"Now Luthor is quick to point out that Mei Xing shouldn't be punished for what she did in her world--and you know what? I agree. The law is the law. But she had a clone made, developed in a way that it's capacity for sentience was damaged by the process itself, and did this knowingly. If she had done this with a child created by normal sexual reproduction and grabbed it out of the womb before it'd started to really develop, and aged it up so it was in the same state as this clone, where it grew too fast for its brain to keep up, to have its organs plucked out, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. We'd call it a travesty and be worrying about how best to deal with this poor kid's condition, and what's best for them, even if we weren't punishing her or whatever."
"That's the biggest problem I have with this. Is the clone sentient? No. Should it have been? Yes. It was developed in a way that even if it wasn't intentionally developmentally disabled, it just didn't matter to its creators if it was. What happened in its creation was a horrific process. It shouldn't be allowed to ever be imitated on board, but on that token, even if Mei-Xing shouldn't be punished, the rewards from this process shouldn't be allowed to be enjoyed. It is a very small step from letting someone use a clone's organs to allowing someone to create a similar clone. After all, if it's legal to benefit from this, if you deem the clone has no rights, then why can't others make similar clones, if they have no rights? You've already condoned their use. What's the difference between use and creation if you've already decided that a creation like this isn't a sentient and doesn't deserve protection? I have worked shutting down rotten cloning operations--trust me, it is a slippery slope you do not want to go down. It's an easy slope to go down."
"And also, okay, even if we argue that living creatures can be possessions? Does that mean that someone can torture and murder their own dog on board? Cause non-sentient creatures pain just for the hell of it? I know we don't have laws in place, but my point is that my freakin' dog Bitey should not have more rights than the clone of a person, and as it stands, he probably does."
"As for the organ argument, I have weird organs I can't live without. A lot of people do. If Mei-Xing is that worried about having cloned organs immediately on hand, she can arrange with Stacy to have them already in wait and on ice or otherwise kept preserved so they're ready for immediate implantation. And if she's worried about her quality, she can have the doctors check them over to make sure they'll work okay. There's nothing to stop her from stockpiling. And if you don't believe me, well..."
"Hey Stacy! Is what I just said true?"
||Yes, Kon-El.||
Kon just raised his eyebrows at Mei-Xing and Lex, as if to say 'What, am I the only one who thought to ask?'
"In the end, it all comes three things: need, precedent, and compassion. Is there need for Mei-Xing to keep this clone or even use its organs when she has many other options available, including stockpiling ahead of time? No. Would using this clone for that set bad precedent? Uh, yes. For both consent issues when someone is incapable of giving consent and for the use and creation of clones. And then most important of all: Is letting this clone be used as an organ bag compassionate? Whether that's in life or in death?"
no subject
"That's the biggest problem I have with this. Is the clone sentient? No. Should it have been? Yes. It was developed in a way that even if it wasn't intentionally developmentally disabled, it just didn't matter to its creators if it was. What happened in its creation was a horrific process. It shouldn't be allowed to ever be imitated on board, but on that token, even if Mei-Xing shouldn't be punished, the rewards from this process shouldn't be allowed to be enjoyed. It is a very small step from letting someone use a clone's organs to allowing someone to create a similar clone. After all, if it's legal to benefit from this, if you deem the clone has no rights, then why can't others make similar clones, if they have no rights? You've already condoned their use. What's the difference between use and creation if you've already decided that a creation like this isn't a sentient and doesn't deserve protection? I have worked shutting down rotten cloning operations--trust me, it is a slippery slope you do not want to go down. It's an easy slope to go down."
"And also, okay, even if we argue that living creatures can be possessions? Does that mean that someone can torture and murder their own dog on board? Cause non-sentient creatures pain just for the hell of it? I know we don't have laws in place, but my point is that my freakin' dog Bitey should not have more rights than the clone of a person, and as it stands, he probably does."
"As for the organ argument, I have weird organs I can't live without. A lot of people do. If Mei-Xing is that worried about having cloned organs immediately on hand, she can arrange with Stacy to have them already in wait and on ice or otherwise kept preserved so they're ready for immediate implantation. And if she's worried about her quality, she can have the doctors check them over to make sure they'll work okay. There's nothing to stop her from stockpiling. And if you don't believe me, well..."
"Hey Stacy! Is what I just said true?"
||Yes, Kon-El.||
Kon just raised his eyebrows at Mei-Xing and Lex, as if to say 'What, am I the only one who thought to ask?'
"In the end, it all comes three things: need, precedent, and compassion. Is there need for Mei-Xing to keep this clone or even use its organs when she has many other options available, including stockpiling ahead of time? No. Would using this clone for that set bad precedent? Uh, yes. For both consent issues when someone is incapable of giving consent and for the use and creation of clones. And then most important of all: Is letting this clone be used as an organ bag compassionate? Whether that's in life or in death?"