Global Ban on Human Cloning

Greetz everyone. I just thought I'd post this article to keep you updated on human cloning.You can view the original article here.
IMO, it's a good thing. I think the cloning of humans should be banned. I've posted a thread on human cloning a while ago in this thread. Here's the article:

U.N. Panel Begins Drafting Global Ban on Cloning
Mon Feb 25, 7:18 PM ET
By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Spurred on by rapid biotechnological advances, a U.N. committee on Monday launched an initial round of talks aimed at drafting an international treaty to ban the cloning of human beings.

The United Nations (news - web sites) set up the special panel last year, at the request of France and Germany, after Italian fertility specialist Severino Antinori announced his intention to become the first scientist to clone a human being.
Numerous firms have since boasted of rapid progress in research into the mechanics of cloning a variety of animals as well as humans, their organs and cells.

Just this month, the first cat was cloned in what scientists described as a way to blend research with people's sentimentality about their pets.

But the idea of fashioning human clones in a laboratory continues to generate outrage around the world and across the political spectrum, despite the promised benefits of some avenues of research.

"Once this technological genie is out of the bottle, trying to control it will be extremely difficult," said Health Law Professor George Annas of the Boston University School of Public Health.

"Governments urgently need to agree upon international policies to ban human reproductive cloning and other technologies of genetic manipulation that could undermine society and our common humanity," Annas said in a printed statement.

Annas was one of several scientific experts and human rights activists due to address a news conference at U.N. headquarters on Tuesday on the need for strong international controls on cloning practices. The treaty drafting process is expected to take years, and all 189 U.N. member-nations are free to participate in the special committee's deliberations.

The panel has so far scheduled only an initial week of meetings, intended to explore various approaches to the drafting of a global accord, and a second week of negotiations beginning Sept. 23. During Monday's session, Syrian envoy Mohamed Haj Ibrahim and Iraqi diplomat Abdul Munim Al-Kadhe questioned why no Arab experts had been named to advise the panel while an Israeli expert, Dr. Carmel Shalev, had been asked to speak about the human rights aspects of cloning.

U.N. staffer Vaclav Mikulka said experts had been selected on the basis of recommendations from the World Health Organization (news - web sites) and the U.N. Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization and did not represent individual nations. Shalev is a member of U.N. Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and directs the ethics unit at Israel's Gertner Institute for Health Policy Research.

Remote_Access_

I think it's a step in the wrong direction. We have the technology and should be using it.


On the other hand I can see how such technology has the potential to be abused and the religous implication also....I guess I'm just a fence sitter........

It is to some extent but all in all I think it's a good thing. Having the technology is more frightening than actualy using it. What would happen if that ttechnology leaked out or was stolen by a spy of some sort. Think about what would happen then. All forms of technology have the potential to be abused. It's not just the religious implication that bothers me, it's the threat of it being abused.

Remote_Access_

The idea of being created and then owned by a corporation does not sit well with me.

First off, successful human cloning is a few years off, many scientists who have tried haven't been successful due to several different kinds of complications. One thing I ask is: What is the fear of clones? My only fear is that they might not be given the full rights of a human being. Clones would still grow like a normal human, need to be born from a woman, and also, they wouldn't be like the person who was cloned at all. Quite different personality, and while looking similar, it wouldn't be completely indistiguishable from the person cloned.

Conf1rmed_K1ll.... i ahve to disagree with you on that on the fact we should use such technology. first, the said technology is not tried and true. we have no idea what the outcome will be if we use this technology. second, abuse of this will definitely occur, just as abuse of all other technology occurs. third, religiously this practice would be wrong. no matter what god you believe in, no one has the right to create life. finally though, i believe that no one has the right to decide how a life should be. i believe no human being has the right to decide how a life to be. i believe that everything happens for a reason... call it destiny, call it fate, call it god, call it whatever. we can not limit this force. by doing it we are breaking a law on a level most of us will probably never understand.

