Clinton vs human cloning
decoy at edu.lahti.fi
Tue Mar 25 04:30:40 EST 1997
ewbank at MONOD.BIOL.MCGILL.CA (Jonathan Ewbank) wrote:
>have the right to reproducive freedom, but may not necessarily have the
>right to all available resources to pursue one's own particular goal;
>this is hardly unqiue to the field of reproduction.
But one should certainly have the right to pursue all available
>The presence of a constant threat to human well-being does not
>remove the need for individuals and societies to behave in a
>ethically proper manner, unless of course you are convinced by the
>dictum "The ends justifies the means". Having worked in
>acedemic and commercial laboratories in the UK, France, Germany, the US
>and Canada, I would hazard the opinion that there is currently ample
>"freedom to experiment".
Indeed. And that freedom, which has proved very productive, should
hardly be reduced by such drastic measures as the Clinton ban.
>>But , most importanly, banning human cloning will establish the right
>>of the State to control human reproduction and human life in toto, by
>>establishing the precedent created by such a law as Clinton and others
>In just the same way that banning personal possesion of assault weapons
>is a blow to personal liberty and the first step on the road to
>collectivisation of private property perhaps?
Indeed. One *should* have the right to possess weapons of any kind as
long as one doesn't use them inappropriately. But if this thread is
going in the direction it seems to be going in, I propose that it be
moved from bionet.general to alt.anarchy...
Sampo Syreeni (Decoy/dAWN), student, <decoy at edu.lahti.fi>
More information about the Bioforum