God killed the soapbox star

[ada]

I was going to post a really interesting ethical and philosophical dilemma related something that's been on my mind as a result of a recent conference I attended.

I'll be writing about it elsewhere and I would have been interested in what members thought.

But then I had second thoughts, because I knew it would be hijacked by the PF god(warrior) and turned into another predictable stupid boring discussion about god and creationism.

And I thought, why the hell bother?

Seeing as I have the little message box thingy up I thought I just might as well share this momentary stream of consciousness as an example of how religious carpet bombing is killing off freedom of expression in this place 

Now I will find a nice little lesbian, anarchist, anti-christ, left wing intellectual forum on which to lavish my scintillating insights instead.

 

[pianistimo]

not knowing where you are leading with all this - leads me to make an assumption.  that you think 'God killed a soapbox star.'  well, at times - things just happen.  even int he bible it says 'time and chance' happen to all.  i mean, if the soapbox star died - it didn't mean it was totally the end for him.  what if the soapbox star is ressurrected?  ha.  then that will mean that he didn't really die after all. 

i've wondered many times similar things.  like the flooding from katrina, or tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados in various places of the world.  sometimes people are 'taken' - both belivers and non-believers - and were good people.  but, there's really no way out of this world alive anyways.  we're all going to die at some point.  what does it matter if you die young or old.  (well, i guess it does matter if you think about it - to the people left behind).

now, in wars - that too is so sad.  but, life goes on.  you just say - they met God earlier.  although, i'd prefer to be a bit cautious on warring with someone wiht different beliefs.  why not appreciate each other and be tolerant?  and, yet - there is never tolerance in diversity for some reason.  i think it is called human nature.  if there ever was a dilemma it would be why there is evil in the world.  it's not God's doing to create evil.  and death can be overcome by Christ.

ps i often watch the weather channel (yes, i am odd) and was watching this one time about a man who survived a tornado.  he was a believer and yet everything - his entire house - fell down around him.  he survived, though, by sitting in his bathtub.  when he got out - he saw destruction around him everywhere and was grateful to just have his life.  prayer does count for something!

[harjoydes]

Go on Ada, don't be a tease.  I'm interested in philosophical dilemmas and I'm not religious ( at least not evangelically so).  I like to play piano too, that's why I suscribe to this website.

[wishful thinker]

But then I had second thoughts, because I knew it would be hijacked by the PF god(warrior)

...and it came to pass... 

[ahinton]

...and it came to pass... 

Well, it came - but it will surely pass - and, let's face it, the references to G×× and J×××× C××××× therein were comparatively thin on the ground and there was no Matthew Chapter 1 Verse 1 stuff in it at all, so yes, come on, Austral"ada" - tell us all about it! Going this far and then declining to go farther on this forum merely for fear of the risk of so-called hijacking of the subject by a very small proportion of its members could surely be seen as playing into their hands, could it not? We don't advocate or practice censorhip here, do we? - including self-censorship (in most cases!).

Over to you - and, while you're putting together what you just decided against posting here, what are your reasons for wanting to find a specifically "lesbian" forum as a more suitable alternative place for your thoughts here? - or were you just joking?(!)...

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

let's face it, the references to G×× and J×××× C××××× therein were comparatively thin on the ground and there was no Matthew Chapter 1 Verse 1 stuff in it at all

Wouldn't know that, would I, as I have vowed never to further damage my sanity by reading her (non-piano) posts 

[ahinton]

Wouldn't know that, would I, as I have vowed never to further damage my sanity by reading her (non-piano) posts 

That's not for me to answer - but you must at least have noticed that the post was there, otherwise you'd not have writen about anything "coming to pass", would you?!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

...and it came to pass... 

Was their ever any doubt?

Thal

[ahinton]

Come on, now, "ada"; jump right in before the post count reaches double figures...

Best,

Alistair

[aliena]

Are you all picking on someone here? If so, may I join in?

[ada]

not knowing where you are leading with all this - leads me to make an assumption.  that you think 'God killed a soapbox star.'  well, at times - things just happen.  even int he bible it says 'time and chance' happen to all.  i mean, if the soapbox star died - it didn't mean it was totally the end for him.  what if the soapbox star is ressurrected?  ha.  then that will mean that he didn't really die after all. 

i've wondered many times similar things.  like the flooding from katrina, or tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados in various places of the world.  sometimes people are 'taken' - both belivers and non-believers - and were good people.  but, there's really no way out of this world alive anyways.  we're all going to die at some point.  what does it matter if you die young or old.  (well, i guess it does matter if you think about it - to the people left behind).

now, in wars - that too is so sad.  but, life goes on.  you just say - they met God earlier.  although, i'd prefer to be a bit cautious on warring with someone wiht different beliefs.  why not appreciate each other and be tolerant?  and, yet - there is never tolerance in diversity for some reason.  i think it is called human nature.  if there ever was a dilemma it would be why there is evil in the world.  it's not God's doing to create evil.  and death can be overcome by Christ.

ps i often watch the weather channel (yes, i am odd) and was watching this one time about a man who survived a tornado.  he was a believer and yet everything - his entire house - fell down around him.  he survived, though, by sitting in his bathtub.  when he got out - he saw destruction around him everywhere and was grateful to just have his life.  prayer does count for something!

