Ethics of human cloning

[Chronicles]

On Thursday the UN blocked a motion to ban human cloning.

The problem is entirely due to just one very important issue - whether a distinction needs to be made between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

Reproductive cloning comes stright out of the pages of science fiction - the nightmare scenario of people being cloned directly to make new copies of themselves. Tha Raelians elctrified the science world earlier this year with false claims of having made the first successful reproductive clone of a human being.

Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, seeks to clone individual human cells for medicinal practices that also threaten to revolutionise medicine. One of the key stumbling blocks here is that many of the cell lines could be cloned from aborted foetuses. A vociferous alliance of Christians and Muslims have come together against this practice, and nowhere is it more overly experssed than in the government of George W. Bush.

The question is - is it really unethical to use human cells for human therapeutic cloning? Or is this really really just a way of not just making abortion acceptable, but desirable?

Here's something from the article on Thursday's UN vote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3247969.stm

UN derails ban on human cloning

The United Nations has blocked moves to impose a global ban on research into all forms of human cloning.
The UN General Assembly's legal committee voted 80-79 in favour of an Iranian proposal to delay any decision on a ban for two years.

The move meant that members did not get the opportunity to vote on a proposal by the US and Costa Rica which would have banned human cloning.

The issue has divided the 191 member states on the committee.

No consensus

BBC science correspondent Richard Black says negotiations on human cloning started over a year ago at the UN, but were postponed for a year in the face of a fundamental division between two groups of nations.

One, headed by the US and Costa Rica, wanted to ban all kinds of human cloning.

The other, led by France and Germany, wanted to ban reproductive cloning but allow therapeutic cloning - research which could lead to a new generation of medical treatments.

However, the decision to approve the Iranian call for a delay meant that neither of the rival proposals for a ban could be put to the vote.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Personally I can’t see anything wrong with cloning, if anyone can effect cloning and anyone is willing to be cloned – I am one very available candidate, on condition that it is totally free and all expenses are paid for by others.

Up to the present I still can’t see why people like Bush should be against reproductive or therapeutic or whatever cloning, unless they can’t or won’t think constructively.

Prescinding from cloning, what is wrong with anything at all?

That hurts someone who does not deserve to be hurt, that’s what wrong with anything that any human can do.

Maybe immediately cloning might not hurt anyone when there is anyone willing to be cloned; but in the longer perspective some kind of harm or unpleasant development might occur, which makes cloning wrong. Some unpleasant development to what or whom, like to society or your neighborhood?

Those who are against cloning reproductive or therapeutic, tell me then what are the possible harms that can be visited upon the willing subject or society; then I am disposed to change my mind about the indifference of cloning, if not even the terrific good that cloning can bring to mankind.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

encouraging abortion?

One of the key stumbling blocks here is that many of the cell lines could be cloned from aborted foetuses.

Therefore that would encourage abortion, and abortion is evil?

Abortion whether voluntary or involuntary is a fact, and no amount of condemnation will stop voluntary abortion.

That is one fact that seeing people cannot deny.

Now, therapeutic cloning will never want for fetuses from abortion. On this basis, voluntary abortion will be contributing to a good instead of fetuses being flushed down the latrine.

People who have the good fortune to not have to ever opt for an abortion can still continue in their moral position.

But the fact of voluntary abortion and also miscarriage will be with us until mankind is liberated from the need to reproduce biologically.

Otherwise, as of now all those fetuses are going to waste, if not to be stored in bottles in science labs of schools.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[juantoo3]

Susma,
I have read quite a few of your posts, and for the most part I am impressed. Here, I must respectfully disagree with you.

I should begin by saying that I have not been faced directly with the dilemma of abortion, and as a male, would have only limited input into such a decision to begin with. It is an agonizing decision, and I feel greatly for those faced with such decision.

But I have given a great deal of thought to the matter at a social level. If I understand you correctly then, a human body is merely another resource to be exploited by business. Why not use cremated corpses to fertilize crop fields? The ash is a great fertilizer.

The dilemma lies in the value we collectively place on our dead. Whether our old, or our young, our dead still retain a value to us that transcends a mere resource.

Abortion will not go away, true. But should it be encouraged? If business (and medicine is BIG business) gets involved, abortion stands to explode. So if our young are sacrificed in an effort to preserve our old, what end benefit is there? If the young are killed to try to keep the old alive, and the old eventually die too (and they will), who then is left?

