The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

[Martin2]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

What ever you call it. What ever it is based on if you want a device to detect mind control powers there should be one.

 

In my campaign one will exist. I do not know what it is based on but it will be a available for when a PC goes mind control mad or if the PC's need to confirm a villains deeds.

 

It could be a medical scanner only available in one or two hospitals. That will be available for identifying if mind control has been used on someone. The doctors in charge will have mind control powers themselves. So once the machine identifies a possible mind control issue the doctors backed up by the scanner will make investigations. With a skill roll how much evidence is available will then give evidence for or against the PC's.

 

In a world with super powers you will get counters to all powers including mind control.

 

It may be possible to have security gates with scanners that will scan for current mind control events. Someone passing through the gate (like a metal detector gate at airports) with a mind control effect may set off the alarm (area effect sense mind control). Obviously you will get false results as well.

 

I am sure your President in some campaigns will have one already to stop all the mind controlled secret service from getting to him (well if they are allowed a gun to protect him you just have to convince one of them to shoot him .

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

In fairness to Balabanto, those of us who do not play in his games have only seen snippets and snapshots of goings-on in his game world, and I hesitate to pass judgement based on incomplete information. Having read posts in these forums from some of his players, and having talked to one such player many years ago at GenCon, it seems that his games are enjoyable to the players. (Though I have to disagree with Balabanto about a high COM being equivalent to Mind Control.) So I figure, different strokes for different folks.

 

That said, in my game world (no more or less valid than anybody else's), PRIMUS has access to machines that, if used on a target of mental powers soon enough afterward, can detect and record traces and signatures of said powers. I based this on the optional Mental Signatures and Mental Traces section from The Ultimate Mentalist, pp 264-265. This isn't foolproof, but then again what is? But such evidence can be used to support a possible legal defense when mind controlled. Additionally, IANAL, but even without such evidence it seems to me that there must be legal defenses in the real world for acting under duress. Surely you can't be more "under duress" than being mind controlled.

 

("Yes, you can, and stop calling me Shirley.")

 

As to every lawyer under the sun claiming their clients were all mind controlled to commit crimes -- in the real world, criminals claim things like "the cops planted those drugs / that weapon / that evidence on me" all the time. (In a world with superheroes, I wouldn't be surprised to hear similar claims against them.) That's why we have juries, to gauge the veracity of such claims. I don't imagine every jury in every courtroom would roll over and believe every such claim, but maybe in Balabanto's world they do. (shrug)

 

The problem is every jury doesn't have to. Only a reasonable amount of them do, because that's how courts work. If you develop a "Mind Control" defense, then everyone can use it. There's nothing to prevent this defense from being used against the PC's as certainly as it's being used for them.

 

People can't build devices in my game that generate psychic interference, and can't get mental powers through a device of any kind unless they already have mental powers to begin with. From this, come many of the problems. Mentalists are rare in the game world. They are the single least common hero and villain type.

 

This prevents Mental Defense from being so common that everyone in the world has a psi-screen that provides cheap and plentiful mental defense, rendering every mentalist PC in the game useless. The average EGO for PC's is between 10 and 15. It takes a rare hero to have an EGO above 20 unless they're a mentalist themselves, or a mage who uses their EGO to control their magic.

 

The consequences of this are vast. Mentalists are hard to catch, and harder to convict. But it's better, overall, than having a world where mentalism is reasonably plentiful and you can buy a psi-screen from any one of a number of corporations, rendering the character type useless.

 

To get back to cloning. A lot of the in-game reasons for the way the world is are also based on comic book logic. Far too many characters in the comics have been ruined by clone stories. Even more of a problem is what is to be done with all these clones once the adventure is over. Repeated attempts, in this world, to take it over with clones, genetically engineered beings, and the like have produced backlash from the powers that be in governments.

 

Again, Power Defense isn't that common. Everything on people's sheets has to be justified. Skill lists are longer, characters don't throw a ton of dice around. The most powerful heroes in the world throw 14. Defenses run between 15 and 30.