You are doing this to annoy me, aren't you? Well tis working 

what are your reasons for wanting to find a specifically "lesbian" forum as a more suitable alternative place for your thoughts here? - or were you just joking?(!)...

Best,

Alistair

haha don't be alarmed chere alistair, I was just looking for little bit of ideologically correct solidarity from the sisterhood. You know the answer to your question 

[ada]

Go on Ada, don't be a tease.  I'm interested in philosophical dilemmas and I'm not religious ( at least not evangelically so).  I like to play piano too, that's why I suscribe to this website.

oh okay, seeing as you insist 

Here in Aus it is about to become legal to therapeutically clone embryos for stem cell research. Legistlation is set to pass the upper house of parliament this week. This move will put us on par with the UK.

But now that our scientists will be able to conduct somatic cell nuclear transfer (or cloning)  they're gonna need to get hold of eggs.

In aust we have laws banning the sale of any human tissue (not the case in the US, I understand, where everything's a commodity, even life, but I digress) which means you can't buy oocytes (eggs) but need to rely on the largesse of altruistic donors.

But with the pending change in legislation there's a move to consider paying women for their eggs. This would represent a major shift in terms of both policy and philosophy.

So my original question (to myself) was, should women be paid for their eggs?

Is payment a form of undue inducement which will force women to be exploited for their eggs? I understand in the US it's poor, uneducated, largely hispanic women who sell their eggs. OTOH, is it only fair to compensate women for an invasive, painful and inconvenient procedure?

Don't know if anyone else out there gives a ***,  but I think this is a fascinating meeting of science, commerce and women's issues.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

You could always refuse payment if you would like to.

[ada]

Greetings.

You could always refuse payment if you would like to.

Greetings

Yes, but what if you're desperate for the money?

I am all for stem cell research and as for  therapeutic cloning all I can say is bring it on. But not so sure that women should be turned into convenient packagings for an egg.

Which raises the question of: should scientists take eggs from animals and cross them with human DNA to create a cloned hybrid embryo?

Then we end up with an source of stem cells without the prickly question of paying women for eggs, albeit an animal-human combo.

This could also be on the agenda in future.

[ahinton]

haha don't be alarmed chere alistair, I was just looking for little bit of ideologically correct solidarity from the sisterhood. You know the answer to your question 

Yes - that was pretty transparently obvious, to me at least! Understood! - and indeed I do know that answer, of course...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Greetings

Yes, but what if you're desperate for the money?

I am all for stem cell research and as for  therapeutic cloning all I can say is bring it on. But not so sure that women should be turned into convenient packagings for an egg.

Which raises the question of: should scientists take eggs from animals and cross them with human DNA to create a cloned hybrid embryo?

Then we end up with an source of stem cells without the prickly question of paying women for eggs, albeit an animal-human combo.

This could also be on the agenda in future.

Plenty of good questions here, all of which are rather easier to ask than to answer satisfactorily (by which statement I do not seek to undermine the importance of the questions)...

Best,

Alistair

[pianolist]

This is a joke thread madam. 

Hi Soapy,

This must be a yolk thread, then.

We speak of human DNA as though it is uniform, and that always puzzles me. It is, within its restricted spectrum, tremendously varied, isn't it? If scientists need a widely representative selection of DNA in their scrambled eggs, it would be counterproductive to pay, because they would tend to end up with only certain strata of society needing the money, and so distorting the statistics. So from a purely scientific point of view, ignoring any morality, I'd have thought it wise to keep it voluntary.

In Britain, we used to have (maybe still do) a common cold research centre, where you could go for a pleasant free holiday, good food and so on, as long you were prepared to be deliberately given a cold. I don't want this to sound trite, but a similar freebie for ladies, with sun, wine and massages (or whatever) would be a way of attracting volunteers without actually paying them for their ovarian output.

At the risk of over-egging the pudding, though, I see you are prepared to donate your stem cells to the right researcher. Good on ya, gal.

