![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyJust been thinking about cloning, and the objections to it. Thoughts, really, not much more...
Religious objections to cloning seem to me to be fairly pointless; we aren’t playing God, as theology claims that the thing God cares about is the soul, not the body, and as we aren’t recreating souls, then nothing has been done against any Holy law.
Nobody is claiming that cloned kids are any more than identical duplicates; as are identical twins, and nobody frets about whether they have souls. Basically, if God wants them to have a soul, then they will, and if he doesn't then there's not much we can do about it.
The human moral objections are more of a grey area, but still less pressing. There’s evidence that clones suffer degenerative disorders for no readily explained reason, and so deliberately creating a child that’s likely susceptible to such things is probably morally wrong – certainly it’s higher on the ‘wrong’ list than deliberately aborting a normally conceived child that is susceptible. In addition, cloned kids, especially at this stage, are likely to grow up completely fucked in the head. Growing up knowing that you’re completely different – and also all the other kids at school will be merciless (kids are like that) to someone different – will lead to cloned kids growing up into yet more emotional Michael Jacksons. It’s morally wrong for parents to deliberately inflict that on their kids as well.
On a social basis, I can’t see a problem. Cloning is expensive and unreliable at best, and as such it will remain the preserve of religious whackos, gullible rich folks who have been convinced that it will bring back little Billy who was hit by a tram in an identical format, and radical feminists who can’t handle the thought of a man being involved in the reproductive process at all. Hardly a large demographic sample, and I don’t see the good old fashioned way of making kids being outdated anytime soon.
Religious objections to cloning seem to me to be fairly pointless; we aren’t playing God, as theology claims that the thing God cares about is the soul, not the body, and as we aren’t recreating souls, then nothing has been done against any Holy law.
Nobody is claiming that cloned kids are any more than identical duplicates; as are identical twins, and nobody frets about whether they have souls. Basically, if God wants them to have a soul, then they will, and if he doesn't then there's not much we can do about it.
The human moral objections are more of a grey area, but still less pressing. There’s evidence that clones suffer degenerative disorders for no readily explained reason, and so deliberately creating a child that’s likely susceptible to such things is probably morally wrong – certainly it’s higher on the ‘wrong’ list than deliberately aborting a normally conceived child that is susceptible. In addition, cloned kids, especially at this stage, are likely to grow up completely fucked in the head. Growing up knowing that you’re completely different – and also all the other kids at school will be merciless (kids are like that) to someone different – will lead to cloned kids growing up into yet more emotional Michael Jacksons. It’s morally wrong for parents to deliberately inflict that on their kids as well.
On a social basis, I can’t see a problem. Cloning is expensive and unreliable at best, and as such it will remain the preserve of religious whackos, gullible rich folks who have been convinced that it will bring back little Billy who was hit by a tram in an identical format, and radical feminists who can’t handle the thought of a man being involved in the reproductive process at all. Hardly a large demographic sample, and I don’t see the good old fashioned way of making kids being outdated anytime soon.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Alex Kells might've beaten me to the punch, but...
Date: 2003-01-09 08:38 am (UTC)I dunno about that. In the case of that first test-tube baby girl, there was a bit of a press play some years back when she turned 20-something ... she's turned out no better or worse than any the rest of us, medically, psychologically, and all the rest of it. Be interesting though to see how her kids turn out (physiologically speaking) though.
Whatever social terrorising that child may receive in their early years could be matched by the opposite extreme of pioneer 'clone chic' in later years. Sure that might fuck 'em up, but I think more is owed to how the parent(s) raise their clone.
> On a social basis, I can't see a problem. Cloning is expensive and unreliable at best, and as such it will remain the preserve of religious whackos, gullible rich folks who have been convinced that it will bring back little Billy who was hit by a tram in an identical format, and radical feminists who can't handle the thought of a man being involved in the reproductive process at all. Hardly a large demographic sample, and I don't see the good old fashioned way of making kids being outdated anytime soon.
Fair enough, but the niche increasingly has a way of catapulting itself into the mainstream ... especially when it rides the winds of fashion. How else does one explain the highly popular enterprise of self-mutiliation known as implant 'plastic' surgery? The safety & reliability issues do need to be worked out, but I think that's just a matter of R&D. Better then that such R&D is conducted in publically-funded and openly visible institutions rather than dodgy cults like the Raelians (though who can honestly disagree with their libertine philosophy? *grin*)
Ultimately, it'd be damn cool to be able to grow cloned tissue of patients to replace damaged tissue - totally eliminating the chance of rejection and once and for all sorting out the organ shortage crisis.
Of course, by that point, it's just as likely that people will have faddish genetic manipulation ... naturally green hair, feline eyes, irradescent insect-chitinous fingernails ... well those with enough money & idiocy anyway. :-)
---
Thoughts on breast, etc. implantation surgery
Date: 2003-01-09 08:49 am (UTC)Serious problems with the technology have been discovered over this period, but that hasn't been enough to really make much of a dent in its popularity (though one can argue the demand has plateued).
At a guess, I'd say a maximum of 15-20% of the US female population has used this technology at some point in their lives. Rising to the 50th percentile for image-concious societies as in Los Angeles.
And yes, we'll ignore the 'trannies' for now. :-)
This, at least, is the case for the US.
This kind of adoption pattern for a new medical technology can apply to cloning I think ... so long as it becomes affordable and reliable enough