| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
14 Dec 2005 08:22:39 AM |
| Object: |
Moral arguments against human cloning |
Moral arguments against human cloning
The battle to stop human cloning will be a most important opportunity to
turn the tide against the Culture of Death. Here are some talking points to
help you discuss the topic of cloning with elected officials and fellow
citizens.
a.. Cloning will destroy the unity of marriage and parenthood.
Divorce, extramarital sex, contraception and in vitro fertilization all
disrupt the unity of marriage and parenthood. Cloning is yet another blow to
the unity which should exist in Christian marriage.
b.. Cloning turns people into commodities.
Cloning subjects a human person to being treated as a thing. Cloning a
child is an expensive technological project, prone to "quality control."
Treating persons as things has become commonplace in our society, but the
practice is always destructive and immoral.
c.. Cloning is an assault on human life.
The first argument against human cloning is straightforward and widely
shared: it is dangerous. The report of the one successfully cloned sheep in
Scotland was preceded by 276 failures. Cloned human embryos have already
been killed in research laboratories. In addition, genetic screening will be
used with cloned human embryos and any embryo who does not pass will be
killed.
d.. Cloning assaults the dignity of human procreation.
Human procreation involves a man and a woman coming together as one, open
to new life-the fruit of their union. Assisted reproductive technologies
are, without a doubt, affronts to human dignity. And cloning leaves no trace
of the dignity of human procreation, as it is completely artificial
reproductive technology.
e.. Cloning assaults the dignity of the conjugal union.
Normally, a child is the living expression of the parent's mutual love. To
be sure, there are children whose parents do not love each other, as there
are married couples who love each other and do not have children. Still, the
existence of children is a persistent sign of parents' mutual love. The pote
nt and universal sign of God's gift of life is lost when the child's life
begins in a laboratory.
f.. Cloning is unprecedented human arrogance
If making people in your laboratory isn't "playing God," the phrase has no
meaning.
.
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 08:30:54 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Moral arguments against human cloning
1. One "IJon Getiner" is one too many, already.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Cleveland 1 (December 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 16 vs. Peoria, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 08:56:51 AM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Moral arguments against human cloning
1. One "IJon Getiner" is one too many, already.
2. So is one Iben Younger.
--and he's arguing with his former. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Cleveland 1 (December 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 16 vs. Peoria, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 03:11:35 PM |
|
|
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Moral arguments against human cloning
1. One "IJon Getiner" is one too many, already.
2. So is one Iben Younger.
--and he's arguing with his former. ;-)
Is anyone surprised? (Other than the Dimwit Twins, of course.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Cleveland 1 (December 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 16 vs. Peoria, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 03:28:07 PM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Moral arguments against human cloning
1. One "IJon Getiner" is one too many, already.
2. So is one Iben Younger.
--and he's arguing with his former. ;-)
Is anyone surprised?
I'm not.
(Other than the Dimwit Twins, of course.)
Guess what! All I have to do is attach the numbers I crunched and my
business plan is set to present!
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Cleveland 1 (December 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 16 vs. Peoria, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 04:06:18 PM |
|
|
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Moral arguments against human cloning
1. One "IJon Getiner" is one too many, already.
2. So is one Iben Younger.
--and he's arguing with his former. ;-)
Is anyone surprised?
I'm not.
IBen Jon is in a very select group that can be surprised, in this instance.
(Other than the Dimwit Twins, of course.)
Guess what! All I have to do is attach the numbers I crunched and my
business plan is set to present!
....and that's not good news for Bobby.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Cleveland 1 (December 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 16 vs. Peoria, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 04:14:41 PM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Moral arguments against human cloning
1. One "IJon Getiner" is one too many, already.
2. So is one Iben Younger.
--and he's arguing with his former. ;-)
Is anyone surprised?
I'm not.
IBen Jon is in a very select group that can be surprised, in this instance.
Igetin Jon; what a pervert.
