Cloning Ethics

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2005-03-21 06:54pm

OK, I did not want to hijack the other thread too bad. Lets assume cloning is 99% safe, and no ill affects come from it.

Is it moral?
What would the social impact be?
How much right do we have to our own DNA?

What if an obsessed fan wanted a child just like Britney Spears. Buys some Britney Spears DNA on the Black Market, and raises the chld as her own. Does Britney have a legal right to the child? If it was taken against Britneys will, would she be able to get any compensation? Could the clone be destroyed upon her request?

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2005-03-21 07:30pm

Human cloning I don't think should be made available, at least not today. I have no problems with cloning a new heart or lung or eye or arm or whatever. It looks like in 20-50 years we might start to be able to grow new body parts individualy with great control, which would be a massive step forward in medical technology. This I approve 150%.

But cloning a full human being? I just don't know. I think we need to tred very careffuly and take our time before we cross that line. I'm sure it will be done, but I think we need to make sure we don't rush in.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2005-03-21 07:52pm

I think cloning should only be performed for important reasons, and subject to the donor's willingness. Cloning a Britney Spears for a kid just because the potential parent is a huge fan or whatever I find difficult to understand (have a kid normally

). The main point would be Britney's consent...if it were given, I'd have a hard time finding a real objection to it if the parent were reasonably expected to be a good one.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-03-21 07:57pm

if its cloning organs, why not? clone some perfect organs, and end the line for organ donations.

if its a person, your body, your business. much like selling sperm or egg, dna can be sold on the market. 2 million dollars for photos of a nude britney? how about 2 million for the dna of britney.

as they are the equivalent of twins, let them have full legal rights. that ends the worry of child abuse quite quickly.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2005-03-21 08:34pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:A clone is simply a person with the same genetic structre. Identical twins are in fact clones. Does a person have a legal right to his/her twin brother/sister? Of course not, beyond the normal brother/sister things. If a person killed his twin, it is murder. And a clone is no different than a twin, other than the fact that a clone would be born younger.
I don't see why cloning is so bad. It is simply making more people, just like regular sex.

You'd have to make sure the laws were clear that a clone is a "child" of the donor (or whomever) and is not the donor themselves. Otherwise, consent would be the main issue. If donor consent is granted - no problem. Otherwise it should be verbotten and should be heavily penalized.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-03-21 08:40pm

we'd have to figure out inheritance laws tho.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-21 11:03pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:If someone is cloned against his will, I figure that is analogous to rape. The victim who had his DNA stolen would have the rights like a rape victim: he could order the clone aborted or demand it be recongized as his own child, as if he ordered the clone himself, unless it has already been born, in which case it would be a normal person with all rights. The one who stole the DNA would be brought up on charges as a criminal and may be forced to give up custody of the child to the victim or his family.

Ah, see, now we have an ethical problem. If a criminal spits on the sidewalk, the police can collect that DNA, process it, analyze it, and display the results for the world to see. What right do they have to do this? It is implied that if a criminal discards his DNA, it is given freely to an ambiguous - if existent - recipient, and anyone has the right to collect it.

Why, then, should scientists be banned from collecting, processing, and analyzing the same DNA specimen if discarded DNA is considered communal property? And if it is communal property given with implied consent (because Person X assumedly wanted to spit on the ground), why is the manipulation of that DNA ethically wrong provided the following:

A) The donor has no responsibility to care for this child,
B) The child will be provided for and loved by a foster family,
C) The donor is able to check a database and learn if his DNA was collected, and if a child with his genetic makeup was created, so that if he so desired, he could seek/arrange custody of that child.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-03-21 11:29pm

I would view spat DNA as communal property, at least for use in criminal trials. However if one creates a clone out of it, the creatopr of the clone would be the persons "parent"

Terr Fangbite · Post by **Terr Fangbite** » 2005-03-22 07:13am

Something I've thought of. The DNA of Identical twins is the same and as would clones on the same token.

What if someone clones another and gets the clone to go on a crime spree? If you have lets say 5 clones of Bob, which clone or even Bob, gets the guilty verdict for the DNA evidence found at the scene of the crime? The DNA is no longer a generally unique key to a person, it is something which may be 1 or 100 people.

Even without this DNA evidence can be put to sham. If a criminal plays his cards right, he could argue that a clone of his did it, not him. This is especially the case if he put his DNA up for grabs. He wouldn't have to prove there is a clone, just that there is a reasonable chance there is. That possibility of a clone could cause a gullible enough jury to throw out DNA evidence.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-03-22 07:47am

Actually, that wouldn't happen. The genome of a clone, even an identical one of an already born person, would not be the same. Even identical twins have different genome sets and even clones can differ at the morphological level too. A cloned black and white cat could equally become a white and black cat instead.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-03-22 01:15pm

Chris OFarrell wrote:But cloning a full human being? I just don't know. I think we need to tred very careffuly and take our time before we cross that line. I'm sure it will be done, but I think we need to make sure we don't rush in.

What exactly are you worried about? I notice that people often react this way when full human cloning comes up, but they seldom list specific objections.

The only major objection I can come up with is that clones might get a hard time from people who irrationally believe that they're soulless freaks or perfect copies or something.