Human Cloning

[Remote_Access_]

In MHO, I think human cloning is wrong and moraly incorrect. I was wondering what your views on the subject is and why? I was reading about human cloning (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Science/Cloning/) and stem cell research (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Science/Stem_Cell_Research) and I came to the conclusion that science has went too far this time. This is where the proverbial "line" needs to be drawn. It's one thing to do research and experiments with animals but when you start useing unborn human cells for a mad lab experiment you need to realize that this is where the line need to be drawn. As the saying goes,
"The buck stops here."

I can see as to why they would want to create a cure for all of those illnesses but tradeing one life for another hardly seems fair, especialy one that hasn't even been born. Researchers already have a set number of embryos and cells that they can experiment with in labs but it's not enough for them. They want more cells, more money, and a law to make human cloning acceptable.. Any way, what's your opinion on the subject?

Remote_Access_

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted by Remote_Access_
In MHO, I think human cloning is wrong and moraly incorrect. I was wondering what your views on the subject is and why?


<Puts on flame proof suit>


Personally, I'm amazed at what science is now capable of and not being a religous person I have little moral dilema with the subject. Although, I also understand (but am not sympathetic with) peoples concerns about human cloning.


This topic is closely related to the abortion debate and I suppose it's up to the individuals opinion of when a human embryo is actually considered human.

[Remote_Access_]

<Puts on flame proof suit>

Although it is amazing at the capabilities that science is capable of I find it some what disturbing that this sort of research is being conducted. I'm not a religious holier than thou person but I do find it to be interesting.. It's not really up to the individuals any more.. it's in the name of science and when ever they say it's considered a human it's considered a human, despite what the public belives.

Remote_Access_

[thor]

I really have to agree with R_A_ on this, anway that's just my opinion.

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted by Remote_Access_
[BIt's not really up to the individuals any more.. it's in the name of science and when ever they say it's considered a human it's considered a human, despite what the public belives.

Remote_Access_ [/B]


I understand that science believes that it's NOT considered a true human at just the embryo stage of life where as alot of religous leaders do, especially catholic. Have you seen Monty Python's "The meaning of life"?. Every sperm is sacred, let the heathens fall in the dust:rofl:


What if, through human cloning, your life was saved?



Anyway, I think I'm going to leave this one alone. I've just started to get back a few antipoints and I'd hate lose them again!


Good post...

[Ennis]

Although being an atheist despite whatever efforts my society put into making a devote Catholic I think that progress of this kind will eventually occur regardless of opposition.

Personally either way Im not overly interested, maybe my mind will change when it is put before me but we'll see...

[Remote_Access_]

No, I haven't seen that one. I wouldn't go so far as to say that every sperm is sacred, that's a little extreme. I wouldn't want my life to be saved by human cloning. I'd rather die....
One Remote_Access_ is enough in this world and a duplicate just wouldn't be the same. :D Thanks for your reply though..

Remote_Access_

[Negative]

There seem to be three reasons why people are against the cloning of human beings:

1. Mutation of genes : the techniques used for cloning are far from perfect; a solution would be to pre-maturely 'destroy the disfigured monsters'. That brings us back to the abortion-discussion...

Most scientists still DO believe it's too soon to actually start cloning humans.

Originally posted by Remote_Access
They want more cells, more money, and a law to make human cloning acceptable..

Maybe they want 'more cells, money, and a law to make it acceptable' so they can continue their research, and thus prevent malicious 'scientists' to start using the techniques available already... I agree it's too soon, but it once was too soon for test-tube babies also...

2. Emotional problems: identity problems that is; What happens to a marriage when the "father" sees his wife's clone grow up into the exact replica (by appearance) of the beautiful 18 year old he fell in love with 35 years ago?

Clones are not identical human beings. Compare it with identical twins, only there is a delay on their date of birth... Identical twins also are clones, but their still are unique individuals...

3. Abuse: Hitler...clones...hmmm....

This is IMO the most valid arguement, and at the same time a dangerous one. Everything ever invented has been subject to abuse...

4. Religious reasons.

Religion should not shape science policy... We've seen what that has lead to in the past...

[dspeidel]

I think cloning should be closely monitoried but I think the research could be benefitical. I also think it would be great if we could figure out a way to grow organs in the lab -without them being associated with a mind. this would greatly reduce the number of people who die while waiting for a transplant. This is years in the future.

I see the transplants as being created in a labortory without a mother. Grown completely syntitically (similar to the company in the movie the 6th Day).

Cheers,
-D

[THEJRC]

I must say

I am amazed at everyone who's posted so far as no actual "flames" have been introduced into the thread!! This means theres intelligence by jove! I hope we can keep it this way!

As far as the advent of human cloning goes, I see two possible problems.

1. We are in fact, too far away from the "perfect" clone, this means trouble in the beginning, Experimentation is only as good as the controlled environment it is placed in, if we use odd cells in such medical experiments, we cannot guarantee the results to be perfect. This doesnt bother me with small things, but something as signifigant as a heart transplant or other life supportive reason I'm shaky!!

2. Yes, it is subject to abuse, much like marijuana, alcohol, or even the source code available in the downloads section of this site.

The second negative holds no difference from anything else in existance, I can misuse anything around me... anything!!

The positive to this is that researchers have better and more available materials with wich to operate with. This means sooner answers to diabetes, cancer, alzheimers, etc. Considering the benefits, it is easy to see why people are for the method.

Unfortunately, I'll stand behind negative number one... untill we can learn better controll over such research, and perfect the actuall cloning process there is no point in going forward other than to provide skewed test results, and a lot of controversy.

BTW. I'm not wearing a flame proof suit.. so dont burn me tushy plz he he

~JRC~

[Tedob1]

why would anyone want to clone a human? don't we have enough people on this planet we can't take care of now?

Cloning organs from cells or growing skin is fantastic, but an entire human. what for?

Somebody can't have children, so why force them to give an orphan a home when we can whip one up in the lab. screw the homeless.

Take that research money and feed the starving.