(Other than the Dimwit Twins, of course.)
Guess what! All I have to do is attach the numbers I crunched and my
business plan is set to present!
...and that's not good news for Bobby.
Hmm..how come?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 04:38:37 PM |
|
|
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Moral arguments against human cloning
1. One "IJon Getiner" is one too many, already.
2. So is one Iben Younger.
--and he's arguing with his former. ;-)
Is anyone surprised?
I'm not.
IBen Jon is in a very select group that can be surprised, in this instance.
Igetin Jon; what a pervert.
....and an incompetent one, at that.
(Other than the Dimwit Twins, of course.)
Guess what! All I have to do is attach the numbers I crunched and my
business plan is set to present!
...and that's not good news for Bobby.
Hmm..how come?
For all he knows, you might have more time to decide on how to skewer him
again. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Cleveland 1 (December 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 16 vs. Peoria, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 04:51:53 PM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Gaia" <starchaser@inorbit.com> writes:
Hmm..how come?
For all he knows, you might have more time to decide on how to skewer him
again. ;-)
Ah, yes! Well, the swering commences on the 20th. There's a possibility
I might have to head up to Tornto, for the weekend. And if I am, my
final and revisions are coming with me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
19 Dec 2005 01:12:59 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Moral arguments against human cloning
b.. Cloning turns people into commodities.
Anyone who doesn't believe that the birthing of children has
always been subject to "quality control" has absolutely no awareness of
history whatsoever, and is unfit to comment on the subject.
c.. Cloning is an assault on human life.
The first argument against human cloning is straightforward and widely
shared: it is dangerous.
So was surgery once upon a time. We got better at it. We will
get better at this.
d.. Cloning assaults the dignity of human procreation.
*Snort*
e.. Cloning assaults the dignity of the conjugal union.
So do lots of other much more likely social ills, like
battering. Why do you not wring your hands over the real problams, and
not the original ones?
f.. Cloning is unprecedented human arrogance
If making people in your laboratory isn't "playing God," the phrase has no
meaning.
The phrase has no meaning. True.
We will be up against the limits of God's patience when the big
thumb comes out of the sky and squashes reproductive laboratories, and
not a moment before.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 05:46:37 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:NeCdnXeBqdQAtz3enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com:
Subject: Moral arguments against human cloning
I only need one argument: we don't need another ***** like you.
--
Doc Smartass XP - New Interface, Same Old *****
Keep THOR in THURSDAY!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Moral arguments against cloning J Young |
15 Dec 2005 03:57:00 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:NeCdnXeBqdQAtz3enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com...
Moral arguments against human cloning
The battle to stop human cloning will be a most important opportunity to
turn the tide against the Culture of Death. Here are some talking points
to
help you discuss the topic of cloning with elected officials and fellow
citizens.
Which Culture of Death are you talking about, Islamo/Christianity?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 04:19:36 PM |
|
|
- Children without parental care. They are orphans, street children and
those in detention centers who receive no loving care and protection of
parents. There are an estimated 143 million children who have lost at least
one parent. Tens of millions of children spend a large part of their lives
on the streets and more than 1 million live in detention, with the majority
awaiting trial for minor offences.
- Children in adult roles. Children who are forced into adult roles too
early miss childhood stages. They are especially drafted into armed
conflict, used as porters, cooks, sex slaves for soldiers. An estimated 80
million girls around the world are forced into marriage before 18. Some 171
million children work in hazardous conditions in industries, mines and
agriculture.
- Children who are exploited. An estimated 8.4 million children work in the
sex industry, many of them to pay off debt. A vast number are exploited as
domestic servants in private homes, prevented to attend school, underfed and
overworked.
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:NeCdnXeBqdQAtz3enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com...
Moral arguments against human cloning
The battle to stop human cloning will be a most important opportunity to
turn the tide against the Culture of Death. Here are some talking points
to
help you discuss the topic of cloning with elected officials and fellow
citizens.
a.. Cloning will destroy the unity of marriage and parenthood.
