The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The slippery slope to reproductive cloning > Comments

The slippery slope to reproductive cloning : Comments

By David van Gend, published 8/11/2006

Science, which should serve our humanity, has made us all less human.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. Page 21
  10. 22
  11. 23
  12. 24
  13. ...
  14. 26
  15. 27
  16. 28
  17. All
So, Cris Kerr, when does human life begin for the case of the chimera? Two entirely separate embryos are squeezed together in the womb and cooperate in forming a single individual instead of fraternal twins, as they would normally do. Some of the cell lines in the body are descended from one embryo and some from the other. Did the human life of the woman I discussed begin when the two embryos started to fuse or when the sperm first joined the ovum in one or both of the constituent embryos?
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 9:31:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could I offer my take on chimeras?

Clearly “human life” as such began with the early separate embryos. 1. They’re human individuals 2. They’re alive.

The question I think is, rather, what happens to those individual human beings upon the fusion of the zygote/blastocysts and the formation of the chimera?

Two possibilities

1. The individuals of the 2 embryos are both destroyed and a new individual is simultaneously created asexually from their bodies.
2. One of the indivduals is destroyed and his/her body is assumed into the body of the other.

Neither raises philosophical/logical difficulties – but the question of which one is the actual process is of course very difficult to determine.

This recalls discussion about twins that used to go on before cloning was a feasible technique (not that it necessarily is feasible, even now.) The argument was: because the embryo could split into twins, it wasn’t a human being up to that point. But now supposing human cloning to be possible, I - an adult - could generate asexually a ‘twin’. Since it is clear that I am a human being now despite this possibility, the argument that a pre-twin stage embryo wasn’t a human being because of the twinning possibility has fallen into abeyance.

Fester, just saw your latest post - thanks. Will try to get something back tomorrow.
Posted by HH, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 10:26:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fester,

A gamete is a cell, and is not human life.

This debate is not YET based on legislation that seeks to destroy gametes, though legislation will open the door to that possibility in the future - because at its core it usurps a basic human right and vests that right (the power to make life/death decisions) in governments and scientists.

For now, the debate centres on one deeply concerning core question:

Is it right or wrong to create human life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction?

My response to this question remains unchanged:

1. Human life begins with fertilization - regardless of whether fertilization is achieved by natural or chemical means, because the result is the same - a human in the earliest stages of human life. Diverging from this to blindside the topic with obscure or rare complications will not change this.

2. It is wrong to usurp any human life of their right to live regardless of the stage of that life or their capacity to reason.

3. By virtue of being here every one of us has benefited from the right to live and experience life. As beneficiaries of this opportunity we therefore have an obligation to 'pass the opportunity forward' and do not have the right to deny the same opportunity to another.

4. Not one person during this whole debate has presented a fair and equitable argument that justifies the taking of one life for another. Not one person has justified why only one of those two lives should be considered worthy.

5. Reducing the value of life to numbers is totally illogical - 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years - once we've reduced the value of life to numbers on a sliding scale it's very easy to slide the scale on and up.

6. It is not just inequitable but dangerous to implement legislation that opens the door to experimentation on and destruction of human life at its most vulnerable. History attests it is far more difficult, if not impossible, to close the door after it is been opened.
Posted by Cris Kerr, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 6:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HH, when I mention “practical” in a certain context, let me put to you again the
weird sounding moral dilemma which you did not answer previously.

If you were absolutely forced to choose between flushing a pinhead sized human
embryo down a toilet or skinning your dog alive, would you really choose to
skin your dog alive? Its easy for us to be bombastic when preaching morality,
but very often when the crunch of reality hits, most of us do in fact become quite
“practical”.

My line in the sand is far narrower then you think, just more complex to define
then as a one liner.

I remind you that some Christians in fact used the bible to justify slavery. I remind
you that popes have sent their crusaders off to war, to kill others. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely it seems. So who should be the judges? I do think that our
presently evolved system of democracy with the important separation of the powers,
so that nobody has absolute power to misuse, along with an educated population,
is not perfect, but better then anything else we have come up with. Educated
reason then has a high chance of success.

So I agree with the first tremester abortion rule, that is slowly becoming a Western
standard and provides a large margin between a being and a person. I am against
partial birth abortions. I agree that people in their last gasps of terminal disease,
should be allowed the dignity of choice to end their lives, when they see fit,
rather then us torture them to last breath in the name of bad philosophy.
Socrates was right, its your definition of “wrong” that I have a problem with.

Cris, my statement was used in a metaphorical way. Look at the big picture.
Our population has increased from 1.5 billion to 6.5 billion in 100 years,
based on food grown with cheap, finite oil. Our planet is warming, our fisheries
are collapsing. In 50 years, Indonesia’s population will be around 500 million.
Do you really think that unlimited human population growth is sustainable?
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 7:57:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

You and I both know what you meant. Time to move on.

No, I don't think unlimited human population growth is sustainable in the longer term but neither do I think as you do - that killing new human life is the only solution.

I answered the same question when it was posed by Fester earlier (even though it has nothing to do with this debate). My position remains unchanged.

A debate needs to remain focused, and those who distract with repetitive diversions should not be indulged - so I won't be spending any more time on it.

In relation to this subject - readers are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. They recognize strategies employed to 'divide and conquer' for what they are.

For example, one of the 'divide and conquer' strategies employed is to discredit religion. We notice pro-legislation supporters raising the topic of religion on far more occasions than the opposing camp. This strategy is employed to tar all religions with the same brush - to divide and conquer.

The purpose of the strategy is to weaken the moral argument. But, this is a consistent mistake made by those with questionable scruples. When you don't have an innate sense of fairness you're incapable of understanding what drives that quality in others.

With no innate understanding of what is fair, the pro-legislation camp is subsequently rendered incapable of understanding the key driver of 'moral behaviour'.

It is a person's innate sense of fairness (humanity - the quality of being human) that drives moral behaviour and draws like-minded people to like-minded groups and like-minded community service activities - religion is just one of those groups but there are many others. Discrediting religion therefore, will not 'divide and conquer' because it is not religion that draws people to church.

The church may provide guidance on moral behaviour but it is a human's innate sense of fairness that is the key driver of moral behaviour.

Supporters of the proposed legislation will therefore not weaken a fair-minded person's morals by trying to discredit religion.
Posted by Cris Kerr, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 9:24:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even very conservative Christians would have no problems in turning off the life support of a brain dead patient, even if medical technology could keep the heart beating for another 30 years. They recognize that no one is there anymore. Yet somehow a zygote, embryo, or early fetus that would certainly fail the brain death test becomes a human life rather than human tissue. Yabby, Fester and I would say that no one is there yet. I (and probably they) would also find it acceptable to use the organs from an anencephalic baby to save other infants on the grounds that there has never been anyone there. You say that the zygote probably has the potential to grow a proper human brain. I accept this, but don't see why it is morally relevant. You seem to be relying on medieval natural law arguments that the rest of us simply don't accept. It is like a Hindu trying to explain why cows are holy.

If a zygote really is fully human then you need to accept the implications with respect to the enormous natural wastage and the high proportion of dead embryos that are grossly abnormal. We have a positive obligation to save human life and not just a responsibility to avoid harming it. Why aren't you calling for (and funding) research in this direction?
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 11:55:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. Page 21
  10. 22
  11. 23
  12. 24
  13. ...
  14. 26
  15. 27
  16. 28
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy