Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Orphan Black and patenting the genome
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 9, 2013, 5:40:36 PM6/9/13
to
On May 13, 2013, US Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto in Bowman v. Monsanto.
A farmer bought unlabeled soybean plants at a local grain elevator containing
genes patented by Monsanto. The patented genes in the soybeans allow them
to survive when sprayed with weedkiller, making them cheaper to grow and
resulting in a larger yield. The seeds cost about three times as much
as typical soybean seeds.
He assumed the plants he bought contained seeds with the desired genetic trait.
He planted the crop, sprayed with weedkiller, then harvested seeds from the
plants that didn't die. He then planted a new crop the following year from
those harvested seeds.
Farmers must license seeds from Monsanto and agree not to plant seeds from
the plants to start next year's crop.
The farmer defended his actions by saying reproduction was natural. But the
court ruling said he was reproducing patented technology.
(Good thing for Sarah that her program isn't set in the United States.)
Another genetic patent case was heard this term, Association for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, in which the patent owner of genes with
hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancers aggressively enforces its
patents, making medical testing much more costly, if not unaffordable. No
decision yet.
That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
A farmer bought unlabeled soybean plants at a local grain elevator containing
genes patented by Monsanto. The patented genes in the soybeans allow them
to survive when sprayed with weedkiller, making them cheaper to grow and
resulting in a larger yield. The seeds cost about three times as much
as typical soybean seeds.
He assumed the plants he bought contained seeds with the desired genetic trait.
He planted the crop, sprayed with weedkiller, then harvested seeds from the
plants that didn't die. He then planted a new crop the following year from
those harvested seeds.
Farmers must license seeds from Monsanto and agree not to plant seeds from
the plants to start next year's crop.
The farmer defended his actions by saying reproduction was natural. But the
court ruling said he was reproducing patented technology.
(Good thing for Sarah that her program isn't set in the United States.)
Another genetic patent case was heard this term, Association for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, in which the patent owner of genes with
hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancers aggressively enforces its
patents, making medical testing much more costly, if not unaffordable. No
decision yet.
That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 9, 2013, 5:58:12 PM6/9/13
to
> Adam H. Kerman
"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
how this all falls out.
>
> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
According to the Wiki summery;
> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
how this all falls out.
BTR1701
Jun 9, 2013, 7:39:23 PM6/9/13
to
In article
<2d458085-ebba-47f9...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment. Be interesting to see the
legal argument they'd make for Cosima, since she's in Minnesota.
<2d458085-ebba-47f9...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
legal argument they'd make for Cosima, since she's in Minnesota.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 9, 2013, 7:50:46 PM6/9/13
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
sign away is her disease, but I suppose they already own that.
>Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>According to the Wiki summery;
>>"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>>and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>>court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>>show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>>how this all falls out.
>But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment. Be interesting to see the
>legal argument they'd make for Cosima, since she's in Minnesota.
btw, how was it been established that Cosima is sterile? The most she could
>>According to the Wiki summery;
>>"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>>and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>>court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>>show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>>how this all falls out.
>But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment. Be interesting to see the
>legal argument they'd make for Cosima, since she's in Minnesota.
sign away is her disease, but I suppose they already own that.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 9, 2013, 8:08:54 PM6/9/13
to
> BTR1701
> > Ed Stasiak
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
> > court on the planet would allow that,
>
> > Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
> > court on the planet would allow that,
>
> But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment.
I ain't no lawyer but I'm guessing slavery is also illegal in Canada.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 9, 2013, 8:51:34 PM6/9/13
to
it was still Upper and Lower Canada. So it predates the constitution.
I have no idea to what extent slavery existed in Canada.
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 2:52:25 AM6/10/13
to
On 6/9/2013 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <2d458085-ebba-47f9...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>
>>> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
>>
>> According to the Wiki summery;
>
>> "She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>> and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>
>> Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>> court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>> show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>> how this all falls out.
>
> But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment.
Canada didn't need one since slavery was never legal in Canada. However
> In article
> <2d458085-ebba-47f9...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>
>>> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
>>
>> According to the Wiki summery;
>
>> "She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>> and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>
>> Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>> court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>> show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>> how this all falls out.
>
> But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment.
section seven of the Charter of Rights says "Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice." (The exception refers to people convicted of criminal offenses
and therefore imprisoned.)
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 3:02:33 AM6/10/13
to
law against it in 1793, and while Lower Canada (Quebec) and the
Maritimes kept it for longer, they never had plantion agriculture or
mines at the time so it was just a few house servants and wasn't that
hard to let go of.
Hunter
Jun 10, 2013, 5:42:41 AM6/10/13
to
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
----
I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
slavery or even indenture.
Of course there is a built in paradox with Alison signing the contract
if Neolution tries to sue in court holding her to the contract by
saying she isn't human. If they use that argument then it could be
said that the contract is null and void since non humans can't enter
contracts. After all a horse can't sign a contract to agree to pull a
wagon for the rest of its life.
But again it will be an interesting legal issue since unlike a horse
the clones have human intelligence even if-a big if-they aren't
considered human in a future plotline and so would understand what
they were doing.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
wrote:
I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
slavery or even indenture.
Of course there is a built in paradox with Alison signing the contract
if Neolution tries to sue in court holding her to the contract by
saying she isn't human. If they use that argument then it could be
said that the contract is null and void since non humans can't enter
contracts. After all a horse can't sign a contract to agree to pull a
wagon for the rest of its life.
But again it will be an interesting legal issue since unlike a horse
the clones have human intelligence even if-a big if-they aren't
considered human in a future plotline and so would understand what
they were doing.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Hunter
Jun 10, 2013, 8:09:04 AM6/10/13
to
Well slavery WAS legal in Canada. In the legal world if there is no
law against it it is legal by default. Yes the US Constitution once
protected slavery and so had to pass an amendment to constitutionally
get rid of it but before that the Southern Founding Fathers had the
Constitution protect it from *becoming* illegal not to make it legal.
But Canada eventually had to pass a law abolishing it just like the US
as you point out above because it was also legal to have slaves there
too, just that there wasn't a article in the founding documents a
clause to help keep it so and then had to abolish that to make slavery
illegal.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 10, 2013, 9:06:30 AM6/10/13
to
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 10, 2013, 9:14:24 AM6/10/13
to
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>>On 6/9/2013 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>>On 6/9/2013 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>According to the Wiki summery;
>>>>"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>>>>and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>>>Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>>>>court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>>>>show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>>>>how this all falls out.
>>>But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment.
>>Canada didn't need one since slavery was never legal in Canada. However
>>section seven of the Charter of Rights says "Everyone has the right to
>>life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
>>deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
>>justice." (The exception refers to people convicted of criminal offenses
>>and therefore imprisoned.)
>>>>According to the Wiki summery;
>>>>"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>>>>and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>>>Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>>>>court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>>>>show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>>>>how this all falls out.
>>>But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment.
>>Canada didn't need one since slavery was never legal in Canada. However
>>section seven of the Charter of Rights says "Everyone has the right to
>>life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
>>deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
>>justice." (The exception refers to people convicted of criminal offenses
>>and therefore imprisoned.)
>Well slavery WAS legal in Canada. In the legal world if there is no
>law against it it is legal by default. Yes the US Constitution once
>protected slavery and so had to pass an amendment to constitutionally
>get rid of it but before that the Southern Founding Fathers had the
>Constitution protect it from *becoming* illegal not to make it legal.
>But Canada eventually had to pass a law abolishing it just like the US
>as you point out above because it was also legal to have slaves there
>too, just that there wasn't a article in the founding documents a
>clause to help keep it so and then had to abolish that to make slavery
>illegal.
Could you read the rest of the thread, Hunter? Johnston told us whatever
>law against it it is legal by default. Yes the US Constitution once
>protected slavery and so had to pass an amendment to constitutionally
>get rid of it but before that the Southern Founding Fathers had the
>Constitution protect it from *becoming* illegal not to make it legal.
>But Canada eventually had to pass a law abolishing it just like the US
>as you point out above because it was also legal to have slaves there
>too, just that there wasn't a article in the founding documents a
>clause to help keep it so and then had to abolish that to make slavery
>illegal.
slavery existed was minor and only during the colonial era, and separately
abolished in Upper and Lower Canada and the Maritime area. You do know in
1833, slavery was abolished throughout the British empire (with two
exceptions), so all this happened decades before Dominion of Canada.
So, no, slavery was not legal when its first national constitution
was written.
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 10:28:35 AM6/10/13
to
as a state.
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 10:29:45 AM6/10/13
to
On 6/10/2013 3:42 AM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>
>>> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
>>
>> According to the Wiki summery;
>> "She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>> and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>
>> Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>> court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>> show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>> how this all falls out.
> ----
> I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
> all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
> slavery or even indenture.
>
I seriously doubt that this show will go in the direction of court-room
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>
>>> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
>>
>> According to the Wiki summery;
>> "She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>> and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>
>> Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>> court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>> show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>> how this all falls out.
> ----
> I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
> all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
> slavery or even indenture.
>
battles.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 10, 2013, 11:04:10 AM6/10/13
to
> David Johnston
> > Hunter
which suggests court-room battles will likely play some part in the
story.
I could see various sci-fi / action stuff happening until the finale,
where the cloned gals (or whichever of them are left) end up in
court fighting for their rights.
> > Hunter
> >
> > I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
> > all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
> > slavery or even indenture.
>
> I seriously doubt that this show will go in the direction of court-room
> battles.
I hope not, but you can't ignore the whole bit about the contracts,
> > I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
> > all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
> > slavery or even indenture.
>
> I seriously doubt that this show will go in the direction of court-room
> battles.
which suggests court-room battles will likely play some part in the
story.
I could see various sci-fi / action stuff happening until the finale,
where the cloned gals (or whichever of them are left) end up in
court fighting for their rights.
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 11:27:34 AM6/10/13
to
On 6/10/2013 9:04 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> David Johnston
>>> Hunter
>>>
>>> I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
>>> all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
>>> slavery or even indenture.
>>
>> I seriously doubt that this show will go in the direction of court-room
>> battles.
>
> I hope not, but you can't ignore the whole bit about the contracts,
> which suggests court-room battles will likely play some part in the
> story.
Actually I think the contracts are merely methods of conning the ladies
>> David Johnston
>>> Hunter
>>>
>>> I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
>>> all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
>>> slavery or even indenture.
>>
>> I seriously doubt that this show will go in the direction of court-room
>> battles.
>
> I hope not, but you can't ignore the whole bit about the contracts,
> which suggests court-room battles will likely play some part in the
> story.
into compliance. When most of them refuse to sign, harsher methods will
be used.
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 11:41:44 AM6/10/13
to
own slaves.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 10, 2013, 12:07:55 PM6/10/13
to
William December Starr
Jun 10, 2013, 12:16:32 PM6/10/13
to
In article <56fe340f-66ce-4647...@cl9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
representing the other side?
