If human embryos were cloned and made available

[undeterred]

through infertility clinics, would you be in favor of it or do you think it should not be allowed?

What would be the basis for your arguments either way?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

1. I don't understand your questions really

available for what? There are already eggs and sperm available, why would you need a cloned embryo for infertility?

[undeterred]

3. Suppose there were a "catalog" of 50 male and 50 female clones

which were guaranteed to be free of genetic defects and whose characteristic phenotypes were already known because the clone was that of a healthy human being who had already survived to adulthood.

Potential parents with risk factors in their genetic/medical histories or those unable to conceive could obtain a cloned human unrelated to them which could be implanted in the mother or a surrogate. Parents would have a fairly good idea of the childs intelligence and physical characteristics.

Plant and animal cell lines have already been cloned and patented- should this be allowed in human beings?

[AutumnMist]

4. This Is A Catch 22

There couldn't be any guarantee outside of the child that you have that nature wont take over in the line of DNA. The only way that would happen is if all children were spawned from this particular line of DNA (and that would lead to issues). Even if you had a child from the so called disease and problem free "clone", what would stop them as adults from falling in love with the regular gene pool and having children of their own? Do you see my point? You cannot just eradicate a whole lifetime of different cultures and the issues by clones. It's scientifically impossible.

[DrDebug]

5. No, because of the nature-nurture debate

And the nature-nurture debate looks like it is a little bit of both. Part of the person which you are is genetic. The other part is environmental and upbringing.

Specifically selecting a couple of DNA strands as "human beings" would mean a lot for what the people would become and it will in part block human development.

[wuushew]

6. Why do the clones have to be "free of defects"?

I never understood this, as right now anyone with a severe hereditary disease can legally procreate.

You should be able to make a baby in whatever manner suits you and you should be able to abort any pregnancy artificial or otherwise. More freedom all around I say.

[undeterred]

9. Maybe its because of the high cost of infertility treatment

but people who seek infertility treatment tend to expect safe deliveries of healthy babies. It seems like thoughts of liability and guarantees of health enter the picture as soon as assisted means are used.

I am afraid that a human clone would be seen as a 'product' or 'commodity' that would be held to a different standard than one conceived naturally.

[AutumnMist]

2. Do You Mean

I could walk into a clinic and without being able to find an egg/sperm donor that I could choose from a list of embryo's? If my husband and I couldn't produce a child through in-vitro ourselves than we would use the cloned embryo as an option? Could you specify a little more? :)

[undeterred]

7. Is it scientifically possible to clone a human being?

I would venture that it is possible, though it may not have been done yet because of the ethical issues.

Obviously nurture and environment make it impossible to predict exactly what a child will turn out to be.

Suppose you have a population that has been exposed to radiation and the probability that they would have children with genetic defects is high. A company offers cloned embryos which have been pre-screened for all testable diseases and genetic diseases. The parents can rest assured that the baby will be healthier than one they could conceive naturally.

Suppose its 10,000 diverse and highly unrelated clones instead of 100 in the catalog.

What do you think about patenting and selling human embryos?

[DrDebug]

8. Welcome to the DU

It's theoretically possible but the success rate in mammals is low.

In South Korea it has been rumoured to have been done. Dr. Brigitte Boisselier wants to do and even claims to have done it 5 times, but she is a part of a dangerous sect and they haven't produced any evidence. And Severino Antinori wants to do it as well and unlike the other doctor, he is no fool and he has a big team and an unlimited private fund so his team is/will probably be the first, but it is unlikely to be public.

[undeterred]

10. Thanks Dr Debug

I used to work as a tech in a basic science research laboratory- I did tissue culture and cell culture. I find these issues really interesting scientifically and very tough ethically.

[DrDebug]

12. It's very tough indeed. I prefer we don't do it

The other side is that regardless of the ethics, it will be done and that Italian doctor made his team back in 2000 and for the last couple of years he has disappeared with a big team, lots of money and a determination to do it. So I wouldn't be surprised if experienced doctors will do it and probably in the near future as well.

[Just Me]

11. I am favor of total prohibition of cloning.

Until we gain mastery over the lives we have,...we are definitely not intellectually or morally prepared to clone human beings. I don't even think we should be cloning animals. It seems obvious to me that we're just not ready for that kind of responsibility.

[Sapphire Blue]

13. Do you mean cloning as in 'creating' or as in 'stem cell research'?

'Excess' IVF embryos are currently discarded as waste... why would more embryos need to be created?

If 'excess' IVF embryos are already targeted for destruction, should they be discarded as 'waste'?


An interesting article...

Stem Cell Foes Answering The Wrong Question

31 August 2001

An excerpt...