[ada]

In Britain, we used to have (maybe still do) a common cold research centre, where you could go for a pleasant free holiday, good food and so on, as long you were prepared to be deliberately given a cold.

Haha this is very funny.

At the risk of over-egging the pudding, though, I see you are prepared to donate your stem cells to the right researcher. Good on ya, gal.

haha I suppose I shouldn't egg you on.

By the way did I mention that stem cells can also be harvested from sperm?
This however requires the donation of a testis. How much would that be worth to ya?

[pianolist]

You shouldn't do that to a chap who is still up at 4.30 am. I shan't sleep now.

Mind, I had a boss in the 1970s who had testicular cancer, and they took one of his away in the twinkling of an eye. I don't know how it works with cancer, but might some of the sperm-creating mechanism be unaffected? It would be a humane way of losing balls.

More than I can say for what happened in Brisbane this week. Hmmm.

[ada]

More than I can say for what happened in Brisbane this week. Hmmm.

Oh don't worry, we'll go easy on you chaps in the next round. There's always darts...

[ahinton]

oh okay, seeing as you insist 

Here in Aus it is about to become legal to therapeutically clone embryos for stem cell research. Legistlation is set to pass the upper house of parliament this week. This move will put us on par with the UK.

But now that our scientists will be able to conduct somatic cell nuclear transfer (or cloning)  they're gonna need to get hold of eggs.

In aust we have laws banning the sale of any human tissue (not the case in the US, I understand, where everything's a commodity, even life, but I digress) which means you can't buy oocytes (eggs) but need to rely on the largesse of altruistic donors.

But with the pending change in legislation there's a move to consider paying women for their eggs. This would represent a major shift in terms of both policy and philosophy.

So my original question (to myself) was, should women be paid for their eggs?

Is payment a form of undue inducement which will force women to be exploited for their eggs? I understand in the US it's poor, uneducated, largely hispanic women who sell their eggs. OTOH, is it only fair to compensate women for an invasive, painful and inconvenient procedure?

Don't know if anyone else out there gives a ***,  but I think this is a fascinating meeting of science, commerce and women's issues.

This is indeed an interesting issue on a number of counts. I give a good deal more than a *** about it, but am not yet certain of my overall stance on it. In UK, whilst organ donation is being increasingly encouraged, no one here currently expects payment in return for a kidney, liver, etc. Organ donation is, of course, almost exclusively for transplantation supply purposes, although a very small amount of it is for pure research rather than transplantation. Ironically, certain possible results of stem cell research may, among other things, eventually lead to some reduction in the need for transplantation surgery.

The question of whether it's reasonable for women to expect payment for undergoing an "invasive, painful and inconvenient procedure" is one that simply cannot be overlooked. If, however, one considers how transplantation surgery has developed from the days of its infancy to a point where much of it is infinitely less invasive for the recipient than once it was (kidney transplants, for example, are far more invasive for the donor than for the recipient nowadays), it may be that the best way - or at least one way - to address this question is to spend some time first trying to figure out ways of reducing the invasiveness, pain and inconvenience of the procedure as now it stands; not being medically qualified, I have no idea what mileage there may be in this, but it should at lest be thoroughly investigated, because the results may possibly come to impact upon the preceived moral balance in terms of whether payment should or should not be offered and/or expected.

One may suppose there tio be potential dangers in the offering of payment to people to provide this form of medical supply.

One is a possible growth in expectation that people should come to consider provision of such a service as an inescapable duty because they are going to be paid for it; I am not necessarily going so far as to suggest that this kind of practice may ever reach the coercion stage (although in certain extreme égimes this could conceivably rear its ugly head), but the question of possible stigma surrounding refusal might well become a kind of political hot potato as time goes by.

Another is the question of who decides who pays how much to whom and whether, how and to what extent such payments are to be taxed - to put it crudely, there might, for example, be an argument that, if any tax at all is deemed to be due, some donors may consider that selling part of themselves should attract capital gains tax on the disposal of an asset rather than income tax.

Yet another is that it could - and, I imagine, would indeed be likely to - create a precedent wherein people would then expect to start charging for supplying organs, tissue, etc.; this could be quite a problem insofar as, when organ transplants are undertaken, the recipient and donor usually (or is it always? - perhaps you can correct me here) have to be of the same blood group, so organs belonging to those of the rarer blood groups will very soon figure out (if they've not done so already) that they could put a vastly higher price on their organs than those of more common blood groups. This "rarity factor" and the concomitant expectation of financial profit would likely end up as being no different from any other rarity value in determining expectations from sales.