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted by Tedob1
why would anyone want to clone a human? don't we have enough people on this planet we can't take care of now?


That's a very good point. I had never really given the social implications of human cloning a thought. But as pointed out previously, we are still a long way off cloning an entire human. Probably wont happen in our lifetime, although I'm kinda hoping I'm around to see the results. It's more "human organs" at this point in time. Just imagine, a cure for cancer or other such marvellous medical breakthoughs....:)

[THEJRC]

don't we have enough people on this planet we can't take care of now?

hmmm so very true, but then again there are ways of fixing the worlds population control problem without being what us americans call "inhumane"

More often than not, in most small overpopulated countries it is simply due to no birth control. This is because the Catholic church has always been against it. I'm not against catholics (half my family is hardcore catholic) but a lot of their ideas need work. as do most religions.

back to the subject here... in many cases where a full test subject is needed, a simple cloned cell or even many cloned cells is not enough for proper diagnosis. Sure they can test on a human, but that would also be considered inhumane as well. This is the controversy. If I were chosen as a test subject for some new cancer cure, I would carefully revue everything before answering... the sad thing is, I would automatically assume that theyre not telling me something. This is the image that medical science has created themselves. I would most likely say "No" because of this fact. A lot of people would.

It gets hard to find willing test subjects. Cloning sounds easier, but I dont think the tradeoffs are worth it at all. The medical industry needs to build a more "honerable" reputation, and place care ahead of $$ to sway the negative views and perhaps more people will be willing to be test subjects themselves.

just a thought

~THEJRC~

[Ouroboros]

I hate to start a post this way, but...

Originally posted by Remote_Access_
This is where the proverbial "line" needs to be drawn. It's one thing to do research and experiments with animals but when you start useing unborn human cells for a mad lab experiment you need to realize that this is where the line need to be drawn.

I fail to see the distinction. That's one thing that bothers me about human beings...since we can think and reason like no other species on the planet, that automatically makes us superior to everything?

Anyways...human cloning, eh? I say go for it. Since I, amongst others, am not the religious sort, I see no moral injustice or ethical fault involved in it. I would assume if a divine being truly stuck us on this rock, s/he would want us to learn as much as we could to be closer to her/him, since s/he would be the possessor of all knowledge. Don't ya think so?

Waddaya mean the world is ROUND?!?

Ouroboros

[wamphyr]

IMHO progress is inevitable wether we want it or not, but we are able to shape the way it goes to a large extent.

So far in history most radical new ideas which are commonplace today were once thought of as being rediculous and the people coming up with them ither insane or immoral.
One of the major things blown out of proportion by the general media with cloning is the idea of cloning a complete human. Theoretically possible, but by 99.9% of scientists not very practical. The idea is to clone the needed parts with identical DNA (or very similar)(ie from the embryo) so as to make replacement as smooth as possible. Admittedly there are those that would like to clone entire humans, but again IMHO they will either succeed and be praised, or flamed off the face of the planet.

<Attaches asbestos vest>

Another questions to consider,

"It is ok to clone animals but not humans, cloning humans is the point where the proverbial line should be drawn"
My question is........ What makes an animal life less valuable than a human life, or a human life any more important? Im neither religious or a greenie but *shrugs* if i cloned your pet dog you'd be pissed right? (heh, unless you were one of those people that didnt give a shit about the topic)

For the record... on the issue of cloning, go for it I say.

I kinda know what kind of things have been blown out of proportion here as i have done some work in the DNA research labs that are very closely intertwined with the cloning issue

Wamphyr

[[WebCarnage]]

Originally posted by Remote_Access_
In MHO, I think human cloning is wrong and moraly incorrect. I was wondering what your views on the subject is and why? I was reading about human cloning (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Science/Cloning/) and stem cell research (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Science/Stem_Cell_Research) and I came to the conclusion that science has went too far this time. This is where the proverbial "line" needs to be drawn. It's one thing to do research and experiments with animals but when you start useing unborn human cells for a mad lab experiment you need to realize that this is where the line need to be drawn. As the saying goes,
"The buck stops here."

I can see as to why they would want to create a cure for all of those illnesses but tradeing one life for another hardly seems fair, especialy one that hasn't even been born. Researchers already have a set number of embryos and cells that they can experiment with in labs but it's not enough for them. They want more cells, more money, and a law to make human cloning acceptable.. Any way, what's your opinion on the subject?

Remote_Access_

In MHO, I think human cloning is a totally fine and morally correct. I don't find anything wrong with it at all. You say there should be a boundaray or 'line'. Why? ...How so? I beleive that there cannot be any boundary or 'line' (as many like to call it) in the field of science. I was just watching TV five minutes ago and it was showing how our age can be increased so we can live up to 200 or 300 years old (this obviously will only be available to only the 'upperclass' or 'the wealthiest' of people; and this is predicted to happen in the next 10-15 years). We can already decrease 10 years of age on us...simply by applying a cream to our skin. Now, if there was a boundary, in this particular field of medicine/science...we might not have been able to achieve such an outstanding feat. Any boundaries or 'lines' stopping scientists from working for the "exiler of life" would just move to the next country if you ask me. I actually am working to become a biogenetcial engineer. So I'm right in with the news. Human cloning is, I beleive, totally moral. I mean, they've already cloned animals. And with perfectly normal signs,...no mutations (although there will be some obviously in the future), nothing that would harm the animals in any way, besides one facter of their life cutting a bit short. Nothing to worry about if scientists have no boundaries or restraints whatsoever.
Yet people say to me: What if the next Hitler or Stalin comes up because of your stupid human cloning. I stress that this cannot happen. And if it could, under the most dire of sercumstances. Just because the same genes of the person are in a certain body, does not mean he will react the same. Now imagine if Hitler, saw his father and mother being killed by some Jews as a child. This might have led him to grow up and start such a mess that he did (this didn't happen, but lets just say). Now, in order for the next Hitler, similar, if not same, activities must occur to the 'second' Hitler in order for him to screw over the world again.
Yet others say, we have to many people on our planet. It's stupid to make more. Well they are partially correct. Mass human cloning isn't going to happen any time soon so we can put that aside. Which leaves what? Just a few, controlled, people will will be born each year. Thats not going to further overpopulate the world over night. Mass human cloning will probably only happen if some mad, socially-deprived pious leader comes into power and orders an army to be created whom are totally homogenous (in-bred I beleive is the lamen's turm).