I really think cloning is a bad idea for many reasons, one of them as was stated above. I do not fancy being "owned" by some corporation like Microsoft.

Yeah Uraloony! We'd probably be created and used as slave labor as phone tech support. Now that is definatly the nightmare!!!

Its not ethical either, imagine, the people witht he most money will clonde themselves... Now imagine 20 Bill Gates or Steven Case's... Now if only Linus would clone himself :D

Good point but I guess I'm just a geek at heart and I love the fact that we can clone. The technology just kinda blows me away.....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by R_A_
All forms of technology have the potential to be abused.

---

Quite true, but does that mean we should ban all of this marvellous technology? Imagine if the 'net suddenly ceased to exist due to the suspected use of it by terrorists....Anyway, I'm getting a little off topic.....It's good to see such threads as this once again grace the homepage of AO...

a new question also arises about cloning... if one makes a perfect clone, will personality be the same? or will circumstance mold personality and such. If we cloned hitler, would he again do what he did, if his life was different? i wonder...

SCARY THOUGHT: what if someone has already made a human clone thta no one is aware of?

lord_darkside_x, check out the video "The boys from Brazil". If memory serves me correct it exactly about that.

yeah it is similarly about taht... only the guy already decided that circumstance was a molding factor and then he tried to recreate hitlers life in clones.... scary thought.... a possibly abuse for the technology eh?

Confirmed- i agree that not all technology should be banned because of potential problems, but.... i think that the decision should be made based on the specfic technology. limits should be in place. nuclear weapons are not for sale to the general public for fear of abuse, but if we don't limit or ban technology because of potential abuse, some irate driver could shoot a nuclear war head at you. it's an extreme instance, but it's to prove a point. i mean, i think that the cloning of animals for food production is a useful idea, although ethically i don't know if i like it.

acid - you could clone bill gates all you want... but i feel he won't come out the same way, unless he was put through the same social circumstances. i think that personality and such are not genetic, but social. an exact replica is near impossible

Even worse is the possibility of being cloned just for organs or whatnot.......after all, would clones have full rights as humans? Imagine--being born, and brought up knowing that you're merely the property of some corporation, to be sold off an organ at a time once you reach a certain age. If that's not depressing, I don't know what is.........

Though it would make a really great plot for a sci-fi novel..............

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by lord_darkside_x
Conf1rmed_K1ll.... i ahve to disagree with you on that on the fact we should use such technology.

---

No problem....You make valid points and as previously stated I can see your side of the argument....I hope you can see mine too.......

lord_darkside_x I saw this thing on TV by that guy who did the Human Body series. It was about twins. It had these cases where these twin men were 60 but were seperated at birth. Both never knew of the other until alot later in life. Both had the sam job in a hardware store, both had similar interests, both has wives with the same name (2 ex and 1 current all same names).

Then there was the other one about twin boys seperated at 6, one went with his Jewish fathe to live in Trinidad the other to Germany with his mother. This was in the 30's so one is a Jew and the other a Nazi. They did personality tests and stuff on them and found that they had the exact same personality traits ie. Highly Competitive, Stuborn, Perfectionist

But had different sought of morals. The Jew being very Liberal while the German was very Conservative.

Damn it's scary.

confirmed -- i see your side. technology can be a very good thing, but as i said, it can be very bad. i don't know that i like the turn the world would take when human cloning begins.

Hello all,
I personally would just like to state my opinion, so here it is. I think that anything even cloning of humans, should be used to furthur our understanding of the human body and what is around us. I strongly believe that any. . .thing, person, animal, et cetera, that can be used to furthur our technological development as a society with medicine, computers, and all else for that matter, should be used as a source and pushed to its fullest abilities. No matter what the consequences are immediately, in the end knowledge is power, and we are all weak compared to what we could know.

