The Ethics of Cloning: What Are the Arguments For and Against?

[Political Prodigy]

To try to avoid a religious confrontation let's try posting 1) Yes or No (or undecided at the moment) and why we feel that way instead of reading what other people say and arguing with them over why they are wrong and you are right.

I am undecided. I see some good and some bad that can come out of it. However at the moment I am leaning towards a "no" because I feel that the bad outways the good.

 

[Political Prodigy]

By the way, I was not sure if this should go here or in the morality/values forum because I guess I am asking about what is morally right but since cloning is a science...I was not sure.

 

[loseyourname]

It should go in the ethics section and you should have posted a poll.

Personally, I don't see anything innately wrong with cloning, but there are a good deal of practical problems with it that need to be resolved before it should be attempted.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Right...

 

[russ_watters]

Personally, I don't see anything innately wrong with cloning, but there are a good deal of practical problems with it that need to be resolved before it should be attempted.

This will certainly require the government legislate exactly what limits are to be set, regardless of what those limits are.

Regarding the question, its far too broad for a short answer, and impossible for a 1-word answer unless its a religious-based "no," but IMO, cloning of anything except humans should be unrestricted. Human cloning should be limited to cells, organs, tissues, stem cells, and *maybe* week-old embryos.

 

[dekoi]

Wrong.

If you are referring to human cloning: cloning sacrifices hundreds, if not thousands or millions, of human life to get the desired effect.

However, As Russ stated:

Human cloning should be limited to cells, organs, tissues, stem cells, and *maybe* week-old embryos.

I would disagree with the week-old embryos, and stem cells (although you have to specifiy what kind of stem-cells, adult is ok, but not embryo stem cells). However, cells, organs, and tissues are acceptable, since they serve the same purpose as medicine.

 

[honestrosewater]

Why not clone people?

 

[dekoi]

Why not clone people?

Without referring to any religious beliefs, i can answer that with simple ethics:

If you are referring to human cloning: cloning sacrifices hundreds, if not thousands or millions, of human life to get the desired effect.

 

[motai]

Why not clone people?

Because then you will have some extremist who will take over the world by mass-cloning himself and declaring widespread war , or at least that is what Hollywood wants us to believe.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Why clone people, except for russ' comment on cells, etc? If that's it, then I say ok (not right/wrong). Just do it.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you are referring to human cloning: cloning sacrifices hundreds, if not thousands or millions, of human life to get the desired effect.

Says who?

Because then you will have some extremist who will take over the world by mass-cloning himself and declaring widespread war , or at least that is what Hollywood wants us to believe.

Oh, right, just like nuclear weapons. Silly me.

Seriously, what is the argument against cloning humans? (Practical matters like how we would do it aside.)

 

[honestrosewater]

Actually, motai's example raises a good question (by assuming an extremist's clone would also be an extremist). How would a clone be different from any other human?

 

[loseyourname]

Extremists have already found methods far more effective than cloning to create other extremists.

 

[dekoi]

Says who?

on:

If you are referring to human cloning: cloning sacrifices hundreds, if not thousands or millions, of human life to get the desired effect.

Says logic. It only makes common sense that to create such a complicated effect, we will have to take desperate measures to get there.

 

[AiA]

The ethical wrong of cloning

Dekoi makes a good point, but there are more reasons as to why cloning is wrong, one is that quite simply goes against human nature, goes against being human, (if you don't know why that is then you obviously don't know much). It is unnatural, humans are not ment to be grown out of a test tube, if we were then we would of been created that way, but we werent, and that's for a good reason.

And besides all that, think about it, what's the point of cloning, its all for selfish reasons, one is for eugenits, and that is beyond morally wrong, that is just disturbing, the other reason might be to have an exact of yourself, hence the term cloning, but even that is for yourself, you want your child to be just like you, for you, don't you see the illogic in that, a human is much more than a toy to grow, or a weapon to make stronger, so using a human for any reason of the sort is degrating of the cloned one.

 

[honestrosewater]

Says logic. It only makes common sense that to create such a complicated effect, we will have to take desperate measures to get there.

If you state something as a fact, I want facts. Those are not facts. The only reason I would believe those assertions is if you were an expert on cloning, I was also an expert on cloning, and I happen to already believe them.
Where is the evidence? What research have you done on the matter? Can you lay out an argument? Do you know how cloning works? How did you arrive at the very wide range of figures, "hundreds, if not thousands or millions"?