Another is already raised by you in your reference to the idea of exploiting the poor for such medical supplies; people in more impecunious circumstances as well as those in serious debt for whatever reason will inevitably feel more pressurised - by force of circumstance if not necessarily by anyone's direct coercion - to participate than others who don't need the money to the same extent.

You are correct to suggest that the business - and it will indeed be just that - a business - of supplying one's spare or "spareable" parts - be they eggs, organs, tissue or whetever - will exemplify a kind of personal physical commodification exercise. I happen to think that, whatever any of the consequences of that may be, governments will nevertheless, one by one, come to sanction such business operations, especially if they see them as yet another potential source of tax revenue to "invest back into provision of more medical services" (by which of course I mean "waste on going to war in Iraq, or somewhere"). Whenever such businesses operate, there will, of course, be a need for the middlemen (and women) - the agents who will take their cuts out of matching seller to buyer - a business in itself generated by the existence of another business. Of course, in countries where there is - or is perceived to be - a thriving state health service such as UK, France, Spain, etc., all this kind of activity will be expected to be conducted through that state health system - so the purchaser of the supplies will always be the government of the day; it will be interesting to see people whose assets are deeemd by market forces to be of especial value engage in negotiations with their governments as to how much they'll get for their supplies, especially if any of them say, "I'm not accepting less than × thousand dollars per egg / organ / mg. of tissue / whatever, so if you won't pay my price I'll offer it / them on eBay to the highest bidder in a country where I can get more".

On top of all of that, you can just see the insurance industry perceiving a whole new area of business to be exploited, can you not?!

That's my two cents' worth for now...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Which raises the question of: should scientists take eggs from animals and cross them with human DNA to create a cloned hybrid embryo?

Then we end up with an source of stem cells without the prickly question of paying women for eggs, albeit an animal-human combo.

This could also be on the agenda in future.

This ought to depend first and foremost upon the medical efficacy of such a procedure - in other words, would it be as safe and potentially successful as using human material? In addition, you'd then have the animal rights lobby with whom to contend - and possibly also the farming and zoological communities if animals under their charge were to be considered for exploitation...

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

That's my two cents' worth for now...

Blimey Alistair, if that's two cents' worth, what can we expect for a whole buck?

You've not cought pianistimitis, have you?  I believe that this can be a very painful condition indeed, with no known cure.  Counselling appears not to help either, I'm afraid

But in short, I think that you are saying that any "trade" in body parts is bound to be fraught with danger, correct?

[ahinton]

Blimey Alistair, if that's two cents' worth, what can we expect for a whole buck?

Pay me the buck and you might find out (by which, of course, I mean a euphemistic, rather than a real, buck, for, as I am sure you'll appreciate, a mere buck would hardly cover it), which fact prompts me to remind you that The Sorabji Archive accepts payment in British pounds via PayPal using our email address
sorabji-archive@lineone.net

You've not cought pianistimitis, have you?

No, but whilst there is currently thought to be no known cure as such for this recently identified disease once caught, there is already a successfully tested inoculation that one can have to protect oneself from contracting it in the first place; this substance was, incidentally, developed as a result of research in which no humans or animals were harmed and no body parts used.

I believe that this can be a very painful condition indeed,

On what is your belief here based? - hearsay? direct personal experience? - indirect personal experience (i.e. knowing a sufferer)?

Counselling appears not to help either, I'm afraid

Do you know that for a fact? and do you believe this to be true of all correctly diagnosed cases?

But in short, I think that you are saying that any "trade" in body parts is bound to be fraught with danger, correct?

Not necessarily that it is "bound" to be, but that it is very likely to be if certain important considerations are not given thoroughly before it becomes established practice; in any case, there is also the factor that all business activity involves enterprise and speculation, so this kind of business would be no exception even on that front alone - indeed, it would be "wishful thinking" to assume otherwise.

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

Pay me the buck and you might find out (by which, of course, I mean a euphemistic, rather than a real, buck, for, as I am sure you'll appreciate, a mere buck would hardly cover it), which fact prompts me to remind you that The Sorabji Archive accepts payment in British pounds via PayPal using our email address
sorabji-archive@lineone.net

No problems sir, I send you $50,000 for the Sorabji Archive that you have advertised.  The rest is for you to pay the shipper, because I am having several things shipped from your country at once.  I hope that we can do good business again soon.

[ahinton]

No problems sir, I send you $50,000 for the Sorabji Archive that you have advertised.  The rest is for you to pay the shipper, because I am having several things shipped from your country at once.  I hope that we can do good business again soon.