-- wds
Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> said:
> I hope not, but you can't ignore the whole bit about the
> contracts, which suggests court-room battles will likely play some
> part in the story.
>
> I could see various sci-fi / action stuff happening until the
> finale, where the cloned gals (or whichever of them are left) end
> up in court fighting for their rights.
Except for the one of them who's a high-priced lawyer, because she's
> I hope not, but you can't ignore the whole bit about the
> contracts, which suggests court-room battles will likely play some
> part in the story.
>
> I could see various sci-fi / action stuff happening until the
> finale, where the cloned gals (or whichever of them are left) end
> up in court fighting for their rights.
representing the other side?
-- wds
Hunter
Jun 10, 2013, 1:23:44 PM6/10/13
to
African Slavery started in 1628 but before and during that most of the
indegenious populations, that is the Native Canadians were put into
slavery while only a relative few slaves in canada were black. In fact
only about 4,000 Indian and Africans were enslaved by the French and
British in Canada.
All that ended in 1834. However some Native Canadian tribes practiced
slavery among themselves for thousands of years before Europeans came,
usually as prisoners of wars with their children becoming slaves.
For the curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada
BTR1701
Jun 10, 2013, 1:51:38 PM6/10/13
to
In article <51b59e77....@news.optonline.net>,
because it's not human. We don't even allow some humans to enter binding
contracts, also, based on their level of mental competence-- either
because they are too young or because of mental disability.
If this show tries to sell the idea that these people aren't human
beings and therefore have no rights, it will descend into REVOLUTION
levels of stupidity.
There is no legal genetic template to define a human and even if there
were, it would be unworkable as anyone who differed from it, even
naturally, would suddenly find themselves stripped of their rights and
humanity. Have a kid with Downs Syndrome? Yeah, she ain't human. Have a
kid who's a musical prodigy? Not human.
It's idiotic.
Or maybe they'll go with the equally idiotic "clones have no souls,
therefore they're not human" approach.
Wait, I take that back. That's even *more* idiotic.
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Adam H. Kerman
> >>
> >> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
> >
> >According to the Wiki summery;
> >"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
> >and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
> >
> >Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
> >court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
> >show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
> >how this all falls out.
> ----
> I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
> all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
> slavery or even indenture.
>
> Of course there is a built in paradox with Alison signing the contract
> if Neolution tries to sue in court holding her to the contract by
> saying she isn't human. If they use that argument then it could be
> said that the contract is null and void since non humans can't enter
> contracts. After all a horse can't sign a contract to agree to pull a
> wagon for the rest of its life.
That's because a horse can't comprehend the basic issues involved, not
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Adam H. Kerman
> >>
> >> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
> >
> >According to the Wiki summery;
> >"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
> >and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
> >
> >Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
> >court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
> >show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
> >how this all falls out.
> ----
> I suspect that the case will surround the issue if they are human at
> all, otherwise you are right no human being can place themselves in
> slavery or even indenture.
>
> Of course there is a built in paradox with Alison signing the contract
> if Neolution tries to sue in court holding her to the contract by
> saying she isn't human. If they use that argument then it could be
> said that the contract is null and void since non humans can't enter
> contracts. After all a horse can't sign a contract to agree to pull a
> wagon for the rest of its life.
because it's not human. We don't even allow some humans to enter binding
contracts, also, based on their level of mental competence-- either
because they are too young or because of mental disability.
If this show tries to sell the idea that these people aren't human
beings and therefore have no rights, it will descend into REVOLUTION
levels of stupidity.
There is no legal genetic template to define a human and even if there
were, it would be unworkable as anyone who differed from it, even
naturally, would suddenly find themselves stripped of their rights and
humanity. Have a kid with Downs Syndrome? Yeah, she ain't human. Have a
kid who's a musical prodigy? Not human.
It's idiotic.
Or maybe they'll go with the equally idiotic "clones have no souls,
therefore they're not human" approach.
Wait, I take that back. That's even *more* idiotic.
Mason Barge
Jun 10, 2013, 2:33:00 PM6/10/13
to
supposed to be set in actual society.
But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
declare clones not to be human beings.
BTR1701
Jun 10, 2013, 3:31:05 PM6/10/13
to
In article <ap6cr8doffina9p94...@4ax.com>,
Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 3:39:26 PM6/10/13
to
On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>
> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
> natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>
From being genetically modified. If you've got a bunch of synthetic
>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>
> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
> natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>
genes in them, then assuming a sufficiently corrupt court system you
could use that to legally distinguish between the "clones" and mere twins.
But I really don't think the Dyad Institute is looking to the courts for
their ownership claims.
BTR1701
Jun 10, 2013, 5:33:27 PM6/10/13
to
In article <kp59oi$f76$1...@dont-email.me>,
the folks who currently have undergone such procedures know about that?
David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> >> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
> >> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
> >> declare clones not to be human beings.
> >
> > Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone
> > from a natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
> From being genetically modified.
So anyone who has gene therapy is automatically not human? I wonder if
> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> >> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
> >> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
> >> declare clones not to be human beings.
> >
> > Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone
> > from a natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
> From being genetically modified.
the folks who currently have undergone such procedures know about that?
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 5:48:07 PM6/10/13
to
On 6/10/2013 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <kp59oi$f76$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>>>
>>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone
>>> from a natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>
>> From being genetically modified.
>
> So anyone who has gene therapy is automatically not human?
Only if the genes are the ones used for that purpose.
> In article <kp59oi$f76$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>>>
>>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone
>>> from a natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>
>> From being genetically modified.
>
> So anyone who has gene therapy is automatically not human?
Mason Barge
Jun 10, 2013, 6:47:34 PM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:39:26 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
>On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>>
>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
>> natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>>
>
> From being genetically modified. If you've got a bunch of synthetic
>genes in them, then assuming a sufficiently corrupt court system you
>could use that to legally distinguish between the "clones" and mere twins.
The court system doesn't have to be corrupt; it would be the Congress,
primarily. Declaring clones "non-human" -- well, of course, the
Supreme Court did it in the case of fetuses but only as a by-product
of a ruling about privacy interests of women.
But corrupt is still the wrong word to me. Morally bankrupt maybe.
wrote:
>On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>>
>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
>> natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>>
>
> From being genetically modified. If you've got a bunch of synthetic
>genes in them, then assuming a sufficiently corrupt court system you
>could use that to legally distinguish between the "clones" and mere twins.
primarily. Declaring clones "non-human" -- well, of course, the
Supreme Court did it in the case of fetuses but only as a by-product
of a ruling about privacy interests of women.
But corrupt is still the wrong word to me. Morally bankrupt maybe.
Mason Barge
Jun 10, 2013, 6:48:13 PM6/10/13
to
BTR1701
Jun 10, 2013, 7:04:01 PM6/10/13
to
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 7:03:43 PM6/10/13
to
be some pretty drastic modifications.
BTR1701
Jun 10, 2013, 7:48:26 PM6/10/13
to
In article <kp5lng$kq7$1...@dont-email.me>,
David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 6/10/2013 5:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <kp5h9p$tvh$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/10/2013 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <kp59oi$f76$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
> >>>>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
> >>>>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone
> >>>>> from a natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
> >>>
> >>>> From being genetically modified.
> >>>
> >>> So anyone who has gene therapy is automatically not human?
> >>
> >> Only if the genes are the ones used for that purpose.
> >
> > For what purpose?
> Legally distinguishing a clone from a human being.
The law would have to make that distinction, not the genes.
> On 6/10/2013 5:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <kp5h9p$tvh$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/10/2013 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <kp59oi$f76$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
> >>>>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
> >>>>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone
> >>>>> from a natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
> >>>
> >>>> From being genetically modified.
> >>>
> >>> So anyone who has gene therapy is automatically not human?
> >>
> >> Only if the genes are the ones used for that purpose.
> >
> > For what purpose?
> Legally distinguishing a clone from a human being.
David Johnston
Jun 10, 2013, 8:02:08 PM6/10/13
to
disqualify someone from being a person.
BTR1701
Jun 10, 2013, 11:59:07 PM6/10/13
to
In article <kp5p51$47f$1...@dont-email.me>,
And how would the law do that, considering the near-infinite genetic
variations and manipulations that are possible?
variations and manipulations that are possible?
Hunter
Jun 11, 2013, 6:10:05 AM6/11/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:29:45 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
----
Maybe not set in them but it could be background and the issue has to
be raised. The contract that Alison must submit herself to Neolution
opens the door to that.
Again I think it depends if the DNA is natural from a preexisting
human or completely manufactured from basic chemicals. If so then the
clones are not connected to the human race and could be owned, or so
would go a prospective argument.
As metioned before I have this line of thought because of "Battlestar
Galactica" those "clones" weren't based on real people but completely
fabricated from basic elements One of the things that was a plot line
in that show was that the clones were sterile in that they could not
hybidize with humans, with one exception Hera.
That leads me to the possibility that the clones of "Orphan Black" are
based on the same premise, with Kira being the daughter of Sarah being
unique. After all in real life while there are some problems clone
sheep can have offspring with ordinary sheep and they are fertile. I
believe humans being mammals would have no problem reproducing with
human clones, so if the clones of Orphan Black are completely natural,
with the DNA just moved from place to place and split into many
copies, why is it so hard for them to reproduce? I believe the
probable answer is that they are artificial and not part of
homosapiens.
wrote:
Maybe not set in them but it could be background and the issue has to
be raised. The contract that Alison must submit herself to Neolution
opens the door to that.
Again I think it depends if the DNA is natural from a preexisting
human or completely manufactured from basic chemicals. If so then the
clones are not connected to the human race and could be owned, or so
would go a prospective argument.
As metioned before I have this line of thought because of "Battlestar
Galactica" those "clones" weren't based on real people but completely
fabricated from basic elements One of the things that was a plot line
in that show was that the clones were sterile in that they could not
hybidize with humans, with one exception Hera.
That leads me to the possibility that the clones of "Orphan Black" are
based on the same premise, with Kira being the daughter of Sarah being
unique. After all in real life while there are some problems clone
sheep can have offspring with ordinary sheep and they are fertile. I
believe humans being mammals would have no problem reproducing with
human clones, so if the clones of Orphan Black are completely natural,
with the DNA just moved from place to place and split into many
copies, why is it so hard for them to reproduce? I believe the
probable answer is that they are artificial and not part of
homosapiens.
Hunter
Jun 11, 2013, 8:54:18 AM6/11/13
to
Oh I agree but that is not going to stop some from saying that if they
are not human and so there aren't any rights that a clone has that a
human needs to respect, especially if their DNA is manufactured from
the ground up with no tie to humanity at all.
>
>If this show tries to sell the idea that these people aren't human
>beings and therefore have no rights, it will descend into REVOLUTION
>levels of stupidity.
----
>If this show tries to sell the idea that these people aren't human
>beings and therefore have no rights, it will descend into REVOLUTION
>levels of stupidity.
