X-Message-Number: 20621
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 07:47:52 -0800
From: James Swayze <>
Subject: Letter to Christopher Reeve

Chris Reeve,

My name is James Swayze. I have been a quad since 1979. I have been
hoping for a cure for far longer than you even. I was saddened by your
injury but heartened by your response to it. Much like myself you did
not wallow in self pity and got to the business of recovering your life
straight away. Fortunately for you, you had considerably more wealth
than I and the love of what has to be one of the best women on the
planet.

I am wealthy in having a supportive family and a very large network of
friends both local and abroad, personal and online. I have benefited
greatly from such support and will benefit beyond the greatest dream of
all humankind but that is another story for another time.

What I am writing to you today about is my disappointment in your
position on reproductive cloning. You rightly so do support embryonic
stem cell research and use thereof and therapeutic cloning. You seem
well educated so I am baffled at the prejudice toward reproductive
cloning. Do you likewise and just the same as, have a prejudice against
twins? We will need reproductive cloning also to reach our full
potential.

First, you said the following words in your testimony before the New
Jersey state legislature.

"misguided and inadequate"

"The misinformation surrounding"

"Nuclear transplantation unfortunately is still a mystery"

You have these words applying to politicians and the general and mostly
ignorant to science public but I feel, when it comes to reproductive
cloning, they also apply to you.

Let me describe a scenario to better explain my point of view. As you
know, we now and for some time have had the technology to do invitro
fertilization. This involves extracting eggs and even the ability to
extract embryos, petri dish fertilization and most importantly
reimplantation into the womb. It also involves another well perfected
technology, that of preserving the embryos in liquid nitrogen and having
them be viable for subsequent reimplantation after enduring this frozen
state.

Now let me take a detour for the moment. Admittedly there are many
objections to cloning. To me all are completely irrational, visceral and
born of ignorance or worse, superstition combined with willful
ignorance. Since these have no place in science I will discount them for
this discussion. I will dwell upon the possible objections even
scientists might have in common with the general public, that of the
awkward notion that a clone is time wise so far out of synch with its
progenitor/twin. For what is a clone, after all, but a twin born many
many years after the birth of its originating embryonic twin?

Besides the science that it may take to produce a clone if one produced
two clones from the same DNA simultaneously would, without inside
knowledge, anyone be able to tell the difference between these two--this
set of twins, and any other naturally born set of twins? No, they could
not. When an egg splits to produce a twin this is nature's cloning of
the original. It just happens to be less time displaced from its
original than we could produce through reproductive cloning.

So, back on track, here's the scenario. Given the above listed
technologies and more not mentioned, it is now possible to do the
following life saving and life affirming procedure if it were necessary.
Imagine, if you will, that a woman becomes pregnant and the embryo
divides to produce a natural set of twins/clones. However, through the
magic of modern testing it is found and assured that she could in no way
carry both to term without serious complications to herself and her
twins resulting in possible death to herself and the children. Well,
could we not in this day and age extract one of the twin embryos and
freeze it? Then after the woman successfully carried the first to term
and recovered in due time the frozen delayed twin could be reimplanted
and carried to term itself.

Now tell me, with these two siblings now born a couple of years apart
from each other, maybe even more, but yet being identical genetically,
is their any fundamental difference, besides method of production,
between these and a set of twins consisting of original DNA donor and
its clone/twin? No, there is not! Would people object to this life
saving procedure? Jerry Falwell and Leon Kass would surely but they are
both colossal morons. Would you object? Would the delayed twin lack a
soul? I think you get the picture.

Please don't dis reproductive cloning. You already have children of your
own. I do not. No woman has seen fit to marry me or reproduce with me
and it's likely I could not father a child anyway. My clone could,
however, contribute my DNA to an offspring. This could save whole family
lines, even tribes, from extinction when the last member is somehow made
sterile or worse even killed. We are gaining the technology to right
many of nature's wrongs. Don't be swayed by the luddite ignorant masses
and their ill informed superstitions.

Let me pose another set of questions about possible situations. Would
therapeutic cloning result, hopefully, in the production of whole
replacement organs from one's own DNA? Ans: Yes. Could TC combined with
polymer substrate tissue engineering result, hopefully, in entire
replacement limbs and appendages? Ans: Yes. Suppose someone had
necrotizing fasciitis or cancer or an explosion took out a large chunk
of their torso, a slab of ribs say, but they remained alive, could PSTE
and TC combined produce for them a fitted replacement piece? Ans: Most
likely will someday. Is life even this damaged worth hanging onto? Ans:
Absolutely, there is no after life. This is it. Better do what one can
to stay as long as possible. There was in the late sixties an experiment
once where a dog head transplant operation and I believe also a monkey
head transplant was affected and though paralyzed they did live for a
time but lacked the technology to reattach the spinal cord even though
blood and air supply was accomplished. Suppose someone is severely
injured one future day but science by then has found a way to keep a
head alive in a tank of nutrients awaiting a new body. If one used the
above technologies to make limbs, torso and organs to complete a body
for this unfortunate but hanging onto life individual, would it be worth
doing? Ans: Yes, emphatically!

So then, at what point do we give in and say that we have effectively
piecemeal cloned an entire human being? Ah, yes, we left out the head
and brain. Alright then what if we have a only the brain in a tank of
nutrients clinging to life/consciousness, should we extinguish it
because people are afraid of, eeeewwww CLONING? Ans: No, we create an
anencephalic clone and get an entire body and head complete with a home
for the unfortunate disembodied brain/human. Please regard that no
"human being" would have been created specifically for destruction in
any of these above situations. This is because the human part is the
BRAIN and this is why an embryo is not yet a human being, no brain... no
soul.

This all may seem far fetched but it will one day be possible and should
be. Every effort should be made to save lives and to extend our lives...
every effort save that which clearly from a scientific and rational
standpoint does destroy a human being.

Please reconsider supporting reproductive cloning.

James Swayze
--
Cryonics Institute of Michigan Member!
The Immortalist Society Member!
The Society for Venturism Member!

MY WEBSITE: http://www.geocities.com/~davidpascal/swayze/ While there
follow the links to photos of me and some of my artwork and a radio
interview on Dr.  J's ChangeSurfer Radio program with me and the father
of cryonics Prof.  Robert Ettinger, author of "The Prospect of
Immortality".
A RELIGION I actually recommend: http://www.venturist.org
A FAVORITE quote: Last lines of the first Star Trek the Next Generation
movie.
Capt.  Picard: "What we leave behind is not as important as how we've
lived, after all Number One, we're only mortal."
Will Ryker: "Speak for yourself captain, I intend to live forever!"

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20621