This is a pretty good argument against therapeutic cloning right now, and if nothing changes, then it suggests that bioethics think tanks may be a waste of money and effort — the market will prevent widespread cloning no matter what happens.
However, it occurs to me that the first draft of the human genome cost something like 150 million dollars and took 15 years. The technology has improved dramatically, and many genome scientists expect that in a few years, resequencing individual genomes will cost only a few thousand dollars and take a couple of weeks. If cloning technology improves in a similar fashion (cultured eggs? meiosis in a petri dish?), then ethical arguments will be more important than utilitarian ones, and bioethics think tanks will still have a raison d

Mark The problem comes when the technology of coming up with the cells needs less eggs per try; then, the pro-cloning folks have an easier sell.
The example I used sort of jumped ahead to when cures were already available. Just to get to that point would require millions of eggs and would take years. Even with a one-to-one ratio, though, there will never be enough human donors. The only possible solution would be for them to be able to clone embryos without the need for eggs but that is almost too creepy to think about.
Nick I’ve never actually heard anyone make this argument. Can you provide links?
Admittedly, it is an extrapolation from polling data. A 2004 Harris Poll asked the question:

While sperm and egg are the most common way of creating human life, it is not the only way. No one claims that the embryo that is created by cloning isn

Joe:
Admittedly, it is an extrapolation from polling data.
Interesting results. An alternative explanation might be that the stem cell polling data accurately reflects the view of “pro-life” Christians on the nature of early embryos, while their stance on abortion is also influenced by disapproval of the perceived immorality of women who have unwanted pregancies.
Or perhaps, the polling data reflects honest confusion rather than utilitarianism. Perhaps people really are unsure whether a blastocyst is a human being.

It’s sad that at the core the problem is an inability for the two sides to try to understand each other. I think, though, that this failure is exhibited more on the ‘pro-life side’ than the research one.
Isn’t it interesting how medical research devoted to finding cures and treatments to life destroying diseases are casually lumped into the moniker of ‘the culture of death’…as if scientists want to engage in this research just as some type of exotic hobby.
Strictly speaking a ‘right to life’ can mean nothing more than a right not to be killed by the government without due process. Traditionally the government can only guarantee not to infringe upon your rights, it can’t guarantee you a ‘right to food’, a ‘right to a living wage’, a ‘right to a home’ etc. Of course as a society becomes wealthier a gov’t may be able to provide these things since it has the power to tax and spend but the ‘expanded rights’ cannot be as binding as fundamental rights.
If you accept a place for ‘expanded rights’ then any sensible definition of a right to life also must carry with it a moral duty to try to find ways to cure or at least treat threats to life.
Therefore if Joe & others are wrong and set the restrictions on this type of research too high they will be enacting an immoral policy because it will interfere with the moral duty to persue life saving research. Trying to pretend this isn’t a problem by a trumped up ‘proof’ that such research couldn’t produce an economically viable cure anyway is simply not sufficient.
I see here a lot of people who want to pat themselves on the back for having the ‘correct’ moral position but very little concern for morality. I see very little in terms of a serious attempt to ensure that it isn’t Joe’s policy that is really the immoral one.

Medical cures for diseases achieved by science do not advance the spread of religious belief.
Unexplained recoveries from disease, on the other hand, do advance the spread of religious belief.
Like it or not, these incontrovertible facts leave their impression on these sorts of debates.

