At 11:00 AM 7/2/01 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:

...

Cloning is far from a perfected technology - dozens of embryos are started for each one that comes to term,

Actually this is true for most artificial fertilization techniques ---that's why they implant multiple embroyos, they expect a few to die. and many that are born have severe defects and

die young. A lot that don't die young are pretty darn unhealthy in various ways.

Of course, this is true for natural conception, where a lot of embroyos are resorbed, probably because they're fatal mutants.

The State has problems (heck - I have problems too!) with applying this technology at a point in development where *most* of the resulting people are likely to have severe physical and mental defects. Unlike animals, you can't just slaughter the ones that don't work out.

Bingo.

OTOH, the fact the State chose to stop a religious organization brings chilling memories of Waco - "Is your religion FDA approved?".

Yes. My earlier comments on just how wacky the religion is was not meant to minimize the fed visit.

then I have no problem with human cloning. Until then, I'd rather people did not try it (though, unlike the State, I would not stop them).

Agreed. Query: So if you were on the jury of a kid suing his rogue cloners for his defects, how would you decide? Would the religious aspect affect your judgement of liability? Criminal and/or civil liability? Can grown kids sue if they find their mother drank/smoke/snorted/etc and had reason to believe this bad?