Alonzo Fyfe

I think a lot of these problems are made up by people who want to find reasons to object to cloning.

When that father was 16, his wife was probably not the only person he wanted to have sex with -- there were probably a lot of people who did not look EXACTLY like his wife that would have attracted his interest.

There is no more of a reason to believe that there would be a problem generated by the fact that the girl looks EXACTLY like his wife did at that age than there would be by the fact that she looks like other people he wanted to have sex with at that age.

And traditional reproduction provides the danger of a person having a 16=year-old daughter that looks even better than his wife did at that age.

In short, a substantial portion of the "problems" that people suggest we should take seriously, are not problems that we should take seriously.

Alonzo Fyfe

By which traditional means of reproduction.

There are "traditional means of reproduction" existing today where the chances of bringing in a deformed person is quite high -- where both parents have a particular genetic defect, for example. In fact, in some cases, the chance of creating a deformed child approaches 100%.

Yet, suggesting that we limit other people's ability to reproduce on the grounds that their offspring may fall short of society's idea of perfection is generally frowned upon.

I believe that those who use cloning technology have the same responsibilities to the child as any other parent could have -- deformed or not. But that it is a parental decision. Neither you nor the state has a right to say to another "I don't think your child will meet my standards of perfection, so we prohibit you from having this child."

Okay, you talked about severe deformities, but deformities come in degrees. Who is going to draw the line? And the line should be the same for those who use cloning as those who use traditional means of reproduction.

Which means, the "safety" of cloning only needs to be as good as the most risky form of legal traditional reproduction.

Ierrellus

Alonzo Fyfe,

The article you wrote was emotional, logical and quite persuasive. It was very well written in that it covered the majority of objections against reproductive cloning and your responses to them.

The cloning ban made AOL news again today. Nobel prize winners are trying to convince the senate not to ban the medical research on stem cells.

My thought is that if all cloning is banned, it will be carried on in countries without our puritanical background. The medical discoveries made will be available to those who can afford to travel to these countries. Again, when government legislates morality, the poor lose out.

Ierrellus

edoggsmooth

My thought is would you be in favor of cloning if it could help a family member that needed, say, a kidney to live?

Haven't we been "playing God" from thousands of years? Medical science could always be construed as playing God, but by hampering it we would be killing many people who could have been saved.

I think that if the US eventually bans all cloning, other countries will pick up the opportunity.

JL

I personally would like to see the objectors take a vow never to receive any medical treatments developed from cloning research. Stick by their guns. And see to it their kids do too. Fools.

Viti

I have to admit, the thought of giving birth to and raising an exact duplicate of myself gives me the heebie jeebies....but I believe environment molds personality more than genetics so that may make it more like twins (rambling thoughts)

I would like to see them perfect cloning of individual organs before a whole person and save some people already here. The thought of "replacing" a dead child or something is also a bit creepy. Not immoral mind you, just unsettling

Alonzo Fyfe

Identical twins are natural clones.

Pomp

Alonzo Fyfe,

By which traditional means of reproduction.

By "traditional," I mean ordinary intercourse between a male and a female who are not closely related.

There are "traditional means of reproduction" existing today where the chances of bringing in a deformed person is quite high -- where both parents have a particular genetic defect, for example. In fact, in some cases, the chance of creating a deformed child approaches 100%.

This is a good point. I am actually of the opinion that, as medical technology enables us to gather more information about such risks, conceiving children without taking advantage of that technology borders closely on willful neglect.

I believe that those who use cloning technology have the same responsibilities to the child as any other parent could have -- deformed or not. But that it is a parental decision.

I agree.

Neither you nor the state has a right to say to another "I don't think your child will meet my standards of perfection, so we prohibit you from having this child."

I disagree. I have no objection to the state, for example, setting requirements for genetic screening and the like and restrictions on conception or carrying to term in certain circumstances. The state already does perform such a function in a limited way , by disallowing marriage between close relatives.