Conceptually, the idea sounds good. Why waste this material that could be used to help the living? But since humans are not known for their moderation, I foresee ominous things ahead if such is granted wholesale endorsement.

I should add that when possible, adoption seems to me the preferable option.

 

[WHKeith]

Things get nastily complex when one brings in the abortion issue. In cloning, per se, neither abortion nor using dead bodies is an issue. You take a single living cell from your body--eventually, ANY cell would do, though we can't do that yet--and work your technomagic on it. Nine months later, you have a newborn baby who is genetically identical to you, a perfect twin who just happens to be n-years behind you on the growth curve!

Therapeutic cloning gets a little deeper into the grey area, though I see no moral problem with it as is: take that same cell and somehow turn it into a stem cell, which can then be culture-grown into any specific organ you wish--a brand new kidney or lung or heart ready for transplant that your body would not reject because it IS your tissue.

Abortion rears its ugly head, of course, because of the issue of stem-cell research, which we need to do to learn how to pull off that last trick, and the best source of stem cells now seems to be aborted fetuses. There's also the fact that in modern cloning attempts, researchers will fertilize a large number of egg cells and throw out the ones they don't need, which, technically, is abortion.

I think my problem with cloning humans lies in the reason behind the practice. Anyone who wants a child who is his/her genetic duplicate might have some issues that would make parenting a risky proposition. WHY do you want an exact copy? Could it be because you want to somehow live your life through your offspring?

Besides, it's more fun making kids the old-fashioned way.

Of course, all the trash-scifi crap about armies of mindless clones or souless slaves is just that, trash-scifi crap. A clone of a human being is a full human being; he/she just got here by a somewhat different route!

The idea of growing and harvesting your own organs for surgery creeps some folks out; to my mind, which is creepier? Growing yourself a new heart? Or waiting for a stranger who is phenotypically compatible with you to die in an auto accident?

The real gray areas come with related technologies. For example, if we could clone a human, we could also tamper with the genetics of embryo or blastula or egg cell in order to get, NOT a perfect duplicate, but a perfect genotype--no genetic diseases, no predisposition to cancers or poor eyesight or inherited medical problems, but with predispositions toward high intelligence and long life. . . .

That could be very good . . . and we could do that with any child, not just a clone. Again, moral problems surface when parents began selecting for style rather than for health. Imagine what would happen in a culture that prefered male babies! Or left-handed redheads. I don't think we're clever enough to handle that kind of power yet, and we could seriously screw up our own gene pool by trying it, I fear. Too many endangered species today are endangered in part because their gene pools are too narrow and limited.

And, once again, in order to develop that technology, it seems we have to go through a long period of research--involving, among other things, stem cells.

What's the answer? I dont think there IS a "right" answer, other than what works best for the human species in the long run. Personally, I believe in a woman's right to abortion and would not want to see that restricted by law or by religion. Personally, I dislike the idea of abortion and would go to any lengths to avoid it . . . though I'm male and can't speak about it as a woman. And personally, if an embryo or even a fetus is aborted, harvesting stem cells for research which may improve the human condition seems preferable to just throwing it away.

Unfortunately, society would need to draw lines and enforce them to avoid having a need for stem cells drive the desire for abortions; taken to its extreme conclusion, we have the nightmare of organleggers kidnapping people for their body parts, and here we are back at bad SF again! So where do we draw the line?

Just a few thoughts. . . .

 

[juantoo3]

WH Keith:

The real gray areas come with related technologies. For example, if we could clone a human, we could also tamper with the genetics of embryo or blastula or egg cell in order to get, NOT a perfect duplicate, but a perfect genotype--no genetic diseases, no predisposition to cancers or poor eyesight or inherited medical problems, but with predispositions toward high intelligence and long life. . . .

This issue was addressed in the movie "GATTACA". The greatest concern I have at this level is cost. The "haves" would be able to afford such medical tinkering, while the "have nots" would not. This stands to increase the divide, already viewed by so many as the source of so much of the world's social problems. An interesting quandary I heard proposed on this subject, is whether or not a child could then sue its parents for not providing top notch tinkering, because of the disadvantage in social position likely to come about from the lack of adequate engineering. The "social stigma" if you will, of not being properly "genetically adjusted".

Oh yes, stem cells can be harvested from cadaver sources, as well as from bone tissue in a living adult. In theory, aborted fetal material is not even required. It is simply the easiest source to work with at this point.

