Embyro Selection, Cloning, and Genetic Enhancement

[Fade the Butcher]

Is embryo selection immoral?

[Jimbo Gomez]

For me, it borders on immorality, if you mean the selection of embryos before they are implanted (IVF situations). I am not a fan of IVF, but as long as the embryo isn't in its mother's womb you can't really consider it human. Selective abortion on the other hand is murder and therefor immoral.

[Ahknaton]

Just out of curiousity, is it possible to genetically screen ova & sperm prior to fertilisation? Or is that just not practical?

[Fade the Butcher]

Selective abortion on the other hand is murder and therefor immoral.

Are you engaging in murder when you wash your hands?

[Donny the Punk]

We all wonder what Fade's definitions of murder and immorality are.

[Jimbo Gomez]

What the hell kind of stupid reply is this? The bacteria I destroy while washing my hands do not have the biological capacity to develop in fully functional humans within a few months time.

[Fade the Butcher]

Just out of curiousity, is it possible to genetically screen ova & sperm prior to fertilisation? Or is that just not practical?

I'm not sure. I know it is already possible to split embryos and create identical twins.

[Fade the Butcher]

What the hell kind of stupid reply is this? The bacteria I destroy while washing my hands do not have the biological capacity to develop in fully functional humans within a few months time.

Suppose it were feasible (and this is not really far fetched) to create a clone of yourself from a common somatic cell that flakes off while washing your hands. Would it be murder to destroy a cell that has the potential to become a human being?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Not at all. The chances of a random skincell of mine ever being used to make a clone would be around one in five hundred billion or so, and that is in the event that someone is even considering cloning me. On top of that, I find cloning itself immoral, so preventing a cloning from taking place can't be immoral. Third: an embryo created for IVF purposes was meant to be implanted, to become a human being.

Finally: there's something really wrong with you if you would equate washing your hands with potentially endangering human life, even if you do it in such a silly reductio ad absurdum.

[Fade the Butcher]

Not at all. The chances of a random skincell of mine ever being used to make a clone would be around one in five hundred billion or so, and that is in the event that someone is even considering cloning me.

In other words, you are saying that you have no objection to destroying a potential human being.

On top of that, I find cloning itself immoral, so preventing a cloning from taking place can't be immoral.

Would you support abortion in the case of mothers who are expecting identical twins? Identical twins are essentially clones. Why is cloning immoral?

Third: an embryo created for IVF purposes was meant to be implanted, to become a human being.

Not exactly. In embryo selection, several embryos are created and the rest are discarded after the most desirable one is selected and implanted in the mother.

Finally: there's something really wrong with you if you would equate washing your hands with potentially endangering human life, even if you do it in such a silly reductio ad absurdum.

How so? Animals have already been cloned using somatic cells. It is entirely feasible that within the next ten or twenty years the cloning of humans will become a reality. The mother whose son dies in an automobile accident could theoretically have her son cloned.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Oh man...what have you read now Fade? :p


On the thread premisse...Gattaca all the way baby! :D

[Fade the Butcher]

Oh man...what have you read now Fade? On the thread premisse...Gattaca all the way baby! :D

I have been interested in eugenics for years now. It strikes me as odd that any rational person could oppose the concept. Why would any parent want to bring a child into the world that has the genetic deck stacked against him?

[Donny the Punk]

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Not going to answer the question?

[Jimbo Gomez]

In other words, you are saying that you have no objection to destroying a potential human being.



Would you support abortion in the case of mothers who are expecting identical twins? Identical twins are essentially clones. Why is cloning immoral?



Not exactly. In embryo selection, several embryos are created and the rest are discarded after the most desirable one is selected and implanted in the mother.



How so? Animals have already been cloned using somatic cells. It is entirely feasible that within the next ten or twenty years the cloning of humans will become a reality. The mother whose son dies in an automobile accident could theoretically have her son cloned.

Oh get real. A skincell is not a potential human being. Your reasoning there is pathetic.

I would not support aborting one embryo of a twin. Identical twins, a minority among all twins born, are NATURAL clones. Not the product of some mad scientist tinkering with the human genome.

