Banned Research and Raids on "Secret Labs"

David Honig honig at sprynet.com
Mon Jul 2 09:02:02 PDT 2001


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? 





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list