"Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology 
Author Message
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology

   A now-realistic question for our times ...
   What happens if you abort an embryo - BUT - you save
   a few cells and CLONE one a few years on down the
   road ? What if you clone a bunch of them ?

   Have you "killed" that fetus ? It's not *really* dead
   if you can make duplicates of it. If it's a relatively
   young fetus then it's not getting any special unique
   life experience, stuck in that womb, that its duplicate
   wouldn't get as well. The dup is the equivalent of the
   original, and as such, the original wasn't really "killed".

   Will ardent "pro-lifers" volunteer to be {*filter*}d
   with a clone of an aborted fetus, thus "saving" the
   "soul".

   And as for "souls" ... does each clone get a new one,
   or is there only one allocated per conception event ?
   How do we tell which of a hundred clones posesses
   the soul ? What if the original wasn't dead - does IT
   get the soul preferentially ? Are the all the clones
   thus candidates for slavery, being "inhuman" and all ?

   These are NOT stupid questions because you can bet
   that someone, somewhere, has already quick-frozen
   some cells of their aborted fetus or dead child with
   just this idea in mind. Technology completely blows
   away many of the olde-tyme preconceptions about the
   whats and whens of "life". Theophiles aren't gonna
   be able to cope - "scripture" never mentioned that
   things like cloning were possible, much less offer
   any guidelines about the "soul problem" cloning
   generates. Judges and lawyers must break into a
   cold sweat when they think about this stuff - they
   KNOW it's coming (or has already arrived, quietly)
   but existing precedent and guidelines are simply
   inadequate for the task.

   -j



Mon, 07 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology

Quote:
>    A now-realistic question for our times ...
>    What happens if you abort an embryo - BUT - you save
>    a few cells and CLONE one a few years on down the
>    road ? What if you clone a bunch of them ?

>    Have you "killed" that fetus ? It's not *really* dead
>    if you can make duplicates of it. If it's a relatively
>    young fetus then it's not getting any special unique
>    life experience, stuck in that womb, that its duplicate
>    wouldn't get as well. The dup is the equivalent of the
>    original, and as such, the original wasn't really "killed".

>    Will ardent "pro-lifers" volunteer to be {*filter*}d
>    with a clone of an aborted fetus, thus "saving" the
>    "soul".

>    And as for "souls" ... does each clone get a new one,
>    or is there only one allocated per conception event ?
>    How do we tell which of a hundred clones posesses
>    the soul ? What if the original wasn't dead - does IT
>    get the soul preferentially ? Are the all the clones
>    thus candidates for slavery, being "inhuman" and all ?

>    These are NOT stupid questions because you can bet
>    that someone, somewhere, has already quick-frozen
>    some cells of their aborted fetus or dead child with
>    just this idea in mind. Technology completely blows
>    away many of the olde-tyme preconceptions about the
>    whats and whens of "life". Theophiles aren't gonna
>    be able to cope - "scripture" never mentioned that
>    things like cloning were possible, much less offer
>    any guidelines about the "soul problem" cloning
>    generates. Judges and lawyers must break into a
>    cold sweat when they think about this stuff - they
>    KNOW it's coming (or has already arrived, quietly)
>    but existing precedent and guidelines are simply
>    inadequate for the task.

You heard about the clone who pushed his foul mouthed brother off of a
1000 foot cliff?  

He was arrested for making an {*filter*} clone fall.



Mon, 07 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology
These are far from stupid questions.. In fact the concern over these very
questions has led the Pope to appoint a commission to advise him on the
scientific advances made in the genetic and cloning arenas. Note, the pope is
not against these scientific advances, the church had a lot a problems with that
in the past, but he needs to be able to reconcile many of the questions that you
raised and I sure many more that you haven't with the Word... As it stands now a
conception is the point that unless outside intervention takes place a human
results... cloning will of course alter that defination... I am not a biologist,
but my guess is that their will be a point where cloning will have a similar
cause and effect relationship and that point will become the point where any
such interference will be considered immoral. Of course thats just my thoughts
not those of the pope or the church..


Quote:

>   A now-realistic question for our times ...
>   What happens if you abort an embryo - BUT - you save
>   a few cells and CLONE one a few years on down the
>   road ? What if you clone a bunch of them ?

>   Have you "killed" that fetus ? It's not *really* dead
>   if you can make duplicates of it. If it's a relatively
>   young fetus then it's not getting any special unique
>   life experience, stuck in that womb, that its duplicate
>   wouldn't get as well. The dup is the equivalent of the
>   original, and as such, the original wasn't really "killed".