It all turns on how artificial are they? Has the genome been created
entirely by scratch or are they the way we know clones in real life to
be, that is DNA from one individual implanted in the eggs of another
individual? If the latter I agree open and shut case they are human
and can't be owned. If the former then that raises a host of questions
since despite having clear human intelligence they would have no tie
to humanity biologically.
Also if they are totally artificial that would also put the concept of
the cloning being illegal into doubt (and that is assuming it was
illegal to clone a human in the late 1970s and early 80s in any
jurisdiction)
>
>There is no legal genetic template to define a human and even if there
>were, it would be unworkable as anyone who differed from it, even
>naturally, would suddenly find themselves stripped of their rights and
>humanity. Have a kid with Downs Syndrome? Yeah, she ain't human. Have a
>kid who's a musical prodigy? Not human.
----
>There is no legal genetic template to define a human and even if there
>were, it would be unworkable as anyone who differed from it, even
>naturally, would suddenly find themselves stripped of their rights and
>humanity. Have a kid with Downs Syndrome? Yeah, she ain't human. Have a
>kid who's a musical prodigy? Not human.
Not quite the same since the prodigy and the mentally challenged while
having different intellects were created in the same way, even if
taking invitro fertilization into account. Both are still human.
With the clones I suspect it is an issue of how they were created will
be the key. Natural or artificial material? I think the overall theme
of the show. What it is to be human, which to me was the basic theme
of both "Battlestar Galactica" and "Dark Angel". Alison herself
questioned her humanity.
>
>It's idiotic.
>
>Or maybe they'll go with the equally idiotic "clones have no souls,
>therefore they're not human" approach.
----
>It's idiotic.
>
>Or maybe they'll go with the equally idiotic "clones have no souls,
>therefore they're not human" approach.
Some will believe that.
>
>Wait, I take that back. That's even *more* idiotic.
-----
>Wait, I take that back. That's even *more* idiotic.
Sorry then, because I suspect that it will be the theme of the show.
What makes a human? If they are as I suspect totally artificial then
the question is much less obvious from an objective POV, even if I
accept them as human even if they were made from totally manufactured
DNA.
In anycase it will have to be a legal issue no matter what you think,
even if you it is "Revolution levels of stupidity" since the premise
is whether you can sign yourself away into essentially slavery as
Alison has done. After all they made a big deal out of those contracts
and right now the only help it seems Sarah can get is from the legal
system while she tries to track down Kira.
TeeJay1952
Jun 11, 2013, 9:17:20 AM6/11/13
to
I wonder after all this talk of a persons inability to give away their
rights how do we account for Mixed Martial Arts? You may not agree to be
a cloned or be a slave. You may agree to be smashed into being beaten
unconscious. I really don't have an answer to this. I watch football but
I cringe when I see my gridiron heroes attempting to walk at age 60.
The show makes me pause and think
Tee Jay
rights how do we account for Mixed Martial Arts? You may not agree to be
a cloned or be a slave. You may agree to be smashed into being beaten
unconscious. I really don't have an answer to this. I watch football but
I cringe when I see my gridiron heroes attempting to walk at age 60.
The show makes me pause and think
Tee Jay
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 11, 2013, 9:44:02 AM6/11/13
to
TeeJay1952 <terry...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I wonder after all this talk of a persons inability to give away their
>rights how do we account for Mixed Martial Arts? You may not agree to be
>a cloned or be a slave. You may agree to be smashed into being beaten
>unconscious. I really don't have an answer to this. I watch football but
>I cringe when I see my gridiron heroes attempting to walk at age 60.
It was an attempt to enslave Sarah's daughter, though.
>I wonder after all this talk of a persons inability to give away their
>rights how do we account for Mixed Martial Arts? You may not agree to be
>a cloned or be a slave. You may agree to be smashed into being beaten
>unconscious. I really don't have an answer to this. I watch football but
>I cringe when I see my gridiron heroes attempting to walk at age 60.
Hunter
Jun 11, 2013, 11:01:34 AM6/11/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:33:00 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:
----
I am guessing on how "artificial" they are. Are they the clones like
Dolly the Sheep in which it takes natural DNA of one sheep and implant
them into another sheep's ovaries etc., or they completely
artificially created DNA. If they are completely artificial then the
plot could better explore the question of their humanity. If they are
the clones we have been thinking they were, like Dolly the Sheep but
human then of course their humanity is beyond reproach.
wrote:
I am guessing on how "artificial" they are. Are they the clones like
Dolly the Sheep in which it takes natural DNA of one sheep and implant
them into another sheep's ovaries etc., or they completely
artificially created DNA. If they are completely artificial then the
plot could better explore the question of their humanity. If they are
the clones we have been thinking they were, like Dolly the Sheep but
human then of course their humanity is beyond reproach.
David Johnston
Jun 11, 2013, 12:43:06 PM6/11/13
to
If so then the
> clones are not connected to the human race and could be owned, or so
> would go a prospective argument.
>
> As metioned before I have this line of thought because of "Battlestar
> Galactica" those "clones" weren't based on real people but completely
> fabricated from basic elements One of the things that was a plot line
> in that show was that the clones were sterile in that they could not
> hybidize with humans, with one exception Hera.
>
> That leads me to the possibility that the clones of "Orphan Black" are
> based on the same premise, with Kira being the daughter of Sarah being
> unique. After all in real life while there are some problems clone
> sheep can have offspring with ordinary sheep and they are fertile.
reproducing any more than RIAA wants you copying your videos.
David Johnston
Jun 11, 2013, 12:43:47 PM6/11/13
to
BTR1701
Jun 11, 2013, 2:11:05 PM6/11/13
to
In article <51b71df1...@news.optonline.net>,
Why is how their DNA is built relevant to a person's humanity?
> >If this show tries to sell the idea that these people aren't human
> >beings and therefore have no rights, it will descend into REVOLUTION
> >levels of stupidity.
> ----
> It all turns on how artificial are they? Has the genome been created
> entirely by scratch or are they the way we know clones in real life to
> be, that is DNA from one individual implanted in the eggs of another
> individual? If the latter I agree open and shut case they are human
> and can't be owned. If the former then that raises a host of questions
> since despite having clear human intelligence they would have no tie
> to humanity biologically.
No, it really doesn't raise a lot of questions for anyone who isn't some
kind of Nazi-type nutbag or a religious loon who defines humanity by who
they think does and does not have a soul.
If you can live with one of these clones for an entire lifetime and
never know she's any different from anyone else unless you're told so by
some scientist, then she's human.
There were people making these same dumb arguments back when the first
"test-tube babies" were being born. Are they real people since they
weren't created in a uterus? It's just stupid.
> >There is no legal genetic template to define a human and even if there
> >were, it would be unworkable as anyone who differed from it, even
> >naturally, would suddenly find themselves stripped of their rights and
> >humanity. Have a kid with Downs Syndrome? Yeah, she ain't human. Have a
> >kid who's a musical prodigy? Not human.
> ----
> Not quite the same since the prodigy and the mentally challenged while
> having different intellects were created in the same way, even if
> taking invitro fertilization into account. Both are still human.
>
> With the clones I suspect it is an issue of how they were created will
> be the key. Natural or artificial material?
Unless they're made out of wires and circuit boards, they have the same
skin, flesh, chemical make-up, etc. as anyone else. If they didn't,
doctors would have no idea how to treat them, and the food that
nourishes us would do nothing for them.
> In anycase it will have to be a legal issue no matter what you think,
> even if you it is "Revolution levels of stupidity" since the premise
> is whether you can sign yourself away into essentially slavery as
> Alison has done.
That's not really all that interesting of a premise because the answer
to that everywhere the show is set, is a resounding no. So unless
they're going to just ignore reality-- and up till now they've given no
indication that the show is set in an alternate one-- it's not much of
an issue.
> >If this show tries to sell the idea that these people aren't human
> >beings and therefore have no rights, it will descend into REVOLUTION
> >levels of stupidity.
> ----
> It all turns on how artificial are they? Has the genome been created
> entirely by scratch or are they the way we know clones in real life to
> be, that is DNA from one individual implanted in the eggs of another
> individual? If the latter I agree open and shut case they are human
> and can't be owned. If the former then that raises a host of questions
> since despite having clear human intelligence they would have no tie
> to humanity biologically.
kind of Nazi-type nutbag or a religious loon who defines humanity by who
they think does and does not have a soul.
If you can live with one of these clones for an entire lifetime and
never know she's any different from anyone else unless you're told so by
some scientist, then she's human.
There were people making these same dumb arguments back when the first
"test-tube babies" were being born. Are they real people since they
weren't created in a uterus? It's just stupid.
> >There is no legal genetic template to define a human and even if there
> >were, it would be unworkable as anyone who differed from it, even
> >naturally, would suddenly find themselves stripped of their rights and
> >humanity. Have a kid with Downs Syndrome? Yeah, she ain't human. Have a
> >kid who's a musical prodigy? Not human.
> ----
> Not quite the same since the prodigy and the mentally challenged while
> having different intellects were created in the same way, even if
> taking invitro fertilization into account. Both are still human.
>
> With the clones I suspect it is an issue of how they were created will
> be the key. Natural or artificial material?
skin, flesh, chemical make-up, etc. as anyone else. If they didn't,
doctors would have no idea how to treat them, and the food that
nourishes us would do nothing for them.
> In anycase it will have to be a legal issue no matter what you think,
> even if you it is "Revolution levels of stupidity" since the premise
> is whether you can sign yourself away into essentially slavery as
> Alison has done.
to that everywhere the show is set, is a resounding no. So unless
they're going to just ignore reality-- and up till now they've given no
indication that the show is set in an alternate one-- it's not much of
an issue.
Hunter
Jun 11, 2013, 7:27:55 PM6/11/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:17:20 -0400, TeeJay1952
<terry...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I wonder after all this talk of a persons inability to give away their
>rights how do we account for Mixed Martial Arts? You may not agree to be
>a cloned or be a slave. You may agree to be smashed into being beaten
>unconscious. I really don't have an answer to this. I watch football but
>I cringe when I see my gridiron heroes attempting to walk at age 60.
-----
<terry...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I wonder after all this talk of a persons inability to give away their
>rights how do we account for Mixed Martial Arts? You may not agree to be
>a cloned or be a slave. You may agree to be smashed into being beaten
>unconscious. I really don't have an answer to this. I watch football but
>I cringe when I see my gridiron heroes attempting to walk at age 60.
Once there was a institution called Indentured servitude, in which in
exchange for something, most famously passage to a new land to settle
there, you are required to work for a set period of time-seven years
often-for someone. It was a binding contract. You could not resign,
you could not leave. If you ran away the recipient of your labor had
the right to bring you back and make you suffer penalties including
beatings. It was in sort a form of volunteer slavery, but only for a
set period of years, which is of course different from true slavery in
which the owner could own you for the rest of your life no matter what
you wanted and certainly didn't agree to it. At best you can hope your
owner is generous and will allow you to buy your freedom, essentially
buying yourself.