 

By the way, one of the most powerful heroes in the world was kidnapped this week in the game and a villain injected him with a fake marker that identifies his DNA as that of a clone. He's really mad. Yes, there are problems with this that villains can exploit.

 

Now if they can just find the right villain who made it...

[Old Man]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

I think it's more moral to send in the humans. Clones can in theory be engineered, whereas the originals are created haphazardly at best, if not entirely by accident. On top of that, the originals are older and have accumulated more damage, genetic or otherwise. So it follows that the originals are less valuable and should be sent in first.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

The problem is every jury doesn't have to. Only a reasonable amount of them do' date=' because that's how courts work. If you develop a "Mind Control" defense, then everyone can use it. There's nothing to prevent this defense from being used against the PC's as certainly as it's being used for them. [/quote']

 

Pretty much any defense is subject to some form of abuse. I note that "temporary insanity" does not exist in many legal systems. If you are not guilty by reason of insanity, then your mental health is such that you are committed until (and unless) that mental illness can be cured or controlled. How often is "self-defense" used or misused? "Yes I killed him Your Honor - I had no choice - he came at me with the knife."

 

I can claim self defense or temporary insanity, and the ability to claim mind control seems no more subject to abuse. Leaving aside any supertech or psychic witnesses, the jury still needs to be convinced. They should be no less skeptical of claims that "I was mind controlled" than claims of insanity or self-defense. Otherwise, I like the suggestion made upwards the pages - why should a Mind Controller not just Control his enemy into committing crimes in broad daylight. Since Mind Control is not a defense, I guess he's guilty. That takes those pesky Supers off the street so I can carry out my Master Plan!

 

Of course, we can reverse this as well. This "innocent until proven guilty" business, for example, means the fellow goes free when everyone KNOWS he did it, right? Let's get rid of that concept entirely. Prove you were innocent instead - beyond a reasonable doubt!

 

People can't build devices in my game that generate psychic interference, and can't get mental powers through a device of any kind unless they already have mental powers to begin with. From this, come many of the problems. Mentalists are rare in the game world. They are the single least common hero and villain type.

 

This prevents Mental Defense from being so common that everyone in the world has a psi-screen that provides cheap and plentiful mental defense, rendering every mentalist PC in the game useless. The average EGO for PC's is between 10 and 15. It takes a rare hero to have an EGO above 20 unless they're a mentalist themselves, or a mage who uses their EGO to control their magic.

 

The consequences of this are vast. Mentalists are hard to catch, and harder to convict. But it's better, overall, than having a world where mentalism is reasonably plentiful and you can buy a psi-screen from any one of a number of corporations, rendering the character type useless.

 

I think all archetypes are a balancing act. Too liberal an ability to buy defenses and the archetype is useless. Too difficult, and he becomes overpowered.

 

One issue I tend to see with mentalists is the impact a shift in power levels can have. In a 12 DC game, 12d6 Mind Control is reasonably potent. An average roll of 42 can achieve a +30 effect on average EGO targets. Drop those DC's to 10, and a +20 effect at least remains attainable. Down to 8 DC's and even +20 is hard to achieve. Pop it up to 15 DC's, though and that 52.5 average can routinely achieve Ego +30 on most targets. Meanwhile, the other archetypes stay more or less competitive as defenses tend to move with attacks. It might be preferable to make mental powers 10 points per d6, but cumulative by default, and make All or Nothing a significant limitation.

 

In any case, I side with the majority that mind control as a defense makes a mockery of the justice system only if the GM allows that to be the result in his game world.

 

To get back to cloning. A lot of the in-game reasons for the way the world is are also based on comic book logic. Far too many characters in the comics have been ruined by clone stories. Even more of a problem is what is to be done with all these clones once the adventure is over. Repeated attempts' date=' in this world, to take it over with clones, genetically engineered beings, and the like have produced backlash from the powers that be in governments. [/quote']

 

Is there a similar backlash to other forms of (super)scientific advancement? Have there been no attempts to take over the world using blaster rifles, powered armor or orbiting death ray satellites? If not, why not? If so, has there been a similar backlash? If not, why not? Have there been alien invasions, and do extraterrestrials face similar suspicion as a consequence?