As I mentioned, we do usually stipulate payment in British pounds, but I will be prepared to make an exception in your case in this particular instance. As long as any future business between us involves no trading of body parts (something into which The Sorabji Archive would in any case be unprepared to enter), I'm sure that our mutual business relationship will flourish.

With all good "thoughts" and "wishes"...

Best,

Alistair

[musik_man]

I don't see any problem with paying people for tissue donations be they eggs or kidneys.  I think that it's helpful to break down the issue to three items.

1) Is there anything wrong with donating eggs?
2) How does this affect the recipient?
3) How does this affect the donor?

There are no problems with number one.  After all, we allow voluntary donations.

The recipient clearly benefits.  Banning payments lowers the supply of eggs around.  There are couples who will never get the children they want because of the ban.

Number three is the tricky one.  Both Ada and Ahinton had fears of exploitation, but I think they are misplaced.  In fact, I dislike both the term 'exploitation' and the term 'force.'  No women would be physically coerced into donating.  It's more accurate to say that poor women would face tough choices.  Continue with your lack of money, or undergo a painful procedure.  You're right if you think that this is a nasty choice to have to make, but your wrong in seeing it as a reason to make payment illegal.  Banning doesn't improve the poor woman's situation.  It makes it worse.  Without the ban she has two choices.  After it she has none.

There still may be concerns about people making the decision with impaired judgment.  I'm not too worried about this.  If the system is anything like kidney donations in the US(illegal to pay for them here), there would be both psychological evaluations and a long waiting period for donations.    Obviously there'd be no chance of using the money from this to fuel drug addictions like with prostitution.  The eggs of a drug addict wouldn't be suitable for donation.

I can't see any good reason to ban payments for eggs (or for kidneys like the US does atm.)

[ahinton]

I don't see any problem with paying people for tissue donations be they eggs or kidneys.  I think that it's helpful to break down the issue to three items.

1) Is there anything wrong with donating eggs?
2) How does this affect the recipient?
3) How does this affect the donor?

There are no problems with number one.  After all, we allow voluntary donations.

The recipient clearly benefits.  Banning payments lowers the supply of eggs around.  There are couples who will never get the children they want because of the ban.

Number three is the tricky one.  Both Ada and Ahinton had fears of exploitation, but I think they are misplaced.  In fact, I dislike both the term 'exploitation' and the term 'force.'  No women would be physically coerced into donating.  It's more accurate to say that poor women would face tough choices.  Continue with your lack of money, or undergo a painful procedure.  You're right if you think that this is a nasty choice to have to make, but your wrong in seeing it as a reason to make payment illegal.  Banning doesn't improve the poor woman's situation.  It makes it worse.  Without the ban she has two choices.  After it she has none.

You make some good points here, although I think that you may not entirely have understood "ada"'s and my thoughts about this. I shouldn't - and therefore won't - seek to speak for "ada" here, but I don't believe that either of us actually stated that we have fears of exploitation per se - merely of the possibility of exploitation - i.e., there would not necessarily have to be exploitation, but there might be a risk of it and it is this risk that would need to be addressed and, as far as possible, minimised before the procedures were to become established practice. Certain dictatorships could be imagined as coercing women in this way, but it would not, of course, be a normal expectation elsewhere, as I had already suggested. Banning would indeed be a bad idea in the sense that this kind of veto will almost always push the banned procedure underground, with possibly far more dangerous consequences. I do not think that "ada" or I have rooted objections to this kind of possibility - merely that some controls need to be put in place early. However, you have written about this only in the specific context of enabling otherwise childless couples to have children; this is not what either "ada" or I have written about, although, of course, this may well be a part of such practice. Stem cell research may offer the possibility of far wider consequences than just enabling the childless to have children, as I suggested in my references to the possible reduction in - or even supercession of - organ transplantation.

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

Which raises the question of: should scientists take eggs from animals and cross them with human DNA to create a cloned hybrid embryo?

Is this even possible?  When you say cross, I think you mean splice.  I think that there are extremely strict regulations on this, and should always be.  Many countries have already in place a thick layer of bureaucracy associated with stem cell and dna reseach.  Every single experiment must be justified to a panel knowlegable in the field of reseach, as well as ethical arguments for and against.

I do think we tread a fine line, but this has to be the case.  If there are alternatives to stem cell research and cloning, these should aways be sought first.  Only when there remains no other alternative, and where the potential benefit far out weights monetary costs and ethical constrains sould one then begin to consider pursuing these avenues.

I think the scientific community must police itself strictly in this matter.  If the freedom to conduct such reseach is abused in anyway, I think that the public will react adversy, even to the smallest (possibly inconsequential) infringement, and can make it extremely difficult continue with our studies of these extremely important scientific areas.  The cost to science, medicine and humanity, if this were to occur, is unimaginable.