 

[honestrosewater]

AiA,
Your whole argument is jello (and if you don't know why, a fly is eating your mother). Does that make sense? Can you give some reasons why cloning goes against human nature? I don't know what that means.

You are just plain wrong. Does that satisfy you as an argument? Can you offer anything other than bare assertions? How do you know the motivations for people's actions? How does one thing you said follow from another thing you said?
If you are getting tired of me asking you for these things, imagine how I feel.

 

[AiA]

Alright honestrosewater, I'll attempt at educating an uneducated fool, first off, what Dekoi sais about the hundreds of embryo's dying on behalf of creating one desired clone IS true, so instead of question where he gets his info from, question your own.

Secondly, how the hell doesn't it go against human nature, human nature, man meets girl, man likes girl, man loves girl, man marries girl, man procreates love with girl, man and girl have children, aw, natural. I hope that isn't to complicated for ya.

unnatural, man gets cup of jaculates sperm, man mixes jaculates sperm with embryo (yes I'm not being scientific about it but you know what I mean) man tries hundreds of times to get desired fertilized egg, man IMPLANTS fertilized egg in womb, mother has UNNATURAL CHILD. Clear enough for ya, if you don't understand, I'll try to speak in a language suitable for your level of intelligence, ok.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Alright honestrosewater, I'll attempt at educating an uneducated fool, first off, what Dekoi sais about the hundreds of embryo's dying on behalf of creating one desired clone IS true, so instead of question where he gets his info from, question your own.

Sorry, but I'm still confused as to what's being claimed, but here is what you are referring to:

If you are referring to human cloning: cloning sacrifices hundreds, if not thousands or millions, of human life to get the desired effect.

So you're talking about cloning humans and raising them, taking organs? Just need a little clarity.

Secondly, how the hell doesn't it go against human nature, human nature, man meets girl, man likes girl, man loves girl, man marries girl, man procreates love with girl, man and girl have children, aw, natural. I hope that isn't to complicated for ya.

unnatural, man gets cup of jaculates sperm, man mixes jaculates sperm with embryo (yes I'm not being scientific about it but you know what I mean) man tries hundreds of times to get desired fertilized egg, man IMPLANTS fertilized egg in womb, mother has UNNATURAL CHILD. Clear enough for ya, if you don't understand, I'll try to speak in a language suitable for your level of intelligence, ok.

So, are your sensibilites offended? Is this something you want to confuse with right/wrong? BTW, this wasn't the original intention of the thread. It would be acceptable to state your opinion and reasons, but it'd be best to not embarrass yourself with an emotional outburst.

 

[dekoi]

For means of clarity for 0TheSwerve0 and others.

Reasons to Clone:

Production of New Organs
Totally fine, on the count that the old organs were somehow not functioning properly. On the same line as medicine.

The chance to have children for infertile couples
Should not be allowed. This will only bring upon genetic engineering to modify human qualities/attributes. Absolutely contrary to human law.

The improvement of reconstructive and cosmetic surgery
Fine, as long as the cosmetic surgery is meant for reconstructing the faces/bodies of seriously injured victims. Of course, this is the same as plastic surgery in the modern era.

The curing of diseases that are still uncurable
Of course! That is what evolution is for -- curing diseases and prolonging human life. Although some say that death is a "disease" which should be cured, one can object by saying that death is not a disease, but rather a part of human nature.

The replacement of dead people
On the same line as genetic modification of human embryos.

The chance for lesbians to have children
Absolutely stupidity; if homosexuality is unsound in the first place, what would make this right? Besides, the child won't even be theirs.

A society that is broken into two classes
Dystopia here we come.

A note: In some of the disagreements later in this thread, we are referring to cloning of human beings. Not individual cells or organs, but whole human beings.

As for Mr.honestrosewater,

Most scientists had believed that such differentiated cells could not be reprogrammed to be capable of behaving as a fertilized egg. In the case of the sheep "Dolly", a cell was taken from mammary tissue of a mature 6 year old sheep while its DNA was in a dormant state. It was fused with a sheep ovum which had had its nucleus removed. The "fertilised" cell was then stimulated with an electric pulse. Out of 277 attempts at cell fusion, only 29 began to divide. These were all implanted in ewes. 13 became pregnant but only one lamb, Dolly, was born. History of Cloning Cloning has had a fairly long history: · The first successful cloning experiment involved a leopard frog. It took place in, 1952 with group of scientist from the Institute for Cancer

And that was a sheep...