But in stem cell research, that decision has already been made. Stem cells are taken from spare embryos created during in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments. IVF requires the production of more embryos than the parents will ever use. These embryos are ultimately discarded. So the choice to destroy or not to destroy has already been made. The only question that remains is whether or not to waste the embryos' stem cells. I fail to see how placing stem cells in a petri dish is morally reprehensible, but placing them in a medical waste disposal container is acceptable. I also fail to see how benefiting from destruction that happened before August 9 is any different from benefiting from destruction that happens after that date. Bush's distinction makes sense only if blocking funding would prevent further destruction of embryos, which is clearly not the case.

<snip>

The consistent position on the destruction of embryos (though it has been far from prominent in this debate) would be to oppose the destruction of all embryos, no matter what their ultimate fate. In other words, any embryo created must be implanted in a mother, born and raised to adulthood. If destroying embryos for science is wrong, then destroying embryos because they aren't needed is equally wrong (probably more so, as there is no benefit to mitigate the crime).

<snip>

Bush's decision was not about IVF. It is a basic fact of the matter that IVF is legal, and no decision on stem cell research will change that. It is worthwhile to ask, should IVF continue? However, given that IVF is occurring, and stem cells are being created and discarded, we must ask, should we use those stem cells or allow them to go to waste?

If stem cell research is morally wrong because it involves the destruction of embryos, then IVF is equally repugnant. But blocking stem cell research will do nothing to address this problem. The only way to prevent the destruction of the embryos is to ban IVF. But as long as IVF remains legal, it would be morally repugnant to waste the resource that embryonic stem cells represent.

http://www.brunchma.com/users/acsumama/com/com083101.html


(Personally, I am against IVF and cloning.)

Welcome to DU:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[undeterred]

14. I always wondered how the embryos got that "do not use after" date

Hi Sapphire Blue

The cell lines I had to look after produced monoclonal antibodies and were good in the deep freezer for ~7 years (if stored properly in the first place). That's been a while ago, and it seemed to me that there would probably be a technical solution to it sooner or later. Of course that was a population of cells, and there would be some survivors a while after the "use by" date....

The need to "overproduce" embryos in order to have extras for implantation is simply one of the messy facts of assisted reproduction. I think people are most comfortable when this is kept as clinical as possible and they don't have to think about it.

It seems like a shame to waste any medical by product that could be used to solve medical problems- but an embryo is not really just tissue- or is it?

I'm of two minds...

[Sapphire Blue]

15. It seems a shame to create an embryo that will ultimately be destroyed

... either because it is ‘excess’ or for the purpose of curing diseases.

Before anyone jumps all over me for this statement with a ‘what about the person dying from this disease or the person with that disease’ … I am living with one type of cancer and two additional types in early, non-malignant stages. If a cure involving the creation of an embryo were offered, I would decline. Having come to terms with my mortality, I am not so desperate to hang on to this earthly life that I would take another life... whether it’s considered tissue or an unborn child.

[Lindacooks]

16. Okay, that's your decision.

There are many others who feel exactly the opposite. And why should they be prevented from finding cures and treatment because of your beliefs? You have NO right to impose that on others. You have NO right to deprive others of treatments and cures just because you would decline.

That's the whole problem with moralistic value judgements being imposed upon science. Imagine where we would be if people opposed to scientific research had been stymied all of these years.

[Sapphire Blue]

17. Your attack is unwarranted... please reread my previous post.

I was neither imposing anything on anyone nor depriving anyone else of ‘treatments or cures’... I was speaking for myself... “I would decline."

I follow my conscience and do have a right to my personal values & decisions... others are free to agree or disagree… hopefully, in a respectful manner.

[Lindacooks]

18. As I said, that's your opinion.

And what matters is how you use that opinion. If you use it to publicly fight stem cell research and cloning, then you have gone beyond the boundaries of your 'personal values & decision'. The only right you have is to decline treatment.

[Sapphire Blue]

20. Are my opinions acceptable only when they agree with yours?

Would it also hold true that if you use your opinion to publicly advocate for stem cell research, then you have gone beyond the boundaries of your 'personal values & decisions'? Am I also to understand that you are defining my rights?

I would suggest that we are both entitled to voice our opinions... without treading on one another’s rights.

[Sapphire Blue]

21. I would also ask that if I use my opinion to publicly protest

... against an unjust war, have I then gone beyond the boundaries of my 'personal values & decisions'? Would my only right be to decline deployment?

Again, I would suggest that we are both entitled to voice our opinions without treading on one another’s rights.

[LondonReign2]

19. Then I'd like two over easy with a side of hash browns

My basis? 'Cuz they're tasty.