Whoa. How did “right to life” become an ethical mandate to find cures? You accuse pro-lifers of setting too many restrictions on research and thus being uncaring. What cost are you willing to pay? If it’s a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone’s property and income to fund research? Why not make everyone become scientists?
1. A ‘right to life’ would imply a duty not to stand in the way of people finding cures. If, for example, I stand in the door of a pharmacy and refuse to let a diabetic fill her insulin prescription am I not violating her right to life (assuming this results in a life threatening situation before anyone can intervene)? Or are the only ways you can violate a right to life is by going to an abortion clinic or siding against Terri Schiavo’s parents?
2. I didn’t say an ethical mandate to find cures but a moral duty to try to find them. As with all ‘expanded rights’ these have to be balanced against other rights plus the fact that we have limited resources. Nonetheless at a minimum it would require one to oppose the gov’t from preventing private research. I think I was very clear about the difference between fundamental rights which in theory can be unlimited and ‘expanded rights’ which by definition are limited by the resources of society.
3. My position stands and I don’t think you’ve really articulated any real disagreement other than to try to distort my position or roll out strawmen. Setting the bar too high and forbidding research that could save lives can be just as immoral as setting the bar too low.
I don’t see anyone patting themselves on the back except you, Boonton. Of course if you define “morality” as an absolute duty to find cures, I suppose you win. But traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result.
That basically blows Joe’s post out of the water. A shoddy economic argument designed to appeal to the most base of people’s financial motives (think of what your taxes would be if we found a cure to diebetes that cost $15K per person!) isn’t, according to your statement, a way to try to get good results (which I assume you mean convincing people to support an ethical research policy). As for patting themselves on the back, most of the posts here have been the same thing over and over. ‘We define human life as this, no questions need be entertained’.
The argument against abortion and ESC research is not based on the mother and child having different DNA. In the case of abortion, that is evidence demosntrating that the fetus is not the “woman’s body.” I think most pro-lifers are concerned because of the intentional creation and destruction of human life. The process used in SCNT is exactly the same to create a living clone – the only difference is killing the embryonic life before it can develop.
1. Perhaps you’re new here, whenever abortion comes up the unique DNA argument is almost always trotted out as an argument for considering fertilization the moment that full human life begins. If that’s not a valid argument then can we dispense with it when abortion comes up or is it only a valid argument when it is useful to support an ideologically based position?
2. Obviously here the unique DNA argument strongly implies that the clone is the woman’s body (or the body of the donar or both).
3. That the ‘process’ is the same does not show that the result is the same. I’ve pointed out how proposed modifications to the process meant to satisfy pro-lifers (such as only inserting a portion of the donar’s DNA) leave very large gapping questions open.
And if you’re going to defend ESC research on the basis of “right to life,” what about the human life you are destroying in your search for cures? Why not build off the multiple successes of adult stem cell research? Why funnel billions into unproven and morally questionble research? Or are you just an open-minded risk-taker? I’ll bet you’re less sanguine about the explantory power of intelligent design, which I hear has explained as much as ESC has cured.
1. Again you assume your conclusion.
2. You missed the part where I meantioned that ‘regressing’ human stem cells can bring them to a point where they will grow as an embryo. Simply turning to adult stem cells does not resolve the moral questions.
3. Who ever said we shouldn’t build off the successes of adult stem cells? Who ever said we should funnel billions of tax dollars into this research? The question of how much (if any) funding this type of research should merit in comparision to all the other types of research out there is totally off topic. AS for private dollars I presume to let the market decide how much money to funnel into all the various types of R&D.
4. Needless to say intelligent design is nonsense but I never said anything about the prospects of ESC to produce results. I only pointed out that Joe’s assumptions & estimates were nonsense.
For someone who complains about others not wanting to understand the opposing views, you’re doing a pretty good job of it yourself. You might begin by not portraying yourself as the only person with compassion or ethics.
I don’t recall writing that I was a person with compassion or ethics but I thank you for the compliment. While I don’t consider myself exceptionally lacking in compassion or ethics I’m not going to be so arrogant as to claim I’m exceptionally compassionate or ethical compared to everyone else. I think you’re doing a pretty good job at revealing the lack of communication and respect exhibited in too much of the discourse on this subject. Why the intense need to make this personal by trying to rank me in light of what you think my personal qualities of ethics and compassion are?

Pastor Jeff
Way to go! You managed to avoid addressing any of the straightforward questions I posed to you.
So it seems to be that the case that you’re not here for discussion, but merely to blow hot air and “pat yourself on the back.”
What a surprise.
I’m not sure who the pathetic, ungracious Christian liars are, willing to kill thousands of innocents in the name of of some “good,”
Really? You have no idea who I might be referring to?
that’s an ironic comment
You got one thing right.
If it’s a moral duty to find cures, why not confiscate everyone’s property and income to fund research?
Wow, look, you’re strange statement is still up there in the comments even though you pretend to have never made it.
Funny how that works, Pastor Jeff.
Welcome to the real world where interested people ask hard questions and expect thoughtful answers.

Boonton,
Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding your argument. You seemed to be saying that Christians are being immoral and unsupportive of “right to life” because we stand in the way of research. That portrays your position as the “moral” one and makes any mutual understanding or discussion difficult. And it seems that you were in fact patting yourself on the back for being more caring and understanding.
Of course it’s possible to cause harm by setting the bar too high. Christians are hardly unaware of human suffering. Simply saying that we have a moral duty to find cures is inarguable, despite Larry’s sarcasm. Pro-lifers are unwilling to sacrifice unconsenting human life to help others. Size or level of development is not what makes us human.
It seems that you were talking about some of the more recent developments such as ANT. If you are using only part of an embryo and not destroying it, that certainly makes it less problematic. If you’re intentionally modifying an embryo to make it non-viable, I think that raises other concerns. We are in very difficult territory here, and as you point out, the more science advances, the more complicated the issues become. I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
So if you “regress” adult stem cells to the point of creating embryos which could develop into fully-formed human beings, at that point you’ve created human life which should not be intentionally destroyed for the sake of another.
As far as DNA goes, that the mother and child have different DNA is significant supporting evidence that the embryo is not the mother’s body. That the SCNT embryo has the same DNA as the donor doesn’t make it the donor’s property any more than identical twins belong to each other. If the embryo develops into a fully-grown human, will you still maintain it is property?
And we are talking about limited resources. Joe raised an economic argument which I think is a good secondary point. If we had unlimited time and money, we could do everything. I think it’s fair to raise the issue of successful, morally neutral adult stem cell research. People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date. And Joe raised valid economic and ethical concerns about the feasibility of expanding embryonic stem cell treatments even if we could get them to work.