 

[loseyourname]

The chance to have children for infertile couples
Should not be allowed. This will only bring upon genetic engineering to modify human qualities/attributes. Absolutely contrary to human law.

Nonsense. A genetic clone is an exact duplicate - that is the definition of clone. There is no modification.

The replacement of dead people
On the same line as genetic modification of human embryos.

On the same line of no modification by definition of "clone." Besides, a genetic duplicate would not necessarily have the same personality and could not be considered a person "replacement" anyway. This practice would be absurd whether or not it were immoral.

The chance for lesbians to have children
Absolutely stupidity; if homosexuality is unsound in the first place, what would make this right? Besides, the child won't even be theirs.

1. What is unsound about lesbianism? I know you're fond of making assertions without making an argument, but that kind of runs contrary to the idea and philosophy and also is in direct violation of our forum guidelines.

2. If a child has the same genes as you and you carry it to term, how is it not "yours?"

A society that is broken into two classes
Dystopia here we come.

Are you expecting clones to come with the word "clone" written on their forehead. Because they are otherwise indistinguishable from any non-cloned human being. This makes no sense unless you are referring to the possibility of people creating clones solely for the purpose of subjugating them, something that I would agree is immoral, but which is not even possible in any constitutional republic that I know of.

 

[dekoi]

Nonsense. A genetic clone is an exact duplicate - that is the definition of clone. There is no modification.

If we encourage the study and development of cloning, sooner or later, we will be almost destined to try eugenics. It seems logical to state that DNA modification will become popular if cloning does.

Also, regarding the "The replacement of dead people"; to bring the dead back to life via cloning is a disturbance of human nature (as i stated earlier). Humans are meant to be born and die; to disturb this law is to disturb other laws, such as entropy.

1. What is unsound about lesbianism? I know you're fond of making assertions without making an argument, but that kind of runs contrary to the idea and philosophy and also is in direct violation of our forum guidelines.

I'm glad you noticed that i make several assertions without an argument. I am also quite fond of that.
Actually, i am not used to talking to complete subjectivists, relativists, and well, in some cases, complete idealists.

Regarding the more important issues: Homosexuality is unsound for many reasons. Primarily, if we choose to look at the millions of victims of illnesses which were the result of homosexuality, we will notice the wrongness of it.

Although lesbianism is differs a little from actual men-men homosexuality, it still tries to contradict human law. Males and females are complimentary to each other in EVERY aspect; if this is true (which it evidently is), then what is the purpose of females and females participating in sexual intercourse?

Are you expecting clones to come with the word "clone" written on their forehead. Because they are otherwise indistinguishable from any non-cloned human being. This makes no sense unless you are referring to the possibility of people creating clones solely for the purpose of subjugating them, something that I would agree is immoral, but which is not even possible in any constitutional republic that I know of.

-->

This makes no sense unless you are referring to the possibility of people creating clones solely for the purpose of subjugating them, something that I would agree is immoral, but which is not even possible in any constitutional republic that I know of.

I am indeed referring to that.

And i would bet money that some time in the future, the constituional republic laws will be changed to fit the needs of the evergrowing development of immoral sciences (e.g. cloning humans).

 

[honestrosewater]

what Dekoi sais about the hundreds of embryo's dying on behalf of creating one desired clone IS true, so instead of question where he gets his info from, question your own.

That doesn't make sense. I was not making claims. Dekoi was making claims.
Your word is not evidence enough for me.

 

[honestrosewater]

dekoi,
First, I am not a Mr. I am a Ms. Either you have made another false assumption or you were trying to be mean. Either way, how does that help your case?
Second, Dolly was born in 1996. So you are assuming that technology has not improved since then, and you have done no other research on the matter?

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm glad you noticed that i make several assertions without an argument. I am also quite fond of that.

So you know you are breaking the rules yet you continue to do it.
Wow, for the first time, I wish I was a mentor.

 

[honestrosewater]

AiA,
In response to the rest of your post #18,

Any foul or hostile language used in Physics Forums will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed. It is better to walk away from a possible confontation and come back with constructive arguments.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

 

[0TheSwerve0]

If we encourage the study and development of cloning, sooner or later, we will be almost destined to try eugenics. It seems logical to state that DNA modification will become popular if cloning does.

