> Sodom wrote:
>
> > I know you are joking about the slavery issue - but I think that a
> lot of people
> > think that a clone means a duplicate. Although this is true
> genetically, a clone
> > is much more a "twin" than anything else, and a twin is a unique
> person.
>
> The difference between my twin and my clone is that my parents
> incurred the costs for delivery and educating my twin. A clone seems more
> like a product then a person ... Note this is certainly a nice proof for the
> existence of memes. It seems that depending on how you spin the production
> a clone could have the same human rights as a tissue sample or it could be
> an actual human being. This would be especially true after we can grow the
> clone in a vat ala Brave New World.
Nate, I'm concerned by your poor reasoning here. 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. 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. You seem to be saying that since we perform
the fertilization as an artificial process, that makes the product less of
a person. The many people born of artificial insemination, including in
vitro fertilization, would object to that. 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.
Eva,
who does not discriminate on the basis of genetic identicality