 

Why haven't super powers in general faced more scrutiny? Should these potentially lethal powers require some kind of registration system? This seems similar to the Marvel issue where mutants are vilified, yet there is no backlash against other types of superpowers (despite the unlikeliness the general public can tell that Storm is a mutant but Thor and Electro aren't).

 

If mentalists are indeed a significant problem, why has no research been directed in that area? It seems hard to believe that this is the sole arena where scientific research generates no progress whatsoever.

 

By the way' date=' one of the most powerful heroes in the world was kidnapped this week in the game and a villain injected him with a fake marker that identifies his DNA as that of a clone. He's really mad. Yes, there are problems with this that villains can exploit. [/quote']

 

"The only good clone is a dead clone." Substitute "mutant" for "clone". How about "Alien". Substitute any other term you wish, for that matter.

 

Why is it so easy to detect (and even simulate) a character being a clone, but it is impossible to detect the effects of mental powers? It comes back to the parameters selected by the GM. It would certainly be just as easy to decide that, in this game world, there is no means of differentiating cloned DNA from the original, but that simple hand-held scanners have been developed that can indicate whether a person's mind has been influenced by an external agent (ie he has been the victim of a mental power). The existence of such scanners in no way requires devices that can provide mental defense, much less that they be available at WalMart.

[SKJAM!]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Note that in my theoretical campaign world, it's not so much the cloning that can be detected, as the effects of forced maturation.

[Clonus]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Of course the amusing thing about the "kill the clones" policy is that it will logically lead to situations where it is very likely that the original will be killed by mistake.

[RexMundi]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Hmmm...... Potential hook there.

 

~Rex

[Christopher]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Note that in my theoretical campaign world' date=' it's not so much the cloning that can be detected, as the effects of forced maturation.[/quote']

Would those traces vanish over time? What if I fast grow them to 18, then let them live "normally" for 10 Years?

[Prestige]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

In fairness to Balabanto, those of us who do not play in his games have only seen snippets and snapshots of goings-on in his game world, and I hesitate to pass judgement based on incomplete information. Having read posts in these forums from some of his players, and having talked to one such player many years ago at GenCon, it seems that his games are enjoyable to the players. (Though I have to disagree with Balabanto about a high COM being equivalent to Mind Control.) So I figure, different strokes for different folks.

 

That said, in my game world (no more or less valid than anybody else's), PRIMUS has access to machines that, if used on a target of mental powers soon enough afterward, can detect and record traces and signatures of said powers. I based this on the optional Mental Signatures and Mental Traces section from The Ultimate Mentalist, pp 264-265. This isn't foolproof, but then again what is? But such evidence can be used to support a possible legal defense when mind controlled. Additionally, IANAL, but even without such evidence it seems to me that there must be legal defenses in the real world for acting under duress. Surely you can't be more "under duress" than being mind controlled.

 

("Yes, you can, and stop calling me Shirley.")

 

As to every lawyer under the sun claiming their clients were all mind controlled to commit crimes -- in the real world, criminals claim things like "the cops planted those drugs / that weapon / that evidence on me" all the time. (In a world with superheroes, I wouldn't be surprised to hear similar claims against them.) That's why we have juries, to gauge the veracity of such claims. I don't imagine every jury in every courtroom would roll over and believe every such claim, but maybe in Balabanto's world they do. (shrug)

 

Being on of Balabanto's players(not the one you met at Gencon)...I think you people greatly overreacting to this. Just relax and accept people play differently than you.

 

Second...if you are MC to do something...in Balabanto's gameworld you just use the Temp. Insanity defense. It already exists as a leagle precedent...why make thing soo complex?