>   Will ardent "pro-lifers" volunteer to be {*filter*}d
>   with a clone of an aborted fetus, thus "saving" the
>   "soul".

>   And as for "souls" ... does each clone get a new one,
>   or is there only one allocated per conception event ?
>   How do we tell which of a hundred clones posesses
>   the soul ? What if the original wasn't dead - does IT
>   get the soul preferentially ? Are the all the clones
>   thus candidates for slavery, being "inhuman" and all ?

>   These are NOT stupid questions because you can bet
>   that someone, somewhere, has already quick-frozen
>   some cells of their aborted fetus or dead child with
>   just this idea in mind. Technology completely blows
>   away many of the olde-tyme preconceptions about the
>   whats and whens of "life". Theophiles aren't gonna
>   be able to cope - "scripture" never mentioned that
>   things like cloning were possible, much less offer
>   any guidelines about the "soul problem" cloning
>   generates. Judges and lawyers must break into a
>   cold sweat when they think about this stuff - they
>   KNOW it's coming (or has already arrived, quietly)
>   but existing precedent and guidelines are simply
>   inadequate for the task.

>   -j



Mon, 07 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology
On 22 Jul 1999 11:52:56 -0700, Stupid

Quote:

>These are far from stupid questions.. In fact the concern over these very
>questions has led the Pope to appoint a commission to advise him on the
>scientific advances made in the genetic and cloning arenas. Note, the pope is
>not against these scientific advances, the church had a lot a problems with that
>in the past, but he needs to be able to reconcile many of the questions that you
>raised and I sure many more that you haven't with the Word... As it stands now a
>conception is the point that unless outside intervention takes place a human
>results... cloning will of course alter that defination... I am not a biologist,
>but my guess is that their will be a point where cloning will have a similar
>cause and effect relationship and that point will become the point where any
>such interference will be considered immoral. Of course thats just my thoughts
>not those of the pope or the church..

   Cloning is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Consider
   a single fertilized cell - a "human" with a "soul" as a
   number of religious orgs say. Alas, it has the mutation for
   sickle-cell disease - so we fix it by inserting a good gene
   to replace the bad. OK ... no real concern here, just one
   little fix.

   But what if we start exchanging more and more genes in
   that cell with those from other people ? With genes
   that were NEVER in a person - artificial or animal ?
   Replace whole chromosomes ? How about zapping ALL of
   the old DNA and inserting a complete set of new
   chromosomes (one cloning technique, BTW).

   If we do any or all of these things ... at what point
   does this "person" with a "soul" become some OTHER person ?
   It's identity can be chipped away, one little gene at a
   time, until nothing but nonreproductive protoplasm
   remains. Where does the one "person" vanish and the
   new "person" begin ? If all the new genes came from
   Fred ... do we now have to duplicate Freds "soul" ?
   What if the genes came from a large number of people -
   a believable scenerio when "shopping for the perfect
   baby" in the near future ? Is the result a conglamorate
   of "souls" ? Partial "souls" ?

   "Personhood" use to be a unitary object - you were or
   you weren't. Not any more. We now can see and manipulate
   all the billions of sub-units which contribute to a
   final complete "person". And the old idea of "souls" ...
   used to be "one person, one soul", but now we can no
   longer find anything permanent and tangible to define
   "person" by.

   In theory, and soon in practice, any single cell from
   one "person" can be goaded into becoming an entire new
   "person". Does each cell get assigned a "soul" ? What
   if that cell is never cloned ? Are the "souls" assigned
   only at some developmental point ? If not, then untold
   billions of "souls" are wasted in every person who never
   is cloned. In a way, letting someone die without cloning
   all their cells is a form of mass {*filter*} ...

   The Vatican is going to chew on this stuff for the next
   thousand years. It's simply not dealt with in scripture.
   The writers had NO CLUE any of this was possible. There
   is no guide except perhaps "demonology" relative to the
   multiple-soul thing ... but that assumes that one of the
   souls is from an inhuman devil, not good old Fred.

   And this isn't entirely a new challenge for orthodox
   religions ... Mary Shelly touched upon some of these
   ideas in her "Frankenstein" novel, and we all recall
   "The Island of Dr. Moreau" and A.Huxleys "Brave New
   World". The advent of {*filter*} transfusions and then
   organ transplants made tangible the issue of "partial
   people" composed of the vitals of more than one being.
   Where can the idea of the unitary indestructable
   irreductable "soul" fit into this equation when all
   physical links between "person" and "soul" are now
   variables ?