As an illustrative example, my ex-wife's cousin and his wife had nonidentical twin daughters several years ago. One of the two, J, has no unusual medical problems. The other, A, has a rare genetic condition (unfortunately, I cannot remember the name) that causes her great pain and difficulty. At the age of two, when her sister was running, playing, and speaking in sentences, she could not sit upright without support or speak even single words. She was on steroids for a long time, which caused her to retain water, quite uncomfortably. Fluid collected in her head, placing pressure on her brain, requiring her doctors to install a tube that drained excess fluid from her head into her stomache, where it could be disposed of. Any child her parents conceive has a 25% chance of being similarly afflicted. When last I spoke to them, her parents were trying to conceive another child.

I find their choice quite objectionable, and I would fully support a legal restriction on conceicing childrren under such circumstances.

Okay, you talked about severe deformities, but deformities come in degrees. Who is going to draw the line?

Cosensus.

And the line should be the same for those who use cloning as those who use traditional means of reproduction.

I agree.

Which means, the "safety" of cloning only needs to be as good as the most risky form of legal traditional reproduction.

I agree.

Alonzo Fyfe

Who benefits from such legislation? The child? Please note that, under your option, the child will not be running, playing or speaking any more than it does now. It will not sit any more comfortably.


The only time it is logical to argue that the action is taking place for the benefit of the child are those circumstances where it is logical to argue that the child, once born, should be euthanized. Nonconception is preferable to conception only where death is better than life.


I am not saying that such cases do not exist, but there are few defects that meet this criterion.


This also has implications for your answer to a different question I asked: Who is going to decide which genotypes may not reproduce and which may. You answered, "Consensus." But this does not answer the question, it only pushes the question back a square. If there were somebody in this culture arguing that this is where we should all meet in consensus, I doubt if many would listen to him. Your answer, then, does not answer the question but shifts its form into the question "Where should we all meet in this consensus?"


(My proposal is implied in the above argument -- where the person conceived, if it could make a choice, would be rational to seek euthanasia.)


Even assuming that a child in the conditions you describe has a "life worse than death" -- it is still necessary to take into consideration the fact that there is a 75% chance that your proposal would have no benefit at all -- for 75% of the children whose conception you would not have a life worse than death. It is a relevantly similar question, I think, as the question of whether it would be right and proper to kill 4 people, over allowing 3 to go free while 1 is subject to excruciating torture,


Another relevant question, for the sake of logical consistency, is whether -- where all human conceptions had a 25% chance of producing such defects -- you would ban procreation for the entire human race. And, if not, is there any logical grounds for not allowing an end to the entire race, but not to a portion of it. The only argument that I can see is one which holds that the preservation of the human race has some sort of intrinsic moral value. As we have discussed before, such properties do not exist. Where you may hold that preservation of the species has some sort of special value for you, I may well hold that it is only the continuation of my genes into the next generation that has value for me. (Many of the people who have written to me as a result of reading my cloning essay have argued that the inability to have their own child is, to them, a type of death of something very important to them.) How can you justify giving your preference in these matters the force of law over the values of these people?

Pomp

Alonzo Fyfe,

This is a difficult issue to discuss, dealing as it does with potential persons rather than actual persons. Forgive me for any misunderstandings that may ensue.

Who benefits from such legislation? The child?

The primary beneficiaries of such legislation would be those of us who are distressed at the thought of human suffering. The children themselves, obviously, cannot be beneficiaries because they would not exist.

Please note that, under your option, the child will not be running, playing or speaking any more than it does now. It will not sit any more comfortably.

Well, no, because it will not exist. You seem to be arguing for, or at least suggesting, the Utilitarian idea that it is a Good Thing to bring a new child into being, provided that child is expected to experience more positive utility than negative over the course of his/her life.

I'm not a Utilitarian, so I don't hold that it is necessarily a Good Thing to bring a child who can run, play, etc. into being. As a person who experiences a good deal of empathic distress at the thought of the suffering of children born with serious defects, I do hold that it is generally a Bad Thing to knowingly bring a child who will necessarily suffer more than an average child into being, especially when the medical technology to avoid such things exists.

The only time it is logical to argue that the action is taking place for the benefit of the child are those circumstances where it is logical to argue that the child, once born, should be euthanized. Nonconception is preferable to conception only where death is better than life.

Well, since I don't argue that the beneficiary is the (potential but, as of yet, nonexistent) child, this doesn't apply to my argument, but I disagree with your statement.

