Ethical hypocrisy in cloning

[DocBill]

Originally posted by fafalone

I don't like people who claim their ethics are absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees is unethical.

 

That was my point..ethics are subjective..everyone's are different and fluid. I have never met anyone who claims that this is right and 20 years latter does no think differently. I guess I have been lucky so far.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by fafalone

It was inferred the conclusion was only towards people using the aforementioned arguments. Making inferences is something you really have a problem with.

 

 

where was this inferred? if anything, quite the opposite since you said:

 

Here are some arguments against this process and widely morally acceptable processes that work against reasons why somatic cell nuclear transfer is wrong:

 

you have implied that there are other arguments against it, and have at no point said that people with a more reasoned line of argument stand a chance of not being a hypocrite.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by DocBill

It was not an Opinion..it is a fact. Unless you are devoid of any reasoning and historical experience, your bias has been shapped.

It is really as simple as that.

Bill

I disagree.

 

Remaining objective is something all good scientists do every day. Your lack of familiarity with this process does not constitute any fact.

[Glider]

Exactly, but these are still the arguments of the ignorant.

Then I apologise. I had no way of knowing you only wanted to argue with the ignorant.

 

Freezing embryos from accepted reproductive methods will the full knowledge they will more than likely never be used is essentially equivalent.

More than likely yes, essentially. Hardly definitive, is it?

 

People on this forum have said this.

Would these people be the 'ignorant' to whom you refer?

 

Parents frequently pressure their kid to live up to them anyway. This happens without clones already.

Oh, well that's ok then. However, the statement by the AMA never suggested the pressure would come from the parents. it said "Human cloning risks limiting, at least psychologically, the seemingly unlimited potential of new Human Beings and thus creating enormous pressures on the clone-child to live up to expectations based on (italics added) the life of the clone-parent".

 

This is a social acceptance factor I already debunked.

Then again I must apologise, though I can't think how this news hasn't reached the American Medical Association yet. I think somebody should tell them.

 

Eugenics is a separate issue; it can be accomplished without cloning, and cloning can be done without eugenics.

Sure it can. But will it? Business can be conducted without fraud, but is it? People can live together without prejudice, but do they? Eugenics is not a separate issue.

 

The chance of damage in the cloning process is still CHANCE.

Not strictly true, because: a) It was stated that: "The risk of major structural abnormailities occurring would be high (italics added) in surviving embryos". This translates as a 'high probability' and high probability is not chance level. b) We can avoid it altogether.

 

Sufficient development will reduce them.

As any harm or suffering resulting from cloning would be our responsibility, 'reduce' is not acceptable. Reach 'eliminate' and I'll be listening.

 

You missed the point concerning possible damage to the gene pool "...human cloning could alter irreversably the gene pool and exacerbate genetic problems that arise from deleterious genetic mutations, resulting in harms to future generations." (AMA code of ethics).

 

If you can't realize the hypocrisy in typical arguments, then you are a cretin.

Quite right. If I couldn't see the hypocrisy in other people's arguments, then I would be a cretin.

I highly suggest not calling me an idiot in the future, or you'll fast find yourself in a flame war I promise you will lose.

I say! Surely this threat is in violation of some policy or other?

I recognize the difference, most peoples arguments lack the fortitude to elucidate this difference. That's what my post was about, you fool.

Ahhh...I see...and you wanted to argue only with those who couldn't elucidate this difference. It's becoming clearer now. Well once again I find I must apologize. I must have been asleep when it was taught that: "It is the duty of the reader to make clear buried or obscure meanings from ambiguous or ambivalent text"

Consider this a policy violation warning, your misinterpetation of a post led to uncalled for disrespect, and future incidents of this nature will not be tolerated.

AHA! There's the policy thingy. So I'll just assume the 'cretin', 'fool' and 'moron' things were expressed 'with all due respect' then, shall I?

Your post was a great counter argument until you digressed into a moron.

...'digressed'...teeheehee.

 

If you'd read the text you'd see you weren't called an idiot. It said "if you can't tell that there is a significant difference between reproductive cloning and invitro fertilisation or MZ twins with respect to both procedure and implications then you are an idiot". I.e. only if you fulfill the former criterion does the second apply. This is an example of the weakest of all arguments; the 'Emperor's new clothes'. It translates as "If you don't agree with me, you are in some way flawed" and carries as much weight in debate as "If you think... ...then you are a hypocrite".

 

I have noticed (from this and other posts) that the word 'idiot', when you feel it has been applied to you, really seems burn you up. However, I have also noticed that you seem to apply it (and related terms) quite freely to other people (and there was you, wondering if I could see the hypocrisy in other people's arguments. )This seems to me to be the application of double standards (i.e "it's ok for me to do it to others, but not for others to do it to me"). It is this type of reasoning which leads me to question your ethics.

