"Do you think Seed should be allowed to clone himself?"

Of course. The US Supreme Court found a constitutional right to privacy in reproductive matters (Griswold v. CT). If the distinguished scientist feels the next generation would be so impoverished without his identical genes, I doubt anyone has a legal leg to stand on to prevent it.

Is it wise? Well, no-one ever claimed that a Harvard degree (or even 3 of them) conferred wisdom. I doubt technology is so advanced that anyone can guarantee there won't be genetic damage to the embryo.

Ok back to the future once again.

I really want to hear what Cliff thinks "the government" is going to do with Dr Seed.

The proposed federal law says that the "attempt" to clone a human is illegal. Several States have already enacted such a law.

I'd sure like to know just what constitutes an "attempt".

While we are at it, if someone takes a human cell and modifies it genetically even a small amount it is not a clone. Right?

Sure, I say why not. But I am wondering, who will object to these procedures, but equally so, who out there will be able to stand on such a high-moral ground. When this society is filled with so much abortion, homosexuallity, pedophiles, Dr. Kovorkian - types, Oregon's murder law, and the list goes on. Who out there is willing to be the hypocrit and object to this, but sees nothing wrong with partial-birth abortion. (Which is an Oxymoron in and of itself).

We haven't even started with cloning from abandon haploids yet. ;)

What would be the ultimate purpose of cloning humans? What could be the outcome ? Would the clone be considered an individual human with human rights or property and utilized in any manner?

These questions must be answered and not by the government and their special interests.

We stand at the brink of creating another devistating weapon in the arsenal of man.

What if Hitler was alive and well?

Although, I find it bizarre, one can understand why the those that believe in abortion or the Dr. Kevorkian-types object to cloning. Particularly when these type of cretins believe in death more than they do in life, therefore I can understand why they object to cloning.

Personally, I am beginning to think it is unlikely that anyone in the Congress will attempt to prevent it. The Republicans have a much bigger fish to fry--a fish called Clinton: proof positive that they are just as hypocritical as the Democrats that went after Nixon some twenty-five years ago.

Probably nothing. See above description of the much greater "moral stand" currently available to the Congress.

That's easy, Carl. The attempt occurs when the cloned embryo is implanted. That most certainly would constitute an attempt. But until that is done, there is no complete attempt to clone a human.

If you are looking for hypocrisy, look no further than congress.

Excellent point, Carl. I too look to Clinton for moral leadership.

Without question, he would have human rights. He would not be anybody's property.

Read the Constitution, Gary. There is not the slightest question as to the legal status of a clone in this country--nor, in my opinion, in most other countries. The legal status of a clone is exactly the same as any other individual born to woman.

Cliff, in response to a couple of your comments. I don't look to Congress for anything. Although, this comment would be best suited for another board, however, the Republican congress had an opportunity to rectify some of the problems when they were debating campaign finance and the tobacco industry. When it was all said and done, the Democrates get their funds from the Chinese and the Republicans gets theirs from the tobacco lobby. The results being is that now the Chinese has missiles pointed at the U.S., and the health of the nation is worse. And the elists in Washington are getting richer. As the Clinton's moral leadership, there is none. When he sees nothing wrong with adultry, abortion, homosexuality, drugs - it is purplexing he suddenly has a conscience and wants to take that high road and wants to have a human-cloning ban.

From Sb S.1602:

P2 L2 This Act may be cited as "Prohibition an Cloning of Human Beings Act of 1998"

P2 L12 ... potential use of such technology to clone human beings.

P5 L16 It is the puropse of this Act to --- (1) Prohibit any attempt, in this country or elsewhere, to clone a human being, that is , to use the product of domatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human being genetically identical to and existing or deceased juman being.

I sure hope this post dosen't help fix this (IMHO) piece of legal garbage.

Cliff: I lost the link to Tom Andersons cloning FAQ. Could you post it? Thanks.

Victor, my reference to Clinton's "moral leadership" was tongue-in-cheek. It was in response to what I took to be Carl's tongue-in-cheek characterization of Clinton as "a great ethical leader." Actually, however, while I have little regard for the President's "moral leadership," and while I do disagree with him on adultery and abortion, I do tend to identify with his position on cloning technology. The statement: "We must move with caution, care and deep concern about the impact of our actions," pretty well describes my feelings on the matter, and coming from someone with just a bit more moral authority...

Carl, it seem you enjoy making me look like a fool. Unfortunately, this time I made it easy for you by opening my mouth without first checking the facts. I'll try to avoid that in the future.

It is late tonight, but I will find the FAQ address tomorrow. Cheers.

Well if it is any consolation I would not even have a lot of my information on cloning except for you, including the Feinstein Bill.

I hope they put up the archives on the old clone site I had started to build a .txt version, but have only the first 1,000 or so posts.

I want to have all the posts in several files as an adjunct to Tom's FAQ.

I also want to have a seperate file of all the links that have been posted.

The U.S. Government has cloned Human Beings already. You just never hear about it.