All I can infer, is that if the project remains CONTROLED, I think it is fine. I would love to do something like this as a profession actually...this stuff fascinates me. Imagine, though, for a minute...living to be 300 years old. This probably would not be benificial if EVERYBODY used this. But imagine spaceflights. This is one less detail to worry about while traveling to distant places, distant lands, distant information,...possibly; distant life.

[Remote_Access_]

Before some of you even read this, yes I know how to use the quote feature. It would take up too much space in this post so I just use the quotation marks. ;)

"I think human cloning is a totally fine and morally correct. "
- Erm.. I still have to disagree but thanks for repling. :)

"I don't find anything wrong with it at all. "
- I do, i find it disturbing when scientist try to play God.

"You say there should be a boundaray or 'line'. Why? ...How so?"
- Because there should be certain limitations on what can be allowed in the name of science.

"I beleive that there cannot be any boundary or 'line' (as many like to call it) in the field of science."
- I agree that there cannot be a boundary or 'line' either but I still think that there SHOULD be.
Despite what I and many other individuals think, we cannot stop the research and practice of studying stem cells and human cloning. It's just a matter of time and a very short time at that.

"I was just watching TV five minutes ago and it was showing how our age can be increased so we can live up to 200 or 300 years old (this obviously will only be available to only the 'upperclass' or 'the wealthiest' of people; and this is predicted to happen in the next 10-15 years). "
- I see your point. Even if a cure is developed for all of these diseases described on the news and all over the internet, it's not going to be for the vast majority of people. It will mainly be for the 'uperclass'.

"We can already decrease 10 years of age on us...simply by applying a cream to our skin. "
- See, science in progress. I don't want to extend my time here artificaly. When it's time to go, it's time to go and I'm not going to argue about it.

"Now, if there was a boundary, in this particular field of medicine/science...we might not have been able to achieve such an outstanding feat. Any boundaries or 'lines' stopping scientists from working for the "exiler of life" would just move to the next country if you ask me."
- Now the cream isn't that bad but useing what could be future human life is just unreasonable if you ask me.

I actually am working to become a biogenetcial engineer. So I'm right in with the news.
- Grats and good luck with your studies. :)

Human cloning is, I beleive, totally moral. I mean, they've already cloned animals.
- I still have to disagree. There's a big difference between animals and humans.

"And with perfectly normal signs,...no mutations (although there will be some obviously in the future), nothing that would harm the animals in any way, besides one facter of their life cutting a bit short. Nothing to worry about if scientists have no boundaries or restraints whatsoever. "
- I read some where that doll the sheep has some sort of disease, not sure what it is but points to who ever finds out.

Yet people say to me: What if the next Hitler or Stalin comes up because of your stupid human cloning.
- Just immagine the terror... WW III

"I stress that this cannot happen. And if it could, under the most dire of sercumstances. Just because the same genes of the person are in a certain body, does not mean he will react the same"
- I don't even want to think about another Hitler or Stalin. I disagree though. It could happen but that dosen't mean it will..

"...Mass human cloning isn't going to happen any time soon so we can put that aside. "
- Hopefuly mass human cloning isn't going to happen at all. ;)

"...Imagine, though, for a minute...living to be 300 years old."
- Once again, when it's time for me to go, it's time for me to go. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

"This probably would not be benificial if EVERYBODY used this. But imagine spaceflights. This is one less detail to worry about while traveling to distant places, distant lands, distant information,...possibly; distant life."
- Hrmm... I love Earth. I don't want to go to a different planet but if anyone dose leave the 'Home Planet' send me a post card. :D

BTW, A human life is far more significant than an animal life.

Thanks for all of your replies,
Remote_Access_

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by Remote_Access_
BTW, A human life is far more significant than an animal life.
[/B]

Would you mind, then, if i put your kitty in a clamp and kept on tightening the screw?...

Ouroboros

[Negative]

Originally posted by Remote_Access
It is ok to clone animals but not humans, cloning humans is the point where the proverbial line should be drawn"

And in reply to that statement:

Originally posted by wamphyr
My question is........ What makes an animal life less valuable than a human life, or a human life any more important? Im neither religious or a greenie but *shrugs* if i cloned your pet dog you'd be pissed right? (heh, unless you were one of those people that didnt give a shit about the topic)

and

Originally posted by Ouroboros
Would you mind, then, if i put your kitty in a clamp and kept on tightening the screw?...

Those are interesting questions, but not to the point IMO...
Playing on human feelings is not an argument for your point of view. How about I reverse the question: If you have to choose between your dog and your significant other, who would you choose? Dirty question, and not to the point ;) It's even a problem that only humans face.
AFAIK, most animals don't have morals, and I'm pretty sure your pet dog would choose for himself if asked the same question. Survival of the fittest, anyone? Maybe your dog will mourn if he sees you in a clamp, but only because he depends on you for his own survival...

I DO believe a human life is worth more than that of an animal, just like I believe a horse's life is worth more than that of a fly.

And Ouroboros: I'm pretty sure Remote WOULD mind... Why? Because he's human ;)
And that 'feeling of sympathy' is, amongst others, what distinguishes human beings from animals...

[hot_ice]

I'll keep it short and sweet - I believe cloning is ok if you do some small research or whatever in trying to find a cure. However, cloning a human is something that I just simply do not want to see...anyone ever seen Blade Runner??

Greg

[wamphyr]

To choose between a significant other or my dog. My answer, both or neither.... honestly.