 

I mean this as an observation, not a value judgement, but you do appear to have trouble recognising the ethical/moral issues inherent in some debates (cloning, war etc..) and frequently sidestep them. Whether this stems from an unwillingness or an inability to adress them, I have no way of knowing. Nonetheless, if you are unwilling/unable to recognise/address ethical issues inherent to a given situation, then the opinion that you shouldn't be allowed within a country mile of people who are sick, vulnerable or have their ability to make informed choices/provide infomed consent concerning their treatment impaired in any way is perfectly reasonable. Where, then, is the disrespect?

 

I'm not exactly certain of the precise definition of 'flame war', but under the circumstances I suppose it must be some testosterone driven term for long-distance name calling. In which case, I'll try not to lose too much sleep over it. But I regress...

Originally posted by T_FLeX

A clone should have about as much say into the way he was brought into this world as any other child (which is none). Yes, a deformity may occur, what can I say, shit happens; something can go wrong with any child birth. Simply dispose of the infant, learn from your mistakes, and try again.

Aww for for the love of..... Infanticide is not only unethical, it is illegal on this planet.

[blike]

Simply dispose of the infant, learn from your mistakes, and try again.

 

haha, Why don't we just dispose of old people, disabled people, mentally ill people, terminally ill people, and everyone who doesn't have blue eyes!

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by blike

haha, Why don't we just dispose of old people, disabled people, mentally ill people, terminally ill people, and everyone who doesn't have blue eyes!

Because blue eyes are due to a lack of pigment, which makes blue-eyed people FREAKS.

 

Good plan apart from that bit though. 'Twill be just like the good ole days o' the Fafalonian Empire. ALL HAIL.

 

:spam:

[fafalone]

If we're so concerned about not going against nature then by the laws of nature the weak should and will die.

 

(Note: I have no problem going against nature.)

[Skye]

Homo sapiens have seemingly often supported the weak, those with permenent dibilitating injuries, at least back till the Neanderthals (from New Scientist 8th March). Of course defining fitness in evolutionary terms is tricky, you can really only do it retrospectively. But it does appear to be part of our nature to care for the weak.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by fafalone

If we're so concerned about not going against nature then by the laws of nature the weak should and will die.

 

you have discounted that fact that altruism is part of human nature.

[T_FLeX]

Originally posted by blike

haha, Why don't we just dispose of old people, disabled people, mentally ill people, terminally ill people, and everyone who doesn't have blue eyes!

 

 

You forgot to include terminally ugly.........just kidding:D

 

But, seriously a lot of disabled people take huge amounts of resources just to stay alive, and contribute nothing to society. If you can support yourself all power too you, but some people just need to be sent straight to heaven.

 

I was reading a Popular Science magazine today, and there was an article about ART (accelerated reproductive technology) (I think) and it was talking with a family that had 3 children using (ART), and one had already had a defect in one of them. The mother basically DID NOT CARE about the risk it brings on her children, because she said "I just wanted a baby"

 

I'm pro cloning, but I would have to agree with you guys about how it is not worth the risk..............we already got enough retards we don't need more.

 

The article brought up a good point about, these people that are trying to have kids together and have to resort to ART to have kids. That all the studies and the statistics on all the defects of the test tube babies have mostly been seen on incompatible parents. Meaning these parents that can't reproduce might just have overall bad genes, and shouldn't even be having kids in the first place. You guys have any thoughts about this?

[Skye]

Some couples might be badly matched, both having several recessive genes that cause could combine to cause sever problems. I've read that people have on average one or two recessive genes that would be lethal if combined homogenously.

 

That's not to say the parents necessarily have bad genes, it's quite likely that you or I or anyone have some debilitating recessive genes. They are simply unfortunate to love someone who shares the same ones.

[Glider]

Originally posted by T_FLeX

You forgot to include terminally ugly.........just kidding:D

 

But, seriously a lot of disabled people take huge amounts of resources just to stay alive, and contribute nothing to society. If you can support yourself all power too you, but some people just need to be sent straight to heaven.

You shouldn't be afraid to say what you mean. Just say 'Killed'. There is some debate concerning the existence of heaven, but it is certain that any attempt to send somebody there would involve killing them. So you mean "...some people just need to be killed. How would you go about this? (I hear Cyclon-B is very effective).

 

I was reading a Popular Science magazine today, and there was an article about ART (accelerated reproductive technology) (I think) and it was talking with a family that had 3 children using (ART), and one had already had a defect in one of them. The mother basically DID NOT CARE about the risk it brings on her children, because she said "I just wanted a baby"

I agree, this seems to be a selfish attitude. It's almost self-contradictory that someone can want a child so badly that they don't care how much harm that child has to suffer so they can 'posess' it. There's something wrong there somewhere.

 

I'm pro cloning, but I would have to agree with you guys about how it is not worth the risk..............we already got enough retards we don't need more.

The word 'retard' is a transitive verb. It means 'to slow down', 'to delay', 'to inhibit development', so whilst it would be correct to say that "You are retarded" it wouldn't be correct to say "You are a retard".