   I don't think it can. The simple old beliefs ran
   straight into a modern deconstructed universe and
   were necessarily inadequate. No amount of fancy
   semantics is going to make 2000 year old speculations
   about the nature of humanity fit comfortably with
   what we now know and can do.

   What will we learn in the NEXT 25 years ... ? If
   orthodox religion has a terrible problem NOW, just
   wait. Will it simply demand a ban on anything it
   cannot neatly fit into its world-view ? "If we can't
   explain it in scripture then it must be bad" ?
   Somehow I suspect that this may be the "solution"
   the Vatican and others will adopt. It's either
   that or "discover" a lot of brand new scripture in
   the vaults somewhere.  

   -j



Mon, 07 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology
Yada yada yada... what the hell's this doing in sci.med anyway?

*PLONK* to all of you and the whole endless, futile debate.



Mon, 07 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology

Quote:

>Yada yada yada... what the hell's this doing in sci.med anyway?

   Who do you think is gonna be DOING all the cloning and
   gene-splicing - auto mechanics ?


Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology

Quote:



>>Yada yada yada... what the hell's this doing in sci.med anyway?

>   Who do you think is gonna be DOING all the cloning and
>   gene-splicing - auto mechanics ?

It's not about cloning and gene splicing.  You won't find a word in
the Bible about modern genetics, and that's the only book being cited.
Nope, it's just another mindless {*filter*} debate.  It doesn't belong
anywhere in the sci heirarchy.

--
Carey Gregory

"The average dog is a nicer person than
the average person."  -- A. Rooney



Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology

Quote:




>>>Yada yada yada... what the hell's this doing in sci.med anyway?

>>   Who do you think is gonna be DOING all the cloning and
>>   gene-splicing - auto mechanics ?

>It's not about cloning and gene splicing.  You won't find a word in
>the Bible about modern genetics, and that's the only book being cited.
>Nope, it's just another mindless {*filter*} debate.  It doesn't belong
>anywhere in the sci heirarchy.

   Mindless ???????? Pay attention Bozo ...


Wed, 09 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology

Quote:

>   Mindless ???????? Pay attention Bozo ...

Yes, mindless.

*PLONK*



Wed, 09 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology

Quote:


>>   Mindless ???????? Pay attention Bozo ...

>Yes, mindless.

>*PLONK*

   Well ... you had better QUALIFY that before you
   go "plonk" ...

   "Pro-Life" bases "humanity" on a fertilized egg -
   BUT what *is* a fertilized egg after all ? DNA.
   We can now CHANGE the DNA ... so where is the
   immutable "person" and "soul" pro-life ascribes
   to the egg ? How much DNA must be changed before
   you don't have the original "person" or "soul" ?
   Big problem ... hardly a "mindless" thing ....

   Physicians are going to be the people who DO the
   DNA repairs, exchanges & improvements ... they are
   hardly out of the loop. Indeed, they are right in
   the {*filter*}ing middle of things. They just might get
   shot at by certain luddite factions.

   Still "mindless" ?

   If so - your brain has exceeded its recommended
   service interval - please make an appointment for
   a complete overhaul ...

   Trailer-Trash ... prefering things simple & stupid
   since 1931 ....................

   -j



Thu, 10 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 "Pro-Life" Argument -vs- Technology

Quote:
>They just might get
>   shot at by certain luddite factions.

I was looking at the Elemental charts and I couldn't find any substance called
Luddite.  Was it recently discovered in Arkansas or Mississippi?  Please send
me more information on this startling new discovery!!!!!!!!!....<eg>
Joseph_____
I speak for no one but myself........ unless I am wrong, then I speak on behalf
of my dogs, or someone else.


Sun, 13 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 11 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. CONDITIONED RESPONSES VS "NEW" BRAIN TECHNOLOGY

2. A Take on the Pro-Bates Vs. OD Arguments

3. sulfate vs sufa vs "s" allergy

4. Pro-circ "pettiness"

5. Question for the "pros"

6. "Pro bono"

7. Blumenthal and the "quid pro quo"

8. "Protein: Pros, cons"

9. Dental Technology Center--Boston--"For Rent"

10. "Smart Tumor" technology reroutes cancer growth

11. "Smart Tumor" technology reroutes cancer growth

12. "Using Technology to Create Better Vaccines"


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software