Divorce, extramarital sex, contraception and in vitro fertilization all
disrupt the unity of marriage and parenthood. Cloning is yet another blow
to
the unity which should exist in Christian marriage.
b.. Cloning turns people into commodities.
Cloning subjects a human person to being treated as a thing. Cloning a
child is an expensive technological project, prone to "quality control."
Treating persons as things has become commonplace in our society, but the
practice is always destructive and immoral.
c.. Cloning is an assault on human life.
The first argument against human cloning is straightforward and widely
shared: it is dangerous. The report of the one successfully cloned sheep
in
Scotland was preceded by 276 failures. Cloned human embryos have already
been killed in research laboratories. In addition, genetic screening will
be
used with cloned human embryos and any embryo who does not pass will be
killed.
d.. Cloning assaults the dignity of human procreation.
Human procreation involves a man and a woman coming together as one, open
to new life-the fruit of their union. Assisted reproductive technologies
are, without a doubt, affronts to human dignity. And cloning leaves no
trace
of the dignity of human procreation, as it is completely artificial
reproductive technology.
e.. Cloning assaults the dignity of the conjugal union.
Normally, a child is the living expression of the parent's mutual love.
To
be sure, there are children whose parents do not love each other, as there
are married couples who love each other and do not have children. Still,
the
existence of children is a persistent sign of parents' mutual love. The
pote
nt and universal sign of God's gift of life is lost when the child's life
begins in a laboratory.
f.. Cloning is unprecedented human arrogance
If making people in your laboratory isn't "playing God," the phrase has
no
meaning.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 08:33:08 AM |
|
|
Historical religious attacks on freedom:
Since your kind no longer defends killing of witches, fights against
interracial marriage, fights against the use of condoms or birth control
methods other than rythym, fights against sexual education, fights against
the rights
of women to choose abortion, fights against the prevention of pregnancy
(morning after pill) and deny homosexuals rights or even a job opportunity-
you now are moving on to another prohibition.
I guess your stance is "prohibitions are us"
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:NeCdnXeBqdQAtz3enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com...
Moral arguments against human cloning
The battle to stop human cloning will be a most important opportunity to
turn the tide against the Culture of Death. Here are some talking points
to
help you discuss the topic of cloning with elected officials and fellow
citizens.
a.. Cloning will destroy the unity of marriage and parenthood.
Divorce, extramarital sex, contraception and in vitro fertilization all
disrupt the unity of marriage and parenthood. Cloning is yet another blow
to
the unity which should exist in Christian marriage.
b.. Cloning turns people into commodities.
Cloning subjects a human person to being treated as a thing. Cloning a
child is an expensive technological project, prone to "quality control."
Treating persons as things has become commonplace in our society, but the
practice is always destructive and immoral.
c.. Cloning is an assault on human life.
The first argument against human cloning is straightforward and widely
shared: it is dangerous. The report of the one successfully cloned sheep
in
Scotland was preceded by 276 failures. Cloned human embryos have already
been killed in research laboratories. In addition, genetic screening will
be
used with cloned human embryos and any embryo who does not pass will be
killed.
d.. Cloning assaults the dignity of human procreation.
Human procreation involves a man and a woman coming together as one, open
to new life-the fruit of their union. Assisted reproductive technologies
are, without a doubt, affronts to human dignity. And cloning leaves no
trace
of the dignity of human procreation, as it is completely artificial
reproductive technology.
e.. Cloning assaults the dignity of the conjugal union.
Normally, a child is the living expression of the parent's mutual love.
To
be sure, there are children whose parents do not love each other, as there
are married couples who love each other and do not have children. Still,
the
existence of children is a persistent sign of parents' mutual love. The
pote
nt and universal sign of God's gift of life is lost when the child's life
begins in a laboratory.
f.. Cloning is unprecedented human arrogance
If making people in your laboratory isn't "playing God," the phrase has
no
meaning.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 01:49:05 PM |
|
|
In article <NeCdnXeBqdQAtz3enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com>,
youngopinions@aol.com says...