Otherwise, I am in agreement with the bulk of your reply. Thanks.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

God or UN

Juan says:

Conceptually, the idea sounds good. Why waste this material that could be used to help the living? But since humans are not known for their moderation, I foresee ominous things ahead if such is granted wholesale endorsement.

Whk says:

Unfortunately, society would need to draw lines and enforce them to avoid having a need for stem cells drive the desire for abortions; taken to its extreme conclusion, we have the nightmare of organleggers kidnapping people for their body parts, and here we are back at bad SF again! So where do we draw the line?

Susma says:

That is why we have the United Nations in the role of a moderator/controller acting on the basis of universal humanistic reasons, instead of people like Bush acting as exclusive all-powerful viziers of God on their religious tenets.

The United Nations has blocked moves to impose a global ban on research into all forms of human cloning.

The UN General Assembly's legal committee voted 80-79 in favour of an Iranian proposal to delay any decision on a ban for two years.

(A digression: If only Bush had listened to the UN and waited, instead of going ahead to launch his preemptive war on Iraq...)


Summing up:

If a procedure can be done, someone will do it, anyhow, anytime, anywhere, and to hell with the rest of mankind. Our only hope we who are not that someone, and since we cannot stop him completely, is to control him, so that there is order and predictability as regards the how, the when, the where, and thereby preventing hell to the rest of mankind. For that purpose in today’s world the UN is the best answer.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[juantoo3]

That is why we have the United Nations in the role of a moderator/controller acting on the basis of universal humanistic reasons, instead of people like Bush acting as exclusive all-powerful viziers of God on their religious tenets.

I did a little research into the matter of Bush giving a limited official "okey-dokey" to fetal stem cell research for a paper I wrote in a legal ethics class. If Bush had used his own religious tenets for his decision, he would not have approved the research at all, and in fact took a lot of repercussion from the religious right for doing so. He also got a lot of flak from the left for not giving full authorization, so he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Personally, I gotta give the guy credit for proceeding with caution, and limiting abuse of the technology. It remains to be seen if any other governments, including the UN, will have such foresight.

If a procedure can be done, someone will do it, anyhow, anytime, anywhere, and to hell with the rest of mankind. Our only hope we who are not that someone, and since we cannot stop him completely, is to control him, so that there is order and predictability as regards the how, the when, the where, and thereby preventing hell to the rest of mankind. For that purpose in today’s world the UN is the best answer.

Because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Even so, fetal tissue is not the only viable source of stem cell material. In accord with Dr. Collins, head of the government portion of the genome mapping project, there is no guarantee that genome manipulation will manifest into a medical panacea. It may in fact turn into a medical nightmare. There is so much hype out there on the subject, most of it from people who have little or no clue what is really going on in the field, that I am suspicious at best, and reserved in my judgement. Except for using fetal tissue when other viable sources are readily available.

 

[Blue]

Stem cells

Stem cell research is absolutely essential.
The benefits can be enormous for the human race, and individuals like me with diabetes, for example.

The moral arguments are confusing at best, and religiously based for many, and none offer valid reasons in my opinion.

Cloning in general has happened, and continue to happen, human or otherwise. What we think, from any moral/ethical standpoint, will not matter in the long run.

 

[juantoo3]

Regards Blue,

What we think, from any moral/ethical standpoint, will not matter in the long run.

In this point of view, I must respectfully disagree. Everything we do, every action we take, has a moral and/or ethical component to it. The "religious view of many" is their way of addressing those issues. But morality and ethics are not solely religious, indeed, can be considered and weighed in the complete absence of religious dogma. The question revolves around "will it work?", "what is the best way to accomplish it if it works?", "how do we accomplish it with the least negative impact and greatest positive impact?" All of this while being considerate of the ramifications, social and otherwise, on all cultures with the least moral and ethical offense.

 

[juantoo3]

In accord with Dr. Collins, head of the government portion of the genome mapping project, there is no guarantee that genome manipulation will manifest into a medical panacea. It may in fact turn into a medical nightmare. There is so much hype out there on the subject, most of it from people who have little or no clue what is really going on in the field, that I am suspicious at best, and reserved in my judgement.