In either form, slavery was outlawed so no one can be a volunteer
slave in any form because we as a society-western society and most of
the other world at least-say that humans cannot own other humans even
for a sort period of time in most cases.
The one exception is a sentence of hard labor in a prison after due
process in a court of law and guilt is found; but even hard labor
sentence is rarely used today if it hasn't been outlawed outright.
"Community Service" is the closest form of this I can think of, being
sent someplace to work against your will as part of your
punishment/restitution to society. They did, for a while at least,
bring back the chain gang and in prison anyone know if they still make
prisoners make license plates and other things for the state if you
don't want to?). In the old days as reacently as 50 years ago the
government could perform medical experiments on you without the
convict's consent.
On the other hand things like MMA and boxing and football aren't
illegal. You sign a contract releasing the sanctioning body of
liability in most things and you sign a contract with the sanctioning
body to fight in a certain amount of fights but they can't actually
make you fight, albeit they probably could sue you for breach of
contract.
You can also do this with medical experiments and the sort, signing
wavers accepting liability for some things yourself, but no one can
actually make you submit to medical test if you don't want to.
Now of course there are people who do want to outlaw boxing and MMA
and other "gladiator" type sports and if they ever do then yes people
won't be able to sign contracts for things like that either.
Now in the plot of "Orphan Black" it is not a contract to do work for
a set period of time, but out right ownership of that person-if the
clones are considered people-has genetic material that is patented by
the Neolutions and so as they did with Kira take them at any time and
presumably do anything to them. That is slavery.
People can quit football. Alison can't quit this.
David Johnston
Jun 11, 2013, 8:00:00 PM6/11/13
to
On 6/11/2013 5:27 PM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
> The one exception is a sentence of hard labor in a prison after due
> process in a court of law and guilt is found; but even hard labor
> sentence is rarely used today if it hasn't been outlawed outright.
> "Community Service" is the closest form of this I can think of, being
> sent someplace to work against your will as part of your
> punishment/restitution to society. They did, for a while at least,
> bring back the chain gang and in prison anyone know if they still make
> prisoners make license plates and other things for the state if you
> don't want to?).
Yes.
> The one exception is a sentence of hard labor in a prison after due
> process in a court of law and guilt is found; but even hard labor
> sentence is rarely used today if it hasn't been outlawed outright.
> "Community Service" is the closest form of this I can think of, being
> sent someplace to work against your will as part of your
> punishment/restitution to society. They did, for a while at least,
> bring back the chain gang and in prison anyone know if they still make
> prisoners make license plates and other things for the state if you
> don't want to?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries
Technically refusing to work IS allowed in theory, but since that will
lead to a longer prison term for most inmates and loss of privileges,
that's more of a technicality than a reality.
> Now in the plot of "Orphan Black" it is not a contract to do work for
> a set period of time, but out right ownership of that person-
they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of the clones
What they were shooting for was compliance with their program of
diagnostics and blood sampling.
Hunter
Jun 11, 2013, 9:02:22 PM6/11/13
to
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 21:40:36 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>On May 13, 2013, US Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto in Bowman v. Monsanto.
>
>A farmer bought unlabeled soybean plants at a local grain elevator containing
>genes patented by Monsanto. The patented genes in the soybeans allow them
>to survive when sprayed with weedkiller, making them cheaper to grow and
>resulting in a larger yield. The seeds cost about three times as much
>as typical soybean seeds.
>
>He assumed the plants he bought contained seeds with the desired genetic trait.
>He planted the crop, sprayed with weedkiller, then harvested seeds from the
>plants that didn't die. He then planted a new crop the following year from
>those harvested seeds.
>
>Farmers must license seeds from Monsanto and agree not to plant seeds from
>the plants to start next year's crop.
>
>The farmer defended his actions by saying reproduction was natural. But the
>court ruling said he was reproducing patented technology.
>
>(Good thing for Sarah that her program isn't set in the United States.)
>
>Another genetic patent case was heard this term, Association for Molecular
>Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, in which the patent owner of genes with
>hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancers aggressively enforces its
>patents, making medical testing much more costly, if not unaffordable. No
>decision yet.
I think this is exactly what it is. Now the question is whether this
will attach to human clones or to me more likely and less obvious
artificial human clones.
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>On May 13, 2013, US Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto in Bowman v. Monsanto.
>
>A farmer bought unlabeled soybean plants at a local grain elevator containing
>genes patented by Monsanto. The patented genes in the soybeans allow them
>to survive when sprayed with weedkiller, making them cheaper to grow and
>resulting in a larger yield. The seeds cost about three times as much
>as typical soybean seeds.
>
>He assumed the plants he bought contained seeds with the desired genetic trait.
>He planted the crop, sprayed with weedkiller, then harvested seeds from the
>plants that didn't die. He then planted a new crop the following year from
>those harvested seeds.
>
>Farmers must license seeds from Monsanto and agree not to plant seeds from
>the plants to start next year's crop.
>
>The farmer defended his actions by saying reproduction was natural. But the
>court ruling said he was reproducing patented technology.
>
>(Good thing for Sarah that her program isn't set in the United States.)
>
>Another genetic patent case was heard this term, Association for Molecular
>Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, in which the patent owner of genes with
>hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancers aggressively enforces its
>patents, making medical testing much more costly, if not unaffordable. No
>decision yet.
>
>That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
-----
>That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
I think this is exactly what it is. Now the question is whether this
will attach to human clones or to me more likely and less obvious
artificial human clones.
BTR1701
Jun 11, 2013, 9:42:23 PM6/11/13
to
In article <kp8dcv$gpv$1...@dont-email.me>,
This reminds me of Michael Crichton's book NEXT:
Frank Burnet contracts an aggressive form of leukemia and
undergoes intensive treatment and four years of semiannual
checkups. He later learns that the checkups were a pretext
for researching the genetic basis of Frank's unusually
successful response to treatment, and that the physician's
university has sold the rights to Frank's cells-- which they
obtained while treating him for the cancer-- to BioGen, a
biotechnology startup company.
Frank sues the university for unauthorized use of his cells,
but the trial judge rules that the cells were "waste" that
the university could dispose of as it wished. Frank's lawyers
advise that, even if he wins an appeal, the university, as a
tax-funded government organization, can still claim the rights
to the cells under the doctrine of eminent domain.
After Frank's cell line is destroyed due to employee
sabotage, BioGen consults its lawyers, who advise that under
United States patent law they have the rights to *all* of
Frank's cell line-- not just the cells obtained during his
treatment-- and thus the right to extract replacement cells,
by force if necessary, from Frank or any of his descendants.
When Frank goes on the run, BioGen hires a bounty hunter to
obtain tissue samples regardless of the donor's consent.
Unable to find Frank, the bounty hunter targets Frank's
grandson Jamie and his mother Alex. Narrowly escaping, Alex
and Jamie also go on the run, at which point BioGen's lawyers
apply for an arrest warrant for Alex on the grounds that she's
in possession stolen company property, namely hers and her
son's cells.
It sounds absurd, but with some of the patent rulings coming out of the
federal courts-- specifically with Monsanto and its special seeds-- it's
not as impossible as it sounds. Of course there's a huge difference
between a seed and a human being, biologically, ethically, morally, and
legally, but still...
Frank Burnet contracts an aggressive form of leukemia and
undergoes intensive treatment and four years of semiannual
checkups. He later learns that the checkups were a pretext
for researching the genetic basis of Frank's unusually
successful response to treatment, and that the physician's
university has sold the rights to Frank's cells-- which they
obtained while treating him for the cancer-- to BioGen, a
biotechnology startup company.
Frank sues the university for unauthorized use of his cells,
but the trial judge rules that the cells were "waste" that
the university could dispose of as it wished. Frank's lawyers
advise that, even if he wins an appeal, the university, as a
tax-funded government organization, can still claim the rights
to the cells under the doctrine of eminent domain.
After Frank's cell line is destroyed due to employee
sabotage, BioGen consults its lawyers, who advise that under
United States patent law they have the rights to *all* of
Frank's cell line-- not just the cells obtained during his
treatment-- and thus the right to extract replacement cells,
by force if necessary, from Frank or any of his descendants.
When Frank goes on the run, BioGen hires a bounty hunter to
obtain tissue samples regardless of the donor's consent.
Unable to find Frank, the bounty hunter targets Frank's
grandson Jamie and his mother Alex. Narrowly escaping, Alex
and Jamie also go on the run, at which point BioGen's lawyers
apply for an arrest warrant for Alex on the grounds that she's
in possession stolen company property, namely hers and her
son's cells.
It sounds absurd, but with some of the patent rulings coming out of the
federal courts-- specifically with Monsanto and its special seeds-- it's
not as impossible as it sounds. Of course there's a huge difference
between a seed and a human being, biologically, ethically, morally, and
legally, but still...
Ed Stasiak
Jun 11, 2013, 9:57:03 PM6/11/13
to
> BTR1701
> > David Johnston
a very interesting sci-fi story, so I'm guessing full ownership of
the cloned gals will be where they'll go with this.
> It sounds absurd, but with some of the patent rulings coming out
> of the federal courts-- specifically with Monsanto and its special
> seeds-- it's not as impossible as it sounds. Of course there's a
> huge difference between a seed and a human being, biologically,
> ethically, morally, and legally, but still...
When the highest goal one sets for them self is making more
money, anything and everything eventually becomes justified.
> > David Johnston
> >
> Oh I don't think so. Such a contract would be unenforcible even
> though they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of
> the clones What they were shooting for was compliance with their
> program of diagnostics and blood sampling.
Yabut, compliance with their testing program doesn't make for
> Oh I don't think so. Such a contract would be unenforcible even
> though they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of
> the clones What they were shooting for was compliance with their
> program of diagnostics and blood sampling.
a very interesting sci-fi story, so I'm guessing full ownership of
the cloned gals will be where they'll go with this.
> It sounds absurd, but with some of the patent rulings coming out
> of the federal courts-- specifically with Monsanto and its special
> seeds-- it's not as impossible as it sounds. Of course there's a
> huge difference between a seed and a human being, biologically,
> ethically, morally, and legally, but still...
money, anything and everything eventually becomes justified.
David Johnston
Jun 11, 2013, 10:13:13 PM6/11/13
to
On 6/11/2013 7:57 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> BTR1701
>>> David Johnston
>>>
>> Oh I don't think so. Such a contract would be unenforcible even
>> though they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of
>> the clones What they were shooting for was compliance with their
>> program of diagnostics and blood sampling.
>
> Yabut, compliance with their testing program doesn't make for
> a very interesting sci-fi story, so I'm guessing full ownership of
> the cloned gals will be where they'll go with this.
It's not an issue because the ladies won't be compliant. At which point
>> BTR1701
>>> David Johnston
>>>
>> Oh I don't think so. Such a contract would be unenforcible even
>> though they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of
>> the clones What they were shooting for was compliance with their
>> program of diagnostics and blood sampling.