I'd just like to make a general comment about this. If we do decide to try eugenics, who is to say we wouldn't change our standards or mortality and decide that this is ok? I mean, that's what happens over time in the evolution of culture. We discard and keep certain things. As of now, there seems to at least be an uncertainty about this issue. How do we know our culture won't evolve so that we accept this action as perfectly moral and beneficial? I don't think you should worry so much about the future or try to control it. These things are beyond your control.

Also, regarding the "The replacement of dead people"; to bring the dead back to life via cloning is a disturbance of human nature (as i stated earlier). Humans are meant to be born and die; to disturb this law is to disturb other laws, such as entropy.

I'm lost again. You mean you will clone a person as a replacement or bring that person back to life using cloning technology?

Regarding the more important issues: Homosexuality is unsound for many reasons. Primarily, if we choose to look at the millions of victims of illnesses which were the result of homosexuality, we will notice the wrongness of it.

First off, illness is a fact of life. It spreads through whatever means it can. If you are going to insist that homosexuality is responsible for one illness, you need to recognize that heterosexuality too is responsible for other illnesses. Secondly, your sensibilities are offended by homosexuality. It's clear this isn't a logical conclusion. How do you mean wrong? I'm guessing you think it goes against nature. There are cases of homosexuality in animals tho, how do you explain that?

And i would bet money that some time in the future, the constituional republic laws will be changed to fit the needs of the evergrowing development of immoral sciences (e.g. cloning humans).

See the first response.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I'd like to add a personal note to this. I think the rub of this argument is, once again, sensibilities.

The capacity of emotion or feeling, as distinguished from the intellect and the will; peculiar susceptibility of impression, pleasurable or painful; delicacy of feeling; quick emotion or sympathy; as, sensibility to pleasure or pain; sensibility to shame or praise; exquisite sensibility

As with issues like pornography, prostitution, apparently eating meat
Issues where we feel something is being violated. In this case, humanity. I'm guessing some members feel that we are objectifying and being disrespectful of humanity. No amount of logic will overcome or force a change on this. The only thing I know that works is to find common ground and work from there to find the key divergence. I myself am offended by pornography (being a girl, I have my own biases and fears about sex issues). But I can also see the neutral position where it is simply a means of pleasure that can be not damaging or harmful.

dekoi, AiA, am I right about this? Is this what's really going on in your posts? If so, there isn't any point in asserting something is immoral without first identifying what specifically triggers the knee jerk response of distaste.

 

[honestrosewater]

Humans are meant to be born and die; to disturb this law is to disturb other laws, such as entropy.

Can you explain how?

 

[russ_watters]

Dekoi makes a good point, but there are more reasons as to why cloning is wrong, one is that quite simply goes against human nature, goes against being human, (if you don't know why that is then you obviously don't know much). It is unnatural, humans are not ment to be grown out of a test tube, if we were then we would of been created that way, but we werent, and that's for a good reason.

That is logically identical to: if humans were meant to fly, they'd have wings. Its utterly, utterly irrelevant.

And besides all that, think about it, what's the point of cloning, its all for selfish reasons, one is for eugenits, and that is beyond morally wrong, that is just disturbing, the other reason might be to have an exact of yourself, hence the term cloning, but even that is for yourself, you want your child to be just like you, for you, don't you see the illogic in that, a human is much more than a toy to grow, or a weapon to make stronger, so using a human for any reason of the sort is degrating of the cloned one.

You have a very short-sighted and simplistic view of cloning: most cloning will not involve full-humans, but only tissues and organs. The medical implications of this are extrordinary: instead of thousands of people dying on the transplant list, they'll simply grow new organs.

And i would bet money that some time in the future, the constituional republic laws will be changed to fit the needs of the evergrowing development of immoral sciences (e.g. cloning humans).

This is a diversion: you're saying that cloning will cause immoral changes in the government - that doesn't make cloning immoral, that makes the government immoral. What if cloning were done without immoral changes in government? Implying that human cloning will inevitably lead to a slave-class is a strawman and a slippery-slope argument.

Humans are meant to be born and die; to disturb this law is to disturb other laws, such as entropy.

That argument precludes all of medical science since it interferes with natural death. And this has nothing to do with entropy.

