Re: Re: cloning — Mark
Your point about terminology is well taken. In fact, those opposed to cloning do not use the word “reproductive cloning”, they use the term “replication”. Use of terminology is one of the definding lines in this debate.
The latest attack by those opposing human cloning is to challenge the concept of “twin” or”later-born-twin”. They want to use such terms as “later-boprn-sibling” instead.
Actually, “therapeutic cloning” is used to distinguish embryos cloned to create stem cell cultures from those cloned to cure infertility and/or create later born twins.
You are so right in pointing out that “debates” are shaped by the terminology chosen by opposing sides.
A good example is the so-called debate about “gay rights”. Originally, this debate was described as a debate about ‘civil rights’ for homosexuals.
Gay activists got verbally lazy and commenced using the term “gay rights” (there is no such thing-what ‘right’ is related to sexual orientation) and that played into the hands of the religious right who coined the campaign slogan: “Gay Rights=Special Rights”.
This is an oxymoron. What is “special” about security in your job, the right to rent or buy property, the right to walk the streets in physical safety, etc.?
But the “terminology” sometimes has an undue impact on the public’s reactions.
Regrding cloning, some may say that it is fine for infertile couples but that single women(or men) should not be allowed to reproduce.
Others charge that anyone wanting to see their genotype live on into another lifetime, to achieve a temporary partial immortality, must be an egomaniac.
This is all intellectual theater. People use “sound bites” and play to public prejudices and misconceptions. A real dialogue about the issues involved are too deep and too fundamental for most people to handle.
Randolfe H. Wicker