A hypothetical, but likely situation for you to consider.
You have a child who is 10 years old. She is the dearest thing you have ever seen, But she has a terminal disease that could be solved with cells of cloned tissue. However, there is a catch, for this technique to be completed they must come from that of a human embryo.... There are many people disagreeing that this procedure should be allowed, but this is *your* daughters life here..... which side of the line would you stand on.

Many of our arguments, not all however, fail to recognise through ignorance or prior beliefs the veiws of those who are in need, or whose relatives are sick and need treatment. Take some time and think what your reaction would be if someone who was dying, but could be helped, was a family member of yours. Where would you stand... and why? and based on what principles?

Im not saying any one view is right. but should one persons view be allowed to hinder anothers?

Only through these intitial stages can we reach something more desireable. We never reached the moon without blowing up a few monkeys beforehand.

And a little obscure fact you can all chew on is that for 90% of the procedures that did require an embryo, there are now more advanced alternatives that do *not* require this sort of pre-human life to be destroyed. One fact that has been carefully obscured by the media at large to continue one large hype session. The other 10% is well on its way as well.

Wamphyr

[VictorKaum]

Originally posted by Negative

I DO believe a human life is worth more than that of an animal, just like I believe a horse's life is worth more than that of a fly.

And Ouroboros: I'm pretty sure Remote WOULD mind... Why? Because he's human ;)
And that 'feeling of sympathy' is, amongst others, what distinguishes human beings from animals...

This is speciesism... but true... when you are at a boat with two humans and a dog and the boat is overloaded... which one are you going to dump... I think most of us will dump the dog...

About cloning: several points against:

- we don't know about long term medical problems with clones
What if the clones have some involuntary defections...?

- psychosocial problems, like the identity problem stated by Negative
the problem goes for both sides... the cloned child does exactly know how she or he is going to be... help. Next this clone could be able to know her/his own death: if the original dies from a hart disease the clone will know that this could happen to her/him too.
Identity is a very strong argument against cloning

- Ethical issues... the nazi's tried to perform eugenetics... when we are able to clone we will only clone people that look and are like the standard describes. We will clone good/perfect people and that's the same objective the Nazi's wanted to accomplish with their Arien race. For instance all girls will look the same following the current life form and set of rules and habbits that create this form. At a first glance this is very good all are beautifull ... but at second thought... all individuality will be lost, the same goes for creativity. It will anounce the end of the human race like it is now. And introduce a new race of all look a likes. The unique differences will be lost.

[rcgreen]

Now, we've all seen The Matrix, and probably Dracula.
Maybe they want to farm millions of clones,
who could be legally classified as "non-human"
(because those in power will make these decisions),
suck the life essense from them so that an elite upper
class could have "eternal life".
In Lord of the Rings, the ringwraiths lusted for power
and recieved unnatural long life, but paid a terrible
price. Personally, I'm glad that god has imposed a time
limit on a person's life.
It limits the amount of mischief any one individual
can perpetrate. When scientific technicians try
to dismiss religious input on this issue, it is an
illegitemate attempt to force conclusions before
there has been a full debate.
Scientists have no special unassailable status that
entitles them to make these decisions without
my input.
:cool:

[hot_ice]

Just remembered another movie - GATTICA. Tell me you want the world to end up like this?? NO WAY!!!

We live in a world where anything can happen. Things are left to chance. What if we were to take cloning to the ultimate level? It leads to the question - "Should we play GOD?". I think not. Life is a wonderful thing and yes, if we can preserve someones life by surgery, by all means - ofcourse. But where is the line drawn?

When I think of cloning, the first thing that pops in my head is a mirror image of myself standing right next to me, having the exact same features I do - that's a scary thought, and one I wouldn't like to come true. But we all know this isn't all cloning is.

If we think about the long term effects of cloning - will we see something similar to GATTICA? It's not easy to figure out where this line should be drawn. Who wouldn't mind seeing a world where your child is born and doctor's can tell you exactly how it's life would turn out - at what age it will die, from what cause, etc. We say, 'oh, it'll never happen' - but I believe it can happen. I would hate for it to happen, but it can. Many years ago people would have thought it is impossible to stitch someones hand off once it's been lost - but it has been done. People would have thought it be impossible to create an artificial heart and save someone's life with it - but now, it has been done.

The we now think is impossible, can come true. We cannot just let cloning be and see what happens with it, there have to be limits.

I sometimes think to myself - how the hell have we come to the stage we are at now. I mean think about it, many many many years ago - there was nothing. When humans first came about - cavemen as they say - there was nothing but the land, grass, trees, rocks. And now what?? We have computers, televisions, phones, cars, planes - I mean it's really amazing if you really think about it - anyways, I find that really fascinating.

I mean tell me really, in the times of the 'caveman' or whatever, say for example a couple (caveman, cavewoman) lived together and one was out - did the one who was home think first, 'hmm...I wonder if there could be a way I can communicate to her when I'm here and she's there, without me going there'. No way, he would of first though, 'where is she, I'm going to find her'. - and now?? 'what's her mobile number again?

Basically, we never know what the future holds, but we must be careful not to make it a bleak future.

(hopefully I didn't drift off the topic here, but you get my point - hopefully) :)

Greg

[Remote_Access_]

"Would you mind, then, if i put your kitty in a clamp and kept on tightening the screw?... "
- If I had a kitty, yes I would.

"'feeling of sympathy' is, amongst others, what distinguishes human beings from animals..."
- Thanks for pointing that out Negative. That's another thing about these clones. Will they have the same sympathy as normal humans? What if they knew they were a clone and it frustrated them to the point that they wanted to kill whom ever it is that they were cloned from so they'll be original. Unique. One if a kind. That charateristic is being neglected. And what if the clones didn't have any emotional feelings at all? What would that lead to?

"To choose between a significant other or my dog. My answer, both or neither.... honestly. "
- Honestly I would chose my significant other over my dog hands down.

"which side of the line would you stand on."
- I honestly don't know... I don't have a daughter but IF for some strange reason my son had some terminal illness I don't know what I would chose. On the one hand, I would get to see him grow up and all that but on the other it may cost 1000s of other human embryos. It would be a tough decision if I ever had to chose.