Each embryo created in IVF was meant to be implanted, even if they only choose the best. That's completely different from one of my skincells, which never formed because of the intezntion to make a clone of myself.

Human beings are not animals. If you believe we are, I'd suggest you go live among the negroes in the jungle, get in touch with your animal inside Fade.

Geesh. You really need to stop reading those weird books. Every time you do, you completely adopt whatever it is you're reading. Might I suggest you'd never touch anything written by Karl Marx or Marquis de Sade?

[Ambrosio Spinola]

No need to be this agressive Stan :p

[Ravenheart]

Just out of curiousity, is it possible to genetically screen ova & sperm prior to fertilisation?

We are not yet at a point where we can interpret every genetic sequence, so we cannot yet get a full picture of what specific ova and sperm cells contain. That's just a matter of time though, and I think we have the technical know-how to screen ova and sperm for genetic disorders that have already been mapped. There are moral - and probably legal - obstacles to overcome, though.

Or is that just not practical?

I think it's going to be great. Undesirable traits will be removed with surgical precision. The real problem is probably going to be the price of the procedure, at least at first. It's also unlikely that a majority segment of the population is going to pick it up, as it does take away a lot of the romantic aspects of fertilisation. Nevertheless, it can be a real solution to various people with congenital diseases who wish to have children yet do not want to pass on their illnesses to their offspring. If even a small percentage of the population adopts this practice, the gains will already be worthwhile.

[cream]

Just out of curiousity, is it possible to genetically screen ova & sperm prior to fertilisation? Or is that just not practical?

Short answer is no.

Other than centrifuging to roughly separate X-carrying from Y-carrying sperm, current genotyping technology requires that you harvest DNA from the cells of interest. You can do this with a developing embryo by taking a few cells. Can't do this with single sperm/ova because you'd be destroying the cell in order to find out what it was carrying.

An easy way to get around this would be to grow clonal populations of sperm and ova in culture, though so far as I know such a technique hasn't been developed yet (could be wrong about eggs).

[Ravenheart]

Short answer is no.

Other than centrifuging to roughly separate X-carrying from Y-carrying sperm, current genotyping technology requires that you harvest DNA from the cells of interest. You can do this with a developing embryo by taking a few cells. Can't do this with single sperm/ova because you'd be destroying the cell in order to find out what it was carrying.

An easy way to get around this would be to grow clonal populations of sperm and ova in culture, though so far as I know such a technique hasn't been developed yet (could be wrong about eggs).

Interesting. Embryo selection seems more practical then; technically not as difficult (and thus probably cheaper) while the trade-off in precision is nothing too serious, I assume.

[Geist]

Fade I have seen you do this one once or twice before, if you believe this is anything other else than pure sophistry of the highest order than I am bemused.

@Whoever asked what he is reading, I think this one came up in After Virtue, its certainly one that I came across in BioEthics in college.

[Fade the Butcher]

Oh get real. A skincell is not a potential human being. Your reasoning there is pathetic.

A typical somatic cell contains all of your genetic information. As I pointed out above, it is entirely feasible that we will be able to use somatic cells to clone human beings within the next twenty years.

I would not support aborting one embryo of a twin.

Would you support having naturally conceived embryos tested for genetic diseases?

Identical twins, a minority among all twins born, are NATURAL clones. Not the product of some mad scientist tinkering with the human genome.

Would you rather have a mother and her child die than have a doctor perform a c-section to save the lives of both? What about antibiotics? Should we reject antibiotics because antibiotics are unnatural too?

Each embryo created in IVF was meant to be implanted, even if they only choose the best.

Several embryos are fertilized and only one is selected to be implanted in the mother. The rest are simply discarded. They can also be used for other purposes like stem cell research.

That's completely different from one of my skincells, which never formed because of the intezntion to make a clone of myself.

Not really. Each one of your cells will have the potential to become another human being once cloning becomes a reality.

Human beings are not animals. If you believe we are, I'd suggest you go live among the negroes in the jungle, get in touch with your animal inside Fade.

