Would you want someone else to clone you?

[ChrisL]

It would be the child of the celebrity's parents unless laws are changed to address this specifically.

What if the parents are deceased, which I'm quite sure would be the case with Jon Lennon's parents?

Also, I was thinking the clone wouldn't necessarily turn out to be exactly like the person who was cloned because of differences in life experiences and maybe even their upbringing, etc.

 

[ChrisL]

Maybe she's not the one that wanted a divorce

That thought had not even crossed my mind. :lol: Well good for her, she has a backup hubbie! Lol!

 

[Fisher]

LOL That's not quite correct.

Parent's don't "own" children because children are not "property." Parents are resposible for their children because they elected to bring them into the world. However, as we all know, some parents don't want the responsibility hence orphanages, adoptions, abandonments, abortion, etc.

Well I think you are straying into semantics, but it doesn't change what the outcome would be under existing legal theory and practices.

 

[Goshin]

It would be your twin brother or sister, just born X years later.

Not born of your parents, therefore they are not responsible/custodial.... if you have it done using your own DNA, you bring it into the world, legally it is your child. Even if genetically it is more like a twin. We're talking about who is responsible here, and obviously it is the person who creates or causes to be created the clone, or else the DNA donor if we own our DNA (which has not been legally nailed down to my knowledge.)

 

[Fisher]

What if the parents are deceased, which I'm quite sure would be the case with Jon Lennon's parents?

Also, I was thinking the clone wouldn't necessarily turn out to be exactly like the person who was cloned because of differences in life experiences and maybe even their upbringing, etc.

Well, it wasn't a seminar on cloning law, just something that came up. I guess they would be treated the same as an orphan. IDK. I am sure there will be new laws created by the time it becomes an issue because things like inheritance laws really were not created with clones in mind

 

[ChrisL]

Not born of your parents, therefore they are not responsible/custodial.... if you have it done using your own DNA, you bring it into the world, legally it is your child. Even if genetically it is more like a twin. We're talking about who is responsible here, and obviously it is the person who creates or causes to be created the clone, or else the DNA donor if we own our DNA (which has not been legally nailed down to my knowledge.)

And I can see that leading to a lot of ethical issues.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It would be your twin brother or sister, just born X years later.

Not quite. As discussed elsewhere (strangely enough in a couple of gay issue threads) the presumption that Identical Twins share identical DNA has been debunked.

However, one would hope that a clone has identical DNA...but even if not it would be solely the product of YOU, and your unique DNA. Thus YOUR child.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, it wasn't a seminar on cloning law, just something that came up. I guess they would be treated the same as an orphan. IDK. I am sure there will be new laws created by the time it becomes an issue because things like inheritance laws really were not created with clones in mind

That's true. It could be like an orphan, but the OP situation is an interesting twist seeing as how he legally owns the DNA he would use.

If this guy cloned Jon Lennon, he is probably only using him for his celebrity and talent, not because he wants a child or even cares about the clone at all.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Well I think you are straying into semantics, but it doesn't change what the outcome would be under existing legal theory and practices.

I haven't really done much research on the legal side of this issue. It might be interesting to find out just how laws currently consider cloning of humans. I don't recall hearing about a successful human clone yet. I do know there have been several animal clones and wonder if there has been any determination of difference between cloning of animals and humans.

 

[Fisher]

Not born of your parents, therefore they are not responsible/custodial.... if you have it done using your own DNA, you bring it into the world, legally it is your child. Even if genetically it is more like a twin. We're talking about who is responsible here, and obviously it is the person who creates or causes to be created the clone, or else the DNA donor if we own our DNA (which has not been legally nailed down to my knowledge.)

The panelists disagreed, and after it, when I made a comment to one of them that I was very disappointed I couldn't build my own clone army and make them support me and do my laundry and stuff, the woman said, "Yeah, but your parents would have a lot more people to mow the grass for them now that you aren't there, so it works out."

Is it really that different to you in your thinking than this babies switched in the nursery cases? If you raised a child and found out that it wasn't yours, wouldn't you want to keep the one you were raising and get the one that was really yours as well?

 

[marduc]

It would be a curiosity to see how a clone of me would turn out in a different environment and a different set of circumstances. But a curiosity to watch to get an inside peek to see how much of who and what I am is nature versus nurture is not sufficient cause.

