X-Message-Number: 7827 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 11:45:56 +0000 From: Chris Benatar <> Subject: moaning about cloning and such >Message #7821 >From: (Thomas Donaldson) >Subject: Re: CryoNet #7813 - #7818 >Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:47:03 -0800 (PST) > >Hi everyone! > >1. The Venturist ideas sound like good ones, especially the rental facility >for cryonics to live. > >If I became seriously ill and wanted to live near cryonicists, I don't believe >I'd care much just what style of living it was --- so long as I could get >decent medical care and a much better suspension. I will point out, though, >that a "communal" situation with one person needing to be cared for rather >than able to provide any help to the community is going to need more definition, >at a minimum. Who is responsible for caring for me? No doubt I could provide >some financial help, but if I understand "communal living" that's a bit of >a deviation. Thomas, I think you are confusing communal living and community care. Communal living is all about centralised living such as taking turns to cook for everyone in the community or using the free community supplied washing machines. A bit like kibbutz used to be (they're changing now days) Communal care is about people leading completly independent lives but giving up some time to help others in the community. This may be in the form of a daily visit to check on someone or maybe taking someone into your home for the last few weeks of their life. Funds should not pass between members of the community for this care but if someone is unable or unwilling to do their bit, they will need the funds to pay someone else to do their "duty". Clear definitioion sound suspiciously like contract which is a sure recipe for disaster. The idea behind communal care is that it is done because people care not because someone is waving a contract in their face. > >2. I am interested by the comments of a LIBERTARIAN bioethicist. One major >issue in terms of ownership for cloning: sure, I may be able to clone myself. >It's just another form of reproduction, perhaps not as enjoyable as the >other kinds, but a kind. HOWEVER: do I then own the clone resulting? I would >think that clone also deserves the same rights as myself, and I could not >own the result. Moreover, clones don't spring into being out of the air. >If I were a woman, I might be able to clone myself without help from anyone >else (I'd need instruction in the technology, though). If I were a man, >one more person gets involved in this reproduction, and that person again >has rights... as for instance, the right to refuse to clone you. (Eventually >I'm sure we can make systems able to bring fertilized eggs --- or clones --- >to term, but right now we must rely on some other person. Perhaps sooner >than independent womb-machines, we might have modified animals, but even >that is not now available). Do parents own their children? do twins own one another? What is ownership in this context? - own responsibility? Do children and twins have rights? answer these questions and you should quickly realise that this is all a load of nonsence put about by people looking for a new angle but unable to find one. Another myth is that women do not need men in the cloning process. An egg and a sperm cell (from a MAN) are needed to produce the embryo. As to artificial wombs and using other animal wombs, this may all be possible someday, but I can't help thinking anyone determined enough will find a woman (perhaps from the third world) that will bring a child to term for the right amount of cash. The idea of using animal wombs may be easier than most people realise, but it would not be too nice for a kid at school when they are teased about having a pig for a mother (despite sharing none of her DNA). Of course you would then have the chance to have pork chops courtesy of "mum":) > >As for outrage, it seems to me that before we get het up about cloning and >what it might or might not do to our rights, it would be better to focus >first on all the ways in which the government (or politicians) want to >control what we do with our bodies now. Like taking drugs, or wearing a >motorcycle helmet, or restrictions of abortion (though some libertarians may >believe the embryo has rights too), or in BC, banning cryonics, or many >many other things. A ban on cloning is just one more; I see no reason why >it sets any precedents that the others have not set already. (No, I'm >not in favor of any of these restrictions, but there are already enough >that one more won't make much of a difference --- and if you want to stop >such governmental conduct, you should not need the excuse of bans on >cloning to get you started). > It depends on what is important to you personally as to whether you get het up. I might think it is a good idea to wear a motor cycle helmet so I won't get upset about this restrictive law, but I will get het up about a law that restricts me from doing something that is sensible. For instance, I might get het up if the law stated that motor cycle helmets were NOT allowed, because I think it is an unsafe and irrational law. Judgement on restriction is based on how sensible that restriction is - especiall taking into account that a law will often affect everyone. >What is the FDA but one large organization trying to control what drugs >we take or do not take? And isn't that interference with what we do with >our bodies? The FDA is an American body that only affects Americans! >Message #7822 >Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 22:21:41 -0800 (PST) >From: Doug Skrecky <> >Subject: frozen fetal mouse hearts Part II --- TEXT CLIPPED --- > > Although relatively slow rates of cooling were employed, the heating > was much more rapid. Two heating techniques were used. A warm bath was > used to heat the hearts at about 150 C/min and as an alternative > microwaves were used to heat at about 200 C/min. How much slower the > heating could have been without compromising viability is unknown here > since it was not tested. There was no difference between 150 and 200 > C/min. I suspect, but can not prove that 10 C/min may be too slow with In one of Brian's posts, I seem to recall him mention warming rates being much faster, in the same area as you mention above. I look forward to seeing Brians work published in full detail. I find it odd that Mrs Visser was bombarded with demands for publication but Brian has not even recieved a single request. Can anyone name the exact fluorocarbon used for instance. I guess you have got to belong to "the fold" Chris Chris Benatar Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7827