[extropy-chat] Cloning and the Constitution

[Damien Broderick]

At 12:51 PM 9/29/2004 -0700, Kurt Schoedel wrote:

>The first amendment specifically states that freedom of expression is
>protected. Congress cannot make any law that limits self-expression,
>unless public safety (cannot yell "bomb" in a crowded cinema) or public
>welfare (reason for laws against "abusive" drugs such as cocaine and
>heroin) is at stake. Morphological changes to ones body (cosmetic,
>functional enhancement) is certainly a form of self-expression.

I don't know whether the thread header has any bearing on this opinion, but 
if it does the opinion seems plainly wrong. Reproductive cloning involves a 
child's body (and probably the child's mind, given the social 
consequences). Enhancing oneself is a separate issue (or tissue), surely.

>Since
>the kind of enhancements that we want do not pose a threat to public
>safety or create a "burden" on society (in fact, they do quite the
>opposite),

But that's one of the issues where we don't yet know whether there's a 
threat to the newly cloned individual, although all the evidence suggests 
that there probably is, right now, given the limitations of current 
scientific knowledge.

Now if someone tries to argue that cloning is a terrible sin because it 
violates the biblical prohibition against seething a kid in its mother's 
milk, or something along those lines, we'd have a better basis for reasoned 
argument.

Damien Broderick