Humans are animals; maybe a highly intelligent animal, but an animal nonetheless. We share a common origin with all life on this planet. You share over fifty percent of your genes with a banana and over ninety percent with a mouse.

Geesh. You really need to stop reading those weird books. Every time you do, you completely adopt whatever it is you're reading. Might I suggest you'd never touch anything written by Karl Marx or Marquis de Sade?

This is nonsense. The vast majority of the books that I read are written by anti-racists. In fact, every book I currently own about the early twentieth century eugenics movement is a polemic against eugenics. I haven't suddenly become interested in the subject either. I have posted about it for years. I used to chat with Nachtwolf all the time about eugenics several years ago.

[jcs]

A typical somatic cell contains all of your genetic information. As I pointed out above, it is entirely feasible that we will be able to use somatic cells to clone human beings within the next twenty years.
A skin cell is not a potential human being in the same sense as a fertilized egg can be considered such, because the latter is the product of natural conception, a process which once begun will result in the development of a human unless interrupted. The skin cell, on the other hand, has not begun the process of development, and cannot rightly be considered a potential human, insofar as that potential is not in any way latent in the process of it being washed down the drain. When the cloning process begins, so does a moral dilemma--but not before then.

[Jimbo Gomez]

One day perhaps, but not now. Even if that is the case, an embryo is either conceived or created with the intent of procreation, I already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that part. Either because of divine or human intention, the embryo in question was created to become a human being. Even for an atheist such as yourself it should be obvious that the intention and natural capability of becoming a person isn't present in a skincell.

I'd support having them tested, but unless if it turns out the child will be stillborn or won't be able to survive its first hours, I wouldn't have it aborted. In the rare events I just described, I'd support abortion only because of the dangers the birth will put the mother in, unnecessary because the child won't live anyway.

Here we go again. You don't even believe this crap yourself. Washing your hands is NOT killing potential offspring. Taking antibiotics is NOT the same as cloning people. I happen to believe that some lines shouldn't be crossed. Every person is unique, even the most worthless parasitic bum. Cloning people would violate that personality. That is what makes it unnatural.

One is selected yes, after all of them were created with the intention of possibly implanting them. Often they'll implant two or three of them as well. At the moment they create the embryo, they do so because they want to implant it. As you very well know.

Skincells: look above.

What separates us from animals is our presonality and self awareness. I know I am human, a mouse doesn't know it is a mouse.

Your books: if you say so.

[Donny the Punk]

Come on Fade, tell us all what you think immorality consists of so we can have something to smirk about next week. Are you in favour of abortion now?

[Fade the Butcher]

One day perhaps, but not now.

The first human clone will probably appear within the next ten years. The basic technology is already there. Other mammals have already been successfully cloned. IVF was first used on mice before Louise Brown became the first human conceived in this way in 1978.

Even if that is the case, an embryo is either conceived or created with the intent of procreation, I already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that part. Either because of divine or human intention, the embryo in question was created to become a human being.

I think you are ignoring a few facts here. First, human couples do not always intend to have children. Many pregnancies are accidental. Second, most naturally conceived embryos die anyway. Third, embryos can be created to harvest stem cells which can be used to treat various illnesses.

Even for an atheist such as yourself it should be obvious that the intention and natural capability of becoming a person isn't present in a skincell.

A typical skin cell actually contains all of your genetic information. It will probably be possible to clone you within your lifetime by using a simple skin cell.

I'd support having them tested, but unless if it turns out the child will be stillborn or won't be able to survive its first hours, I wouldn't have it aborted.

So you would support taking a cell from a simple embryo, dissolving it in a special solution, and testing it for various genetic diseases? Isn't that murder though? The cell that you separated from the embryo and tested could have been implanted back in the womb and developed as an identical twin.

In the rare events I just described, I'd support abortion only because of the dangers the birth will put the mother in, unnecessary because the child won't live anyway.

Is a blastocyst a human being?

Here we go again. You don't even believe this crap yourself. Washing your hands is NOT killing potential offspring.

A somatic cell could theoretically be used to produce a human clone.

Taking antibiotics is NOT the same as cloning people. I happen to believe that some lines shouldn't be crossed.

