not against human cloning 'for parts' as they say. Cloning a fully aware human being is a whole different thing. If we DO clone him, body harvesting him is wrong under my morality. But if not, such a clone does call for a host of new definitions of what he is, and how he compares to natural humans.

By the way I like 4. as well. A useful convention if not something scientifically uber-defensible.

We can't settle for that. Defining when a human life begins is important in deciding whether the entity in question should be granted legal and moral rights, such as the right to not be killed.

I say we kill them now, and in a few decades after we've cured cancer and every disease known to Man, we erect a statue in their memory. No harm done.

i wonder what cloned humans will think like? can you clone a soul? a mind? will they have minds? or consciences?

i think if the technology's accessible, it's bound to happen sooner or later. banning something just makes it more desirable.

I don't know what a soul is. Mind, consciousness, sure they would have that.

One could make the point that there isn't any demonstrable benefit to reproductive cloning. It's not like IVF, which helps many couples have a child, and be able to make sure that child doesn't have serious genetic diseases.

I believe that human life begins when a human becomes a sentient lifeform. Human life beginning at conception? It is to some extent because a human organisim is created, but at that point in time, it's just a rapidly growing clump of cells.

soul is real. but i, of course, can't back up my opinion with factual evidence. it's one of those knowing things.

Why sentience? Someone in a persistent vegetative state isn't a "human life" then?

To some extent (especially regarding euthanasia) I'd say that, while alive, the person in a 'persistent vegetative state' is no longer a human being, with all the moral implications that this might carry.

following that reasoning, would a person with limited cognizance be less human?

No. It is dangerous to attribute 'levels' of cognition to 'levels' of humanity. Not only this brings problems of the type "if someone is really really drunk out of his head, is he 'human' at that period of time?", on the other end this gets drawn into an epistemological debate of who exactly then is 'aware' on all relevant levels, so as to serve as an example of a complete human.

Better then that when all higher-level brain function has stopped, we can discuss if that person is indeed still a person in a legal and ethical sense.

i see what you're saying.

so legally, people in a vegetative state aren't classified adults, at least, since they're unable to make decisions. they're still legally human, though, hence the illegality of euthanasia.

i wonder if clones will have the same rights as regular people?

We have the science to keep the clinically braindead "alive" for years and years (see the Terry Schiavo autopsy results), but should we? 10 years from now, I'll bet we could keep a fresh cadaver "animated" just as easily, but I certainly don't think we should.

The real catch is gonna be when we have something like the ability to repair massive brain damage. Where will we draw the line between repairing and replacing a "life"?

If I had my druthers we'd spend all the research money on digging up and reanimating Mary Shelly so we could ask her.

I think we're looking at the question the wrong way. We need to worry less about defining when human life begins, and worry more about defining a human. Whenever the developing fetus fits the definition of a human, it should be given human rights.

As far as cloning goes, I'm all for it on the condition that cloned humans be given the same rights as humans that were given birth.

If you were to a Jetson's-style adult-to-adult cloning, surely all the physical development of the brain would follow but would all the records of sensory experience be transferred?

Assuming that there is a soul, for the sake of argument, would this, then, be two different physical beings sharing one soul?

Did I just ask the same question twice?