tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post2915694220005102687..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: Kaguya?Dale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-47551283630247162192009-01-02T17:49:00.000-08:002009-01-02T17:49:00.000-08:00Thanks, Martin!Thanks, Martin!Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-28259049061604997692009-01-02T15:16:00.000-08:002009-01-02T15:16:00.000-08:00A bit late in my response. You made a lot of poin...A bit late in my response. You made a lot of points and asked a lot of questions, but I think the main points are:<BR/><BR/>1) That paper was published 5 years ago. Don't know why John Howard is making a big deal about it now.<BR/><BR/>2) There are no laws against parthenogenesis specifically that I know of, unless that's covered in a broadly sweeping clause within legislation on cloning.<BR/><BR/>3) This particular technique uses genetic engineering of the oocytes (adding artificial chromosomes), which is probably banned on non-consenting human subjects.<BR/><BR/>4) This technique is far, far from feasible in human subjects, which is probably why the relevant regulatory bodies have not jumped to address it (I assure you they know about it).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-63754665106934866602008-12-30T12:19:00.000-08:002008-12-30T12:19:00.000-08:00I'll go away for a while but might respond if peop...<I>I'll go away for a while but might respond if people require a response</I><BR/><BR/>I think you fail to grasp what I was saying to you in my recommendation that you begin a cooling off period. Let me spell it out: get the crazy under control or I'll moderate your comments out of existence.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-43473699879842817382008-12-30T12:16:00.000-08:002008-12-30T12:16:00.000-08:00Wow.Wow.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-67175083785473251142008-12-30T12:13:00.000-08:002008-12-30T12:13:00.000-08:00Procreation-phobic, are you? Sceered?That comment...Procreation-phobic, are you? Sceered?<BR/><BR/>That comment was very non-obsessed about infertile people, pointing out that its OK if people can't have children, there's no right to succeed, etc. My "eek" was honest, as I don't want to be rendered infertile by this laptop, but rest assured I'm not hung-up on it and if I can't have kids that's fine with me.<BR/><BR/>I'll go away for a while but might respond if people require a response with any comments on this thread. I hope someone is out there to explain to us what would happen if a stem-cell lab or fertility doctor like Dr. Richard Scott attempted same-sex conception or cloning.John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-54729226663953907502008-12-30T11:38:00.000-08:002008-12-30T11:38:00.000-08:00Blocking access to some ART like IVF does not proh...<I>Blocking access to some ART like IVF does not prohibit a het marriage from any and all ways to attempt to create a child together... protects an individual's right to try to be fertile and succeed at procreating... plight of the infertile... society is obligated to protect fertility... cell phones and wifi laptops that might be rendering people infertile as we speak. (eek!...)...</I><BR/><BR/>Dude, you are seriously obsessed and at this point you're creeping me out. Please go away for a little while now.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-91065289575472231122008-12-30T11:15:00.000-08:002008-12-30T11:15:00.000-08:00A right is not an ability. Blocking access to som...A right is not an ability. Blocking access to some ART like IVF does not prohibit a het marriage from any and all ways to attempt to create a child together, as same-sex couples should be prohibited. It might mean they never do have children, but that's OK, there's no guarantee that everyone successfully procreates.<BR/><BR/>I do think there is a right to attempt to get healthy and a right to medical privacy that protects an individual's right to try to be fertile and succeed at procreating, but I don't think that obligates society to attend to the plight of the infertile, as we are obligated to attend to the sick and hungry.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I think society is obligated to protect fertility, from cell phones and wifi laptops that might be rendering people infertile as we speak. (eek! oh well.)John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-37399397699706614572008-12-30T00:11:00.000-08:002008-12-30T00:11:00.000-08:00If any marriages are told that it is not safe enou...<I>If any marriages are told that it is not safe enough to procreate right now, and they will have to wait for a consensus of scientists to say when it's safe to attempt to combine their genes, then we have lost a major civil right.