>
> Yabut, compliance with their testing program doesn't make for
> a very interesting sci-fi story, so I'm guessing full ownership of
> the cloned gals will be where they'll go with this.
they escalate.
Hunter
Jun 12, 2013, 4:08:48 AM6/12/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:39:26 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
------
I think they will otherwise why go through the legal mumbo jumbo and
not telling them they hold the genetic patents?
Now as pointed out I don't think the show will spend so much time in a
court room but if I am right about the "are they human?" question I do
think the legal battle will be in the background as Sarah and friends
including Art searches desperately for Kira (I do suspect that they
are virtually completely synthetic DNA for this legal question to work
and why the clones seems to be suffering from various physical and
mental ailments and their sterility)..
wrote:
I think they will otherwise why go through the legal mumbo jumbo and
not telling them they hold the genetic patents?
Now as pointed out I don't think the show will spend so much time in a
court room but if I am right about the "are they human?" question I do
think the legal battle will be in the background as Sarah and friends
including Art searches desperately for Kira (I do suspect that they
are virtually completely synthetic DNA for this legal question to work
and why the clones seems to be suffering from various physical and
mental ailments and their sterility)..
Hunter
Jun 12, 2013, 6:16:20 AM6/12/13
to
Which is why I suspect the clones are completely artificial in that
the DNA has been constructed from the ground up, not pre-existing
human DNA mearly split and planted into other people's ovaries. If so,
then there could be a court basis. If not then I agree that the case
shouldn't go anywhere.
Mason Barge
Jun 12, 2013, 7:01:57 AM6/12/13
to
labor is certainly not outlawed although the term isn't used any more
and working conditions have improved with the times.
[...]
>
>Now in the plot of "Orphan Black" it is not a contract to do work for
>a set period of time, but out right ownership of that person-if the
>clones are considered people-has genetic material that is patented by
>the Neolutions and so as they did with Kira take them at any time and
>presumably do anything to them. That is slavery.
they are, but who knows what might happen in fiction.
There is a really good book about this, "Never Let Me Go" by Kazuro
Ishiguro.
Mason Barge
Jun 12, 2013, 7:06:41 AM6/12/13
to
by Daniel Suarez. Basically, a big agribusiness corporation shuts down
a bunch of small farmers because its genetically patented pollen has
blown into their fields and fertilized their corn, and they refuse to
pay a licensing fee.
Hunter
Jun 12, 2013, 8:18:11 AM6/12/13
to
It already has with the abduction of Kira.
BTR1701
Jun 12, 2013, 10:42:06 AM6/12/13
to
In article <talgr8lpmflsbdnsq...@4ax.com>,
Exactly. It's idiotic. If they didn't want their property growing all
over as they claim, they shouldn't have put it in a germinating seed.
over as they claim, they shouldn't have put it in a germinating seed.
BTR1701
Jun 12, 2013, 10:46:30 AM6/12/13
to
interesting. The Constitution does give the government the right to take
private property for a public purpose and while human beings are
specifically not property per the 13th Amendment, pieces of human beings
have long been considered property under the law.
So if you have an inexplicable immunity to a disease or some kind of
cancer or something, that if studied could benefit society greatly,
could the government condemn you under eminent domain and take samples
from and otherwise study you whether you liked it or not?
Interesting question.
David Johnston
Jun 12, 2013, 11:58:40 AM6/12/13
to
On 6/12/2013 2:08 AM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:39:26 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>>>
>>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
>>> natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>>>
>>
>> From being genetically modified. If you've got a bunch of synthetic
>> genes in them, then assuming a sufficiently corrupt court system you
>> could use that to legally distinguish between the "clones" and mere twins.
>>
>> But I really don't think the Dyad Institute is looking to the courts for
>> their ownership claims.
> ------
> I think they will otherwise why go through the legal mumbo jumbo and
> not telling them they hold the genetic patents?
It's the other way around. If they had a hope in court that's where
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:39:26 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>>>
>>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
>>> natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>>>
>>
>> From being genetically modified. If you've got a bunch of synthetic
>> genes in them, then assuming a sufficiently corrupt court system you
>> could use that to legally distinguish between the "clones" and mere twins.
>>
>> But I really don't think the Dyad Institute is looking to the courts for
>> their ownership claims.
> ------
> I think they will otherwise why go through the legal mumbo jumbo and
> not telling them they hold the genetic patents?
they'd go instead of committing burglary, murder and kidnapping.
David Johnston
Jun 12, 2013, 12:13:34 PM6/12/13
to
Venice but in law a human is more than the sum of its parts. The
patents on human genes do not constitute ownership of the physical
human, said ownership being illegal in the United States and pretty much
everywhere else. Rather they are intellectual property, ownership of
the work performed in mapping it. The only thing they would the
possessor of the gene from doing is going to some other corporation and
get money for having them map it.
Mason Barge
Jun 12, 2013, 12:30:54 PM6/12/13
to
Mason Barge
Jun 12, 2013, 12:32:02 PM6/12/13
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:13:34 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
That makes perfect sense, but Crichton's book was still pretty good in
an Orwellian way.
an Orwellian way.
Hunter
Jun 12, 2013, 2:59:27 PM6/12/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:43:06 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
----
That there is no way for anyone to construct DNA from basic chemicals,
essentially reproducing how life started? Well maybe not now with
present-to say the least early 1980s-technology, but that is why this
is a science fiction show right? On that basis I wouldn't be so quick
to dismiss that possibility as a show plot.
I am not only pondering seriously that they are completely artificial
for legal reasons, but also it would and could explain why they are
unable to hybridize readily with other people and why at least some of
them have serious health problems.
But if it is just tinkering then I have to agree with Thanny and say
no court could rule that they are not human and if they are human then
they can't be owned and if they can't be owned the derivative of their
genetic material, that is Kira, can't be owned and so they have
unlawfully kidnapped a child.
Plot wise it would be less compelling if they are so obviously human
and the philosophical question as to what it really is to be human
moot, at least to me. It was an obvious question in movies like "I,
Robot" and the Robin Williams movie " and a few "Star Trek" episodes
in several incarnations, plus the humanoid Cylons of "Battlestar
Galactica" for example, I think the same question could be broached if
Sarah and the rest were created with no tie to homo sapiens. It would
to me be an even less obvious question if some how Neanderthals were
somehow revived, Jurassic park style
That there is no way for anyone to construct DNA from basic chemicals,
essentially reproducing how life started? Well maybe not now with
present-to say the least early 1980s-technology, but that is why this
is a science fiction show right? On that basis I wouldn't be so quick
to dismiss that possibility as a show plot.
I am not only pondering seriously that they are completely artificial
for legal reasons, but also it would and could explain why they are
unable to hybridize readily with other people and why at least some of
them have serious health problems.
>
>If so then the
>> clones are not connected to the human race and could be owned, or so
>> would go a prospective argument.
>>
>> As metioned before I have this line of thought because of "Battlestar
>> Galactica" those "clones" weren't based on real people but completely
>> fabricated from basic elements One of the things that was a plot line
>> in that show was that the clones were sterile in that they could not
>> hybidize with humans, with one exception Hera.
>>
>> That leads me to the possibility that the clones of "Orphan Black" are
>> based on the same premise, with Kira being the daughter of Sarah being
>> unique. After all in real life while there are some problems clone
>> sheep can have offspring with ordinary sheep and they are fertile.
>
>Dyad tinkered with the clone's DNA and Dyad doesn't want them
>reproducing any more than RIAA wants you copying your videos.
-----
>If so then the
>> clones are not connected to the human race and could be owned, or so
>> would go a prospective argument.
>>
>> As metioned before I have this line of thought because of "Battlestar
>> Galactica" those "clones" weren't based on real people but completely
>> fabricated from basic elements One of the things that was a plot line
>> in that show was that the clones were sterile in that they could not
>> hybidize with humans, with one exception Hera.
>>
>> That leads me to the possibility that the clones of "Orphan Black" are
>> based on the same premise, with Kira being the daughter of Sarah being
>> unique. After all in real life while there are some problems clone
>> sheep can have offspring with ordinary sheep and they are fertile.
>
>Dyad tinkered with the clone's DNA and Dyad doesn't want them
>reproducing any more than RIAA wants you copying your videos.
But if it is just tinkering then I have to agree with Thanny and say
no court could rule that they are not human and if they are human then
they can't be owned and if they can't be owned the derivative of their
genetic material, that is Kira, can't be owned and so they have
unlawfully kidnapped a child.
Plot wise it would be less compelling if they are so obviously human
and the philosophical question as to what it really is to be human
moot, at least to me. It was an obvious question in movies like "I,
Robot" and the Robin Williams movie " and a few "Star Trek" episodes
in several incarnations, plus the humanoid Cylons of "Battlestar
Galactica" for example, I think the same question could be broached if
Sarah and the rest were created with no tie to homo sapiens. It would
to me be an even less obvious question if some how Neanderthals were
somehow revived, Jurassic park style
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 12, 2013, 2:01:00 PM6/12/13
to
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>On May 13, 2013, US Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto in Bowman v. Monsanto.
>>A farmer bought unlabeled soybean plants at a local grain elevator containing
>>genes patented by Monsanto. The patented genes in the soybeans allow them
>>to survive when sprayed with weedkiller, making them cheaper to grow and
>>resulting in a larger yield. The seeds cost about three times as much
>>as typical soybean seeds.
>>He assumed the plants he bought contained seeds with the desired
>>genetic trait. He planted the crop, sprayed with weedkiller, then
>>harvested seeds from the plants that didn't die. He then planted a new
>>crop the following year from those harvested seeds.
>>Farmers must license seeds from Monsanto and agree not to plant seeds from
>>the plants to start next year's crop.
>>The farmer defended his actions by saying reproduction was natural. But the
>>court ruling said he was reproducing patented technology.
>>(Good thing for Sarah that her program isn't set in the United States.)
>>Another genetic patent case was heard this term, Association for Molecular
>>Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, in which the patent owner of genes with
>>hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancers aggressively enforces its
>>patents, making medical testing much more costly, if not unaffordable. No
>>decision yet.
>>That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>On May 13, 2013, US Supreme Court ruled for Monsanto in Bowman v. Monsanto.
>>A farmer bought unlabeled soybean plants at a local grain elevator containing
>>genes patented by Monsanto. The patented genes in the soybeans allow them
>>to survive when sprayed with weedkiller, making them cheaper to grow and
>>resulting in a larger yield. The seeds cost about three times as much
>>as typical soybean seeds.
>>He assumed the plants he bought contained seeds with the desired
>>genetic trait. He planted the crop, sprayed with weedkiller, then
>>harvested seeds from the plants that didn't die. He then planted a new
>>crop the following year from those harvested seeds.
>>Farmers must license seeds from Monsanto and agree not to plant seeds from
>>the plants to start next year's crop.