It's probably not standard tradition to quote oneself, but there is something that has come to mind since I posted this that helps illuminate what I was trying to say. Dolly the sheep was "proof" of cloning, and I hear many trumpeting that achievement. And achievement it was. Dolly also died very early, put down due to crippling arthritis. Was this arthritis brought on by the method? Or was it a side effect of not being naturally created? The hope is the former, but we are way too early in the game to say that with certainty. It is these unforeseeable variables that confound the method, and raise caution regarding the field as a medical panacea. Rather than panacea, it may in fact be Pandora's Box, and we wouldn't know until 20 or 30 years down the road. It would be worse than a shame to see a whole generation devastated by our lack of foresight.

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

It's probably not standard tradition to quote oneself, but there is something that has come to mind since I posted this that helps illuminate what I was trying to say. Dolly the sheep was "proof" of cloning, and I hear many trumpeting that achievement. And achievement it was. Dolly also died very early, put down due to crippling arthritis. Was this arthritis brought on by the method? Or was it a side effect of not being naturally created? The hope is the former, but we are way too early in the game to say that with certainty. It is these unforeseeable variables that confound the method, and raise caution regarding the field as a medical panacea. Rather than panacea, it may in fact be Pandora's Box, and we wouldn't know until 20 or 30 years down the road. It would be worse than a shame to see a whole generation devastated by our lack of foresight.

Sorry, to tell this Juantoo,
However my thoughts on this subject could match with yours in abortion issue, i cant go with the cloning, excuse me old pal but you are talking one of those people who doesnt approve the advencement of science.
Cloning is giving us the second chance to study the same molecules, well actually it sound scarry ... but also looks like the cure off a lot of disease, dont you think?
I mean think about cancer? How far can we go like this? We still couldnt do anything to stop it? Hiv's, many different Syndromes that holds many different man names , allergies etcetera, all could be healed maybe.

I's assume you are conservative, huh ?
not there's something wrong with that

 

[Quahom1]

Hello all.

What an emotionally strong topic. Let us look at the fears some people have (rightfully) brought up. Suppose you were dying, but your brain is fine. Your body is worn out, or torn up with desease. You have the money, and medicine is at such a technological point that your brain could be removed from your old body and placed in a new body that is in fact genetically identical to your old one, without the imperfections. Absolutely no rejection. You could live a long and fruitful life.

What do you do with the brain that came from the "new body"? Would it be ethical to destroy it? Do you really have the right to prematurely terminate another human (already out of a womb)? Or is that human merely "spare parts", or a spare body double for use as seen fit?

Would never happen? We have people doing things along this line of thinking right now. Desperate parents having another child in the hopes of providing an existing but ill child with some partial organ, or blood, or what ever, and oh by the way, they get a second child to boot. They aren't having the second child for the sake of having a second child, for because they hope to save the first child.

Suppose a human is cloned, or many are cloned. Are they human? With rights, or are they property, or personas non gratta? Are they "3/4s of a human", like the early American colonialists and many of the fledgling States considered the African American?

Cloning in and of itself is not the evil (or good) thing. It just is something we can, or will shortly perfect. It just is. What our intent to do with the "clone" is what should be called into question, and carefully considered.

Cloning parts (except the brain), doesn't seem to be something I personally have a problem with. Cloning the whole person, has me concerned.

What happens if it discovered that the "clone" itself is "defective", after it is grown? That is to say the the illness in the original body will also occur in the cloned body? Do we terminate that clone?

"Gattaca" was mentioned before. It seems to me that the series of "defects" in the one son, actually turned out to be assets, and the "perfection" in the other son, turned out to be detrimental, or stumbling blocks.

Really, who wants to live forever (here), and at what price?

my two cents.

v/r

Q

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

Hello all.

What an emotionally strong topic. Let us look at the fears some people have (rightfully) brought up. Suppose you were dying, but your brain is fine. Your body is worn out, or torn up with desease. You have the money, and medicine is at such a technological point that your brain could be removed from your old body and placed in a new body that is in fact genetically identical to your old one, without the imperfections. Absolutely no rejection. You could live a long and fruitful life.

What do you do with the brain that came from the "new body"? Would it be ethical to destroy it? Do you really have the right to prematurely terminate another human (already out of a womb)? Or is that human merely "spare parts", or a spare body double for use as seen fit?

Would never happen? We have people doing things along this line of thinking right now. Desperate parents having another child in the hopes of providing an existing but ill child with some partial organ, or blood, or what ever, and oh by the way, they get a second child to boot. They aren't having the second child for the sake of having a second child, for because they hope to save the first child.