Here are some talking points to
help you discuss the topic
Your propaganda is pretty pathetic and it's hilarious that you think
your supporters are so dumb that they need an idiot like yourself to
write nonsensical "talking points" for them.
a.. Cloning will destroy the unity of marriage and parenthood.
Marriage is a civil arrangement that has many purposes other than mere
procreation. Cloning will not interfere with marriage per se,
particularly if the partners chose not to participate in cloning. As to
parenthood, a clone can be parented in much the same way as a normal
child, provided that the technology is perfected to produce clones in a
healthy state.
b.. Cloning turns people into commodities.
It may or may not be used in a manner that makes blastocysts and embryos
a commodity. By your same argument, organ transplantation would make
organs a "commodity". In fact there are safeguards in place which
prevent this, and the same safeguards could be applied to cloning.
Explain how making a single, early stage clone of oneself rises to the
level of "commodity".
c.. Cloning is an assault on human life.
A blastocyst or embryo is not a human life at conception, or for a very
long time afterward because it lacks a developed brain or meaningful
consciousness. As to the rates of failures in cloning, those change
with the technology applied.
d.. Cloning assaults the dignity of human procreation.
No, it shows that your religion was in error to consider procreation to
be the most salient aspect of sexual activity.
e.. Cloning assaults the dignity of the conjugal union.
But your religion has no dignity and neither do any of the brain-dead,
vicious, extremist bigots who rail against cloning.
f.. Cloning is unprecedented human arrogance
If making people in your laboratory isn't "playing God," the phrase has no
meaning.
Your conclusion is correct that the phrase has no meaning.
--
"If you think your belief is based upon reason, you will support
it by argument rather than by persecution... But if your belief is
based upon faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and
will therefore resort to force."--Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FlameStrike" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 08:16:24 PM |
|
|
In article <NeCdnXeBqdQAtz3enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com>,
youngopinions@aol.com says...
f.. Cloning is unprecedented human arrogance
Oh, I don't know about that. It seems to me that most religious beliefs seem
to set the bar pretty high as far as human arrogance. Pretty hard to beat
those precedents.
--
FlameStrike
"My honor is my life!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
15 Dec 2005 08:06:06 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Moral
That's word you should never use, pervert.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 07:03:25 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Moral arguments against human cloning
<snip>
All your arguments fail for the reasons that your respondants give.
Here is are two arguments AGAINST human cloning (reproductive cloning)
that do not fail as yours do.
(1) To successfully clone one mammal - like dollly the sheep - takes
200, 300 or 500 failures.
These failed clones require eggs.
These eggs must be donated by someone.
The proceedure for havesting these eggs is a painful medical proceedure
which has all the standard risks of medical proceedures.
It is in some circumstances *reasonable* and *ethical* to ask a woman
to donate eggs IF those eggs are likely to be put to a purpose usefull
to the woman (help her concieve a much decired child for example) or
useful to society (reaserch to the benifit of futer generations).
It is not reasonable or ethical to waste such a valuable resource -
particularly extracted at the level of discomfort and risk involved.
The same applies to other human tissues and organs - Human tissues and
organs (hearts, livers, blood etc) are not to be used wastefully and
irresponsibly.
IF it took 200 heart transplants to achieve 1 success then human heart
transplants would be impractical as well as unethical and irresponsible
(a criminal waste of resources)
(2) The individuals that are born as the result of these cloning
practices are VERY much in danger of defects and deformity and
shortened lives of reduced quality.
It is morally reprehensible to deliberately risk the future health of a
child in this way.
It is the moral equivalent to deliberately and knowingly infect or
poison someone.
It should be treated as a crime.
See? No need to invoke superstitious beliefs - just plain common sense.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
15 Dec 2005 05:13:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1134608605.053966.143780@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
m.richardson@utas.edu.au says...