One quick little example would be the birth of hackers maybe. During the very early days, it was considered "wrong" and "bad" to decompile, and reverse engineer software. And at the time was thought that ONLY bad could come from it. But now look at it today, just try to imagine what the software industry would be like without encryption, open source, LINUX, et cetera.

i believe that two people who spend 9 months together in the womb are bound to have similar if not nearly identical personality triats, but in the end, we see that in the case of jew and nazi, two seperate ethics were chosen, this is my point. if morality can be altered, why can't personality. especially, with clones. twins are together in the womb, this creates an emotional bond and a unique similarity. if a clone is put in completely exclusive circumstance, i think that some similarity will be visible, but i think there will be quite a few variances because ultimately circumstances control personality.

Just one other little rem, when is technology EVER bad?

Quote:

---

Just one other little rem, when is technology EVER bad?

---

where to begin.... technology is bad when people make it bad. "nuclear power"=good, "harnessing that power to destroy the world or at least millions of people"=bad. now to squelch anyone who is going to say "what if it is necessary" or "they deserved it", who has the right to judge? the misuse of technology makes the said technology bad.

I ask this...please wake me up once there are 4 of me, then I can send them off
and finally enjoy a good vacation :D

Whenever someone says technology is to blame for our problems, take out your fist and hit them. Anything can be abused, twisted, perverted, and made to serve the less noble human aspirations. This does not make particular technological advance evil! People create problems, and, come to think of it, we're the only ones who perceive the problems, which is kind of interesting.

i agree... it is not the technology, but the people. but ultimately peopel are corrupt. so technology will ultimately be corrupted.

Lord_darkside,
Talking, not arguing.
What you are saying is only the pessimisstic side to technology. I will continue on with the nuclear power issue, nuclear power an extremely clean and efficient power production method. Since its only exhaust is pure water, it has no pollution into the air to destroy our already horrid environment. Nuclear power has also allowed us to drop energy rate across the us by being the cheapest form of energy production presently used. But with this great invention there have been bad side effects, but I would just like to remind you, that a nuclear bomb has never been detinated on the globe with the intent of killing people. I am not sure if they have tested it or not.

But still, when you say that something is good, and it can also be used in a bad way, I do not think that you should limit the technology in anyway. We should restrain the people who plan to use the techology against the common good. Another example would be a fork, very good useful invention, but someone can stab somebody with it and possibly kill them. So are you saying that we should not have forks? That is what is being brought up with the debate on human cloning. Jus because there are bad side effects from people irresponsibly using the technology, should we ban that technology. If we followed the idea to ban all techonology that could be used to the downfall of the human race, then we should ban ALL guns, knives, bombs, explosives, forks, spoons, shovels, medicine, antidepressents, morphine, medical research, cloning, the list goes on and on. But this is obviously not the choice we want to make. I would hope that most of you after considering the facts, would agree with me.

thesecretfire,
Sorry about that, I kind of just resaid what you just did. I was typing out my post, and yours was not there when I was typing. Didn't mean to copy you.

Quote:

---

If we followed the idea to ban all techonology that could be used to the downfall of the human race, then we should ban ALL guns, knives, bombs, explosives, forks, spoons, shovels, medicine, antidepressents, morphine, medical research, cloning, the list goes on and on.

---

consider this, what you said above, is not what i said at all.... first, i said to limit technology, not abolish it. my nuclear weapoon point was to say we don't allow people to buy nuclear weapons. we should however allow nuclear power to exist. just a limit. as for this being applied to cloning. the positive outcome of cloning is not as obvious.

reasoning
#1-some people believe it is a way to extend their life. This is false. it does nothing more then create a new person just like you... it could extend a legacy to some effect, but just have a kid.

#2-"we can use it to harvest organs, like stem cell research" so we should destroy life to create it? i disagree with that. the ends do not justify the means. and who has the right to choose which life deserves to live?