 

As to the Clones thing...playing a clone in Balabanto's game world...it make sense they draw alot of heat(is it fair...no...but life is not fair.) And the character is fun for having that dark secret.

 

And lastly I don't agree with Balabanto on everything...there are a number of things we go back and forth on(usualy in a friendly manner)...but all of them (like this issue) is so nitpickly unimportant to the amount of fun I have in his games I ignore them. No one is perfect here...I am sure you all have players that hate some of things you do..

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Pretty much any defense is subject to some form of abuse. I note that "temporary insanity" does not exist in many legal systems. If you are not guilty by reason of insanity, then your mental health is such that you are committed until (and unless) that mental illness can be cured or controlled. How often is "self-defense" used or misused? "Yes I killed him Your Honor - I had no choice - he came at me with the knife."

 

I can claim self defense or temporary insanity, and the ability to claim mind control seems no more subject to abuse. Leaving aside any supertech or psychic witnesses, the jury still needs to be convinced. They should be no less skeptical of claims that "I was mind controlled" than claims of insanity or self-defense. Otherwise, I like the suggestion made upwards the pages - why should a Mind Controller not just Control his enemy into committing crimes in broad daylight. Since Mind Control is not a defense, I guess he's guilty. That takes those pesky Supers off the street so I can carry out my Master Plan!

 

Of course, we can reverse this as well. This "innocent until proven guilty" business, for example, means the fellow goes free when everyone KNOWS he did it, right? Let's get rid of that concept entirely. Prove you were innocent instead - beyond a reasonable doubt!

 

 

 

I think all archetypes are a balancing act. Too liberal an ability to buy defenses and the archetype is useless. Too difficult, and he becomes overpowered.

 

One issue I tend to see with mentalists is the impact a shift in power levels can have. In a 12 DC game, 12d6 Mind Control is reasonably potent. An average roll of 42 can achieve a +30 effect on average EGO targets. Drop those DC's to 10, and a +20 effect at least remains attainable. Down to 8 DC's and even +20 is hard to achieve. Pop it up to 15 DC's, though and that 52.5 average can routinely achieve Ego +30 on most targets. Meanwhile, the other archetypes stay more or less competitive as defenses tend to move with attacks. It might be preferable to make mental powers 10 points per d6, but cumulative by default, and make All or Nothing a significant limitation.

 

In any case, I side with the majority that mind control as a defense makes a mockery of the justice system only if the GM allows that to be the result in his game world.

 

 

 

Is there a similar backlash to other forms of (super)scientific advancement? Have there been no attempts to take over the world using blaster rifles, powered armor or orbiting death ray satellites? If not, why not? If so, has there been a similar backlash? If not, why not? Have there been alien invasions, and do extraterrestrials face similar suspicion as a consequence?

 

Why haven't super powers in general faced more scrutiny? Should these potentially lethal powers require some kind of registration system? This seems similar to the Marvel issue where mutants are vilified, yet there is no backlash against other types of superpowers (despite the unlikeliness the general public can tell that Storm is a mutant but Thor and Electro aren't).

 

If mentalists are indeed a significant problem, why has no research been directed in that area? It seems hard to believe that this is the sole arena where scientific research generates no progress whatsoever.

 

 

 

"The only good clone is a dead clone." Substitute "mutant" for "clone". How about "Alien". Substitute any other term you wish, for that matter.

 

Why is it so easy to detect (and even simulate) a character being a clone, but it is impossible to detect the effects of mental powers? It comes back to the parameters selected by the GM. It would certainly be just as easy to decide that, in this game world, there is no means of differentiating cloned DNA from the original, but that simple hand-held scanners have been developed that can indicate whether a person's mind has been influenced by an external agent (ie he has been the victim of a mental power). The existence of such scanners in no way requires devices that can provide mental defense, much less that they be available at WalMart.

 

All right, Mr. Nielson. I’m glad to see that your usual tendencies are in force, so I’m going to respond and turn all of your points one at a time in the manner to which you are accustomed.