While I am alive I am not so sure how I would feel about turning a clone loose on the world for other people to bring up, I cannot tell you why, I guess it is just a sentimental attachment to myself and a quirky feeling that I would be casting myself away to the whims of whatever random breeze may waft by - even if it really was not myself but just a copy of myself.

So this leaves the option of me creating, taking responsibility for, and rearing my own clone. This will not do. Aside form the fun involved in creating a little half clone with a partner, I would not want him to occupy a space that could potentially be otherwise occupied by a traditional kid made (and loved by) mommy and daddy.

Perhaps if there was some tragic love story setting where I died and left a lovestruck and childless widow and she decided to create a clone to fill the space of a child we never had the opportunity to have. But the truth of the matter is post mortem, I am dead so no longer have any input or care, let the replicants of me roam the world, especially if I do die without any offspring.

My thoughts are muddled on the matter, which is why I suppose my post seems self contradictory on retrospect. I just am not willing to take the tresposibility to raise a clone of myself, it seems selfish, and I also do not want casting him off to whatever fate may bring to weigh on my conscience while I am alive (I suppose that is selfish too in a way?)

 

[Fisher]

Not quite. As discussed elsewhere (strangely enough in a couple of gay issue threads) the presumption that Identical Twins share identical DNA has been debunked.

However, one would hope that a clone has identical DNA...but even if not it would be solely the product of YOU, and your unique DNA. Thus YOUR child.

A clone would have as many as 4 parents: your parents, you, and the surrogate. The rights of the surrogate have generally been whittled to nothing except that which is embodied in the written agreement. You are the child of your parents; the law would presume that a child has two parents; so is your clone the result of non-coital incest between you and your mom or is it the child of your parents?

These are issues that have not yet been fully addressed in law, but a wide range of family law precedent as to DNA, parental rights and the like would not favor your position.

 

[Fisher]

I haven't really done much research on the legal side of this issue. It might be interesting to find out just how laws currently consider cloning of humans. I don't recall hearing about a successful human clone yet. I do know there have been several animal clones and wonder if there has been any determination of difference between cloning of animals and humans.

Here is you a 100 page starter if you are really that interested in it. I just think it is a fun way to stretch the braincells.

http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc6.pdf

 

[ChrisL]

A clone would have as many as 4 parents: your parents, you, and the surrogate. The rights of the surrogate have generally been whittled to nothing except that which is embodied in the written agreement. You are the child of your parents; the law would presume that a child has two parents; so is your clone the result of non-coital incest between you and your mom or is it the child of your parents?

These are issues that have not yet been fully addressed in law, but a wide range of family law precedent as to DNA, parental rights and the like would not favor your position.

Maybe they'll "grow them" in laboratories in the future instead of having a surrogate. That would be really cool yet creepy at the same time. I'm not sure how I feel about human cloning yet. I'm sure there would be some issues.

How do we know a clone wouldn't be like an "evil" twin? :2razz:

 

[ChrisL]

It would be a curiosity to see how a clone of me would turn out in a different environment and a different set of circumstances. But a curiosity to watch to get an inside peek to see how much of who and what I am is nature versus nurture is not sufficient cause.

While I am alive I am not so sure how I would feel about turning a clone loose on the world for other people to bring up, I cannot tell you why, I guess it is just a sentimental attachment to myself and a quirky feeling that I would be casting myself away to the whims of whatever random breeze may waft by - even if it really was not myself but just a copy of myself.

So this leaves the option of me creating, taking responsibility for, and rearing my own clone. This will not do. Aside form the fun involved in creating a little half clone with a partner, I would not want him to occupy a space that could potentially be otherwise occupied by a traditional kid made (and loved by) mommy and daddy.

Perhaps if there was some tragic love story setting where I died and left a lovestruck and childless widow and she decided to create a clone to fill the space of a child we never had the opportunity to have. But the truth of the matter is post mortem, I am dead so no longer have any input or care, let the replicants of me roam the world, especially if I do die without any offspring.

My thoughts are muddled on the matter, which is why I suppose my post seems self contradictory on retrospect. I just am not willing to take the tresposibility to raise a clone of myself, it seems selfish, and I also do not want casting him off to whatever fate may bring to weigh on my conscience while I am alive (I suppose that is selfish too in a way?)

I don't think it's selfish. I think those would be important things to consider.

 

[Captain Adverse]

A clone would have as many as 4 parents: your parents, you, and the surrogate. The rights of the surrogate have generally been whittled to nothing except that which is embodied in the written agreement. You are the child of your parents; the law would presume that a child has two parents; so is your clone the result of non-coital incest between you and your mom or is it the child of your parents?