You have argued that cloning is wrong because it is supposedly unnatural. Antibiotics are artificial. Saving the lives of children through c-sections is also artificial.

Every person is unique, even the most worthless parasitic bum. Cloning people would violate that personality. That is what makes it unnatural.

Human clones already exist. Do you know any identical twins?

One is selected yes, after all of them were created with the intention of possibly implanting them. Often they'll implant two or three of them as well. At the moment they create the embryo, they do so because they want to implant it. As you very well know.

I pointed out above that embryos can also be created to harvest stem cells.

Skincells: look above.What separates us from animals is our presonality and self awareness. I know I am human, a mouse doesn't know it is a mouse.Your books: if you say so.

Is a blastocyst self aware? Does a zygote have a personality? You share over 97% of your genes with a chimpanzee. Chimpanzees live in societies, make tools, and can even learn certain words and phrases. The common honey bee is capable of abstract thought.

[Fade the Butcher]

A skin cell is not a potential human being in the same sense as a fertilized egg can be considered such, because the latter is the product of natural conception, a process which once begun will result in the development of a human unless interrupted.

There are plenty of couples that are unable to conceive naturally because of various medical conditions like blocked fallopian tubes or low sperm count. An embryo that is conceived in a fertility clinic isn't created naturally, but it can be implanted in a woman and develop into a human child. This is already a reality. The first human to be born in such a way was Louise Brown in 1978. Today, hundreds of thousands of children are born through such methods and their numbers continue to rise every year. Virgins have had children using such technology.

The skin cell, on the other hand, has not begun the process of development, and cannot rightly be considered a potential human, insofar as that potential is not in any way latent in the process of it being washed down the drain. When the cloning process begins, so does a moral dilemma--but not before then.

A skin cell does have the potential to become a human being as it contains all of your genetic information. Again, I will point out that we are only a few years at best from this becoming a reality.

[infoterror]

Embyro = neonatal ballpoint pen?

[jcs]

There are plenty of couples that are unable to conceive naturally because of various medical conditions like blocked fallopian tubes or low sperm count. An embryo that is conceived in a fertility clinic isn't created naturally, but it can be implanted in a woman and develop into a human child. This is already a reality. The first human to be born in such a way was Louise Brown in 1978. Today, hundreds of thousands of children are born through such methods and their numbers continue to rise every year. Virgins have had children using such technology.



A skin cell does have the potential to become a human being as it contains all of your genetic information. Again, I will point out that we are only a few years at best from this becoming a reality.
I have the potential to become a key lime pie because there is an extremely small probability that my molecules could spontaneously rearrange in such a way that I would be a key lime pie. But I'm speaking of processes, and there is a tremendous difference between spontaneous pie-becoming or the creation of a human from skin cells and the process of natural conception. The process of human cloning does not begin when a skin cell is separated from one's hand, but when some scientist comes along and gets to work. What we're speaking of is the difference between the modal and categorical: a skin cell that is removed from one's hand MAY become a potential human; a skin cell that has entered the cloning process IS a potential human.

[Petr]

Are you in favour of abortion now?
Yeah, that would be interesting to hear.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

I ordered Lee Silver's book a week or so ago and it came in the mail the other day. Silver is a molecular biologist at Princeton University. Here is the whole excerpt from his book that were were discussing in the Science and Technology forum.

It is now three hundred years later and although you are long since gone, a number of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren are now alive, mostly unbeknownst to one another. The United States of America still exists, but it is a different place from the one familiar to you. The most striking difference is that the extreme polarization of society that began during the 1980s has now reached its logical conclusion, with all people belonging to one of two classes. The people of one class are referred to as Naturals, while those in the second class are called the Gene-enriched or simply the GenRich.

The GenRich -- who account for 10 percent of the American population -- all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in the laboratory and did not exist within the human species until twenty-first century reproductive geneticists began to put them there. The GenRich are a modern day hereditary class of genetic aristocrats.

Some of the synthetic genes carried by present-day members of the GenRich class were already carried by their parents. These genes were transmitted to today's GenRich the old-fashioned way, from parent to child through sperm or egg. These were placed into GenRich embryos through the application of genetic engineering techniques shortly after conception.

