ethics of cloning humans

Today's Dilbert deals with the ethics of cloning
humans:

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/

- j

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> Today's Dilbert deals with the ethics of cloning
> humans:
>
> http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/
>
> - j

So am I to take it that you have some fear that souls will be shown
to be irrelevant?

Is a test-tube baby a soulless abomination.

Two identical twins are clones of one another. Can they not both have
souls?

Jeff,

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> It's just a cartoon Paul.
>
> Lighten up.

Since you've been doing the majority of the posting, and a good
number of them are straight-forward posting of items (articles and
citations and such) without your own commentary, it is hard for the
reader on this end to know what you are putting up for serious
consideration, and what you might put up for other reasons (including
light-hearted humor or biting cynicism).

I found the O'Reilly piece almost laughable in it's empty-headedness,
but I doubt you put it up in jest, or in the same manner as the
Dilbert. Doonesbury is "just a cartoon" but many newspapers,
including the right-wing San Diego Union, places it on the editorial
page. And many, many people get pretty up in arms about what Gary
Trudeau decides to slant, so cartoons aren't void of meaning beyond
humor.

My point, I guess, is just that if you post something, take into
account that those of us on the reading end of things may not
necessarily know the reasoning behind you (or anyone, for that
matter) choosing to share the item.

Best,
Jon

Jeff,

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> So there's no confusion, I'll put on my moose antlers
> when I am serious and take them off when I am joking.

Well, it's a start...

Jon