I'm having a turn of opinions for you Kerry. For some reason it slipped past me that you were "trolling" for class room fodder. I can go with your "endless" debates now that I know you have a motive
I had a teacher in high school that must have been alot like you. She was the one that finally made history interesting for me. She had origionally wanted to be an attorny, but I guess "back then" women weren't real welcome in those schools(late 60's/early 70's) Anyhow, she was a real task master, tough to get good grades with. (I flunked my first semester with her in my junior year)
But I figured out how she worked, and started to enjoy the classes. She would challenge us as a class to defend one side of a debate. Didn't matter which side she actually belived in, she would take an opposing side to the majority of the class and make us defend our position. Made us think !

__________________
past MB rides:
'68 220D
'68 220D(another one)
'67 230
'84 SD
Current rides:
'06 Lexus RX330
'93 Ford F-250
'96 Corvette
'99 Polaris 700 RMK sled
2011 Polaris Assault
'86 Yamaha TT350(good 'ol thumper)

In this instance, your change of opinion is justified. In other instances, I may be debating in quest for the truth or for the good of debate itself. Revert to your old opinion in those circumstances.

Sounds like you had a great teacher.

The last time I taught reproductive ethics, it was quite a few years ago, prior to cloning, when the issue was whether it was ethical to have a second child to provide a medical resource (bone marrow?) for a first child that was sick.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Ok I'll reserve judgement, and take it case by case

__________________
past MB rides:
'68 220D
'68 220D(another one)
'67 230
'84 SD
Current rides:
'06 Lexus RX330
'93 Ford F-250
'96 Corvette
'99 Polaris 700 RMK sled
2011 Polaris Assault
'86 Yamaha TT350(good 'ol thumper)

Assuming one could not speed the maturation process, a clone from an adult would be the child of that adult, right? So wouldn't rights and obligations flow automatically from that precedent?

If the clone is produced during closer to contemporaneous with birth of the original, then the parental responsibility would accrue to the parent, just as it would a twin, right?

Wouldn't abortion/fetal protection laws apply to clones, too?

B

Is cannibalism wrong if you only eat clones?

A Hilton WITH a brain? I think that violates some law of physics.

B

How did that debate turn out? Personally, I don't think that the above reason is more nor less valid than any other reason for wanting a 2nd child.

I agree, but there are a lot of ethicists who think it is wrong. It uses a child as a means to an end and not as an end in itself in their view.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

That's it! That's the reason I don't like it. Previous to you naming it my response was of the icky-taboo sort, not a rational argument. Thanks.

B

I should have added, it's not a very good argument

What Kant actually said (in German)was: Never use a person as a means to an end exclusively and never as an end in themselves.

The problem is that almost everyone has children because they want them. Therefore, the child satisfies a desire in the parent. This counts as using a child as a means to an end.
Why is using a child in this way any worse than wanting a child so that the child's older sibling can get some compatible bone marrow? In fact, this latter motive seems more noble than the former.

The problem arises if the parent ONLY wants the child for that reason. If they still love the child and respect the child's autonomy, I don't see a problem and I can't see why Kant would either.

Similar argument applies to cloning.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Am I to understand that this implies impermanent damage is okay but permanent damage is not okay?

If I have a second child to be a companion for the first, that's okay. Or maybe a skin source for a burn-scarred #1. But if I have a child as an organ source for #1 resulting in permanent damage or loss of life to #2, its wrong.

?

Botnst

Yes, that's roughly correct I think.
Same argument applies to wage slavery from the Kantian perspective. It's more moral than slavery because the condition is not permanent (allegedly).

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I wrote too soon. The issue is not impermanence or permanence of the damage. The issue is the intention. It is never permissible to have an intention focused solely on the use of the person. A person must always have the intention of treating another person as a rational and autonomous agent.

Impermanent damage could be a part of the correct intention. Permanent damage could not.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I wonder how far back into development this stands?

Its obviously an evil way to treat a youngster.

To maltreat a normal newborn for some noble purpose would still be wrong. Though I'm not quite as sure about that. For example, the suspense story about smothering a newborn to keep its cries from betraying lots of people.

But how about a fetus? What about creating a fetus for the purpose of harvesting brain tissue (killing the fetus) so another person could maintain a normal life rather than say, Parkinson's? Or chemically lobotomizing a fetus so that it grows into a normal, brainless baby so that organs could be harvested for the well being of others?

For me, the act of intentionally harming a fetus in utero is close to murder, especially late in preganncy. In early pregnancy (and I don't know why I believe this), I have less problem but still am uncomfortable with the practice.

B

There's some interesting stuff written on this topic. Ethicists who tend in Kant's direction are very interested in the issue of the personhood of a fetus.
One general test that Kantian's apply is similar to the golden rule test; would you want the act done to yourself. Since most people (unless they are suicidal), when asked if they wish their mother had aborted them, answer in the negative, there is a prima facie case that abortion violates this basic rule. Aborted fetuses, if they had survived, would not have wanted to be aborted, hence they were treated as means to ends and not ends in themselves.
The problem arises when the issue is pushed back a little further. Fetuses not conceived, because the parents did not have intercourse would also have the same opinion of their own non-existence as aborted fetuses. They would have been treated as a means to an end.
So, at all times that a fertile adult is not engaging in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction, they are treating their future offspring as means to ends and not ends in themselves. This would mean women should remain pregnant for all their fertile years.
Most people who oppose abortion are not happy with that conclusion.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13