medpundit |
||
|
Tuesday, January 14, 2003Now the fun begins. When it comes to reproductive cloning, pro-cloners are quick to argue, "A clone is just a twin!" After all, identical twins have identical DNA, but they're obviously two people, not one. We shouldn't worry that clones would have "previously lived genomes," because we don't worry that twins have "somebody else's genome." I agree that clones won't lead "somebody else's life." They won't be replacements for lost loved ones. They won't be drones or Xerox copies; they'll be distinct individuals, just as identical twins are distinct. But then doesn't the twin analogy work for therapeutic cloning as well? When it comes to therapeutic cloning, we're not supposed to even worry about when life begins, because after all, I'm just getting a kidney with my DNA, so it's a part of me. Sorry, that's just not true. The blastocyst from which I got the kidney, busily dividing and growing, is no more an appendage of mine than my identical twin would be. I can't offer it to science the way I might offer my fingernail clippings or my foot. If a twin is a clone, a clone is a twin, end of story. Read it all, including her piece on reproductive cloning. posted by Sydney on 1/14/2003 07:42:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|