If we encourage the study and development of cloning, sooner or later, we will be almost destined to try eugenics. It seems logical to state that DNA modification will become popular if cloning does.

Cloning can happen without eugenics and eugenics can happen without cloning: this is a straw-man and a slippery-slope argument.

These anti-cloning arguments come in two basic forms: strawmen and slippery-slope arguments.

The only argument against cloning with any merrit I see here is the argument that it will kill a lot of fertilized embryos. This is true, but weak as it depends on the not widely accepted belief that an embryo is something to be protected.

 

[AiA]

I never said cloning for medical reasons were wrong, some one needs a new heart clone the damn heart, but I'm simply referring to cloning full humans, and the notion if that we had wings we would be meant to fly, well if we did have wings we would be meant to fly, so that argument makes no sense.

 

[quantumdude]

and the notion if that we had wings we would be meant to fly, well if we did have wings we would be meant to fly, so that argument makes no sense.

Of course it doesn't, and Russ knows that. His point is that it uses the same silly logic that your argument uses.


If humans were born with the property of P, they would have been meant to accomplish the task of T.

Humans are not born with the property of P.

Therefore, humans are not meant to accomplish the task of T.


In your argument, P="being conceived in test tubes" and T="growing humans in test tubes". In Russ' analogy, P="having wings" and T="flying".

In addition to being logically invalid, the consequent of the first premise assumes (without justification) a subjective value judgment attached to an objective fact of life.

In short, your objection holds no water.

 

[honestrosewater]

The only argument against cloning with any merrit I see here is the argument that it will kill a lot of fertilized embryos. This is true, but weak as it depends on the not widely accepted belief that an embryo is something to be protected.

How do you know it's true? Do you mean barring any technological improvements, practical safeguards, etc.? Do you have a ratio to replace "a lot"? I'm not attacking you or anyone else, they are honest and, IMO, justified questions. I will try to find some evidence myself.

 

[russ_watters]

How do you know it's true? Do you mean barring any technological improvements, practical safeguards, etc.? Do you have a ratio to replace "a lot"? I'm not attacking you or anyone else, they are honest and, IMO, justified questions. I will try to find some evidence myself.

Well, it is of course barring a lot of improvements. Since Dolly et al. were the sole survivors of hundreds (277 for Dolly) of embryos (really, just eggs with adult-cell nuclei inserted), its reasonable to assume that at the very least, the first attempt at human cloning will work the same way. For someone strongly religious, this is a problem for two reasons:

-The egg was never fertilized.
-Religious people consider a zygote to be a full-human with a soul.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course it doesn't, and Russ knows that. His point is that it uses the same silly logic that your argument uses.

Yes, but now that you've explained it, I realize it still requires a clarification from AiA: there are people who really do believe that humans aren't meant to fly and there are people who really do believe that medical treatment (from the same post of mine) interferes with the will of God. I work with two guys who are members of one such religion (they don't wear seatbelts either). Now, there are some real internal inconsistencies with this religion - how can these guys design air conditioning systems (that's what we do) if Jesus didn't have one? About the only religion that comes close to internal consistency there is the Amish.

In any case, I wanted to point out that that could be the reason AiA didn't see the problem with the logic. Its up to him/er to clarify.

In the meantime, here's one that might be a problem: If God had ment for us to explore science and develop technology, he would have given us brains -- oh wait, he did!

 

[quantumdude]

Yes, but now that you've explained it, I realize it still requires a clarification from AiA: there are people who really do believe that humans aren't meant to fly and there are people who really do believe that medical treatment (from the same post of mine) interferes with the will of God.

Yes, that's what I meant when I referred to the "subjective value judgment". Some justification has to be given for the first premise of the argument. But even if such justification were given, it doesn't matter for the argument at hand because the fact remains that it is still formally invalid. So even if that conditional statement were universally accepted, it is still the case that the premises don't force the conclusion anyway.

So I don't see much hope for this argument.

 

[honestrosewater]

Well, it is of course barring a lot of improvements.

I only understand the basics of cloning, but I'll grant that it's probable that some (i.e. at least one) zygotes will die. And, for this discussion, I suppose one is enough.

-The egg was never fertilized.

?? Do they think the nucleus of an egg is a human?

-Religious people consider a zygote to be a full-human with a soul.