 

The article brought up a good point about, these people that are trying to have kids together and have to resort to ART to have kids. That all the studies and the statistics on all the defects of the test tube babies have mostly been seen on incompatible parents. Meaning these parents that can't reproduce might just have overall bad genes, and shouldn't even be having kids in the first place. You guys have any thoughts about this?

This seems plausable. It might be the case that people who can't reproduce together may have mutually incompatible genes. If this is the case, then there is an issue there that needs to be addressed.

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

I disagree.

 

Remaining objective is something all good scientists do every day. Your lack of familiarity with this process does not constitute any fact.

 

And.........as a scientist I can state that it is YOUR inability to accept the fact that bias is in everyone and all things, that will keep you from being taken seriously.

 

Bill

[fafalone]

To have bias you have to care. So it's possible to have no bias... but then you can't decide.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by DocBill

And.........as a scientist I can state that it is YOUR inability to accept the fact that bias is in everyone and all things, that will keep you from being taken seriously.

 

Bill

Remaining unbiased is simply a matter of considering only the facts, placing aside emotional involvement, and ignoring the irrelevancies. It's not exactly difficult.

 

Send me any more PMs like that last one and I will be most displeased.

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Remaining unbiased is simply a matter of considering only the facts, placing aside emotional involvement, and ignoring the irrelevancies. It's not exactly difficult.

 

Send me any more PMs like that last one and I will be most displeased.

 

Will you really? Well, I am quite concerned about that, let me assure you. And it was sent as a PM out of courteousy of not wishing to point out what an utter arse-head you are, that you would not know scientific method if it jumped up and gave you a hair cut, but as you seem to want to discuss this publically..so be it.

 

Before you explain how it is poissible to have "no bias" please give me a bit of background on your self:

 

1. Where did you earn your first Masters from? What subject?

2. Where did you earn your second matsers from? Subject?

3. You first Ph.D? Subject?

 

What national or international journals, publications, professional publications have you been: cited in, or published in?

 

OK. Please send me that info post haste, and I can then decide if I should be "afraid."

 

PS: if there are "Clever" people like yourself, how did modern science arrive at the need for "Peer review?" Ahh. I see. People like you HAVE no peers? Good.

[Sayonara]

Do you do this every time somebody disagrees with you?

 

It seems to me to be a most inefficient form of debate.

[fafalone]

If you recognize you have a bias you can be objective.

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Do you do this every time somebody disagrees with you?

 

It seems to me to be a most inefficient form of debate.

 

It may seem so to you, but to those who actually wish to understand....

 

But..we scientists don't have all the answers, ulike you.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by DocBill

It may seem so to you, but to those who actually wish to understand....

 

But..we scientists don't have all the answers, ulike you.

Exactly where is this going? Do hurry up and get there because I'd like to go to bed soon and I do so want to see how it all turns out.

 

This is a discussion forum. Debate is implied as a function of our presence here. If you're going to respond to ideas that don't conform to your own with churlishness and immaturity, you will simply be ignored.

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Exactly where is this going? Do hurry up and get there because I'd like to go to bed soon and I do so want to see how it all turns out.

 

This is a discussion forum. Debate is implied as a function of our presence here. If you're going to respond to ideas that don't conform to your own with churlishness and immaturity, you will simply be ignored.

 

Hmm. Churlishness? Big words. Could you please, then answer my simple questions? Where did you recieve an education that allows you to be free of bias? I know several post docs in your country and they have been unable to do this (being only human). I am curious. How ever did you manage this feat?

[fafalone]

Please refrain from flame wars. Thanks.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Glider

...

However, the statement by the AMA never suggested the pressure would come from the parents. it said "Human cloning risks limiting, at least psychologically, the seemingly unlimited potential of new Human Beings and thus creating enormous pressures on the clone-child to live up to expectations based on (italics added) the life of the clone-parent".

 

Then again I must apologise, though I can't think how this news hasn't reached the American Medical Association yet. I think somebody should tell them.

 

...

 

Not strictly true, because: a) It was stated that: "The risk of major structural abnormailities occurring would be high (italics added) in surviving embryos". This translates as a 'high probability' and high probability is not chance level. b) We can avoid it altogether.

 

As any harm or suffering resulting from cloning would be our responsibility, 'reduce' is not acceptable. Reach 'eliminate' and I'll be listening.

 

You missed the point concerning possible damage to the gene pool "...human cloning could alter irreversably the gene pool and exacerbate genetic problems that arise from deleterious genetic mutations, resulting in harms to future generations." (AMA code of ethics).

 

 

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=541&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20030617/ap_on_he_me/ama_cloning

 

CHICAGO - The American Medical Association on Tuesday endorsed cloning for research purposes, saying it is medically ethical but allowing doctors who oppose the practice to refuse to perform it.

 

 

Seems the AMA agrees with me now, at least for research. They're coming around.