</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense. There are loads of married <I>heterosexual</I> couples, for example, who are not in a position to reproduce without making recourse to ARTs that for one reason or another create complications that render them nonviable in their particular case and hence unavailable. Heterosexual marriage is no more threatened by the sound practice of medicine than by the participation of samesex citizens in the institution. You seem to me to have, frankly, a surreally monomaniacal preoccupation with procreation.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-70109517906243741672008-12-30T00:02:00.000-08:002008-12-30T00:02:00.000-08:00you say that you oppose human cloning for reproduc...<I>you say that you oppose human cloning for reproductive purposes. What is your opinion on therapeutic cloning</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, that isn't what I said, is it? I said I oppose reproductive cloning techniques for humans so long as these are not safe. I have no problem with reproductive cloning in principle, I have a problem with any medical therapy that is unsafe according to the prevailing scientific consensus or that is applied under conditions of misinformation or duress. <BR/><BR/>Again, I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination (my interests and training are in political and rhetorical theory, and especially the politics of permaculture and p2p formations understood through the lens of theorists like Arendt, Butler, Haraway, and Fanon -- which means I am probably not the best person to ask if you're looking for very particular assessments of the biomedical state of the art), however, my understanding is that therapeutic cloning techniques are bearing more fruit by far than reproductive cloning techniques up to the present, and seem in many cases to be safe enough to represent viable therapeutic pathways. You mention that dogs have been treated with cloned bladders, but if I'm not mistaken there has been some success with humans already on this score as well? Needless to say, I approve of therapuetic cloning techniques that are safe and consented to by competent well-informed non-duressed citizens, and disapprove of therapeutic cloning techniques that are unsafe, forced, or consented to under coniditions of fraud, misinformation, or duress. That's where the rubber hits the road.<BR/><BR/>As for tornado machines -- should city-destroying mad-scientist weather devices of any kind be devised, you can be sure that I believe that the US and other legitimate democracies should sign a multilateral nonproliferation treaty to halt their creation, and should fund an international body to track and monitor the materials that render their construction possible to ensure that we are well prepared to restrain or at worst cope with their appearance or use, like we should other wmds. I know you were making your point in jest, but, once again, I think the relevant principles are fairly clear, and I think the hyperbolizing tendencies of both technophilic and technophobic futurists derange much more than they clarify the problems at hand, such as they are.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-39795713540052477392008-12-29T23:09:00.000-08:002008-12-29T23:09:00.000-08:00Just out of curiosity: you say that you oppose hum...Just out of curiosity: you say that you oppose human cloning for reproductive purposes. What is your opinion on therapeutic cloning in the case, say, of creating a new human bladder that has zero chance of rejection (I propose a bladder because this procedure has already been demonstrated successfully in dogs)? <BR/><BR/>Also, this is just nitpicking, but tornado machines have been constructed. They're certainly scaled down versions of the real thing, but they are bona fide tornadoes (I'm too lazy to find the link right now; if you want I'm sure I could dig it up somewhere).<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-66376708992358532792008-12-29T22:32:00.000-08:002008-12-29T22:32:00.000-08:00Excellent post, Dale! I look forward to some thou...Excellent post, Dale! I look forward to some thoughtful responses on your questions, I hope people resist the urge to be glib or sarcastic and really weigh in.<BR/><BR/>One thing I need to point out in the meantime: though it's true I advocate that the full value and benefits of the ban would only be realized if it was understood that the ban was going to be forever, and people were always going to be made from the union of a man and a woman's unmodified genes, it should be obvious to everyone that no law could ever be "in perpetuity", all laws are subject to change.<BR/><BR/>I repeatedly point out that same-sex Civil Unions would become marriages if we revoked the ban on same-sex conception. Same-sex conception can be allowed as easily as it can be banned. But until then, we shouldn't have any marriages that are not fully approved to attempt to conceive children together at any time they want to try. If any marriages are told that it is not safe enough to procreate right now, and they will have to wait for a consensus of scientists to say when it's safe to attempt to combine their genes, then we have lost a major civil right.John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.com