Slashdot Mirror
South Korean Cloners In Hot Water Over Donors
Xookliba writes "Last February, South Korean scientists succeeded in the world's first human clone. Read the slashdot article here. As it turns out, they might have not been the best abassadors for this technology as they are currently mired in an ethical scandal over the source of the eggs used in the experiment. The field definitely does not need this type of debacle. No doubt this will fuel the argument of those who oppose all types of cloning, including the beneficial therapeutic cloning that this research was aimed at.
Read the story here."
This only begs the question: beneficial to whom? Isn't there someone you're forgetting, someone who doesn't benefit from so-called "therapeutic" cloning, namely the unborn human being who is being harvested for parts for the benefit of others? How is this different from the Nazi-era human experimentation that we all (hopefully) abhor?
the skeptics being right, how dare they!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I love you. That's a great point. We "abuse" the dignity of sentient beings all the time.
or, Hard Boiled Egg Plot Involves High Risk of Blood Clot.
I am happy full of glee
that you clone some eggs from me.
Science good, coersion bad,
I'll be a mommy AND a dad!
No wait, eggs of mine
They are not
Please excuse
mine english is rot.
Western values rule the day
You don't see this game we play?
In other News, (Hold your breath!)
Some Koreans, HAVE BREASTS!
But of course!
We'll use the Force!
Nothing to see here.
You're looking for a beer.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
I guess i just wanted to point out that these stem cell grown parts will only be usefull to the one person whose original cells were used. Most embryonic stem cell research has been relatively unsuccessfull because they have been using fertilized embryos which have a different genetic make-up than the person intended to benefit from them, thus bringing up the issue of rejection inherent when doing a normal organ transplant or other such procedure. Adult stem cell research (such as nasal stem cells or bone marrow stem cells) has shown much more promise than embryonic stem cell research without the inherent moral arguments.
If you seen one, you've seen them all.
I wonder how many sceptics would still oppose cloning research (or genetic research in general) if they knew it could lead to a cure for his/her child. IMO the question if an experiment is ethical or not should be decide by those who are knowledgable enough to judge wisely. And not by a Hollywood-educated, religious fanatical mob.
Your comment is typical of the utilitarian viewpoint (the philosophy that says that whatever course of action provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is the most ethical one). Your comment also smacks of elitism ("religious fanatical mob") and demonstrates your willingness to let "those who are knowledgable" make all your decisions for you.
Even Nancy Reagan is for stem cell research. The unfortunate point is that people (much like with abortion, -1 flamebait) get on their high moral horse and preach about the sanctity of life. But what they miss is that stem cell research is about saving lives. Human cloning is an inseparable issue from this, IMO. Before everyone starts making "slippery slope" arguments, think about what can be learned/gained, scientifically and medically, and then tell me with what certainty we should throw it out because it instinctively feels like something we shouldn't be doing?
A lump of cells or a baby? Depends on what you want. You want to have a baby, therefore you bond that currently a-"lump of cells" into an idea of a baby. It's a baby in potentia, in hopes. It's not a baby yet, but it could become one. But it really isn't a baby yet. Please try to understand that.
So, let's leave it up to the "donors" (the thousands of women who have abortions every month). How about a simple check box: "Are you willing to donate your childs/fetuses'/gamete tissue to medical science for research on stem cells?" We all know there are many abortions undertaken for purely medical reasons involving the health of the mother, and other reasons such as rape+pregnancy.
I know damned well this won't satisfy the radicals on both sides, but I think it would be a reasonable compromise; let's face it, whether or not abortion is legal, abortions are going to happen. It's arguably more moral to allow them to happen in supervised and licensed clinics where there is less risk for the woman.
In that sense, arguing for pro-choice (and I am, although I see the arguments on both sides, once having disagreed with someone who aborted a potential child of mine), doesn't it make sense from a moral and ethical standpoint to let the woman decide what should be done with the tissue that is taken from her own body?
One thing that this whole debate lacks to a large extent is a rational decision as to whose choice it is to allow a fetus to come to term. What I find disgusting about the whole debate is that it's come down to whether it's the choice of the majority (ie, government), rather than the choice of the people involved, to make the decision. I fail to understand what role, if any, the federal government should play in those decisions.
If the people on either side don't like what I've posted, I don't really care. Just think about it, and think about this: While you argue, you are screwing up a lot of lives, and most of them are people who are grown and already contribute to society. That kind of damage is of a higher magnitude than ending the life of an early term fetus is, to society as a whole.
If we have a dysfunctional society, we might as well be living back in the Dark Ages.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.