Suppose a human is cloned, or many are cloned. Are they human? With rights, or are they property, or personas non gratta? Are they "3/4s of a human", like the early American colonialists and many of the fledgling States considered the African American?

Cloning in and of itself is not the evil (or good) thing. It just is something we can, or will shortly perfect. It just is. What our intent to do with the "clone" is what should be called into question, and carefully considered.

Cloning parts (except the brain), doesn't seem to be something I personally have a problem with. Cloning the whole person, has me concerned.

What happens if it discovered that the "clone" itself is "defective", after it is grown? That is to say the the illness in the original body will also occur in the cloned body? Do we terminate that clone?

"Gattaca" was mentioned before. It seems to me that the series of "defects" in the one son, actually turned out to be assets, and the "perfection" in the other son, turned out to be detrimental, or stumbling blocks.

Really, who wants to live forever (here), and at what price?

my two cents.

v/r

Q

Hello Sir,
Long time no news Actually, its really nice to see you in this thread.
The thing is not the brain but who sets the laws?
We're both stumbling around together in this unformed world, whose rules and objectives are largely unknown, seemingly indecipherable or even possibly nonexistent, always on the verge of being killed by forces that we don't understand (eXistenZ) It really doesnt seem that we will be able to find cure to most dieseas, shall we stop the searching and let our spritual side kills science?

I really would like to live forever, dont you actually?

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

Hello all.

What an emotionally strong topic. Let us look at the fears some people have (rightfully) brought up. Suppose you were dying, but your brain is fine. Your body is worn out, or torn up with desease. You have the money, and medicine is at such a technological point that your brain could be removed from your old body and placed in a new body that is in fact genetically identical to your old one, without the imperfections. Absolutely no rejection. You could live a long and fruitful life.

What do you do with the brain that came from the "new body"? Would it be ethical to destroy it? Do you really have the right to prematurely terminate another human (already out of a womb)? Or is that human merely "spare parts", or a spare body double for use as seen fit?

Would never happen? We have people doing things along this line of thinking right now. Desperate parents having another child in the hopes of providing an existing but ill child with some partial organ, or blood, or what ever, and oh by the way, they get a second child to boot. They aren't having the second child for the sake of having a second child, for because they hope to save the first child.

Suppose a human is cloned, or many are cloned. Are they human? With rights, or are they property, or personas non gratta? Are they "3/4s of a human", like the early American colonialists and many of the fledgling States considered the African American?

Cloning in and of itself is not the evil (or good) thing. It just is something we can, or will shortly perfect. It just is. What our intent to do with the "clone" is what should be called into question, and carefully considered.

Cloning parts (except the brain), doesn't seem to be something I personally have a problem with. Cloning the whole person, has me concerned.

What happens if it discovered that the "clone" itself is "defective", after it is grown? That is to say the the illness in the original body will also occur in the cloned body? Do we terminate that clone?

"Gattaca" was mentioned before. It seems to me that the series of "defects" in the one son, actually turned out to be assets, and the "perfection" in the other son, turned out to be detrimental, or stumbling blocks.

Really, who wants to live forever (here), and at what price?

my two cents.

v/r

Q

Hello Sir,
Long time no news Actually, its really nice to see You in this thread.
The thing is not the brain but who sets the laws, Quahom?

We're both stumbling around together in this unformed world, whose rules and objectives are largely unknown, seemingly indecipherable or even possibly nonexistent, always on the verge of being killed by forces that we don't understand (eXistenZ)
It really doesnt seem that we will be able to find cure to most killing illness' mankind is facing with, i personally dont think that its a good time to let our spritual side kill the science.
I really would like to live forever, dont you really?

 

[Quahom1]

Hello Sir,
Long time no news Actually, its really nice to see You in this thread.
The thing is not the brain but who sets the laws, Quahom?

We're both stumbling around together in this unformed world, whose rules and objectives are largely unknown, seemingly indecipherable or even possibly nonexistent, always on the verge of being killed by forces that we don't understand (eXistenZ)
It really doesnt seem that we will be able to find cure to most killing illness' mankind is facing with, i personally dont think that its a good time to let our spritual side kill the science.
I really would like to live forever, dont you really?

Hello back sir

We have to set the laws Persona, we the people. Joe and Joesephine Citizen. We have to decide what is right and what we can live with, or not. If we don't then we will have those laws set for us by the rich and powerful, and those not looking out for our (the majority) best interest.