Yes, temporary insanity does not exist in many legal systems, but for the most part, most superhero games I run take place in the United States of America, where it is a legal defense in all fifty states. Outside the United States, the rules may be different. (See previous posts.) The thing is, you can use temporary insanity as a defense instead of Mind Control until the telepath/psychic/mage is brought in. Extracting a confession still works. Clearly if Bob confesses on the stand that he took control of Doctor Hero’s mind in order to bend it to his will, and that’s why he did those things that are clearly not things he will usually do, that will more than likely stick.

Hugh, that logic is ridiculous. There is no legal system in the first world where you are guilty until proven innocent except Italy, and the Italian courts are a joke to begin with. Mind explaining what your actual problem is here?

As far as your majority is concerned, the problem has nothing to do with the GM and everything to do with the way lawyers would seize upon this as a means of getting their clients off. Between this and double jeopardy, you might ask, how do any supervillains wind up in jail at all?

Well, there’s this process called inevitable discovery in the law, and in my game, judges are a little more liberal with it assuming the rights of the defendant haven’t been violated. If Doctor Lava is planning to build a giant volcano out of Yellowstone National Park, and the heroes capture Doctor Lava before he can succeed, the prosecution will usually argue that inevitably, Doctor Lava’s crime would have been discovered because there would have been a giant volcano where Yellowstone National Park used to be. That’s how you get a telepath arrested and thrown in prison, by stopping his plan, not by attacking his powers.

The problem is that if you allow for the specificity of a mind control defense instead of simply using temporary insanity, you run into a number of problems specific to the existence of telepathy. Normally, the way this is handled (If a character without a criminal record does a bunch of things against his will) is to try and find documentation of everything that was done, why it was done and who it benefited, the same way other investigations work. Usually, this trail doesn’t travel back to the hero. If it does, well…that’s a plot for PC’s to work to solve.

As for super-scientific advancement, cloning occupies a special place in the world’s logic. Extraterrestrials and dimensional aliens do face extensive screening. For many years, governments of the world gave them cover identities. They were unwilling to admit the existence of aliens to the general public. But the screening system is already in place, most of the time.

As for scrutiny of super powers in general, super powers have become a part of global culture, due to their appearance around World War II. Superhero comics aren’t popular. There are other forms of comics that are, but for the most part, if you’re a fan of superheroes, you read the newspaper, link up to C-News on the internet or whatever, and find out what superheroes have been doing and what their adventures are like. Superhero novels do exist. For the most part, people don’t see a difference between a mutant and a non-mutant. They do see people who do the same things without any powers of their own, such as pure martial artists with no mutations and powered armor characters as slightly braver, but no more or less heroic/or villainous.

But…caveat, this makes cloning all the more heinous a crime. In a world where humanity aspires to greatness, making better humans to replace human aspirations and dreams can (And does) seem particularly threatening.

As far as research into mentalists is concerned, there is a psychic field that surrounds the world…but to understand that, you’ll have to buy Imaginary Friends and Mind over Matter when I publish those….

Your argument about word substitution is leftist nonsense, and that’s coming from someone who pretty much sits on the left on most social issues. This is nothing but a straw man argument that assumes that there’s no difference between a normal human or superbeing and his or her clone. Any number of modifications can be made to the clone that the original did not possess. The original person’s rights have clearly been violated. What recourse does he have if he doesn’t want his genetic material running around?

According to you, the answer is none. You’ve been cloned. Suck it up. This being is now a person with their own rights, there’s nothing you can do to prevent it or put a stop to it, and you have to live with all the consequences of being cloned forever.

Make no mistake. This is no different from rape. And that’s why the laws regarding it are so strict, because THAT’s the crime cloning most closely mirrors in the real world. Not identity theft. Rape. Does a rape victim have the right to abort her fetus? Of course she does. It’s the same. It’s the laws governing identity theft that seize the day for all of you. But it doesn’t do it for me.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Being on of Balabanto's players (not the one you met at Gencon)...I think you people greatly overreacting to this. Just relax and accept people play differently than you.