I think a lot of the problem, as with most science today, boils down to communication.  No matter how transparent we make the system, in order to legislate and goven stem cell and dna research, it cannot easily be audited by the public simply because of an intrinsic gap in knowledge and understanding.  Somehow, this must be bridged in order that there be public confidence.  The fear, however remote this may be in reality, is that we will create our very own frankenstein.

[ada]

However, you have written about this only in the specific context of enabling otherwise childless couples to have children; this is not what either "ada" or I have written about, although, of course, this may well be a part of such practice. Stem cell research may offer the possibility of far wider consequences than just enabling the childless to have children, as I suggested in my references to the possible reduction in - or even supercession of - organ transplantation.

Best,

Alistair

True, the sort of research I am talking about is using an egg to make a clone via somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the DNA of say a skin cell is put into an egg that's had its DNA sucked out.

That cloned embryo would be used exclusively as a source of stem cells, not to to provide a childless couple with a baby. If this were the case you'd end up with reproductive cloning, which I don't think anyone anywhere is seriously talking about. Though it would be a most interesting experiment.

Of course the downside with harvesting stem cells is that you also destroy the embryo, which is the source of all the ethical angst about the practice.

So say I wanted to clone Alistair Hinton, I'd donate an egg and Alistair would donate a single skin cell.

The DNA gets sucked out of my egg, leaving an empty "shell". The DNA is also sucked out of Alistair's skin cell and put into my egg.

The egg is then exposed to certain chemicals or electrical currents and it starts to divide and turn into a blastocyst, or an early embryo, and bingo you've got a baby Alistair on the way. Easy peasy, that's how they made Dolly.

The new Alistair clone is then implanted back into my womb and nine months later a new Alistair, or really his identical twin is born.

Now what's even freakier is if the same process is carried out by pianistimo, for example, except using one of her eggs and one of her own cells. You could then implant the pianistimo clone back into her and she'd effectively give birth to herself.

Is this even possible? When you say cross, I think you mean splice.

Yeah that's right. It's very possible, you just replace a human egg with say a rabbit or mouse or primate or pig egg. You still get the stem cells. But what do you get if you implant that hybrid into a woman and allow it to be born? Who knows, maybe it wouldn't work. It hasn't been done yet.

But the use of animal eggs is where the research is going, simply because it solves the problem of getting human eggs.

The Aust legislation has currently banned the creation of hybrids but I can tell you that was against the wishes of a lot of scientists and ethicists.

Don't you just love science?

[ahinton]

So say I wanted to clone Alistair Hinton, I'd donate an egg and Alistair would donate a single skin cell.

You know, all of a sudden, I've just realised (maybe it was some kind of Damascene conversion) that I'm against this whole idea after all...("just kidding!", as pianistimo would say...)

The DNA gets sucked out of my egg, leaving an empty "shell". The DNA is also sucked out of Alistair's skin cell and put into my egg.

The egg is then exposed to certain chemicals or electrical currents and it starts to divide and turn into a blastocyst, or an early embryo, and bingo you've got a baby Alistair on the way. Easy peasy, that's how they made Dolly.

The mind - or what's left of one - fair boggles. Dolly the Lamb of God was all very well, but the end result that you posit here is surely just too much for anyone to be expected to bear - just imagine - TWICE the number of notes? - no, in this instance (for all I fully understand that your intent here is merely illustrative), "two is (at best) carelessness", to paraphrase Oscar Wilde...

The new Alistair clone is then implanted back into my womb and nine months later a new Alistair, or really his identical twin is born.

Now why on God's - sorry, our - earth would you want to put up with that process? - especially given the inevitable end result...

Now what's even freakier

There's something freakier, yes? Mon Dieu! (sorry, I do keep mentioning God - no offence intended by so doing, let me hasten to assure you!...)

is if the same process is carried out by pianistimo, for example, except using one of her eggs and one of her own cells. You could then implant the pianistimo clone back into her and she'd effectively give birth to herself.

but doesn't she do that every now and then by the much simpler, less "invasive, painful and inconvenient" means of posting more material?...

Yeah that's right. It's very possible, you just replace a human egg with say a rabbit or mouse or primate or pig egg. You still get the stem cells. But what do you get if you implant that hybrid into a woman and allow it to be born? Who knows, maybe it wouldn't work. It hasn't been done yet.

To return to being serious again, this is where we might get into what are potentially, if not actually, very dangerous waters...

But the use of animal eggs is where the research is going, simply because it solves the problem of getting human eggs.