VictorKaum has a good point but this may have been originaly from Negative.
"Identity is a very strong argument against cloning."
- And I couldn't agree with you more. ;)

"Scientists have no special unassailable status that
entitles them to make these decisions without
my input."
- Hehe, it's really not up to you nor I. The government isn't going to stop stem cell research. As far as actual human cloning.. well, when it finaly dose occur I won't be suprised. I'll be disapointed but it's inevitable.

"Just remembered another movie - GATTICA. "
- Sorry, haven't seen that one.

It leads to the question - "Should we play GOD?". I think not. "
- EXACALLY! Creating a human life in a lab is NOT something we should be doing.

"...but you get my point - hopefully"
- Yup, I get the point. :D

Remote_Access_

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by Remote_Access_
"Would you mind, then, if i put your kitty in a clamp and kept on tightening the screw?... "
- If I had a kitty, yes I would.

Ok, I admit that that 'kitty in a clamp' thing was a bit out there, but I was just trying to illustrate the percieved 'sanctity of life' of all creatures, not only human beings; and trying to equate the two by way of the intrinsic value of life in general.

- Thanks for pointing that out Negative. That's another thing about these clones. Will they have the same sympathy as normal humans? What if they knew they were a clone and it frustrated them to the point that they wanted to kill whom ever it is that they were cloned from so they'll be original. Unique. One if a kind. That charateristic is being neglected.

That is a damned good point, R_A_; I hadn't thought about it that way. The Clone Wars...very Star Wars-ish, but ENTIRELY possible, come to think of it, given the natural desire to be unique.

Hmmm....got me thinking, now...

Ouroboros

[[WebCarnage]]

Originally posted by: Remote_Access_
I do, i find it disturbing when scientist try to play God.

What God? Is there even a God? ...if not, then are you still correct? Just food for thought :)

I agree that there cannot be a boundary or 'line' either but I still think that there SHOULD be.

WTF?! Care to further explain that sentence, I don't quite understand it. Seems like your contradicting yourself there...

I see your point. Even if a cure is developed for all of these diseases described on the news and all over the internet, it's not going to be for the vast majority of people. It will mainly be for the 'uperclass'.

Just like computers mate? Just like how the 'upperclass' were only eligible to buy them? Things change...A few years after everything is tested and sorted out, I think these 'prices-to-life' will slowly, but surely, decrease.

I don't want to extend my time here artificaly. When it's time to go, it's time to go and I'm not going to argue about it.

Your like my mother :p (no offense). But in all seriousness. If you don't want to live forever, then (if right now there was a syrum to take), simply don't take it. Yet if you do, want to live, that is, for a few extra hundred years...then take it.

Now the cream isn't that bad but useing what could be future human life is just unreasonable if you ask me.

The cream isn't bad because it only stops aging for ten years, but 100 is totally out of the question? You say you don't beleive there should be lines for scientists...yet it seems like you make them up on your own.

Grats and good luck with your studies. :)

Thanks mate. I hope to graduate from university soon. ;)

I still have to disagree. There's a big difference between animals and humans.

Like what? They havn't come up with a silly idea of 'God' or 'Religion'? Or do they just have a lower IQ then humans, therefor they are simply here to die off... Maybe, you have it backwards mate?

I read some where that doll the sheep has some sort of disease, not sure what it is but points to who ever finds out.

Yes, and animals who arn't cloned never get diseases? Like I stated in my last post, bad things will happen. It's obvious. But we must learn to work around these things, and push forward.

Just immagine the terror... WW III

Well, R_A_, we've already had two of them in a span of fifty years. So if WorldWar III comes, it really sucks to be us... I suggest we all move to some third-world country and stay away from any major city. But thats just me. *Rechecks his tickets to Bolivia...*

I disagree though. It could happen but that dosen't mean it will..

Yet again, I fail to understand what exactly you are trying to say...

Hopefuly mass human cloning isn't going to happen at all.

Amen, brother. :)

Once again, when it's time for me to go, it's time for me to go. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Then, fair Remote_Access_, I fare you a good time in the 'afterlife' (if you beleive in one at least).

Hrmm... I love Earth. I don't want to go to a different planet but if anyone dose leave the 'Home Planet' send me a post card.

Just if you havn't checked your 'Discovery Channel' or 'TLC' stations this past year. The Earth will end. Fortunately for us we won't have to live to experiance it. The sun, when its ready to die, will expand, consuming the Earth... this will, kill all life on Earth. There is no escape, to live on Earth. We must reloacte to another planet, and not any of our 9 rings of stone circling the sun right now. Another sun, another Earth.




"'feeling of sympathy' is, amongst others, what distinguishes human beings from animals..."
- Thanks for pointing that out Negative. That's another thing about these clones. Will they have the same sympathy as normal humans? What if they knew they were a clone and it frustrated them to the point that they wanted to kill whom ever it is that they were cloned from so they'll be original. Unique. One if a kind. That charateristic is being neglected. And what if the clones didn't have any emotional feelings at all? What would that lead to?

A clone will have exactly the same feelings a normal person would have. Thats why their called clones. And obviously they will have to be told that they were a clone. But that doesn't make them an animal at all. Just another human. We've had clones since the dawn of man, you see. Thats what we (you) like to call 'twins'...

[VictorKaum]

The identical twin idea is a very good one cause twins are exactly the same as a clone would be (biological) but there's one big difference:

cloning will create the possibility of a big time difference between the two persons (not the case for twins). This time difference is a hugh problem for identity. (like stated above by Negative is this identity very important).

Twins are both the original cause they are twins and social accepted as twins.
A clone will be a clone... all the time this person has to go with the idea that there exist some original...that he or she is just a clone.

