[extropy-chat] Cloning, Constitution: Clarification

[Kurt Schoedel]

My post was with regards to self-enhancement therapies (e.g. IQ 
increase, anti-aging) rather than about reproductive cloning. Sorry for 
the confusion.

About cloning: the 1st amendent does not protect the right to clone 
reproductively. It protects the right to conduct research work into 
understanding how it works. Of course, reproductive cloning is not 
an "individual act" because it involves the creation and, therefor, 
welbeing of the kid you are creating (the clonee) as well as the rights 
of the person doing the cloning (cloner).

What I was arguing for was a separate interpetation of the 1st 
amendment than the one that was the subject of Brian Alexandra's 
article.

Personally, I would like to see the whole bioethics community break it 
down between those acts that adults do to themselves (self-enhancement, 
anti-aging) and those acts that are done to other people (reproductive 
cloning, designer kids). the first are clearly individual acts and, 
therefor, purely a civil liberties issue whereas the second are not. It 
is unfortunate that embryonic stem cells (therapeutic cloning) exists 
as an intersection of both classification of acts. If a way to make 
pluropotent stem cells directly (without making the embryo) is 
developed, it will separate the two class of acts completely so that 
the public debate can be focused exclusively on the issues of 
reproductive technology (things you do to someone else).

My suggested legal action would effectively knock the bio-luddites out 
of the ring on the issue of self-enhancement only. Not on what kind of 
kids you can have. Presummably, since most people here in this group 
are interested in living forever young and going out into space and not 
in having kids, this is the legal victory that we care about.


Kurt Schoedel
MetaTechnica