J Young wrote:
Moral arguments against human cloning
<snip>
All your arguments fail for the reasons that your respondants give.
Here is are two arguments AGAINST human cloning (reproductive cloning)
that do not fail as yours do.
(1) To successfully clone one mammal - like dollly the sheep - takes
200, 300 or 500 failures.
The technology has apparently been improved.
These failed clones require eggs.
These eggs must be donated by someone.
No, there are procedures underway to artifically produce oogenesis in
the petri dish.
The proceedure for havesting these eggs is a painful medical proceedure
which has all the standard risks of medical proceedures.
You comment is invalidated by the actual technology and I mentioned
above. Furthermore, even if "pain" was involved, this can often be
mitigated by anesthetic.
It is in some circumstances *reasonable* and *ethical* to ask a woman
to donate eggs IF those eggs are likely to be put to a purpose usefull
to the woman (help her concieve a much decired child for example) or
useful to society (reaserch to the benifit of futer generations).
Why do you assume that the cloning research won't <ahem> benefit future
generations?
It is not reasonable or ethical to waste such a valuable resource -
particularly extracted at the level of discomfort and risk involved.
A female ovary can contain thousands of ova. These can be donated post
mortem.
The same applies to other human tissues and organs - Human tissues and
organs (hearts, livers, blood etc) are not to be used wastefully and
irresponsibly.
There are good safguards in place to make sure that tissue transplants
are done under tight ethical constraints. The same procedure can be
implemented for stem cell research or cloning.
IF it took 200 heart transplants to achieve 1 success then human heart
transplants would be impractical as well as unethical and irresponsible
(a criminal waste of resources)
If there was no alternative and the hearts would otherwise be pitched in
the garbage anyway, then even a 1 in 200 chance would be better than
nothing.
(2) The individuals that are born as the result of these cloning
practices are VERY much in danger of defects and deformity and
shortened lives of reduced quality.
That again is an issue of the present technology. In all likelihood it
will be possible to correct the defects that presently arise from the
cloning process.
It is morally reprehensible to deliberately risk the future health of a
child in this way.
That's why most no serious researcher in the world is talking about
actually bringing cloned embryo to term. All of them are talking about
stopping the process long before it reaches that level of maturation.
It is the moral equivalent to deliberately and knowingly infect or
poison someone.
Not quite because the effects are not well known. However, in all
likelihood the issue will be studied in animals first to work out the
problems.
--
"If you think your belief is based upon reason, you will support
it by argument rather than by persecution... But if your belief is
based upon faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and
will therefore resort to force."--Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
15 Dec 2005 05:38:42 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1134608605.053966.143780@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
m.richardson@utas.edu.au says...
J Young wrote:
Moral arguments against human cloning
<snip>
All your arguments fail for the reasons that your respondants give.
Here is are two arguments AGAINST human cloning (reproductive cloning)
that do not fail as yours do.
(1) To successfully clone one mammal - like dollly the sheep - takes
200, 300 or 500 failures.
The technology has apparently been improved.
When it improves to a level when my objections are invalid THEN my
objections will be invalid.
Obviously.
When my objections become invalid THEN we can examibne the question
again.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 08:48:47 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Moral arguments against human cloning
The battle to stop human cloning will be a most important opportunity to
turn the tide against the Culture of Death. Here are some talking points to
help you discuss the topic of cloning with elected officials and fellow
citizens.
a.. Cloning will destroy the unity of marriage and parenthood.
Divorce, extramarital sex, contraception and in vitro fertilization all
disrupt the unity of marriage and parenthood. Cloning is yet another blow to
the unity which should exist in Christian marriage.
First, not everyone is Christian. Second, not all Christians believe
as you do. Third, there is nothing about cloning that indicates that
it will have any effect on any marriage.
b.. Cloning turns people into commodities.
Cloning subjects a human person to being treated as a thing. Cloning a
child is an expensive technological project, prone to "quality control."