Well, I don't know what to say about souls.
A zygote is a single cell. Humans are not single-celled organisms, they are multi-celled organisms. A zygote is not a human.
A zygote has the potential to develop into a human, as does an egg or sperm. Where do you draw the line?

That may all be irrelevant anyway. How are the risks of cloning any different from the risks of normal conception? How can cloning be immoral if normal conception is moral? Is it really just a question of which is riskier?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I'm all for trying to clone organs, etc. It's when you come to cloning full individuals that you run into problems, because there would inevitably be screw-ups in the process of getting the cloning right, which would lead to some very deformed people.

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm all for trying to clone organs, etc. It's when you come to cloning full individuals that you run into problems, because there would inevitably be screw-ups in the process of getting the cloning right, which would lead to some very deformed people.

Deformities also occur naturally. I do recognize the objection, but I think it is just another risk. (Of course, risk needs to be considered, it just doesn't seem like it can be the basis of a moral objection.)

 

[Philocrat]

FORMAL SPECIFICATION FOR THE SCIENCE OF MAN

When it comes to the 'STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL PROGRESS' and 'SUBSEQUENT AND FINAL SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE, we would sooner or later have to confront it head on and start to look at the whole project in a more intelligible way. Yes, we are naturally entitled to hold our individual private beliefs as sources of strengths, hopes and aspirations, but never at any point in time should we allow this to obstruct the above project that inevitably must be approached and executed objectively with the most sophisticated and clearest intellecutual rigour. As the project approaches its critical moment, we cannot afford to muddle things up via our silly prides and private prejudices. We must be very clear and consistent in our minds and deeds and continue to do so.



The project would have two fundamental parts:

1) STUDYING AND UNDERSTANDING HOW A HUMAN BEING IS NATURALLY STRUCTURED AND FUNCTIONED.

This will include all the things that we have already been scientifically doing, from finding cures and vacines for all kinds of diseases, cloning for spare parts, cloning for self-replacement, cloning for desinger-parts, the GENO Project, to finding new engineering ways of building natural disasters-resistant infrastructures in our towns and cities. This would constitute the 'LEARNING PART OF THE PROJECT' and nothing more. The data for this part of the project would collect over a reasonable period of time towards that final moment of fully understanding how we are naturally configured to function the way that we are currently doing.

2) ELIMINATING ALL MEANS BY WHICH WE DIE USING THE INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED FROM (1)

This means exactly what it says: scientifically eliminating all the means by which we die, using the information obtained from (1). It is not going to be an easy decision to make. Make no mistake about that. For it is probably one of the most difficult and heart-breaking decision we would ever have to make. And I am not ignoring the fact that we may be so psychologically traumatised and pushed to the limit where we may very well have to abandon the whole project altogether. This possibility is not ruled out either. Equally, we would be very foolish and suicide-drunk not to do it, if such scientific information and technology became available to us.

IMPORTANT NOTE: In the end it all boils down to both our collective choice and individual choices. Should such a technology ever become evailable to us, it is unquestionable one most important decision that we would have to make. No one is going to make this decision for us and it is not the sort of decision that anyone can force upon his/her fellow being either. Yet, we will have to look each other in the eye and bravely make that decisions for ourselves (and God forbid bad thing, and let us also hope that violent and evil alien spiecis with superior technology don't get here first and possibly enslave or wipe us out before we even get the chance to make such a crucial and life-critcal decision). The other option is that we could equally opt for the option of doing nothing, going with the flow, and merely hoping that nothing catastrophic happens to render the human race extinct. It is stiill an option and no one should deny us this option either.

 

[russ_watters]

I missed this before:

?? Do they think the nucleus of an egg is a human?

No, they think a zygote is human and a zygote "should" only form from an egg and a sperm.

Well, I don't know what to say about souls.
A zygote is a single cell. Humans are not single-celled organisms, they are multi-celled organisms. A zygote is not a human.
A zygote has the potential to develop into a human, as does an egg or sperm. Where do you draw the line?

That may all be irrelevant anyway. How are the risks of cloning any different from the risks of normal conception? How can cloning be immoral if normal conception is moral? Is it really just a question of which is riskier?

I agree with all of your objections: I'm just pointing out that there are a significant number of people who do believe such things.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is how an intelligent pro-life friend of mine argued:

You agree that a newborn baby is human.

Would the fetus one minute before birth be fully human? (many will agree it is).

