Sticky subject

Ok, this was one page of the really wierd crap that shwoed up, and I was thinkng about my viewpoint of the whole issue. It was something to do with the morality of cloning...

http://weblog.vavatch.co.uk/archives/2000_04_02_vavatch_archive.html

quote....


I've always thought that the opposition's stance against therapeutic embryo cloning was a little hackneyed.
Arguments such as embryos being potential human beings fall down on two accounts for me. Firstly, I don't like to think that a couple of hundred cells comes into the class of human. And where do you draw the line? I can point to some dogs and say - well, if us humans left the Earth for a couple of million years, these guys might become intelligent beings. Does that mean they should have rights? Potential is all very well and good, but there is nothing sacred about a fertilised egg. Maybe you disagree.
Of course, there's always the controversial argument made by Peter Singer (I think) that we should assign rights by a scale of sentience ; an adult chimp should have more rights than a severely disabled, blind and deaf human being is a notable (and much cut-down) example.

end quote

hmmm....
Sticky subject actually. I think pretty often about it, and switch sides very often. This is not only about therapautic embryo cloning mind, this is about cloning in general.
again, hmmm.....
Ok, I see a point in the "potential human" argument. These guys will grow up without a proper identity, and will be treated like objects and not "true" human beings, though that is what precisely they are. And moreover, cloning technology is not so advanced that you get absolutely disease free people, and clones die out very quickly, we obviously have a moral obligation towards them, and that would be not to create them. Moreoer, clones are old when they are born... the cells have already "aged" so they have a shorter lifespan even if they live for a period longer than normal clones do...
On the other hand, it is inhuman to harves stuff like stem cells from naturally made embryos, and therefore, clones would be ideal for the harvest of stem cells, especially since they can cure so many diseases like cancer, tumour, blindness and cardiac anamolies now... yeah, I guess they can be used, abused, whatever as long as they are not allowed to grow and destroyed as embryos. This will be inhuman, but atleast it is more acceptable than production of fully grown cloned individuals.
That's my view I think... right now. clones should be allowed, as long as they are not allowed to grow into sentient beings. Now the question arises as to when the sentience creeps in to an embryo. Will have to do a google on that to find out.
As I said, sticky subject
It would however be against the larger interest of the community to ban cloning and any research into it. It would also be very unscientific.

Comments