[extropy-chat] Bioethics Essay- Revised

[The Avantguardian]

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> [First let me say well done for turning strong
> emotion 
> into something tangable and creating choices for 
> yourself ]
> 
>> I know the
> > theological arguments are not water tight but they
> are
> > only a small part of the whole argument.
>  
> Still they *are* a part and how many leaks are too
> many
> in that part for you I wonder? 

The two theological doctrines that make up the meat of
that part of my argument are The Immaculate Conception
and the Infallibility of God. The second I don't
explicitly mention by I do allude to. Do you think it
would bolster my argument to explicitly mention the
Infallibility of God?

> > I actually considered this possibility, which is
> > precisely why I am calling for the ban on
> reproductive
> > cloning to remain in effect in my essay. I shudder
> to
> > think that Christianity might be wrong and that I
> am
> > dooming future fully developed clones to
> > stigmatization as souless slaves. Therefore I
> > sincerely hope we are never foolish enough to
> allow a
> > clone to reach full development.
> 
> Think like a scientists, what would stop that from
> happening.

Well with future advances, we should be able to keep
this from happening with some form of hormonal or
genetic intervention, but for the time being the
easiest way to prevent it is to simply NOT implant the
embryo into a uterus. Surely this can't be too hard,
right?
>  
> Is derision a risk you have to take?  
> 
I sincerely hope not, as a scientist much rides on my
reputation.


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com