Organ Cloning

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766418' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:03 AM']Hmm, I would think it would be ok if the issue were very strictly confined to the cloning of consenting humans and individual organs. -Katie[/quote]
Humans should never been cloned.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766431' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:09 AM']Humans should never been cloned.[/quote]

That's why I said indiviudal organs. Although, I don't really forsee modern scientists being restrictive in their use of cloning, which is an issue...I certainly don't think any complete life form should be cloned.-Katie

Edited January 30, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[Veridicus]

Back to topic....Organ Cloning is morally permissible so long as it doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos or entail the creation of totipotent stem cells capable of individuation into an entire human being. So long as we are only talking about tissue and cells in culture and NOT the potentiality of a human person, there really is no moral issue so far as I can tell...

As a side thought, the most probably technique for growing replacement organs would be to take adult stem cells or to take adult epithelia and treat it with the necessary factors to induce a pluripotent state; from there it may be possible to chemically induce the development of an organ. And since the recipient IS the DONOR of the tissue, there is virtually no chance of rejection of the syntheticall grown organ.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Veridicus

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
all posts concerning animal testing have been moved [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90192"]here.[/url]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1769817' date='Feb 2 2009, 01:31 PM']+J.M.J.+
all posts concerning animal testing have been moved [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90192"]here.[/url][/quote]

Thank you.

[abercius24]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1766094' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:29 PM']I have to disagree. What makes us a human with inherent dignity is not the existence of sentience or evidence of free will. Consider this: An infant barely exhibits any signs of sentience or free will (maybe no more than a dog). Certainly we wouldn't say this is not a human. Extend it to a fetus, and we have a justification for abortions.

My point is that what defines us a humans has nothing to do with our capabilities. A fetus, and infant, a 20 yr person and an 80 yr old person are all humans and have the same dignity regardless of their capabilities.[/quote]

"Existence of sentience" and "evidence of free will" are traits that belong to all humans as a whole. They are our shared inheritance -- our common destiny, if you will. Infants share in this inheritance, as does the fetus. Both the infant and the fetus possess their own individuality (their own oneness) and their course of life as human beings has already been put in motion. They are human because they are on the path of humanity. The same situation exists for the mentally retarded human being who never demonstrates sentience or free will. Regardless of whether they demonstrate those traits or not, they are theirs by default because they are from humanity and of humanity. Apart from their obvious limitations, we all agree these people would otherwise be like you and me.

So my point is, the definition of a human being has everything to do with our capabilities at a group level, regardless of what exceptions may exist at the individual level. Without these outward signs, we have no objective basis to make a distinction. And I think we all agree that we must have an objective basis to work from. "God said so" doesn't work when trying to lead atheists away from euthenising and aborting their family members.

I think the error many people face on this whole question of human definition is the idea that we should set a definition ONLY at the invidual level; that the group level is irrelevant. But that denies all that we are as individuals that would otherwise not be if we did not exist as a group. Our lives are very much intertwined and dependant upon another.

Edited February 17, 2009 by abercius24