These are issues that have not yet been fully addressed in law, but a wide range of family law precedent as to DNA, parental rights and the like would not favor your position.

But that is old science...discussing a surrogate. Surrogate parenting, which is currently used by in vitro fertilization, would not be necessary in cloning. Technology could develop cloning processes which do not require a human surrogate but simply a "vat" technique. The DNA parent would literally be the sole parent.

The rest? Speculation on what the law would require based on standard birthing procedures recognizing two-birth parents. Cloning would expand the definition of parenting.

Again, I am not the property of my parents; they cannot make me clone myself and I would also argue in court that they should not have the right to try to clone a copy of me in the event of my death. Once I am born, my DNA belongs to me and no other.

 

[Fisher]

Maybe they'll "grow them" in laboratories in the future instead of having a surrogate. That would be really cool yet creepy at the same time. I'm not sure how I feel about human cloning yet. I'm sure there would be some issues.

How do we know a clone wouldn't be like an "evil" twin? :2razz:

Well, in some cases having a twin the complete opposite could be a good thing :lamo

Wonder what you would have to smear on the Chia-Clone head if it isn't the muddy seed mix :shock:

 

[Fisher]

We would all be like Vampires without the whole blood-sucking thing. We would just need to be able to make sure our next clone in line had enough money to keep going forward with more clones. It would be like a Disney version of an Anne Rice universe. :notlook::fly:

 

[ChrisL]

Well, in some cases having a twin the complete opposite could be a good thing :lamo

Especially if you're the evil one! :2razz:

Wonder what you would have to smear on the Chia-Clone head if it isn't the muddy seed mix :shock:

The clone fetuses can just swim around in giant vats of amniotic fluid. :lol:

 

[Captain Adverse]

Here is you a 100 page starter if you are really that interested in it. I just think it is a fun way to stretch the braincells.

http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc6.pdf

Thanks. I perused it (speed reader ). The paper touched on some of the issues I raised in a prior response to you. It is also based on information from 1997 and before. I think I could write a paper that would counter most of the points she raised and reinforce my position regarding "paternity" issues.

Hmmm, I might just do that...could get myself published in an august legal review... LOL

 

[ChrisL]

:rofl You could go to the lab and say, Oh look at my little clone baby!

Here's Arnold's clone baby!

 

[marduc]

I don't think it's selfish. I think those would be important things to consider.

after reading your reply and rereading my edit at the end of that post it seems that I ended up a with a rather poorly constructed sentence.

having and raising a clone as opposed to raising a child with a partner is what I was saying was selfish in the first part.

The second half is addressing the contradiction of "I don't want to think about a mini-me that I cast aside, it would bug me, but if I am dead.. meh whatever, no skin off my back".

edit: I guess it boils down to responsibility, and no matter how I look at it, it is not a responsibility I want to take. If someone else wants to clone me after I am dead and take on the responsibility then no big deal, it would actually be an honor in a way.

 

[Fisher]

Thanks. I perused it (speed reader ). The paper touched on some of the issues I raised in a prior response to you. It is also based on information from 1997 and before. I think I could write a paper that would counter most of the points she raised and reinforce my position regarding "paternity" issues.

Hmmm, I might just do that...could get myself published in an august legal review... LOL

Go for it. That just happened to be the first paper that came up when I googled it. The panel discussion I attended was maybe mid 2000's.

Personally I think cloning technology is our best hope that humans can survive in a post-earth universe. We could bombard the universe with clones of things and hope that some of it reached its destination intact after we are toast. Seems more likely than all this warp speed bending time crap. We would just need to figure out a very good preservation technology and better travel mechanisms than what we have,

 

[ChrisL]

after reading your reply and rereading my edit at the end of that post it seems that I ended up a with a rather poorly constructed sentence.

having and raising a clone as opposed to raising a child with a partner is what I was saying was selfish in the first part.

The second half is addressing the contradiction of "I don't want to think about a mini-me that I cast aside, it would bug me, but if I am dead.. meh whatever, no skin off my back".

Because it's a "mini you" instead of it's own individual created through a relationship? I'm not really sure what you mean.

 

[marduc]

Because it's a "mini you" instead of it's own individual created through a relationship? I'm not really sure what you mean.

It means I would be closing doors. I would much rather share the creation of and the life of a child with another. To me it would be selfish (not to mention weirdly narcissistic) to go the clone route.