Until - as I implied earlier - that problem is solved (if indeed it can be)...

The Aust legislation has currently banned the creation of hybrids but I can tell you that was against the wishes of a lot of scientists and ethicists.

Don't you just love science?

And don't you just love A'straalians?!

Best,

Alistair (the original, non-cloned one)

[asyncopated]

The egg is then exposed to certain chemicals or electrical currents and it starts to divide and turn into a blastocyst, or an early embryo, and bingo you've got a baby Alistair on the way. Easy peasy, that's how they made Dolly.

Now what's even freakier is if the same process is carried out by pianistimo, for example, except using one of her eggs and one of her own cells. You could then implant the pianistimo clone back into her and she'd effectively give birth to herself.

Actually, I don't really find it freaky, just insanely unethical -- not to mention the psycological issues to do with a kind of narcissistic complex for a person to want to do this.  In your example, pianistimo would have given birth not to herself but to her twin.  Monozygotic twins share the same genetic material, but are not one in the same person (obviously).

Don't you just love science?

Yes, with all my heart.  Not all of science is concered with creating three eyed frogs and fish that sing elvis songs -- you know that don't you?

[pianowelsh]

Good grief!  Maybe you should just attach a separate log in saying please leave you morals and ethics at the door this is a website forum for people who are open to all things and where no opinions/beliefs are really valued atall.

What you hold dear interms of your faith cannot be separated from everyday life, it shapes it and forms it so to say stop being so religious is really intolerance because your saying I dont accept you for who you are. It seems everyone is entiled to share what they believe/think except Christians - why?

I reccently read pianistimos 'column' and she was attacked for being 'so religious' in her response to someones flip question about magic.  Everyone knwos she's a Christian - surely they should have the common sense to know if you fire a question at someone you will get the response based on what they believe.  Upto that point she hadent even mentioned Jesus in her many responses.  People should grow up and seriously engage on issues instead of attacking other people without really knowing or caring about the issues involved. that is much more damamging to peoples freedoms of speach that someone sharing what they beleive passionately.

Sorry BUT it had to be said

[ahinton]

Good grief!  Maybe you should just attach a separate log in saying please leave you morals and ethics at the door this is a website forum for people who are open to all things and where no opinions/beliefs are really valued atall.

I don't see the direct connection between the thread topic / first post in the thread and what you write here. Who, to begin with, do you mean by "you"? "Ada", who started the thread? Someone else? Do you not believe that this forum should be for people who are open to all things? - you yourself declared in another thread that you have substantially changed your views about religious matters, which presumes that you have at one time been of sufficiently open mind to be prepared to change your views. If no opinions were valued at all on this forum, the forum would likely disappear very soon.

What you hold dear interms of your faith cannot be separated from everyday life, it shapes it and forms it so to say stop being so religious is really intolerance because your saying I dont accept you for who you are. It seems everyone is entiled to share what they believe/think except Christians - why?

Not to me, it doesn't - but that does not mean that I think Christians have a divine - or any other kind of - right to assume precedence, still less moral superiority, over anyone else. What, however, does this have to do with the thread topic?

I reccently read pianistimos 'column' and she was attacked for being 'so religious' in her response to someones flip question about magic.  Everyone knwos she's a Christian - surely they should have the common sense to know if you fire a question at someone you will get the response based on what they believe.  Upto that point she hadent even mentioned Jesus in her many responses.  People should grow up and seriously engage on issues instead of attacking other people without really knowing or caring about the issues involved. that is much more damamging to peoples freedoms of speach that someone sharing what they beleive passionately.

I disagree, to the extent that being a Christian does not obligate one to bring one's beliefs into so many discussions, as though one's beliefs had taken one over.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

For my part, I have little interest in the cloning aspect of stem cell research. It has, of course, been one of the more widely publicised and argued sectors of this area of scientific exploration but I think it to be of far less potential importance to the general development of the human race than its inherent possibilties in the reduction and eradication of disease. Of course, successful human cloning and successful eradication of disease will each have the same impact on human population increase, which brings with it its own problems that will need to be overcome.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I am trying to (or trying not to) imagine the offspring of ada and ahinton.

Answers on a postcard.

Thal

[ahinton]

I am trying to (or trying not to) imagine the offspring of ada and ahinton.

Answers on a postcard.

Thal

Why are you doing either when you could be practising some Thalberg? After all, I don't think that you've ever met "ada", you've certainly not met me and so quite why you'd spend you time exercising your imagination in this way remains a mystery to me. No offence to "ada", of course! No - the only Scottish/Australian musician of any real importance of whom I know was Percy Grainger and, for the record, I am not about to participate in the attempted creation of another one. So - save the postage, folks!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Oh don't worry, we'll go easy on you chaps in the next round. There's always darts...