Pastor Jeff
I simply took his point to a silly extreme
Yeah, you sure did. It’s amusing that you seem to think only you are allowed to do so. When others do the same, you attack their “bitter invective and sarcasm.”
Let’s be clear: I’m not bitter. I am sarcastic. But so what?
I don’t remember mentioning the Bible. Why are you bringing it up?
Um, perhaps you’ve forgotten already your wishful-thinking that:
traditionally, Christians have argues that we may not do evil that good may result.
Pardon me for linking Christianity and Bible!!!
I thought that was a reasonable connection to make, Pastor Jeff.
If the Bible doesn’t tell you what is “evil,” then how do you know what is evil and what is not, Pastor Jeff?
If the Bible does tell you what is evil, then my question about the Bible’s position on embryonic stem cells is very relevant.
Perhaps you attack me because you do not know the answer to my question, or perhaps you do know the answer but the answer displeases you.
People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date.
Or, you might say that “people are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on scientific research which has led to cures and treatments of untold number of human diseases and disorders in the past century.”
Right, Pastor Jeff? You could say that and I would take you seriously because you and I both know that the National Institute of Health and the grants it provides to scientists in this country have saved or improved the lives of millions of men, women, children and — yes — unborn children in this country.
It’s called “honesty” Pastor Jeff. It’s called facing reality. It’s called acknowledging indisputed facts.
At the end of the day, such facts are all that matters. Whether the deity worshipped by “Christians” will be angered by embryonic stem cell cloning is not particularly relevant to rational debates on the subject.
I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
There are no “embryonic clusters” that develop into fully-formed humans if “left to themselves.”
Never were. Never will be.
But go ahead and re-define the phrase “left to themselves.”
You won’t be the first one to engage in that sort of sophistry.

Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusions regarding your argument. You seemed to be saying that Christians are being immoral and unsupportive of “right to life” because we stand in the way of research. That portrays your position as the “moral” one and makes any mutual understanding or discussion difficult. And it seems that you were in fact patting yourself on the back for being more caring and understanding.
I’m not sure why this is so difficult. I’m saying that standing in the way of research without a good reason to is immoral. I think on this we both agree. My point is that what gets lost here is that only one side of the moral question is receiving attention; what types of research are immoral. You can’t adopt a cover your ass type position by just drawing the line far to the side restricting research.
It seems that you were talking about some of the more recent developments such as ANT. If you are using only part of an embryo and not destroying it, that certainly makes it less problematic. If you’re intentionally modifying an embryo to make it non-viable, I think that raises other concerns. We are in very difficult territory here, and as you point out, the more science advances, the more complicated the issues become. I would say that anytime you have an embryonic cluster that left to itself could develop into a fully-formed human, then that is human life deserving protection.
What seems to be happening here is that any cell in either an embryo or (with great help) in the human body can create a full blown human beign if ‘left to itself’. In this context I’m not sure what left to itself really means since any attempt to ‘salvage’ a cloned embryo and bring it to full term would require a lot of technological help.
As far as DNA goes, that the mother and child have different DNA is significant supporting evidence that the embryo is not the mother’s body. That the SCNT embryo has the same DNA as the donor doesn’t make it the donor’s property any more than identical twins belong to each other. If the embryo develops into a fully-grown human, will you still maintain it is property?
The irony is that it is literally the donar’s DNA. Not a copy of it but the exact DNA that not a second before it was plucked from the donar fully belonged to the donar. It’s as if you took a CD out of my CD player, put it in yours and declared it not longer my property!
And we are talking about limited resources. Joe raised an economic argument which I think is a good secondary point. If we had unlimited time and money, we could do everything. I think it’s fair to raise the issue of successful, morally neutral adult stem cell research. People are calling for additional billions in tax revenue to be spent on embryonic stem cell research which has cured nothing to date.
True but this is a different topic. Even if we could somehow agree that stem cell research was 100% ethical that doesn’t mean the checkbook pops open and we start writing. There’s lots of ethical research competiting for funding and it would have to justify itself against those. Unfortunately, that debate I suspect is beyond both of our levels of scientific knowledge to really conduct here.

Ivan
Just when the conversation gets interesting the asshole Larry pops up and derails the whole thing with his disjointed rants.
I didn’t derail anything.
Fyi, please see the Christian Critique of Swearing Thread immediately below this one.