Hmmm... if we clone humans, we might be able to (once and for all) determine what traits (agression, sexual orientation, career choices, etc., etc.) are inherritted and those that are environmental. Might make us rethink the relationship between adult behavior and how a child is raised.

Brian

Tom Paine -- groan....

Regarding Clone Rights:

I don't think it is an issue.

In a somewhat less lyrical fashion: I will agree with Leszek. Dr. Seed's proposed action may be premature and ill-advised, but it should not be illegal.

If someone wants to proceed I think they may be safe provided that "geneticaly identical" clause remains anyway. I seriously doubt that genetic identity (e.g. the mathmatical term) can be proven, if, in fact, it can even be reproduced.

Are all of ur chromozones really identical in fine detail?

Are all of ur chromozones really identical in fine detail? - Keith Fosberg

This is not the issue. If a DNA test can show that Man A is 99% identical to Man B, A and B have to be either identical twins, or one has to be a clone.

There are no other possibilities.

We have to bear in mind that Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) & P. paniscus (bonobo) already have 98%+ identity in their genetic code! Human beings just aren't that special :)

Off-spring usually have a half-dozen or so mutations that make their chromosomes different from their parents'. It's quite likely that most undifferentiated cells you would pick a nucleus to clone from will also have some minor mutations. So technically, the clone isn't likely to be *completely* identical to the source of the nucleus.

And I agree with Keith & everyone else. It shouldn't be a legal/constitutional issue - natural identical twins don't have to vie for separate legal identities :)

The issue in my mind is the present state of technology, and the high risk of bringing a faulty foetus to term... who is going to look after a child with deformities? It really needs more research before rushing off to clone people, though I don't see any "moral" problems in doing so other than that one.

Carl, the address for the Tom Anderson Cloning FAQ is:

With the talk shows running out of new ideas I think that cloning is a great idea. I can see it now - Watch the Oprah Winfrey show tomorrow - Clones and their desire to get a DNA of their own. Frankly I consider the whole question a non-event. If they had a lineup could you pick out the clone? Would they be considered as old as the person who donated the original genes? or, perhaps that's what is meant when they say that people in the future will live for five hundred years. Put in your eighty or so and pass it on to a clone. Now if they could use a brain cell and the identity of the individual involved was passed on that would be exciting and I for one would camp out all night so as to be first in line. Sorry, I didn't realize how serious you people consider this earth shaking dilema.

We have to bear in mind that Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) & P. paniscus (bonobo) already have 98%+ identity in their genetic code! Human beings just aren't that special :) - Leszek Rzepecki

If DNA tests revealed that blood found at the murder scene of Nicole Simpson matched that of O.J. Simpson to an accuracy of 98%, should then all pan troglodytes in the L.A. zoo also be declared suspects?

:-) Without going into technical details (largely because I can't remember exactly what they did with OJ), the DNA tests used are pretty specific and directed at those genetic elements that are variable.

My query as to any two "sets" of genetic information was not proposed to poke a hole in the concept of cloning, but more to point out that law that specifies that people can not be (artificialy) identical is unworkable.

Falsely representing yourself, or another, as a thid person, regardless of the technology used to support that false representation, is, in most circumstances, illegal.

Attmpting to hold a human as property is illegal.

Using force or cooercion to deny a person their Constitutional rights is illegal.

I do not see where any law pertaining to the utilization of cloning technology(s) for procreation is required or ethical.

I am also assuming (don't know for sure) that existing law as pertains to medical/biological experimentation is sufficient.

Cloning should not be an issue at all.

Great idea Keith! Please define human in terms that I can use for the next 100 years.

Too tough? Ok, how about 20?

Chimeras, transgenic creatures, xenoplant added and all.

Sure wish I could do it.

Carl,
If we toss genetic engineering into the soup we may, indeed, face a real dilema. Right now everything is "understood." If it walks like a duck...

I don't really see how cloning humans opens this can of worms (ethicaly that is.)

Nevertheless, we will probably eventualy be compelled to revise our conception of "human" (for legal purposes) by using sentient in its place.

Hmmm... sentientadj. 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness. (Websters College Dict.)

I'd have to say that chimps are certainly sentient on that basis, and frankly, even my cats! :)

If we're talking about creating modified human beings by cloning combined with genetic modification, I think we are never going to find a single definition that will cleanly include what we want and exclude what we don't. It's like trying to come up with a distinctive definition of "life". Basically, I think that we would be forced to decide on a case by case basis whether what is constructed in a genetics lab is "human" (i.e. deserving of all constitutional and other legal rights), or not - this is likely to be an arbitrary process. We're not likely to be in the situation of having to make this decision in our lifetimes, but it certainly is an entertaining puzzle!

Leszek,
Is there a better term I should have used?

I agree on both counts (not needed soon and very involved.) When the human genome is no longer a product of evolution, but one of planned(?) design; What will constitute "human?"

For now it is little more than an afternoon phylosophy quiz since we do not have the capacity to "monkey around" with out genome to any significant degree. Any viable offspring engendered through cloning are going to be unmistakably "human."