Where in the development from a newly fertalized zygote to a one-minute-before-birth fetus does the fetus cease to be unhuman and become human? This is a big event; it should be obvious; when does it occur?

If you can't specify such an event, then you have to accept that it was human all along, including the original zygote.

 

[anti_crank]

This is how an intelligent pro-life friend of mine argued:

You agree that a newborn baby is human.

Would the fetus one minute before birth be fully human? (many will agree it is).

Where in the development from a newly fertalized zygote to a one-minute-before-birth fetus does the fetus cease to be unhuman and become human? This is a big event; it should be obvious; when does it occur?

If you can't specify such an event, then you have to accept that it was human all along, including the original zygote.

This is simply an aside on the thread, but anyway. The problem arises when one tries to define "fully human". Genetically, one is fully human from the moment of conception to the moment of being a fully vegetative Alzheimer's patient, but genetics is insufficient to define 'fully human', as is physical development. What makes one "fully human" is self-awareness, free will and personhood (to the extent that such things exist), and as such, neither the zygote, nor the baby immediately before AND after birth can be said to be "fully human". A baby, born or not, is merely a potential person (souls notwithstanding), and there is no sharp phase transition between fully-human as a person and not-fully-human as a person - it happens over a number of years of mental maturation.

Of course this leads to the immediate problem of the counterargument that we should then be allowed to kill babies even up to a few years of age if we assert they are not "fully human". The solution to this Swiftian dilemma is that the difference between a born and unborn baby is an exclusive physical dependence on the mother and the mother's body. The mother doesn't need to support a born baby as she supports an unborn. Society has the means and arguably a social responsibility to care for a baby already born if the mother is either unable or unwilling, on account of its potential personhood. This potential personhood is also sufficient to grant the newborn a right to life that would override arbitrary decisions. But a potential person cannot override the fundamental rights of an already existing person. If we allow that the right to control one's body derives directly from the fundamental rights to life and freedom, then the mother's right to control her body overrides the unborn's right to life (especially if the pregnancy is dangerous, in which case the mother's right to life clearly trumps the unborn's).

It would be interesting to consider the future possibility that a mother may choose to have a baby removed from her womb to be grown in an artificial environment with the proviso that she would not be responsible in any way for the baby's future; this would seem like a way to please everyone and would give pro-lifers the chance to put their money where their mouths are in investing in such life-support systems and hospitals to perform the operations.

 

[honestrosewater]

No, they think a zygote is human and a zygote "should" only form from an egg and a sperm.

I need to read up on multiple births and cell division, but I suspect there may be an argument there, depending on the type of cell division involved, concluding that, in certain types of multiple births, where an egg is fertilized and then divides, leaving two "identical" zygotes, that only one, if any, of the resulting zygotes is actually "human".
That is, the nuclei of all "cloned" zygotes have already gone through some type of cell division, and the nuclei of some "natural" zygotes have also gone through some type of cell division. If having gone through some type of cell division makes a zygote nonhuman, then all cloned zygotes and some natural zygotes are nonhuman- unless they single out a certain type of division or a certain number of divisions. I don't know much about mitosis or meiosis or which type of cell division is involved in either. I'll look it up.

I can see some merit in the argument that having already gone through a certain type and number of divisions reduces the type and number of divisions the cell can go through before useful information starts getting lost, but, again, I don't know enough about this to make the argument either way. Anyway, it only involves the condition of the donor cells that should be used in cloning- not the process of cloning itself.

If the argument involves only the potential of a cell to become a human, then any cell containing a (suitable?) human genome has the potential to become a human- via cloning!
I don't know enough about genetics and development to make these arguments as well as they can be made. Hopefully my weakness won't be seen as a weakness in the arguments.

Where in the development from a newly fertalized zygote to a one-minute-before-birth fetus does the fetus cease to be unhuman and become human? This is a big event; it should be obvious; when does it occur?

Why must it be a big or obvious event?
Does the process work the same backwards and forwards- unhuman to human and human to unhuman?

If you can't specify such an event, then you have to accept that it was human all along, including the original zygote.

If you should know when X happens, then you know when X happens.
You should know when X happens.
Therefore you know when X happens.
If you know when X happens, then X happens.
You don't know when X happens, therefore X doesn't happen.
Is that the argument? I'm not experienced at this.

What do you all think are the best arguments for and against cloning?