>>The farmer defended his actions by saying reproduction was natural. But the
>>court ruling said he was reproducing patented technology.
>>(Good thing for Sarah that her program isn't set in the United States.)
>>Another genetic patent case was heard this term, Association for Molecular
>>Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, in which the patent owner of genes with
>>hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancers aggressively enforces its
>>patents, making medical testing much more costly, if not unaffordable. No
>>decision yet.
>>That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
>I think this is exactly what it is. Now the question is whether this
>will attach to human clones or to me more likely and less obvious
>artificial human clones.
C'mon, Hunter, you're not agreeing with me. I'm saying that the issue is
>will attach to human clones or to me more likely and less obvious
>artificial human clones.
that a genetic trait has been patented, not an entire being.
David Johnston
Jun 12, 2013, 2:22:16 PM6/12/13
to
with people at all.
>>
>> Dyad tinkered with the clone's DNA and Dyad doesn't want them
>> reproducing any more than RIAA wants you copying your videos.
> -----
> But if it is just tinkering then I have to agree with Thanny and say
> no court could rule that they are not human and if they are human then
> they can't be owned and if they can't be owned the derivative of their
> genetic material, that is Kira, can't be owned and so they have
> unlawfully kidnapped a child.
commits so many crimes in pursuit of their goal tells me that they know
their goal isn't legal even though they think it should be.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jun 12, 2013, 3:52:22 PM6/12/13
to
Mason Barge
Jun 12, 2013, 4:24:32 PM6/12/13
to
No, he was growing corn, not rape.
David Johnston
Jun 12, 2013, 7:35:29 PM6/12/13
to
On 6/12/2013 2:08 AM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:39:26 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>>>
>>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
>>> natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>>>
>>
>> From being genetically modified. If you've got a bunch of synthetic
>> genes in them, then assuming a sufficiently corrupt court system you
>> could use that to legally distinguish between the "clones" and mere twins.
>>
>> But I really don't think the Dyad Institute is looking to the courts for
>> their ownership claims.
> ------
> I think they will otherwise why go through the legal mumbo jumbo and
> not telling them they hold the genetic patents?
Its the other way around. If the courts would agree that they owned the
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2013 1:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> But you could make a pretty good science fiction novel of this, kind
>>>> of a bridge to the dystopian clones-as-slaves genre, as the courts
>>>> declare clones not to be human beings.
>>>
>>> Yes, but based on what? How would you legally distinguish a clone from a
>>> natural identical twin in terms of its humanity?
>>>
>>
>> From being genetically modified. If you've got a bunch of synthetic
>> genes in them, then assuming a sufficiently corrupt court system you
>> could use that to legally distinguish between the "clones" and mere twins.
>>
>> But I really don't think the Dyad Institute is looking to the courts for
>> their ownership claims.
> ------
> I think they will otherwise why go through the legal mumbo jumbo and
> not telling them they hold the genetic patents?
clones, then there would be no need for contracts with the test
subjects. People don't make contracts with slaves or other domestic
animals. They don't really hold any genetic patents because patents
have to be registered.
>
> Now as pointed out I don't think the show will spend so much time in a
> court room but if I am right about the "are they human?" question I do
> think the legal battle will be in the background as Sarah and friends
> including Art searches desperately for Kira (I do suspect that they
> are virtually completely synthetic DNA for this legal question to work
> and why the clones seems to be suffering from various physical and
> mental ailments and their sterility)..
ailments. After all, these guys had very little idea what they were
doing. They just changed genes to see what would happen.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Jun 12, 2013, 8:38:48 PM6/12/13
to
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 13, 2013, 2:40:24 AM6/13/13
to
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Which is why I suspect the clones are completely artificial in that
>the DNA has been constructed from the ground up, not pre-existing
>human DNA mearly split and planted into other people's ovaries. If so,
>then there could be a court basis. If not then I agree that the case
>shouldn't go anywhere.
Planted into ovaries? omigawd, Hunter, that's not how it works.
>Which is why I suspect the clones are completely artificial in that
>the DNA has been constructed from the ground up, not pre-existing
>human DNA mearly split and planted into other people's ovaries. If so,
>then there could be a court basis. If not then I agree that the case
>shouldn't go anywhere.
It's already been explained to you that they couldn't possibly do what
you suggested because by not starting with a human gene sequence, the
end result can't be a human being. Our closest relatives in the animal
kingdom have genes that barely differ from ours. Hell, fungus genes
barely differ from ours.
You've got to start with genes from the species you're trying to copy.
We know for a fact that Sarah's human, as she was able to reproduce.
They took a human gene sequence and modified it for the characteristics
they wanted. They undoubtably stuck it into an unfertilized human egg (a la
Demon Seed), eliminating the egg's own genetic material. The sequence was
complete, not half, genetic material. They grew the egg till it became 16
cells, split the cells to make 16 embryos. They grew each embryo which
was then implanted into a surrogate mother's womb.
Not all the clones are accounted for. There may still be frozen clone
embryos.
marcus hall
Jun 13, 2013, 10:49:24 AM6/13/13
to
In article <kpbpgo$rsu$3...@news.albasani.net>,
company, Kiera may not turn out to have been totally naturally produced
after all...
>They took a human gene sequence and modified it for the characteristics
>they wanted. They undoubtably stuck it into an unfertilized human egg (a la
>Demon Seed), eliminating the egg's own genetic material. The sequence was
>complete, not half, genetic material. They grew the egg till it became 16
>cells, split the cells to make 16 embryos. They grew each embryo which
>was then implanted into a surrogate mother's womb.
Actually, since they each have their own tag sequence, it would appear that
they repeated the cloning 10 (or more) times rather than splitting the
batch of cells.
Now, depending on the source of the eggs' source, the different clones may
have different mitochondrial DNA as well, which would introduce some
variance between the clones...
>Not all the clones are accounted for. There may still be frozen clone
>embryos.
marcus hall
mar...@tuells.org
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>We know for a fact that Sarah's human, as she was able to reproduce.
Not absolutely necessary, since Mrs S was involved with *some* biotech
company, Kiera may not turn out to have been totally naturally produced
after all...
>They took a human gene sequence and modified it for the characteristics
>they wanted. They undoubtably stuck it into an unfertilized human egg (a la
>Demon Seed), eliminating the egg's own genetic material. The sequence was
>complete, not half, genetic material. They grew the egg till it became 16
>cells, split the cells to make 16 embryos. They grew each embryo which
>was then implanted into a surrogate mother's womb.
they repeated the cloning 10 (or more) times rather than splitting the
batch of cells.
Now, depending on the source of the eggs' source, the different clones may
have different mitochondrial DNA as well, which would introduce some
variance between the clones...
>Not all the clones are accounted for. There may still be frozen clone
>embryos.
mar...@tuells.org
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 13, 2013, 11:48:35 AM6/13/13
to
marcus hall <mar...@tuells.org> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>We know for a fact that Sarah's human, as she was able to reproduce.
>Not absolutely necessary, since Mrs S was involved with *some* biotech
>company, Kiera may not turn out to have been totally naturally produced
>after all...
What, you think she had sex with a man she thought was the father, but was
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>We know for a fact that Sarah's human, as she was able to reproduce.
>Not absolutely necessary, since Mrs S was involved with *some* biotech
>company, Kiera may not turn out to have been totally naturally produced
>after all...
taken in the middle of the night to a lab to become a surrogate mother?
All right, all right, anything's possible.
>>They took a human gene sequence and modified it for the characteristics
>>they wanted. They undoubtably stuck it into an unfertilized human egg (a la
>>Demon Seed), eliminating the egg's own genetic material. The sequence was
>>complete, not half, genetic material. They grew the egg till it became 16
>>cells, split the cells to make 16 embryos. They grew each embryo which
>>was then implanted into a surrogate mother's womb.
>Actually, since they each have their own tag sequence, it would appear that
>they repeated the cloning 10 (or more) times rather than splitting the
>batch of cells.
initial cell divisions; cleaving? I'd assume there are no genetic errors
in the first several divisions.
I'm guessing that they have the technology to replace an entire genetic
sequence and to make specific alterations to genes, thus the tags.
What didn't make sense was that the tag was the only distinct genetic
difference. My earlier guess was that Cosima's cardiopulmonary problem was
congenital and genetic, but she never found the gene sequence responsible.
>Now, depending on the source of the eggs' source, the different clones may
>have different mitochondrial DNA as well, which would introduce some
>variance between the clones...
differentiation, which the mitochondria has something to do with, a process
of activating and de-activating certain genes? I think RNA has something
to do with that as well. It's been too many years.
Jim G.
Jun 13, 2013, 11:57:40 AM6/13/13
to
Mason Barge sent the following on 6/12/2013 6:06 AM:
There were a lot of interesting ideas included in those two Suarez
books, both on the tech and non-tech sides of things.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL
books, both on the tech and non-tech sides of things.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL
Jim G.
Jun 13, 2013, 11:58:20 AM6/13/13
to
BTR1701 sent the following on 6/12/2013 9:46 AM:
The field of medical ethics is already having a hard time keeping up
with the advancements in the field--advancements that are being made at
an ever-increasing rate...
with the advancements in the field--advancements that are being made at
an ever-increasing rate...
Hunter
Jun 13, 2013, 2:30:46 PM6/13/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:28:35 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
>On 6/10/2013 6:09 AM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:52:25 -0600, David Johnston
>> <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Canada didn't need one since slavery was never legal in Canada. However
>>> section seven of the Charter of Rights says "Everyone has the right to
>>> life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
>>> deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
>>> justice." (The exception refers to people convicted of criminal offenses
>>> and therefore imprisoned.)
>> -----
>> Well slavery WAS legal in Canada.
>
>Slavery was outlawed in the British Empire before Canada came to exist
>as a state.
----
True as a state; you didn't differentiate before, although maybe I
should've inferred by the comparison to the US Constitution and the
Dominion of Canada's Charter of Rights you meant Canada in 1867 and
later.
wrote:
>On 6/10/2013 6:09 AM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:52:25 -0600, David Johnston
>> <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/9/2013 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <2d458085-ebba-47f9...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> On 6/9/2013 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the Wiki summery;
>>>>
>>>>> "She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>>>>> and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>>>>
>>>>> Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>>>>> court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>>>>> show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>>>>> how this all falls out.
>>>>
>>>> But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment.
>>>>
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what I think is behind the Orphan Black conspiracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the Wiki summery;
>>>>
>>>>> "She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>>>>> and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>>>>>
>>>>> Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>>>>> court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>>>>> show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>>>>> how this all falls out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Canada didn't need one since slavery was never legal in Canada. However
>>> section seven of the Charter of Rights says "Everyone has the right to
>>> life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
>>> deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
>>> justice." (The exception refers to people convicted of criminal offenses
>>> and therefore imprisoned.)
>> -----
>> Well slavery WAS legal in Canada.
