X-Message-Number: 28171
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:38:07 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #28157 - #28159
References: <>

> Message #28158
> Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: human screener <>
> Subject: Would Mark's DNA have passed the screen?
>
> It would be interesting to see how many of the
> existing cryonicists would have been screened out
> according to the current DNA test Mark referred us to.

Why would it be interesting? You mean you'd like to try to reveal the
hypocrisy of supporting this medical exam against wanting to be alive
even if you failed the test? This is not hypocritical - wanting to
live is a fundamental drive of living things.

> Would Mark, himself, have passed the screen, I wonder.
> Interesting food for thought.

So what? you're using the same argument anti-choice anti-abortionists
use. But abortion is still something women should be able to opt for,
just as screening out horrible diseases is something you should be
have the choice to do. For many people, a diseased embryo is not worth
growing.

> Legiitimate diseases would be legitimately screened
> out in the far future of course. Who wants such things
> as Hodgkins Disease? Nobody. However, what if the
> "disease" is "synesthesia" or "extreme memory
> retention"? The potential political abuse is obvious.

Is synesthesia on the list of 200? If not, are you still worried?

Sure there's potential for abuse, that is why abortion is China is a
problem - less and less girls are being born. This is a bit better
than India where actual baby girls are killed after being born.

There's potential for abuse with most technology, that does not mean
we should ban it - instead we should learn how to use it ethically -
as you yourself point out.

> In the case Mark raises, will the application be to
> screen out "liberals"?

What is your suggested solution to this threat? Could it be that the
pass/fail criteria should be under constant review and accessible to
anyone interested? Could it be that ultimately it would be parent/s
who'd decide if they'd keep an embryo?

> Furthermore, there are geniuses who have contributed
> much to humanity whose biological function was less
> than perfect. Would Glen Gould have been screened out?

Rather than screening embryos, wouldn't it be better to manipulate
sperm and ova before conception to ensure that the DNA they carry is
as healthy as possible? Better yet - why not improve what you have
rather than reject the mistakes nature creates?

> Using Mark's screen, Gould would hever have
> existed.

I'm sure plenty of geniuses have been aborted. But lets worry about
the geniuses who are actually alive, but are living in conditions
which inhibit & prevent their genius.

> Cryonicsts have a lot to think about. They're not,
> apparently, leading thinkers in the ethical arena.

It is important to note that the most vocal members of this list do
not represent any cryonicist but themselves.

> Embryos, once manifested as embryos, are a fait
> accomplis in many faiths.

But not all. Are these - mostly anachronist - faiths to determine the
limits and use of science? If so, you'd likely end up with
pseudo-scientists looking for the witch gene.

> In effect, you have a human
> being there.

Or - from a scientific view-point - you have a xygote made of human
cells. No more human than any other bunch of stem-cells - but full of
*potential* for human consciousness. But any cell these days has the
potential for full human life as any cell can be (theoretically)
cloned and grown to babyhood.

> Our mission, as humans is to bring THAT
> human to fruition.

No - our mission as humans is to bring born humans to fruition. A
xygote or embryo - a *potential* human being does not have the moral
weight an actual human being has. The difficulty lies in the ambiguous
moral status of the foetus - at what point should we consider it a
baby? When it has a nervous system (would that be before or after it
can actually feel pain)? When it has a brain (would that be before or
after the neocortex begins to develop)? Etc.

Few people see a xygote or young embryo as a human being. Hell - the
placenta hasn't differentiated from the baby-to-be in the early stages
 - is that temporary organ a human being too?

>You can't simply, as a cryonicist
> say that we're going to "screen you", like in a job
> interview or a credit report- and determine whether or
> not you "get the job", "get the loan" or, in the case
> of genetic screeing "get to exist".

Why not? We make decisions as to who will exist or not based on our
choice of reproductive partner or method, and when we choose to
reproduce.

>Execution of an
> embryo is, from Mark's apparent point of view, is a
> legitimate course of action for the problematic human.

I think the point here is that technology may well soon offer people
more choice regarding how they will reproduce. You have your own
choice - presumably you will not opt for this, should it become
available?

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28171