Even assuming the point of view of the child itself, nonconception can be preferable to conception in cases where the death of the potential child would not be preferable to its life. A’s nonconception has zero value for her because, had she not been conceived, she would have been merely a potential valuer, unable to actually value anything. Once A actually exists, her life may well be of such poor quality that, in her own estimation, it is not worth living (that is to say, she experiences more of negative value than she does of positive value), but she may not desire death due to fear of the experience of dying, unwillingness to put those she cares for through the ordeal of her death, etc. In such a case, it is certainly preferable, from A’s point of view, that she had never been conceived. Nonconception would have had zero value for her, while her life has negative value for her, and her death would have even greater negative value for her.

Speaking personally, as a sufferer of chronic depression, while I have never wanted to die, I often wish that I had never been conceived.

This also has implications for your answer to a different question I asked: Who is going to decide which genotypes may not reproduce and which may. You answered, "Consensus." But this does not answer the question, it only pushes the question back a square. If there were somebody in this culture arguing that this is where we should all meet in consensus, I doubt if many would listen to him. Your answer, then, does not answer the question but shifts its form into the question "Where should we all meet in this consensus?"

I’m not sure what your objection is. Are you faulting me for deferring to a consensus decision rather than dictating that my personal opinion be used as the rule? I can certainly offer some ideas, but I’m not going to suggest that they would be agreeable to enough people to have any realistic change of being legislated. You stated an objection, in principle, to the state dictating what sorts of reproduction are and are not permissible. I disagreed and said that I would have no problem, in principle, with that state dictating such things and that, further, I would leave the exact content of the legislation up to a consensus. I did offer one example of a case that is clearly over the line, in my view, but I am not medically literate enough to offer any firm criteria regarding where the line should be set.

Even assuming that a child in the conditions you describe has a "life worse than death" -- it is still necessary to take into consideration the fact that there is a 75% chance that your proposal would have no benefit at all -- for 75% of the children whose conception you would not have a life worse than death. It is a relevantly similar question, I think, as the question of whether it would be right and proper to kill 4 people, over allowing 3 to go free while 1 is subject to excruciating torture,

I’m not sure that this is relevant to my argument or not, as it’s not clear if you’re asking me to consider this situation from the point of view of the potential children or from the point of view of another member of the society in which such legislation is proposed.

In either case, your analogy is not accurate. The choice of killing four persons or leaving three alone and torturing one involves existing persons who have existing interests. There is no comparison to a situation involving potential persons who only have potential interests.

Another relevant question, for the sake of logical consistency, is whether -- where all human conceptions had a 25% chance of producing such defects -- you would ban procreation for the entire human race.

It depends. Is there existing medical technology that would allow us to reproduce in some other fashion or to screen for this disease? If so then, yes, I would support legislation banning conceptions that did not take advantage of such technology. If not then, no I would not ban all conception.
And, if not, is there any logical grounds for not allowing an end to the entire race, but not to a portion of it.

I don’t see any logical inconsistency. I devalue the thought of one person suffering as badly as A more than I value the freedom of any given genetic line (including my own, incidentally) to reproduce. I value the continuation of the human race more than I devalue A’s suffering. How am I being inconsistent?

The only argument that I can see is one which holds that the preservation of the human race has some sort of intrinsic moral value. As we have discussed before, such properties do not exist. Where you may hold that preservation of the species has some sort of special value for you, I may well hold that it is only the continuation of my genes into the next generation that has value for me.

Then we simply disagree. I see no problem with you valuing X while I value Y.

(Many of the people who have written to me as a result of reading my cloning essay have argued that the inability to have their own child is, to them, a type of death of something very important to them.) How can you justify giving your preference in these matters the force of law over the values of these people?

I am not attempting to dictate the law. I am noting that I, personally, devalue the suffering of A and children like her more than I value the general freedom to reproduce, and that I feel strongly enough about it to vote in favor of legislation restricting the right to reproduce without taking advantage of medical technology to screen out such defects. If enough people agree with me then such legislation will be passed. If enough people disagree with me, then such legislation will not be passed. Simple as that.