The GenRich class is anything but homogenous. There are many types of GenRich families, and many subtypes within each type. For example, there are GenRich athletes who can trace their descent back to professional sports players from the twenty-first century. One subtype of GenRich athlete is the GenRich football player, and a sub-subtype is the GenRich running back. Embryo selection techniques have been used to make sure that a GenRich running back has received all of the natural genes that made his unenhanced foundation ancestor excel at the position. But in addition, at each generation beyond the foundation ancestor, sophisticated genetic enhancements have accumulated so that the modern-day GenRich running back can perform in a way not conceivable for any unenhanced Natural. Of course, all professional baseball, football, and basketball players are special GenRich subtypes. After three hundred years of selection and enhancement, these GenRich individuals all have athletic skills that are clearly "nonhuman" in the traditional sense. It would be impossible for any Natural to compete.

Another GenRich type is the GenRich scientist. Many of the synthetic genes carried by the GenRich scientist are the same as those carried by all other members of the GenRich class, including some that enhance a variety of physical and mental attributes, as well as others that provide resistance to all known forms of human disease. But in addition, the present-day GenRich scientist has accumulated a set of particular synthetic genes that work together with his "natural" heritage to produce an enhanced scientific mind. Although the GenRich scientist may appear to be different from the GenRich athlete, both GenRich types have evolved by a similar process. The foundation ancestor for the modern GenRich scientist was a bright twenty-first century scientist who could produce even more brilliant children. There are numerous other GenRich types including GenRich businessmen, GenRich musicians, GenRich artists, and even GenRich intellectual generalists who all evolved in the same way.

Not all present-day GenRich individuals can trace their foundation ancestors back to the twenty-first century, when genetic enhancement was first perfected. During the twenty-second and twenty-third centuries, some Natural families garnered the financial wherewithal required to place their children in the GenRich class. But with the passage of time, the genetic distance between the Naturals and the GenRich has become greater and greater, and now there is little movement up from the Natural to GenRich class. It seems fair to say that society is on the verge of reaching the final point of complete polarization.

All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by the members of the GenRich class. GenRich parents can afford to send their children to private schools rich in the resources required for them to take advantage of their enhanced genetic potential. In contrast, Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers, and their children go to public schools. But twenty-fourth century public schols have little in common with their predecessors from the twentieth century. Funds for public education have declined steadily since the beginning of the twenty-first century, and now Natural children are only taught the basic skills they need to perform the kinds of tasks they'll encounter in the jobs available to members of their class.

There is still some intermarriage as well as sexual intermingling between a few GenRich individuals and Naturals. But, as one might imagine, GenRich parents put intense pressure on their children not to dilute their expensive genetic endowment in this way. And as time passes, the mixing of the classes will become less and less frequent for reasons of both environment and genetics.

The environmental reason is clear enough: GenRich and Natural children grow up and live in segregated social worlds where there is little chance for contact between them. The genetic reason, however, was unanticipated.

It is obvious to everyone that with each generation of genetic enhancement, the genetic distance separating the GenRich and Naturals is growing larger and larger. But a startling consequence of the expanding genetic distance has just come to light. In a nationwide survey of the few interclass GenRich-Natural couples that could be identified, sociologists have discovered an astounding 90 percent level of infertility. Reproductive geneticists have examined these couples and come to the conclusion that the infertility is caused primarily by the incompatibility between the genetic makeup of each member.

Evolutionary biologists have long observed instances in which otherwise fertile individuals taken from two separate populations prove infertile when mated to each other. And they tell the sociologists and reproductive geneticists what is going on: the process of species separation between the GenRich and Naturals has already begun. Together, the sociologists, the reproductive geneticists, and the evolutionary biologists are willing to make the following prediction: If the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue at the present rate, then by the end of the third millennium, the GenRich class and the Natural class will become the GenRich humans and the Natural humans -- entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

[jcs]

...but the GenRich runningback and GenRich scientist are probably just about as different from one another as any given GeneRich individual and Natural.