>
>Slavery was outlawed in the British Empire before Canada came to exist
>as a state.
----
True as a state; you didn't differentiate before, although maybe I
should've inferred by the comparison to the US Constitution and the
Dominion of Canada's Charter of Rights you meant Canada in 1867 and
later.
JM Morrison
Jun 13, 2013, 6:59:42 PM6/13/13
to
imprisonment or quarantine. It comes down to whether your DNA is your
own property... more of copyright issue. If they take it and copy it,
they have to pay you for it.
>>
>> Interesting question.
>
> The field of medical ethics is already having a hard time keeping up
> with the advancements in the field--advancements that are being made at
> an ever-increasing rate...
>
http://www.newsdaily.com/article/b87fd282fce746116dd41abed31c0099/us-court-says-human-genes-cannot-be-patented
original natural DNA cannot be patented, but according to this decision
synthetically created DNA can be.
-jmm
Jim G.
Jun 14, 2013, 11:33:44 AM6/14/13
to
JM Morrison sent the following on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:59:42 -0700:
Or as I referenced it elsewhere yesterday, Common Sense 1, D-Bag Patent
Trolls 0.
This one was more or less a no-brainer of the "We need the courts to
tell us this?" variety, which surely helps to explain why it was a
unanimous decision. But there are already all kinds of issues that are
much more gray, with many more to come as new discoveries are made and
new ways to fiddle with nature are considered and investigated.
But whether it's biomedicine or tech or anything else, something
*really* needs to be done about patent law and patent trolls. Just as
abuse of the legal system by trial lawyers ultimately led to significant
changes in both the medical and legal systems, patent lawyers are going
to lead to a complete overhaul of how new inventions and discoveries are
handled. But it all starts with *not* humoring people who want to patent
things like air and water. And yes, I have one eye on Cupertino as I say
that.
Trolls 0.
This one was more or less a no-brainer of the "We need the courts to
tell us this?" variety, which surely helps to explain why it was a
unanimous decision. But there are already all kinds of issues that are
much more gray, with many more to come as new discoveries are made and
new ways to fiddle with nature are considered and investigated.
But whether it's biomedicine or tech or anything else, something
*really* needs to be done about patent law and patent trolls. Just as
abuse of the legal system by trial lawyers ultimately led to significant
changes in both the medical and legal systems, patent lawyers are going
to lead to a complete overhaul of how new inventions and discoveries are
handled. But it all starts with *not* humoring people who want to patent
things like air and water. And yes, I have one eye on Cupertino as I say
that.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 14, 2013, 12:02:34 PM6/14/13
to
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>JM Morrison sent the following on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:59:42 -0700:
>>On 13/06/2013 8:58 AM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>The field of medical ethics is already having a hard time keeping up
>>>with the advancements in the field--advancements that are being made at
>>>an ever-increasing rate...
>>And on that note...
>>http://www.newsdaily.com/article/b87fd282fce746116dd41abed31c0099/us-court-says-human-genes-cannot-be-patented
>>original natural DNA cannot be patented, but according to this decision
>>synthetically created DNA can be.
>Or as I referenced it elsewhere yesterday, Common Sense 1, D-Bag Patent
>Trolls 0.
>This one was more or less a no-brainer of the "We need the courts to
>tell us this?" variety, which surely helps to explain why it was a
>unanimous decision. . . .
>JM Morrison sent the following on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:59:42 -0700:
>>On 13/06/2013 8:58 AM, Jim G. wrote:
>>>The field of medical ethics is already having a hard time keeping up
>>>with the advancements in the field--advancements that are being made at
>>>an ever-increasing rate...
>>And on that note...
>>http://www.newsdaily.com/article/b87fd282fce746116dd41abed31c0099/us-court-says-human-genes-cannot-be-patented
>>original natural DNA cannot be patented, but according to this decision
>>synthetically created DNA can be.
>Or as I referenced it elsewhere yesterday, Common Sense 1, D-Bag Patent
>Trolls 0.
>This one was more or less a no-brainer of the "We need the courts to
>tell us this?" variety, which surely helps to explain why it was a
Well, no, we need Congress to amend the law so these patents aren't issued
or are invalidated, and we need to make it far less onerous and costly for
those accused of infringing on an apparently specious patent to defend
themselves. This crap gets litigated because Congress won't do its job.
William December Starr
Jun 15, 2013, 12:09:22 AM6/15/13
to
In article <o0lgr818u9mto2pc7...@4ax.com>,
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>> In either form, slavery was outlawed so no one can be a volunteer
>> slave in any form because we as a society-western society and
>> most of the other world at least-say that humans cannot own other
>> humans even for a sort period of time in most cases.
>>
>> The one exception is a sentence of hard labor in a prison after due
>> process in a court of law and guilt is found; but even hard labor
>> sentence is rarely used today if it hasn't been outlawed outright.
>
> There is a second exception, which is mandatory military service.
Not in the U.S. Constitution there isn't. (Nor for jury duty, for
that matter.)
-- wds
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>> In either form, slavery was outlawed so no one can be a volunteer
>> slave in any form because we as a society-western society and
>> most of the other world at least-say that humans cannot own other
>> humans even for a sort period of time in most cases.
>>
>> The one exception is a sentence of hard labor in a prison after due
>> process in a court of law and guilt is found; but even hard labor
>> sentence is rarely used today if it hasn't been outlawed outright.
>
> There is a second exception, which is mandatory military service.
that matter.)
-- wds
Hunter
Jun 15, 2013, 9:48:41 AM6/15/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:00:00 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>> sent someplace to work against your will as part of your
>> punishment/restitution to society. They did, for a while at least,
>> bring back the chain gang and in prison anyone know if they still make
>> prisoners make license plates and other things for the state if you
>> don't want to?).
>
>Yes.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries
>
>Technically refusing to work IS allowed in theory, but since that will
>lead to a longer prison term for most inmates and loss of privileges,
>that's more of a technicality than a reality.
----
Thanks. This in particular caught my eye:
"Under current law, all physically able inmates who are not a security
risk or have a health exception are required to work, either for
UNICOR or at some other prison job."
BTW I also said this:
"In the old days as recently as 50 years ago the government could
perform medical experiments on you without the convict's consent."
I forgot to mention that was a key plot point in the short lived sci
fi show "Alcatraz" in which the inmates were subjected to medical
experiments-and time travel experiments-without their consent.
Maybe, maybe if you stretch it you can also make an argument for the
draft-and jury duty LOL! You can get jail time for evading both so
that is compulsion.
Not by kidnapping Kira.
It turns on the question is the Clones are totally artificial or not I
believe. If they as mentioned before clones the way we think of them
that are twins (triplets, quadruplets etc) made from splitting pre
existing human DNA then I would agree the contract is unenforceable
and Alison has nothing to worry about.
But if they are made from DNA completely from scratch, that is made
from base chemicals, that mankind has found a way to replicate how
life started on Earth, just skipping over about 2 billion years and
make an artificial humanoid then the question is an interesting one.
wrote:
>On 6/11/2013 5:27 PM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>On 6/11/2013 5:27 PM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>> The one exception is a sentence of hard labor in a prison after due
>> process in a court of law and guilt is found; but even hard labor
>> sentence is rarely used today if it hasn't been outlawed outright.
>> "Community Service" is the closest form of this I can think of, being
>> process in a court of law and guilt is found; but even hard labor
>> sentence is rarely used today if it hasn't been outlawed outright.
>> sent someplace to work against your will as part of your
>> punishment/restitution to society. They did, for a while at least,
>> bring back the chain gang and in prison anyone know if they still make
>> prisoners make license plates and other things for the state if you
>> don't want to?).
>
>Yes.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries
>
>Technically refusing to work IS allowed in theory, but since that will
>lead to a longer prison term for most inmates and loss of privileges,
>that's more of a technicality than a reality.
----
Thanks. This in particular caught my eye:
"Under current law, all physically able inmates who are not a security
risk or have a health exception are required to work, either for
UNICOR or at some other prison job."
BTW I also said this:
"In the old days as recently as 50 years ago the government could
perform medical experiments on you without the convict's consent."
I forgot to mention that was a key plot point in the short lived sci
fi show "Alcatraz" in which the inmates were subjected to medical
experiments-and time travel experiments-without their consent.
Maybe, maybe if you stretch it you can also make an argument for the
draft-and jury duty LOL! You can get jail time for evading both so
that is compulsion.
>
>> Now in the plot of "Orphan Black" it is not a contract to do work for
>> a set period of time, but out right ownership of that person-
>
>Oh I don't think so. Such a contract would be unenforcible even though
>they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of the clones
>What they were shooting for was compliance with their program of
>diagnostics and blood sampling.
-----
>> Now in the plot of "Orphan Black" it is not a contract to do work for
>> a set period of time, but out right ownership of that person-
>
>Oh I don't think so. Such a contract would be unenforcible even though
>they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of the clones
>What they were shooting for was compliance with their program of
>diagnostics and blood sampling.
Not by kidnapping Kira.
It turns on the question is the Clones are totally artificial or not I
believe. If they as mentioned before clones the way we think of them
that are twins (triplets, quadruplets etc) made from splitting pre
existing human DNA then I would agree the contract is unenforceable
and Alison has nothing to worry about.
But if they are made from DNA completely from scratch, that is made
from base chemicals, that mankind has found a way to replicate how
life started on Earth, just skipping over about 2 billion years and
make an artificial humanoid then the question is an interesting one.
David Johnston
Jun 15, 2013, 12:13:09 PM6/15/13
to
On 6/15/2013 7:48 AM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>>
>>> Now in the plot of "Orphan Black" it is not a contract to do work for
>>> a set period of time, but out right ownership of that person-
>>
>> Oh I don't think so. Such a contract would be unenforcible even though
>> they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of the clones
>> What they were shooting for was compliance with their program of
>> diagnostics and blood sampling.
> -----
> Not by kidnapping Kira.
Kidnapping Kira was their reaction to Sarah's refusal to comply.
>>
>>> Now in the plot of "Orphan Black" it is not a contract to do work for
>>> a set period of time, but out right ownership of that person-
>>
>> Oh I don't think so. Such a contract would be unenforcible even though
>> they feel that they do have a moral right to ownership of the clones
>> What they were shooting for was compliance with their program of
>> diagnostics and blood sampling.
> -----
> Not by kidnapping Kira.
>
> It turns on the question is the Clones are totally artificial or not I
> believe.
understanding of genetics when they started the experiment.
Mason Barge
Jun 15, 2013, 12:14:04 PM6/15/13
to
On 15 Jun 2013 00:09:22 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
How many times do we have to go through the tedious process of people
dickering about what to call Constitutional provisions that are not
specifically stated in the Constitution?
It's just a definitional issue. But it's like listening to someone
post that "decimate" means only the destruction of one-tenth, for the
hundredth time.
dickering about what to call Constitutional provisions that are not
specifically stated in the Constitution?
