RE: virus: RE: real news

Gifford, Nathan F (NG130670@exchange.DAYTONOH.NCR.com)
Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:28:56 -0500


Eva hurts my feelings by writing ...
>Nate, I'm concerned by your poor reasoning here.

Eva, you ignorant slut ...< :=)meme originated by Dan Ackroyd in the
late 70's>
>
> A clone is a person as much as any twin is--the only difference between a
> clone and an identical twin or other multiple birth is that a clone
> doesn't originate from the same
> instance of fertilization, and thus need not be the same age.
>
You were right that I had some unstated assumptions in my assertion
that my clone is not as much a person as my twin. My assumption is that the
word "person" assumes a set of rights and privileges. I contend that the
source of these right's and privileges are the resources that society gives
to a person ... and that the person gives back. For instance to vote all
you have to do is turn 18 ... to soak up society's resources for the better
part of one first world childhood. Of course if you mess up and take more
than society is willing to give <e.g. commit a crime> then you get sent to
prison and loose your right to vote ... among others :=). My point was
that it's not hard to spin clones into victimless criminals ---- that is
even though they didn't CHOOSE to take from society, their creation was an
allocation of resources, and so clones could ostensibly have as many rights
as your average death row felon <Saying that the cost of creating a clone is
equal to the benefits of one average human life>. I'm not saying I believe
this point of view ... but I think I could make a good show of defending it.

>Cloning is simply a new method of forming a zygote--another way to
start a baby. The
>baby still needs to come of age--it won't automatically be born
grown up
>or something. Its experiences growing up will shape its
personality, just
>as they do for any person. - Agreed I thought I was clear that if
I chose to clone for organ replacements I would spend just enough money to
keep my potential organs around in good shape. I would deny my clone as
much sensory stimulii as possible just so it wouldn't "come of age" and
start outraging all you namby - pamby bleeding heart clone lovers. Shit,
its my tissue, I grew it, I'll do what I want with it. NOONE IS GOING TO
TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY TOE NAIL CLIPPINGS, MY HAIR, MY DIRTY TISSUES, OR
MY CLONE.

>You seem to be saying that since we perform
>the fertilization as an artificial process, that makes the product
less of
>a person.
No ... I don't believe what I've written above has anything to do
with how the tissue is created ... It has everything to do with who has
allocated the resources to keep the clone alive.

>The many people born of artificial insemination, including in vitro
fertilization, would object to that.
Screw 'em ... I care about them in the same way that I care about
someone wasting their money feeding the third world. In the same sense that
if the <You pick a nation> don't behave we go smart bomb their butts, if
someone can't pull their own weight ... then they're just meat.

>If we choose to raise people in vats, that's a crime on our karma
as much if they're clones as if >their zygotes were formed by any other
means.
OOOOOHHHH Karma ... I'm scared.

> Eva,
> who does not discriminate on the basis of genetic identicality
Welll ... that's mighty "human" of you.

Please note that I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I don't
think the thinking above is any less mushy then what I've heard coming out
of the conservative right, or the revolutionary left. If you want to debate
the above issues ... then I think we'd be better trying to resolve: "Natural
Rights: a platonic ideal or just another meme?"