X-Message-Number: 20791
From: "Brent Fox" <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #20780  Cloning
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:17:28 -0500

Hello John,

>From: "John de Rivaz" <>

>I am surprised at the Florida lawyer story. Is it really possible for
>someone with no family interest in a child to file such a claim? Looks like
>legalised kidnapping to me. Seems odd - my cynical mind suggests that it is
>a good wheeze to produce a plausible reason not to do the DNA tests. A
>through check on the background and connections of the lawyer concerned
>could be very interesting! Similarities are disturbing: It looks as though
>it was intended that the cloned baby was to be born on December 25. The
>lawyer story sounds a little like King Herod.

It is possible for such claims to be filed, as well as children to be taken
into "protective custody" by the state (at least here in Georgia).  The
Department of Family and Children Services (DFACS) do it on a regular basis.
I agree with you, it would be interesting to know more about the attorney
(Bernard Siegel) who filed this motion.  It would also be interesting to see
the paperwork that was filed.  This should be a public record, and easily
obtained.

It has now been reported that a second clone has been born:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2626615.stm

I am dismayed that the genetic testing was canceled for "Eve".  This does
bring on suspicion.  However, would Clonaid (and the Raelians) really want
Clonaid or their group discredited in order to just make $1 million (5
"clones" at 200K each)?  Or, is Dr. Boisselier and Clonaid sincere in
wanting to protect the child and parent?  Time will tell.   Until the time
that we have the unbiased genetic testing, the claim of a human clone isn't
substantiated.

>In general terms I cannot see what the fuss is about -- a cloned baby is
>just an artificial twin of the original, it has no continuity of
>consciousness.

I agree.  However, a lot of scientific illiterates do not understand this.
They see clones as being "man-made monsters of evil science."  Several
months ago, I had a discussion with a co-worker who is an intelligent and
well educated woman.  She had doubts that a clone would really be human, as
it wouldn't have a soul.  Instead of bashing her religious belief, I used it
to stifle her argument.  The Bible says that all living things have a soul.
It's fun to win arguments against attorneys who think they know everything.
<G>

>I have to say that I have a problem with this idea. Assuming the cloned
>adult person has a brain (which it would have to if the scenario is to be
>correct) what would it think of having its "soul" (ie program and data)
>replaced by someone else's? Also, after transfer what remains in the old
>body?

I seem to have read somewhere that Clonaid (or the Raelians) will try to
figure out how to stimulate accelerated growth in a clone in order for it to
reach adulthood in a short period of time.  They would presumably then
transfer the "soul" of the original into the tabla rasa brain of the clone.
How they would do that, I would think most of us here would like to know!
Immortality through perpetual cloning, etc.   It all reminds me of the
recent Schwarzenegger film, "The 6th Day".


Long life to all, either through nanites, or clones with Syncordings,

Brent

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20791