 

Since you quoted my post, I wasn't sure if you were directing the above at me or to others. If you were talking to me, then your last sentence above is pretty much what I meant by "different strokes for different folks." (And if your post wasn't directed at me, please disregard this post. No harm, no foul.)

[Captain Obvious]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

A rape victim can't abort the fetus after it's been born and is on its way to becoming a functioning member of society. An identical twin doesn't have the option to have his clone (yes, identical twins are clones) terminated either. Once the clone is out of its spawning tank, despite the fact that it has an identical genetic structure as someone else, it should be afforded the rights of any other human, although certain privileges might be curtailed, based on actual age as opposed to apparent age in the case of accelerated maturation. If the clone has committed any crimes, then that should be a separate issue.

 

I'm sure some explanation of the background of a given campaign might shed enough light on the specifics of that world to show how another system might be reasonable, or at least politically expedient. The explanation of mind control/temporary insanity makes sense, as an example. Many people (myself included) got hung up on the phrase "Mind Control is not a valid defense" which makes it sound like a person is 100% liable for anything, no matter how out of character, that is done under Mind Control. Pointing out that the temporary insanity defense can be applied makes a world of difference, though.

[Clonus]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

 

Second...if you are MC to do something...in Balabanto's gameworld you just use the Temp. Insanity defense. It already exists as a leagle precedent...why make thing soo complex?

 

I'm baffled. The mind control defense IS a temporary insanity defense, same as the sleepwalking defense and the twinkie defense.

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

A rape victim can't abort the fetus after it's been born and is on its way to becoming a functioning member of society. An identical twin doesn't have the option to have his clone (yes, identical twins are clones) terminated either. Once the clone is out of its spawning tank, despite the fact that it has an identical genetic structure as someone else, it should be afforded the rights of any other human, although certain privileges might be curtailed, based on actual age as opposed to apparent age in the case of accelerated maturation. If the clone has committed any crimes, then that should be a separate issue.

 

I'm sure some explanation of the background of a given campaign might shed enough light on the specifics of that world to show how another system might be reasonable, or at least politically expedient. The explanation of mind control/temporary insanity makes sense, as an example. Many people (myself included) got hung up on the phrase "Mind Control is not a valid defense" which makes it sound like a person is 100% liable for anything, no matter how out of character, that is done under Mind Control. Pointing out that the temporary insanity defense can be applied makes a world of difference, though.

 

Really? And how do you propose to keep that clone from suing the original for everything he has? Your argument is tinged with the idea that the clone IS a person, and that you've already made that moral judgement. Since you've already accepted that a clone is a person, your argument is essentially a fait accompli that has no value, because you've shoehorned the clone into the position of having rights by making a moral judgement when the law may or may not make that distinction.

[Clonus]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Really? And how do you propose to keep that clone from suing the original for everything he has?

 

Probably by noting that he has no legal grounds to sue him for anything.

 

 

 

 

Your argument is tinged with the idea that the clone IS a person, and that you've already made that moral judgement. Since you've already accepted that a clone is a person, your argument is essentially a fait accompli that has no value, because you've shoehorned the clone into the position of having rights by making a moral judgement when the law may or may not make that distinction.

 

How is a clone legally different from a twin?

[dmjalund]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

How is a clone legally different from a twin?

Lack of parental involvment? I would see a clone as offspring rather than sibling.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Really? And how do you propose to keep that clone from suing the original for everything he has? Your argument is tinged with the idea that the clone IS a person' date=' and that you've already made that moral judgement. Since you've already accepted that a clone is a person, your argument is essentially a fait accompli that has no value, because you've shoehorned the clone into the position of having rights by making a moral judgement when the law may or may not make that distinction.[/quote']

 

How would the clone sue? On what grounds? As I mentioned above, identical twins are clones...there's no legal precedent for identical twins to sue for identical DNA. And at any rate, unless the clone was somehow granted the memories of the original, he'd have no reason to even want to. Apparently there's no problem telling the clone apart from the original; if there is a problem, it's even more problematic to shoot clones on sight, as you have no way to know whether it really is the clone.