It's just a definitional issue. But it's like listening to someone
post that "decimate" means only the destruction of one-tenth, for the
hundredth time.
BTR1701
Jun 15, 2013, 3:58:13 PM6/15/13
to
Hunter
Jun 16, 2013, 9:45:28 AM6/16/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:14:24 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>>>On 6/9/2013 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>law against it it is legal by default. Yes the US Constitution once
>>protected slavery and so had to pass an amendment to constitutionally
>>get rid of it but before that the Southern Founding Fathers had the
>>Constitution protect it from *becoming* illegal not to make it legal.
>
>>But Canada eventually had to pass a law abolishing it just like the US
>>as you point out above because it was also legal to have slaves there
>>too, just that there wasn't a article in the founding documents a
>>clause to help keep it so and then had to abolish that to make slavery
>>illegal.
>
>Could you read the rest of the thread, Hunter? Johnston told us whatever
>slavery existed was minor and only during the colonial era, and separately
>abolished in Upper and Lower Canada and the Maritime area. You do know in
>1833, slavery was abolished throughout the British empire (with two
>exceptions), so all this happened decades before Dominion of Canada.
>
>So, no, slavery was not legal when its first national constitution
>was written.
--------
I try to answer a specific post before I read the others usually.
Starting with the thread leader and then the ones that also answered
the thread leader first.
At anyrate he didn't differentiate between the colonial era and the
dominion era. Even if the Nation of Canada didn't exist yet, the
region was still called Canada and it had slavery. As you point out it
was abolished in Upper and Lower Canada which of course means it was
legal before then.
But yes the Dominion of Canada in 1867 and later didn't have slavery
at the time of the Charter of Rights was adopted.
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>>>On 6/9/2013 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>According to the Wiki summery;
>
>>>>>"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>>>>>and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>
>>>>>Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>>>>>court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>>>>>show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>>>>>how this all falls out.
>
>>>>But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment.
>
>>>Canada didn't need one since slavery was never legal in Canada. However
>>>section seven of the Charter of Rights says "Everyone has the right to
>>>life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
>>>deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
>>>justice." (The exception refers to people convicted of criminal offenses
>>>and therefore imprisoned.)
>
>>Well slavery WAS legal in Canada. In the legal world if there is no
>
>>>>>According to the Wiki summery;
>
>>>>>"She [soccer mom Alison] signed the contract giving ownership,
>>>>>and patent rights, of herself to the Neolutionists."
>
>>>>>Which sounds like BS to me, as this equals slavery and no
>>>>>court on the planet would allow that, but then it is a sci-fi
>>>>>show (and a cool one at that) so we'll have to wait and see
>>>>>how this all falls out.
>
>>>>But Canadia doesn't have a 13th Amendment.
>
>>>Canada didn't need one since slavery was never legal in Canada. However
>>>section seven of the Charter of Rights says "Everyone has the right to
>>>life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
>>>deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
>>>justice." (The exception refers to people convicted of criminal offenses
>>>and therefore imprisoned.)
>
>>law against it it is legal by default. Yes the US Constitution once
>>protected slavery and so had to pass an amendment to constitutionally
>>get rid of it but before that the Southern Founding Fathers had the
>>Constitution protect it from *becoming* illegal not to make it legal.
>
>>But Canada eventually had to pass a law abolishing it just like the US
>>as you point out above because it was also legal to have slaves there
>>too, just that there wasn't a article in the founding documents a
>>clause to help keep it so and then had to abolish that to make slavery
>>illegal.
>
>Could you read the rest of the thread, Hunter? Johnston told us whatever
>slavery existed was minor and only during the colonial era, and separately
>abolished in Upper and Lower Canada and the Maritime area. You do know in
>1833, slavery was abolished throughout the British empire (with two
>exceptions), so all this happened decades before Dominion of Canada.
>
>So, no, slavery was not legal when its first national constitution
>was written.
--------
I try to answer a specific post before I read the others usually.
Starting with the thread leader and then the ones that also answered
the thread leader first.
At anyrate he didn't differentiate between the colonial era and the
dominion era. Even if the Nation of Canada didn't exist yet, the
region was still called Canada and it had slavery. As you point out it
was abolished in Upper and Lower Canada which of course means it was
legal before then.
But yes the Dominion of Canada in 1867 and later didn't have slavery
at the time of the Charter of Rights was adopted.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 16, 2013, 2:55:40 PM6/16/13
to
>I try to answer a specific post before I read the others usually.
>Starting with the thread leader and then the ones that also answered
>the thread leader first.
When there'd been some discussion of a tangential issue, it's more than
>Starting with the thread leader and then the ones that also answered
>the thread leader first.
likely that the matter had been thoroughly discussed if not clarified,
and you're followup wouldn't add anything to the discussion.
Plus, you enjoy adding recriminations and bitterness, as you did here:
>At anyrate he didn't differentiate between the colonial era and the
>dominion era.
--begin quote--
From: David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com>
Date: Mon Jun 10 02:02:33 CDT 2013
Message-ID: <kp3tcc$ot6$1...@dont-email.me>
On 6/9/2013 6:51 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>I have no idea to what extent slavery existed in Canada.
Not a lot. Upper Canada (What would later be named Ontario) passed a
law against it in 1793, and while Lower Canada (Quebec) and the
Maritimes kept it for longer, they never had plantion agriculture or
mines at the time so it was just a few house servants and wasn't that
hard to let go of.
--end quote--
>Even if the Nation of Canada didn't exist yet, the region was still
>called Canada and it had slavery.
During that period in which apparently nothing more than household slavery
existed, no, that part of British North America wasn't called "Canada"
but "The Canadas" for the separate provinces of Upper Canada and Lower
Canada. The two colonies were merged into Province of Canada in 1841,
and then Canada became a dominion in 1867, effectively a nation but
subject to Parliament to revise its Constitution.
The Maritimes, which Johnston also referred to, were not called "Canada"
during the period in question when they had a minor amount of slavery,
and wouldn't be "Canada" till New Brunswick and Nova Scotia confederated
with Province of Canada to form the Dominion of Canada in 1867. The third
Maritime province, Prince Edward Island, wouldn't confederate into Canada
until 1873.
Note that the other Atlantic province, Newfoundland and Labrador, didn't
confederate into Canada until 1949 after suffering under years of scandal
from crushing national debt in the early 1930's. Newfoundland was a
Dominion from 1907 till 1949. A border dispute with regard to Labrador
being claimed by Lower Canada in the early 1800s (continued after Quebec
became a province in 1867) was settled by Parliament in 1927 when Labrador
was made part of Newfoundland. Johnston didn't address slavery in this
area, if any, but as I happened to look up the dates, I'm mentioning it
for completeness and don't always recall that Newfoundland wasn't one of
the Maritimes.
>As you point out it was abolished in Upper and Lower Canada which of
>course means it was legal before then.
don't agree that legislation specifically abolishing a practice indicated
it was legal. In one of the portions that is written, Magna Carta, I don't
recall a legal basis for slavery (although there could have been one for
serfdom). Perhaps it was never litigated, a la a slave who questioned
his status never had the ability to get into court, hardly unlikely in
the frontier.
British North America was corporate owned when the British began exploiting
it and prior to various portions of what's now Canada being governed as
colonies. Maybe the royal charters allowed some slavery, but I'm not
looking it up.
>But yes the Dominion of Canada in 1867 and later didn't have slavery
>at the time of the Charter of Rights was adopted.
with two exceptions.
William December Starr
Jun 17, 2013, 8:42:16 AM6/17/13
to
In article <bh4pr85bh60tm0ji6...@4ax.com>,
>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
[ re the 13 Amendment ]
>>> There is a second exception, which is mandatory military
>>> service.
>>
>> Not in the U.S. Constitution there isn't. (Nor for jury duty,
>> for that matter.)
>
> How many times do we have to go through the tedious process of
> people dickering about what to call Constitutional provisions that
> are not specifically stated in the Constitution?
How did "Military conscription is an exception to the 13 Amendment"
become a Constitutional provision?
-- wds
>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
[ re the 13 Amendment ]
>>> There is a second exception, which is mandatory military
>>> service.
>>
>> Not in the U.S. Constitution there isn't. (Nor for jury duty,
>> for that matter.)
>
> How many times do we have to go through the tedious process of
> people dickering about what to call Constitutional provisions that
> are not specifically stated in the Constitution?
become a Constitutional provision?
-- wds
Mason Barge
Jun 17, 2013, 2:37:13 PM6/17/13
to
On 17 Jun 2013 08:42:16 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
abortion did.
Starr) wrote:
>In article <bh4pr85bh60tm0ji6...@4ax.com>,
>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
>
>[ re the 13 Amendment ]
>
>>>> There is a second exception, which is mandatory military
>>>> service.
>>>
>>> Not in the U.S. Constitution there isn't. (Nor for jury duty,
>>> for that matter.)
>>
>> How many times do we have to go through the tedious process of
>> people dickering about what to call Constitutional provisions that
>> are not specifically stated in the Constitution?
>
>How did "Military conscription is an exception to the 13 Amendment"
>become a Constitutional provision?
The same way that rights to privacy and the right to choose to have an
>In article <bh4pr85bh60tm0ji6...@4ax.com>,
>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
>
>[ re the 13 Amendment ]
>
>>>> There is a second exception, which is mandatory military
>>>> service.
>>>
>>> Not in the U.S. Constitution there isn't. (Nor for jury duty,
>>> for that matter.)
>>
>> How many times do we have to go through the tedious process of
>> people dickering about what to call Constitutional provisions that
>> are not specifically stated in the Constitution?
>
>How did "Military conscription is an exception to the 13 Amendment"
>become a Constitutional provision?
abortion did.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 17, 2013, 3:27:59 PM6/17/13
to
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
>>>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
>>[ re the 13 Amendment ]
>>>>>There is a second exception, which is mandatory military
>>>>>service.
>>>>Not in the U.S. Constitution there isn't. (Nor for jury duty,
>>>>for that matter.)
>>>How many times do we have to go through the tedious process of
>>>people dickering about what to call Constitutional provisions that
>>>are not specifically stated in the Constitution?
>>How did "Military conscription is an exception to the 13 Amendment"
>>become a Constitutional provision?
>The same way that rights to privacy and the right to choose to have an
>abortion did.
The right to privacy is an unenumerated right of the 9th Amendment, in part.
>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
>>>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
>>[ re the 13 Amendment ]
>>>>>There is a second exception, which is mandatory military
>>>>>service.
>>>>Not in the U.S. Constitution there isn't. (Nor for jury duty,
>>>>for that matter.)
>>>How many times do we have to go through the tedious process of
>>>people dickering about what to call Constitutional provisions that
>>>are not specifically stated in the Constitution?
>>How did "Military conscription is an exception to the 13 Amendment"
>>become a Constitutional provision?
>The same way that rights to privacy and the right to choose to have an
>abortion did.
How the hell does consciption flow from the 9th?
0 new messages