[Fade the Butcher]

I have the potential to become a key lime pie because there is an extremely small probability that my molecules could spontaneously rearrange in such a way that I would be a key lime pie.

We are not even remotely close to possessing technology that will allow us to rearrange molecules in such a fashion. OTOH, the cloning of humans is entirely feasible and will probably happen within the next ten or fifteen years at most.

But I'm speaking of processes, and there is a tremendous difference between spontaneous pie-becoming or the creation of a human from skin cells and the process of natural conception.

Yes. We do not possess the technology that will allow us to accomplish the former. We already possess the basic technology that will allow us to clone humans. As I pointed out above, IVF was used for several years with mice before the first human baby was created in such a manner.

The process of human cloning does not begin when a skin cell is separated from one's hand, but when some scientist comes along and gets to work. What we're speaking of is the difference between the modal and categorical: a skin cell that is removed from one's hand MAY become a potential human; a skin cell that has entered the cloning process IS a potential human.

A skin cell possesses all the genetic information that it needs to become a potential human clone. A skin cell hasn't entered the cloning process, but it remains a potential clone, just as the egg of a female exists long before it fertilized. A woman pregnant with a female child is also carrying the egg that could potentially become her grand daughter.

[Janus]

Is embryo selection immoral?I do not think so.

[jcs]

We are not even remotely close to possessing technology that will allow us to rearrange molecules in such a fashion. OTOH, the cloning of humans is entirely feasible and will probably happen within the next ten or fifteen years at most.

Yes. We do not possess the technology that will allow us to accomplish the former. We already possess the basic technology that will allow us to clone humans. As I pointed out above, IVF was used for several years with mice before the first human baby was created in such a manner.

A skin cell possesses all the genetic information that it needs to become a potential human clone. A skin cell hasn't entered the cloning process, but it remains a potential clone, just as the egg of a female exists long before it fertilized. A woman pregnant with a female child is also carrying the egg that could potentially become her grand daughter.
The term, 'potential,' ought to be used in a more technical sense, in which the term refers to the quality of being in a process. As you use the word, there is a potential for just about everything, from the probable to the near-impossible (such as spontaneous pie-becoming, which could theoretically happen sans technology due to highly improbable quantum behavior); and when a term is so broad that it refers to everything, it is almost entirely meaningless.

[Fade the Butcher]

The term, 'potential,' ought to be used in a more technical sense, in which the term refers to the quality of being in a process.

If the term potential were used in that sense, then we would be forced to exclude the sperm and eggs of men and women that contain the genetic information that later become embryos. An embryo isn't created ex nihilo in the womb. Furthermore, humans can already artificially reproduce themselves in a fertility clinic. Thousands of such babies are born every year.

As you use the word, there is a potential for just about everything, from the probable to the near-impossible (such as spontaneous pie-becoming, which could theoretically happen sans technology due to highly improbable quantum behavior); and when a term is so broad that it refers to everything, it is almost entirely meaningless.

This is a false analogy. The technology that can be used to create a human clone from a somatic cell already exists. We are nowhere near possessing the molecular technology that would allow us to turn a tree into a human being. That is pure science fiction at the moment.

[Jimbo Gomez]

The first human clone will probably appear within the next ten years. The basic technology is already there. Other mammals have already been successfully cloned. IVF was first used on mice before Louise Brown became the first human conceived in this way in 1978.



I think you are ignoring a few facts here. First, human couples do not always intend to have children. Many pregnancies are accidental. Second, most naturally conceived embryos die anyway. Third, embryos can be created to harvest stem cells which can be used to treat various illnesses.



A typical skin cell actually contains all of your genetic information. It will probably be possible to clone you within your lifetime by using a simple skin cell.



So you would support taking a cell from a simple embryo, dissolving it in a special solution, and testing it for various genetic diseases? Isn't that murder though? The cell that you separated from the embryo and tested could have been implanted back in the womb and developed as an identical twin.



Is a blastocyst a human being?



A somatic cell could theoretically be used to produce a human clone.



You have argued that cloning is wrong because it is supposedly unnatural. Antibiotics are artificial. Saving the lives of children through c-sections is also artificial.