[rcgreen]

Imagine the lawsuits, if cloned people found that they
had some unfortunate medical condition that they
attributed to the cloning process.
Or could the government deny them the same rights
as others.
:cool:

[Remote_Access_]

... all the time this person has to go with the idea that there exist some original...that he or she is just a clone.
- My thoughts exacally! :)

What God? Is there even a God? ...if not, then are you still correct? Just food for thought"
- That can be another thread. ;)

"WTF?! Care to further explain that sentence, I don't quite understand it. Seems like your contradicting yourself there..."
- Ok.. i should explane a little better. Just because I and a few other individuals think that there SHOULD be a 'line' but that dosen't mean that there is going to be one.

"Just like computers mate? Just like how the 'upperclass' were only eligible to buy them? Things change...A few years after everything is tested and sorted out, I think these 'prices-to-life' will slowly, but surely, decrease."
- Good point. ;)

"Your like my mother (no offense). But in all seriousness. If you don't want to live forever, then (if right now there was a syrum to take), simply don't take it. Yet if you do, want to live, that is, for a few extra hundred years...then take it."
- Heh, thanks. :D I don't want to increase my time here artifically but hey, take it or leave it huh?

"The cream isn't bad because it only stops aging for ten years, but 100 is totally out of the question? You say you don't beleive there should be lines for scientists...yet it seems like you make them up on your own."
- Ermm, you missed my point. I wouldn't mind if it stoped ageing 1000 years as long as it dosen't involve useing 'what-could-be' humans.

"I hope to graduate from university soon. "
- I hope you do to. :D

"So if WorldWar III comes, it really sucks to be us... "
- Yes it dose.. I don't know what 'secret' weaponds are going to be used if/when WW3 occurs but I can tell you WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones. Good post [WebCarnage] ;)

Remote_Access_

[ing]

personally i don't think cloning is good is too much power on anybody even if they choose for good (the use of knowledge) am against

[Kezil]

All right, here's a few things we agree on so far:

•Cloning humans: bad

•Cloning organs: potentially good

•Religious, political, social, etc. problem: using one life to save another's, without the one life's
consent

Now, why would anyone want to clone a whole human anyway? There's no real benefit to it, really.

Then you bring in the Hitler's of the world.

Fortunately, cloning a human army takes noticably vast amounts of resources, most of all, time, which is a great detriment to the Hitler-wannabe. If they started a war counting on clones they had just started to make, they would have to perpetuate the war for eighteen years at least, an impractical and not very feasable goal. If they decide to wait, then go to war, someone would eventually notice what was happening, probably too early for the Hitler-wannabe, and very few countries would let him get away with it.

Then there's acquiring the stem cells. Fortunately, there's more way to get them than from embryos: they can be obtained from the after-birth, I believe from bone marrow(though not as variable), and if not now, then soon they will be able to be manufactured(using just DNA samples from real humans, the patient, or lab created designs, to keep up the amount of gene types available for study or use), and I'm sure many more.

Perhaps the law could limit it in a different way: (1)No stem cells acquired from embryos or other ways that require the death of an or are harmful in some way to an organism (2)No making a full clone of a human (3)No cloning of a brain. Rules like these would allow the progress of this particular field, while (hopefully) keeping most arguments against it at bay.

Thank you for listening, and the wonderful thread.

[Negative]

Originally posted by WebCarnage
A clone will have exactly the same feelings a normal person would have. Thats why their called clones

Ouch... No, it won't/it's not... That's, imo, the entire point of this discussion: clones DO have the same DNA, but they DO NOT have the same feelings... DNA and brains/intelligence/feelings are something completely different..

[[WebCarnage]]

Ouch... No, it won't/it's not... That's, imo, the entire point of this discussion: clones DO have the same DNA, but they DO NOT have the same feelings... DNA and brains/intelligence/feelings are something completely different...

And you know this how. I mean, if you agree with me that a *type* of clone is a twin. Then you should also be aware of the numerous accounts that which twins would literally feel each others pain and happiness at times of sorrow and pleasure. And how do you know that they don't have the same feelings? And tell me, Negative, what are actually feelings? And how would you regulate and actually show that two clones/twins do or don't have the same exact feelings.
And, lets imagine for a breif moment, that clones don't have the same feelings as their host. Now, whats the problem? Is there any big deal? ...I wouldn't imagine. This would only make the clone more individualized...and thats what you want, isn't it?

:)

[[WebCarnage]]

I got negative antipoints for my previous post...:P I'm pissed.


For stating an idea, one should not be held against the wall for a view-point. Thats just the way I see things. No biggie, if you don't share the same ideas...just move along.

[Remote_Access_]

I got negative antipoints for my previous post...:P I'm pissed. For stating an idea, one should not be held against the wall for a view-point.

- Erm.. I'll put this statement bluntly.. Who ever gave [WebCarnage] negative points for posting his point of view and opinions after I asked him to is an idiot. He nor anyone else that posted a reply to this topic deserves negative points. You may or may not agree with what some one on here has to say but as [WebCarnage] said:

...if you don't share the same ideas...just move along.

Yeah, just move along and simply ignore people's post if you dont agree with their point of view. If you don't like what they had to say, post a reply and explane your self instead of handing out negative points. I also got negative points for a simple suggestion about the AO shirts. Ah well, I ain't trippin', I got plent of points.. although more never hurts. :D

Remote_Access_

[ANTI-HACKERS]

I Agree with Remote i don,t want 2 of me walking around i know we would have 2 different brains but as of now i like me i,m unique i don't have a twin and don't want one either, and we don,t need mass production of people either. Can't have kids adopt can't adopt be a foster parent or something. As far as webcarnages negative points i don't think he desirves them because people have there own opinions and views you should learn to respect what other people have to say like they problably did for you.





ANTI-HACKERS

[the_g_nee]

Human cloning to any degree is completely wrong, there is no justifyable reason as to why anyone would want an exact genetic copy of two people, period, dont do it mad-crazy-scientist-person.

However I feel that stem cell reaserch is ok. I have read that some diseases (I believe Parkinsons is one) will in the future be potetially treatable by progress in this area.