Treating persons as things has become commonplace in our society, but the
practice is always destructive and immoral.
The fact that it is expensive means that it will be rare. The "quality
control" happens to regular pregnancies as well, since most of them
fail to implant or abort before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
And the "quality control" continues since miscarriages can happen at
almost any time during the pregnancy. What's more, the woman is still
needed for gestation, which pretty much guarentees that this will not
be a mass production item for some decades yet.
c.. Cloning is an assault on human life.
The first argument against human cloning is straightforward and widely
shared: it is dangerous.
So is pregnancy.
The report of the one successfully cloned sheep in
Scotland was preceded by 276 failures.
No danger in evidence yet.
Cloned human embryos have already
been killed in research laboratories.
So what? That does not indicate any danger to anyone.
In addition, genetic screening will be
used with cloned human embryos and any embryo who does not pass will be
killed.
Where is the danger you mentioned? There is nothing that you mentioned
that indicated any unusual danger to anyone. The only person that is
in any danger is the one that you did not mention, the woman that
gestates the clone, and those dangers are no greater than any other
pregnancy.
d.. Cloning assaults the dignity of human procreation.
Human procreation involves a man and a woman coming together as one, open
to new life-the fruit of their union. Assisted reproductive technologies
are, without a doubt, affronts to human dignity.
Why? They assist couples that cannot have children to have children.
That is not an affront on human dignity. It is an affirmation of
technology over nature, and helping people overcome a problem that
would be impossible to overcome without such technology.
And cloning leaves no trace
of the dignity of human procreation, as it is completely artificial
reproductive technology.
And your point is? It helps couples that cannot have children through
normal means to have children. This could be because of them both
having recessive copies of a genetic trait that precludes completing
the pregnancy, or for any of a hundred other reasons.
e.. Cloning assaults the dignity of the conjugal union.
Normally, a child is the living expression of the parent's mutual love. To
be sure, there are children whose parents do not love each other, as there
are married couples who love each other and do not have children.
And those second couples are prime candidates of cloning.
Still, the
existence of children is a persistent sign of parents' mutual love. The pote
nt and universal sign of God's gift of life is lost when the child's life
begins in a laboratory.
First, there is nothing that indicates that any diety is involved
anywhere. Second, that lab allows coiuples that cannot have children
for some reason to have them. If they go through that much trouble to
have children, then it is obvious that those children are wanted, which
is always better for the child.
f.. Cloning is unprecedented human arrogance
If making people in your laboratory isn't "playing God," the phrase has no
meaning.
That is your opinion, and nothing more. And the phrase has no meaning.
So far, I have not seen one solid reason against cloning that did not
boil down to your personal and unsubstantiated opinion. If you don't
like cloning, then don't get a clone. There is no reason to impose
your oppressive and backwards opinions on other people. We are not
subject to your antiquicated religious beliefs, and we are not
interested in living under the backwards personal laws that you live
under. You have no right to impose your beliefs onto others.
If you want to present arguments against cloning, you will have to come
up with something more substantial than weak, personal opinions.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 08:45:23 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
The battle to stop human cloning will be a most important opportunity to
turn the tide against the Culture of Death.
Like the jebus death cult?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 07:45:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:22:39 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<NeCdnXeBqdQAtz3enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com> wrote:
Off topic again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 09:35:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:22:39 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
Moral arguments against human cloning
The battle to stop human cloning will be a most important opportunity to
turn the tide against the Culture of Death. Here are some talking points to
help you discuss the topic of cloning with elected officials and fellow
citizens.
a.. Cloning will destroy the unity of marriage and parenthood.
Divorce, extramarital sex, contraception and in vitro fertilization all
disrupt the unity of marriage and parenthood. Cloning is yet another blow to
the unity which should exist in Christian marriage.
Fair enough. Just let them clone atheists. You won't have to worry
about a decrease in carriers of the 'god' gene leading to the eventual
demise of your silly little cult because evolution doesn't happen,
right?
