Is It Morally Acceptable To Kill A Clone?

[sangha]

As is the norm with your posts, you attempt to use language to skew the argument away from the truth of the matter.

What is usually being argued from this side is that the DNA of the child is distinctly different from the mother, or the father, and thus is a separate individual, not just a part of the mother as she is only the vessel encapsulating a different fellow human being.

Yeah, I got. Unique DNA only matters when it comes to abortion.

And you say *I'm* using language to skew the argument away from the truth :roll:

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yeah, I got. Unique DNA only matters when it comes to abortion.

And you say *I'm* using language to skew the argument away from the truth :roll:

Dunno about all that with regards to DNA, as there are other reasons for uniqueness to be important. Was solely identifying your MO and correcting the description of what you improperly, and certainly by no accident, were trying to pawn off as the position of those of us on this side of the debate.

We clear on that are we?

 

[Goshin]

I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.

The clone is a human being. The fact that it has identical DNA to another living person is irrelevant; it is an individual human life with all the rights pertaining thereunto. It can no more be destroyed than any other normal baby.


That its production was technological rather than biological is irrelevant.



Now that is JMO.... laws will eventually have to be made, but I hope they follow the same line of reasoning... otherwise we'll be opening the door to breeding a type of human with no rights, to be used, abused, enslaved or what have you.

 

[sangha]

Dunno about all that with regards to DNA, as there are other reasons for uniqueness to be important. Was solely identifying your MO and correcting the description of what you improperly, and certainly by no accident, were trying to pawn off as the position of those of us on this side of the debate.

We clear on that are we?

Iam, but you're not

 

[sangha]

The clone is a human being. The fact that it has identical DNA to another living person is irrelevant;

That is correct. DNA has no relevance to the issue of abortion

it is an individual human life with all the rights pertaining thereunto. It can no more be destroyed than any other normal baby.

This is incorrect. The unborn have no rights and can be destroyed

That its production was technological rather than biological is irrelevant.

That is true. You got two out of three right

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Iam, but you're not

Also as per usual, you never ever really get around to the point, precisely because you rarely have one. Least wise a valid one.

 

[Goshin]

That is correct. DNA has no relevance to the issue of abortion


This is incorrect. The unborn have no rights and can be destroyed




That is true. You got two out of three right

I said nothing about the unborn. That was your assumption.

 

[sangha]

I said nothing about the unborn. That was your assumption.

Maybe it wasn't your intent, but if you read the OP, the clone you referred to was unborn.

 

[minnie616]

I'm sure you have something specific in mind when you say "biologically dependent". So what does it mean? Is a child biologically dependent if she is unable to feed or care for herself and must rely on a caregiver such as the mother? Is she biologically dependent if she's breast feeding? If not then why not?

If it means that a person is biologically dependent if he must rely on others for his food and shelter then I know of a lot of adults like that.

If a pregnant woman dies before a fetus is viable it will not survive even if removed quickly, even if given the best medical care , because it is biologically dependent on the bio mom.

If a pregnant woman dies and the fetus is viable chances are good it will survive if removed quickly and given medical care if needed. The preemie/infant can be fed and cared for by a nurse, the father , an adoptive parent, a foster parent , or another care giver.

 

[D_NATURED]

It is up to twelve years old actually. I think at a certain point it becomes obvious that either the state is pushing this issue to the point of absurdity or that car companies completely fail to make their car work for the family.

Whatever age it's "up" to, a fetus is young enough to require it, if we're going to go calling them children. So you don't like my previous analogies? How about another?

If a pregnant woman drinks a glass of wine would you arrest her for providing alcohol to a minor? I think you understand what I'm saying and aren't honest enough to admit that fetuses cannot legally be called "children" without stepping on some existing human rights for women while creating some really absurd legal arguments. I guess you'd rather discuss "evil" government regulations that protect children than evil redefining of the issue of abortion that kills women.

 

[Lursa]

Perhaps, but dependency doesn't end with birth. Children remain dependent for a long time.

Dependent yes but they are capable of exercising at least some of their rights independently. And that (rights) was the basis for my post.

 

[prometeus]

Perhaps, but dependency doesn't end with birth. Children remain dependent for a long time.

Not on other people's organs for basic life functions.