Re: virus: RE: real news

Bill Roh (sodom@ma.ultranet.com)
Sat, 19 Dec 1998 11:49:55 -0500


This is really a different case all togther. I agree that if you can be sure no
brain developes, then I have no objection to body part harvesting. The second
option is even better - so - well, um yea, what you said.

Bill

TheHermit wrote:

> I am guessing that this whole argument will soon be moot anyway. From a
> technological perspective, if clones are needed for harvesting (seen below),
> it would be quite simple to splice in the genetic condition that causes
> hydro-encephalitis (no brain develops) or even ancephelitus (no head
> develops), into any clone, so as to prevent the clone from having any
> thinking capacity from day one. This would remove the ethical and moral
> obligations that clones developed for the purpose of harvesting seem to
> imply.
> On the other hand, why grow full clones when all that is needed is parts? We
> can already grow some body parts in vitro (e.g. liver tissue), and it seems
> likely that we will soon be in a position where we can grow specialized
> organs using a combination of genetic techniques and insertion of the
> resulting pre-organ into animal fetuses. This could be much faster and more
> cost effective than cloning humans, never mind resolving the ethical issues
> much more elegantly than currently seems the case.
>
> TheHermit