[rcgreen]

If they could clone/create a human(who, by definition,
was not concieved in the historical/traditional sense),
could it be that there is a loophole in the laws that
would make the clone the property of the
pharmaceutical company instead of a legal person?
I don't think it's too far fetched.
They are already trying to patent living organisms.
They promise us miracle cures, but I'm skeptical.
:cool:

[jared_c]

IMHO, I don't think we should clone humans. I've watching too many movies to feel that human cloning is safe for mankind.

However, I think that stem cell research should go on. I read that using stem cells they have successfully cured Parkinson's Disease in rats. These stem cells arent hurting anyone, we already have them, and it is already shown that they can benefit society greatly. We should use them to do so, especially if Parkinson's can get cured with it.

[Negative]

Originally posted by [WebCarnage]
And you know this how. I mean, if you agree with me that a *type* of clone is a twin.

Well, I was only replying to your statement that 'a clone will have exactly the same feelings a normal person would have. Thats why their called clones' .

I guess I misunderstood your statement, WebCarnage... What I thought you were saying was that a clone will have exactly the same feelings as his 'twin' ... and that's not what you meant in your original reply. Sorry, point taken ;) But then again....

Then you should also be aware of the numerous accounts that which twins would literally feel each others pain and happiness at times of sorrow and pleasure. And how do you know that they don't have the same feelings? And tell me, Negative, what are actually feelings? And how would you regulate and actually show that two clones/twins do or don't have the same exact feelings.

I've been reading up on identical twins: - identical twins have exactly the same genes, no discussion about that.
Next: our character: today's belief is that our character is built by both our genes (our brain and the chemicals that operate within it are made by genes) and our childhood.
Genes influencing the way we behave is a controversial topic though: there’s a fear that suggesting that people are “born that way” could be used to incite intolerance.... or excuse anti-social acts.

How I know they don't have the same feelings?

I'll have to copy-and-paste here...

Here's the theory that 'explains' the 'numerous accounts that which twins...'

TLC / Life unscripted (http://tlc.discovery.com/tlcpages/twins/minds2.html)
The hypothesis of the nonlocal mind is adapted from Bell's Theorem, developed by physicist J.S. Bell. It states that when two subatomic particles come into contact with one another and are then separated, a change in one particle results in a similar change in the other, "instantly and to the same degree." According to researcher Russell Targ, an intriguing experiment done in the 1960s provides evidence for the nonlocal mind — researchers pointed a light at the eye of one twin and found that the other twin's brain-wave pattern changed in response.
Nice theory, but TLC / Life unscripted (http://tlc.discovery.com/tlcpages/twins/minds2.html)
Could these more obscure theories of altered consciousness be explained away by sheer coincidence? Since the majority of the evidence is anecdotal, it's hard to say. We don't hear the stories about twins with incorrect hunches — those who think that their twin is dead or in pain when they aren’t.

My advice: if you find twins who can stuff like that: The Randi Psychic Challenge (http://skepdic.com/randi.html) .


Originally posted by Kezil
All right, here's a few things we agree on so far:
•Cloning humans: bad

Ermm, I don't agree ;)

Originally posted by the_g_nee
Human cloning to any degree is completely wrong, there is no justifyable reason as to why anyone would want an exact genetic copy of two people, period, dont do it mad-crazy-scientist-person.

Saying there 'is no justifiable reason', is not a valid reason... There is no justifiable reason why people fall in love. 'Don't rall in love mad-crazy-lover-person'! ;)

[Vorlin]

Not even going into my moral views on human cloning or religious factions of it, here's a few questions:

1: as previously mentioned, what about the rest of the planet that we can't take care of right now? As it is, the USA is the World Bank/Food Shelter/Etc and it's already more than we can handle. This wouldn't help anything.

2: if you *could* clone a human, suppose you get it right the first time. Wow! We did it! Yeah! We made a human clone of a human that looks the same! Now...what about their mind? They know NOTHING because you can't CLONE A HUMAN MIND. They're a vegetable of some sort until you teach them to talk, to walk, distinction of color, etc etc...the list goes on and on. And that's just the beginning.

3: organs, go for it. Stem cell research, go for it... Humans? No.

They're playing the proverbial "God" here and it's bound to completely backfire on them in a horrible manner with an end result that may or may not be able to be contained.

Just MHO on this.

[Negative]

Originally posted by Vorlin
1: as previously mentioned, what about the rest of the planet that we can't take care of right now? As it is, the USA is the World Bank/Food Shelter/Etc and it's already more than we can handle. This wouldn't help anything.

That indeed is a point, but please don't refer to the US as the World Food Shelter... OK, it's true that the US take care of more than 80% of the food-aid 'projects', but there's another side to this picture... Most food donated to other countries are surplusses, food that would have been destroyed if not given away... This is not helping those poor countries, as it creates another problem: local farmers won't be able anymore to sell their own products... More STRUCTURAL help would be appreciated ;) BTW: The US budget for developmental aid is 0.12 % of the GDP, while 3.6% is for the military...

Oops, off-topic, I guess...

2: if you *could* clone a human, suppose you get it right the first time. Wow! We did it! Yeah! We made a human clone of a human that looks the same! Now...what about their mind? They know NOTHING because you can't CLONE A HUMAN MIND. They're a vegetable of some sort until you teach them to talk, to walk, distinction of color, etc etc...the list goes on and on. And that's just the beginning.

You can't clone a human mind, true that... But you CAN clone a human brain...
'A vegetable of some sort untill you teach them to talk, to walk...?' Are you saying that babies are vegetables? Clones are also born as babies, and like babies you need to feed them, teach them to walk,...

It's not like cloning is 'multiplying' an adult, but without the mind...

[Vorlin]

Clones are also born as babies, and like babies you need to feed them, teach them to walk,...

Um, babies go through a natural cycle to get where they are. Cloning does not. You can't even call that a natural cycle. And I wouldn't even say that clones are 'born'. What's the point of "harvesting" a clone when you have to teach said clone (adult in this case) how to walk/talk/etc. I can think of SO many better things to fund rather than that. How about a better cure for cancer? Or using said money to create better projects to help slow down world hunger? Or giving eyeglasses to people who need them in 3rd world countries, like Saudi Arabia where I lived for 10 years with people who never saw indoor plumbing much less health care...the list goes on and I could name a dozen more examples but the main point is, while some would say it's worthwhile to try to clone a human being, I see it as wasting money that could be put towards actual worthy goals.