 

We're probably making different assumptions about what a clone is or is not. To me, a clone is typically an artificial genetic duplicate of another person, but memories, attitudes, training, etc all have to be provided. In a standard (Captain Obvious) superhero context, clones can be used for instant armies (in which case they'll need no real memories or socialization beyond what is needed to function as a team of soldiers) or for infiltrators (which need a lot of brainwashing as well as intensive memory implantation...and even then close friends and family are likely to see through the facade unless the clone's creator is also an inner circle friend). An infiltrator might be convinced he's the original, and might sue for all properties and possessions, but even then he wouldn't know about any secret accounts the original may have, unless the clone's creator knew. And if there's a foolproof way to distinguish clones from originals, it's a trivial matter to prove who's who and settle the case.

[SKJAM!]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Would those traces vanish over time? What if I fast grow them to 18' date=' then let them live "normally" for 10 Years?[/quote']

 

As mentioned previously, in my theoretical campaign world, forced growth clones are unusually susceptible to degenerative diseases; only a few have been stable enough to last a whole decade. And a decade's different experience from the original will result in slight appearance differences. So, your cloning mad scientist would need to also be a long-range planner who anticipates the need for such a clone.

 

Mind, the law (in my world) having decided that cloned humans are human does not prevent some people from seeing cloning of themselves (particularly altered clones) as equivalent to rape and attempting a post-partum "abortion." I could easily see an anti-cloning (and other genetic manipulation) hate group forming.

[megaplayboy]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

To me, this seems susceptible to a fairly straightforward test?

1. Are the clones fully human, physically and neurologically speaking?

2. Do they have free will, and/or the capacity for free will?

 

If the answer is yes to both questions, then legally speaking they should have all the rights attendant to being a person. Otherwise you are creating a distinction between legal persons and "non-persons" just as arbitrary and discriminatory as basing it on skin color or gender.

[Balabanto]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

There are other logistical problems, too, like clone communities, government interference, etc. Really, no good can come of cloning human beings.

[dmjalund]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

There are other logistical problems' date=' too, like clone communities, government interference, etc. Really, no good can come of cloning human beings.[/quote']Maybe, but you can't blame the clones for this.

[Clonus]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

There are other logistical problems' date=' too, like clone communities, government interference, etc. Really, no good can come of cloning human beings.[/quote']

 

Killing people to avoid logistical problems isn't recommended.

[Prestige]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Since you quoted my post' date=' I wasn't sure if you were directing the above at me or to others. If you were talking to me, then your last sentence above is pretty much what I meant by "different strokes for different folks." (And if your post wasn't directed at me, please disregard this post. No harm, no foul.)[/quote']

 

No it was not directed at you...your post just made a point that I wanted to build on and gave me a lead in.

[Prestige]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

How is a clone legally different from a twin?

 

For one thing a twin was not forced on to somebody. If you take somebody's DNA and made clones with it without consent...that is that not a crime? Sure if the clone is sentinent being and not just a copy of the orginal...it can prove this and have full rights...but that is not always the case with evil clone plots 101.

 

Now again in Balabento's game a clone can prove his/her personhood if you will...but they are required to do so by the law. Just like in his world...mutant sentinet animals....aliens...AIs robots etc...because it is easy to make a clone appear sentinent...but actualy not be.

[Christopher]

Re: The Morality of Sending In The Clones!

 

Really' date=' no good can come of cloning human beings.[/quote']

I clone 20 Supermans, with his consent, to fight the next alien invasion. Nothing good came out of it?

 

For one thing a twin was not forced on to somebody.

Tell that the parrents that only wanted/could afford one child.