If we are stumbling around, then it is in our best interests to find light, quickly (read that as get educated). As far as being on the verge of getting killed...Pers, you and I agreed before that we are dying every day, from the moment we are born. Nothing new under the Sun (that both kills us and keeps us alive).

I agree that we best not allow blind superstition, or religion dictate how we use science to "better" mankind. I also think that we best not allow the cold caluoused clinical view of science superscede the "heart" of mankind.

Pers, the pendulum swings wide both ways. Somewhere in the middle is where the pendulum's weight works best for us.

And no, I do not want to live forever on this planet, or in this plane. I want to live for a good while here, mind you, but I know this is only a staging area for something better. Eventually I would like "orders" to move on.

Good to read from you sir

v/r

Q

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

Hello back sir

We have to set the laws Persona, we the people. Joe and Joesephine Citizen. We have to decide what is right and what we can live with, or not. If we don't then we will have those laws set for us by the rich and powerful, and those not looking out for our (the majority) best interest.

thank you for your kind words,

WE=LAWS?
Id like to start with nice lines i lenjoy reading when i think about law and order, as this wasnt the case of the thread i'll pass it quick

I LIKE A SPIRIT

I like a spirit. But I feel a repugnance when it is theorized. Under process of theorizing, it is often transformed into a harmony with social reality, a slavish compromise, and a falsehood.

It is a rare thing that a thought is as it is. Still, it is few of action emerged from a spirit directly. I like at the most a blind action of a human being or an expression of spirit.

a sprit is a nice womb to be in

If we are stumbling around, then it is in our best interests to find light, quickly (read that as get educated). As far as being on the verge of getting killed...Pers, you and I agreed before that we are dying every day, from the moment we are born. Nothing new under the Sun (that both kills us and keeps us alive).

so true

I agree that we best not allow blind superstition, or religion dictate how we use science to "better" mankind. I also think that we best not allow the cold caluoused clinical view of science superscede the "heart" of mankind.

Quahom you are really limiting mankind, i am having difficulties understanding this. I mean in which sins of the main religions said something about cloning, could you refer me a passage? Moralities should come after rationalism if you as kme.

Pers, the pendulum swings wide both ways. Somewhere in the middle is where the pendulum's weight works best for us. ok

And no, I do not want to live forever on this planet, or in this plane.

hello : ) i really would love to that'll be awesome! but you gotta now that you will never die but travel,
i guess that sounded like a hippie?? huh, but yeah

 

[mirrorinthefog]

Quahom you are really limiting mankind, i am having difficulties understanding this. I mean in which sins of the main religions said something about cloning, could you refer me a passage? Moralities should come after rationalism if you as kme.

How "moral" is it to eliminate another human being because he or she is not what you wanted him or her to be? Does one have the right to produce a child and use pieces of the child to save another child?

Frankly I wouldn't want someone to tell me that I was spare parts for another human being.


Either way, I don't see anything wrong with cloning parts, or genetic research, if it is done to help and not for its own sake, which seems to be the majority of the problem. (Why on earth would I want another me running around? I have enough of a problem with one, thank you very much, and I think several billion people on the planet is more than enough-if anything we don't need more people)

Stem cell research? Seems like using a child as spare parts, to me. But, that doesn't mean it is "evil". I'm not a part of any organized religion, so I'm not going to talk about Divinity in this. It is a mess, I admit, and I wish there was another way to go about it without harming another individual-adult or otherwise. But no, stopping it on the grounds that "the Lord doesn't want it done" doesn't hold up. That doesn't justify it either, however, and I don't believe that human life should be devalued for the sake of scientific advancement-who is science for, after all?

Anyways, the point is the pros and cons should be well thounght out before we come to a solution, in my humble opinion. Being fanatically for or against an issue only complicates it further, and feeds old fueds. It's uneccessary and childish at best, as far as I'm concerned.

PNG said a few posts back that he would like to live forever-wouldn't everyone? Well, actually, no I wouldn't. And I don't believe in an afterlife-not in the sense that most people do. Whatever makes me who I am will dissolve after death.
But I know my limits. Death is highly overrated, and feared when it shouldn't be. There would be no sense to be prolonging something that wasn't designed to last, and doesn't need to last. It would be like constantly rewinding a movie before the ending.

To each his own, though. This is just my opinion. Nobody has to agree.