Human clones already exist. Do you know any identical twins?



I pointed out above that embryos can also be created to harvest stem cells.



Is a blastocyst self aware? Does a zygote have a personality? You share over 97% of your genes with a chimpanzee. Chimpanzees live in societies, make tools, and can even learn certain words and phrases. The common honey bee is capable of abstract thought.

In that order:

We'll see about that; every time people get it on there is the possibility of conceiving children, people know this; you already said that; I am opposed to putting that cell back because that would be cloning, you already knew this before you asked, I would not oppose this and I don't consider it murder; it will be; so what?; just because certain practices are artificual doesn't mean they go against nature themselves; identical twins are NATURAL clones, you already said the exact same thing in your previous post so you needn't repeat yourself, I read it; stem cell research is outlawed in a good part of the civilized world, something I agree with; embryos, and very young children, will develop self awareness some day, animals won't.

[Fade the Butcher]

In that order:We'll see about that

In 2001, cloning of humans was considered decades away. By 2003, that had narrowed to years.

every time people get it on there is the possibility of conceiving children, people know this

People also have sex for recreational purposes.

you already said that; I am opposed to putting that cell back because that would be cloning, you already knew this before you asked, I would not oppose this and I don't consider it murder

The cell that is separated from the embryo to undergo genetic screening has just as much potential to develop into an adult human being.

it will be; so what?

I pointed out to you above that most embryos naturally fail to develop into children.

just because certain practices are artificual doesn't mean they go against nature themselves

I don't think even you truly buy into this. There is nothing "natural" about you sitting behind your computer in Belgium having a conversation with someone in the United States about cloning. There is nothing "natural" about contact lenses or air conditioning or organ transplants or Star Trek or any number of things. Embrace Prometheus, Stan.

identical twins are NATURAL clones, you already said the exact same thing in your previous post so you needn't repeat yourself, I read it

There is nothing really natural about twinning. It happens by chance.

stem cell research is outlawed in a good part of the civilized world, something I agree with

Why are you opposed to stem cell research?

embryos, and very young children, will develop self awareness some day, animals won't.

Embryos are not self aware. They haven't even developed the nerve cells that would allow them to feel pain.

[Jimbo Gomez]

In 2001, cloning of humans was considered decades away. By 2003, that had narrowed to years.



People also have sex for recreational purposes.



The cell that is separated from the embryo to undergo genetic screening has just as much potential to develop into an adult human being.



I pointed out to you above that most embryos naturally fail to develop into children.



I don't think even you truly buy into this. There is nothing "natural" about you sitting behind your computer in Belgium having a conversation with someone in the United States about cloning. There is nothing "natural" about contact lenses or air conditioning or organ transplants or Star Trek or any number of things. Embrace Prometheus, Stan.



There is nothing really natural about twinning. It happens by chance.



Why are you opposed to stem cell research?



Embryos are not self aware. They haven't even developed the nerve cells that would allow them to feel pain.

Again in that order:

-in other words: hasn't happened yet and may happen
-read what I said, I already covered your reply
-tests with animals have shown that the chances of such a cell spawning a living creature are smaller when it gets implanted, and the animal which would come out of it never grows to the same size it would have had it grown out of a complete embryo. I call that unnatural.
-some die off yes, that doesn't remove the fact that they have a realistic chance to become human beings; just because there is a chance that a naturally conceived child might be stillborn, doesn't mean there is no chance it'll be a human being, you don't know with 100% certainty in advance, hence my use of the word chance
-what is artificial isn't necesarily unnatural; me bickering with you does not go against the fabric of life itself
-How does the fact that twins are born by chance remove the naturalness (or naturality, whatever) about it?
-I find it quite ghoulish to harvest cells from children which weren't even born yet.
-They will some day. I would like to see the good chance that they'll develop it protected. The moment your child will be born, it will not be self aware. It wil become so later. The fact that it will be self aware in its future makes it a person, from the moment it is born. I never saw you deny that self awareness is a typical trait for a human being, so I assume you agree with it. Will your child be subhuman until it becomes salf aware?