[Kezil]

Clones do not come out as fully formed humans, like all living organisms, they start as a single cell, dividing and developing in a predertimed, genetically imprinted pattern. the only real difference between a clone and a naturally born baby is that the clone's DNA is a duplicate of someone elses, while the natural baby's was picked by chance (**NOTE: I'm including test-tube babies in the naturally born category**)

Unfortunately, there is one more difference: a clone will start with much shorter telemerase than a normal baby, meaning a much shorter natural life.

BTW, Neg:

Your right, that shouldn't say everyone. What I meant was that many (if not most) hold that position, by what I've read. Sorry about that.

[Remote_Access_]

I recently read an article on cloning humans from embryos. I've already stated my opinion on the subject but I wanted to bring something else to your attention. We shouldn't clone humans but the technology still exists. What's to stop some other nation from discovering the same technology and cloning a human embryo? Other nations don't have the same laws on the subject so I think that it will happen some time in the near future..
Although I'd rather it not.

Remote_Access_

[chsh]

Sorry I'm posting soo late, but I wanted to add my $0.02 (CDN) to an already interesting discussion.

Originally posted by Negative
There seem to be three reasons why people are against the cloning of human beings:

1. Mutation of genes : the techniques used for cloning are far from perfect; a solution would be to pre-maturely 'destroy the disfigured monsters'. That brings us back to the abortion-discussion...

Most scientists still DO believe it's too soon to actually start cloning humans.

Maybe they want 'more cells, money, and a law to make it acceptable' so they can continue their research, and thus prevent malicious 'scientists' to start using the techniques available already... I agree it's too soon, but it once was too soon for test-tube babies also...

I'm glad you listen to the scientific community at large too Negative. Science isn't about leaping into things, it's about a slow, methodical approach to increase our understanding of something.


2. Emotional problems: identity problems that is; What happens to a marriage when the "father" sees his wife's clone grow up into the exact replica (by appearance) of the beautiful 18 year old he fell in love with 35 years ago?

Clones are not identical human beings. Compare it with identical twins, only there is a delay on their date of birth... Identical twins also are clones, but their still are unique individuals...


Very true. A person is more shaped by their life growing up than they are by their genetics.


3. Abuse: Hitler...clones...hmmm....

This is IMO the most valid arguement, and at the same time a dangerous one. Everything ever invented has been subject to abuse...

As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no conjecture that says that a clone of an existing person is an exact replica of that person in all ways. In fact, research and common sense suggest both of those things. Think of it just from the angle of someone's childhood. If a clone of someone has a better or worse childhood, that may lead to them being more cynical/gullible. It is living that shapes who you are, not your DNA. Your DNA simply provides the groundwork for what you'll be like -- there are no guarantees as I understand it.


4. Religious reasons.

Religion should not shape science policy... We've seen what that has lead to in the past...

Agreed here too Negative.

Personally, I am in favour of it, provided it will save lives. I'm not in favour of cloning people, I'm in favour of cloning organs. An organ is a very simple thing, and if you can give someone more time on this earth, should you not at least try?

[chsh]

Originally posted by [WebCarnage]


And you know this how. I mean, if you agree with me that a *type* of clone is a twin. Then you should also be aware of the numerous accounts that which twins would literally feel each others pain and happiness at times of sorrow and pleasure. And how do you know that they don't have the same feelings? And tell me, Negative, what are actually feelings? And how would you regulate and actually show that two clones/twins do or don't have the same exact feelings.
And, lets imagine for a breif moment, that clones don't have the same feelings as their host. Now, whats the problem? Is there any big deal? ...I wouldn't imagine. This would only make the clone more individualized...and thats what you want, isn't it?


WebCarnage, I would make the argument that clones are not identical in mind. A clone can have its mind and feelings shaped by life like any of the rest of us. If a clone is abused as a child, while it's 'sibling' has an easy life, I can guarantee that they will turn out differently. As far as I am concerned (and I have yet to see evidence to the contrary), a clone is a human being that simply happens to share a LOT of genetic codes with another human being.

[Remote_Access_]

I agree that clones are not identical in mind although it could be a possibility..
I'd just like to state that there is no substitute for the original.
I don't think that clones will be in 'normal' home life for a long while since the ones being developed will be protected in a lab and will not have that threat. And who's to say that the clone will be told it's a clone by those wierd scientists? I doubt they would and he/she would never know that he/she has a 'sibling'.. A clone is a copt of another individual with hardly any or no genetic codes of it's own..

[Negative]

Originally posted by chsh
As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no conjecture that says that a clone of an existing person is an exact replica of that person in all ways. In fact, research and common sense suggest both of those things. Think of it just from the angle of someone's childhood. If a clone of someone has a better or worse childhood, that may lead to them being more cynical/gullible. It is living that shapes who you are, not your DNA. Your DNA simply provides the groundwork for what you'll be like -- there are no guarantees as I understand it.
in reply to

Abuse: Hitler...clones...hmmm....

You are absolutely right, chsh... My point though was that this technique CAN be abused...
I wasn't talking about cloning Hitler, but about Hitler - or another lunatic - cloning other human beings (or even worse, messing around with someone's genes to create the 'ultimate fighting machine'...).

Here's another point of view: genetically engineered food.

Dangers of genetic engineering - Safe-food.org (http://www.safe-food.org/)
Greenpeace (http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/)
BBC fears erupt over genetic food (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_278000/278354.stm )
Monsanto's genetically engineered soy (http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/gmo/Monsanto_DNA_MP.htm) : this demonstrates what I was talking about, chsh...

[Pooh-Bear]

Some reading about troubles (shortened lifespan) Japanese scientists have had with cloned mice. Article is found here (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20020211a8.htm)