From: Wayne E Baisley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 28 2000 - 21:38:48 PDT
Yes, a clone would be essentially an identical twin, albeit mightily
late in arriving. Same DNA, different fingerprints, et cetera, just
like the ordinary type (and having a mortal soul, too, I'd say). And,
just as predisposed to the same strengths and weaknesses as its older
If some clever 3%ers come up with a way of regenerating body parts, that
could be really swell. Or it might not -- who wants another copy of a
liver or knee or gums not likely to last any better than the OEM set?
The aftermarket variety might have distinct advantages. Reminds me of a
billboard from Houston, 20 years back: "Custom Trailerhitches In
Stock!" Now they might really mean it.
The problem, unsurprisingly, is that getting to the happy, happy, jaw,
jaw place likely means doing lots of, excuse the phrase, baby steps
first, and there are naked ethical issues staring us in the face, as
there must be for all of us in the overgrown foetus camp. Clones will
be people, and will deserve exactly as much protection as babies. FTR,
as a Christian I think abortion is pathetic (but then I tend toward
ambiguity, as you know ;-). I understand the tragedy inherent in some
of these situations, but I think there must be better ways of dealing
with it. Would that the unwanted were unwonted.
But BFD, nothing new there. We are stuck between seeing that no child
is left behind and seeing that cloned child's left behind. (Even that
phrase is mostly lifted from Florence King.) There will be serious,
productive debate in the coming years. Pay no mind to the louder
extremes, of course. Progress and mistakes, some huge, will be made.
Meat is not meaning. Organs are not fulfilment. God-sized holes in the
heart don't get fixed with biology. Even anesthesia gets old after a
His mother had told him a trip was a fall.
And don't mention babies at all.
Buffalo Springfield, aka BS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 28 2000 - 21:46:01 PDT