So was that what your esteemed team were playing while those wretched Poms ratcheted up so high a score last time, then? I guess so...

Best,

Alistair

[ada]

So was that what your esteemed team were playing while those wretched Poms ratcheted up so high a score last time, then? I guess so...

Best,

Alistair

I should have known that one would come back to bite me on the bum 

I am trying to (or trying not to) imagine the offspring of ada and ahinton.

I shall deal with you later......

(anyway how do you know we don't already have a love child on the way?)

oooooooooh scandal on PF

(sorry ahinton  )

[thalbergmad]

anyway how do you know we don't already have a love child on the way?

Unless he flew to Australia or posted you a sample, i fail to see how that is possible.

If you have, better stock up on the vegemite and manuscript paper.

Thal

[ahinton]

better stock up on the vegemite and manuscript paper.

Thal

They'd have to be kept in separate rooms - or preferably separate Australian provinces...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I should have known that one would come back to bite me on the bum 

Darts don't bite anyone anywhere (they may puncture, however - and some are so finely tipped that they might even puncture a skin cell...). For the record, in case your remark is misunderstood (not an entirely unlikely event on this forum, methinks), I don't bite people's posteriors either....

I shall deal with you later......

Careful, ada; Thal might just enjoy that - and I'm unconvinced that this is your intention...

(anyway how do you know we don't already have a love child on the way?)

oooooooooh scandal on PF

What! That's absolutely outrageous! A "scandal on PF", I mean...

Must just go check my skin cell count, though...

And what was that song from the old musical The Boyfriend? -

"A womb with a view,
And you,
And no one to worry us,
No one to hurry us..."(usw - or maybe nsw in your case...)

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

(anyway how do you know we don't already have a love child on the way?)

oooooooooh scandal on PF

I omittd to add that there's a lot of "o"s in that (I think that "ada" will know what i mean by this)...

An alternative wording for that song from Sandy Wilson's The Boyfriend - to suit the present context - might be

"A womb with a 'roo
And you
And..."

oh, on second thoughts, maybe not...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Unless he flew to Australia or posted you a sample, i fail to see how that is possible.

Thal

I have to admit that I did send a sample to Australia only recently. This, however, was a copy of the unofficial recording of my Sequentia Claviensis which went to a Polish friend in Sydney who was unable to attend the concert itself, so I think the dangers of any New Age reproductivity are pretty small, really - even if the piece did manage to get under my friend's skin...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I have to admit that I did send a sample to Australia only recently. This, however, was a copy of the unofficial recording of my Sequentia Claviensis which went to a Polish friend in Sydney who was unable to attend the concert itself, so I think the dangers of any New Age reproductivity are pretty small, really - even if the piece did manage to get under my friend's skin...

Best,

Alistair

Can i have a copy as well, coz i could not make it to the concert.

I promise not to share it or put it on the mule.

Thal

PS Honest

[ahinton]

Can i have a copy as well, coz i could not make it to the concert.

I promise not to share it or put it on the mule.

Thal

PS Honest

You'll have to give me your street address if I'm to do this. Please send this to me in an e to my private address (which you already have - I don't mean a PM on here) and I'll see what can be done. If you ever do put it on a mule or do any other kind of donkey work of that sort with it, I promise you I'll send Pianistimo and all her Pentecostal Presbyterian Protestant Prayermongers from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania after you and ensure that they never leave you alone for one split nanosecond of the rest of your life until and unless you confess all your sins and repent before the Lord. Actually, no, I won't really do that - I'll just sue you ("sue" not as in "susan", that is); that'll be cheaper. But, since I know perfectly well that you are a wholly honourable young chap, I also know perfectly well that I shall have not the slightest need to resort to either such measure. So - looking forward to hearing from you your precise location in Le Fin des Graves...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Thank you Hinty, that is very nice of you.

Thal

[ahinton]

Thank you Hinty, that is very nice of you.

Thal

Don't know who "Hinty" is (is it by chance an accidental misspelling of one George Alfred Henty (1832-1902), historical novelist and adventure story writer?), but whoever it is I can say only that it won't be "very nice" of him or anyone else unless and until you reveal (to the address that I gave) your shipping address in Le Fin des Graves - at which point that situation could change irrevocably...

Looking forward to hearing from you...

Now let us all return to eggs benedict(ine), skin grafts, cell fission ("fushin'", sorry), (piani)"stem"(o)s and the clone (G)ra(i)nger of Woom(b)era...

Best,

Alistair