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 09:35:14 AM |
|
|
Usenet lunatic and thief "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:NeCdnXeBqdQAtz3enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com...
Moral arguments against human cloning
< J/IBen's unattributed cut and paste thievery dumped>
Have one of your psychiatrists explain 'copyright violation' to you at your
next session, IBen:
http://www.all.org/issues/clonargs.htm
LC~ It would appear that it's a "young opinion" that stealing is A-OK.
"Where is there dignity unless there is honesty? "~ Cicero
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral arguments against human cloning |
14 Dec 2005 06:25:26 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Wed, 14 Dec 2005
09:22:39 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Moral arguments against human cloning
The battle to stop human cloning will be a most important opportunity to
turn the tide against the Culture of Death. Here are some talking points to
help you discuss the topic of cloning with elected officials and fellow
citizens.
a.. Cloning will destroy the unity of marriage and parenthood.
Divorce, extramarital sex, contraception and in vitro fertilization all
disrupt the unity of marriage and parenthood. Cloning is yet another blow to
the unity which should exist in Christian marriage.
Except that not a single nation I know requires fertility as a
condition of marriage, and most states accept the children of
unmarried parents as being citizens.
Therefore your argument falls flat.
b.. Cloning turns people into commodities.
Cloning subjects a human person to being treated as a thing. Cloning a
child is an expensive technological project, prone to "quality control."
Treating persons as things has become commonplace in our society, but the
practice is always destructive and immoral.
You do realize that humans have been commodities for millennia, right?
Your own Bible supports slavery, and gives instructions to both slaves
and their owners.
c.. Cloning is an assault on human life.
The first argument against human cloning is straightforward and widely
shared: it is dangerous. The report of the one successfully cloned sheep in
Scotland was preceded by 276 failures. Cloned human embryos have already
been killed in research laboratories. In addition, genetic screening will be
used with cloned human embryos and any embryo who does not pass will be
killed.
So? The majority of naturally fertilized human eggs fail too. And
any expansion of technology will have failures.
Do you have an electric light near you? If so, please consider that
Edison tried *thousands* of different filaments before finding the one
that worked best.
Cloning is still in its infancy. As we learn more, we'll get better
at it.
d.. Cloning assaults the dignity of human procreation.
Human procreation involves a man and a woman coming together as one, open
to new life-the fruit of their union. Assisted reproductive technologies
are, without a doubt, affronts to human dignity. And cloning leaves no trace
of the dignity of human procreation, as it is completely artificial
reproductive technology.
Friends of mine could only reproduce with medical assistance. They
treasure their three children (one natural, two adopted) and are one
of the strongest families I know.
e.. Cloning assaults the dignity of the conjugal union.
Normally, a child is the living expression of the parent's mutual love. To
be sure, there are children whose parents do not love each other, as there
are married couples who love each other and do not have children. Still, the
existence of children is a persistent sign of parents' mutual love. The pote
nt and universal sign of God's gift of life is lost when the child's life
begins in a laboratory.
So, adopted kids don't count?
f.. Cloning is unprecedented human arrogance
If making people in your laboratory isn't "playing God," the phrase has no
meaning.
Gosh, and maybe next we'll try building a really, really big tower..
This argument has been used to decry automobiles, aircraft, and space
travel. It was also used to decry the use of anesthetic in childbirth
and surgery.
In fact, any human technological advancement you'd care to think of
has been seen as an affront to God by someone.
Somewhere in this rat's nest I call home, I have a copy of a pamphlet
circulated around Kansas City around 1890. It was a dire warning
about the moral dangers of the telephone. According to the authors (A
"Committee of Concerned Pastors and Businessmen") allowing the
telephone into Kansas City homes would lead to the destruction of
families, children starving, wives "getting foreign thoughts", and the
collapse of Christian Society.
Needless to say, they were wrong. As are you.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