#3-"we can breed perfect humans (genetically engineered people)" this i will break down into two reasons. 1st-who has the right to decide whether or not there should be perfect races and stuff. and don't you think that the system was set up this way for a reason? even in chaos there is order. 2nd-a few years back, hand sanitizing cream was introduced. a very strong version. it killed all bacteria. this upset a delicate balance and new disease sprung up. these "bad" things, bacteria, actually served a purpose. if you check the new hand cleaner and the old stuff you will find it is weaker. killing all bacteria is bad. how do we know the same does not apply to humanity? this also brings up the problem of super armies and stuff but that is a whole new idea not needing addressing.

cloning offers a few things, but at this point i see nothing warranting the use of it other then it "being really cool" and to flourish egos.... "there are 15 of me running around, i RULE!!!" and to me it all comes down to, should we sacrifice our ethics to progress? if it goes against the principle of human decency, then should it be allowed. if we allow scientists to decide who lives and who dies (through harvesting organs), then why is a murderer wrong? he is doing a simplified form of this, killing that which he feels doesn't deserve to live. harvesting organs is a possible way of industrializing bestiality. breeding perfect people would weed out our own kind, so i am not a fan of that. if anyone has any other things cloning would be useful for, let me know. i will be glad to listen, but i think i have sufficiently given a few reasons why we should at least consider the fact that these possible "goods" are not all that good or useful

Well okay then,
lord_darkside,
I understand what you are saying. I myself do not fully understand the benefits of cloning, becuase it is not something I study, but I would be willing to bet that you do not either. So, what I would suggest is that you are saying that the possible goods may not be useful to us at all. But if you think about it, everything that has every been invented or discovered has led to, or will eventually lead to some good and or bad. So, I guess the final question and decision that the UN are making now, would be, even though we do not know or see the aspects of good and bad completely from this study of human cloning, should we still percevere in it? And again, I would recommend to say yes. Because even though it will hurt our society, it will aswell help us. {I have never seen anything that has been pure good, or pure evil}

In the end I guess I would just pose this question to all of you. We know that every invention, discovery, or improvement upon an idea, will lead us to good and bad, but if we do not know what good nor bad we can get from it, should we still continue to build upon, and study and experiment with it?

There is so much talk of technology, but you must remember that we're talking about HUMAN LIFE, here. Human cloning can not be compared to previous advances in technology such as computers, or other machines. These things simply act as tools. Technology is a way of applying our knowledge to complete tasks more efficiently. Creating a tool out of parts, inanimate objects and substances. Human cloning is a technological advance like nothing before it. Never before have we had the ability or come close to having the ability to create life. Human life is something sacred. Look how much we react to murder. We punish people who take it upon themselves to end someones life. What about creating life? What right is it of ours to decide something like that? I'm not talking about technology here, or advancing our knowledge. Just think about how big an issue this really is. Don't group it in with technologies like power plants, or simple tools we use. We, as humans, value life too much for a "technology" like this to be useful.

Quote:

---

but I would be willing to bet that you do not either.

---

first, you would lose that bet... i do my research before i talk.

Quote:

---

, I guess the final question and decision that the UN are making now, would be, even though we do not know or see the aspects of good and bad completely from this study of human cloning, should we still percevere in it? And again, I would recommend to say yes. Because even though it will hurt our society, it will aswell help us. {I have never seen anything that has been pure good, or pure evil} In the end I guess I would just pose this question to all of you. We know that every invention, discovery, or improvement upon an idea, will lead us to good and bad, but if we do not know what good nor bad we can get from it, should we still continue to build upon, and study and experiment with it?

---

i say the answer should be no, if it comprimises ethics. I think that if it takes away from the human nature we aspire for (justice, peace, no violence, no murder) then we shouldn't do it. and as i said before... who has the right to choose which life deserves to live? who has the right to create life to destroy it. even if this question is posed without any supreme being in the equation and no after life in the equation, could you live with the fact that you are killing lives?

i think that if cloning were a less ethical issue, like nuclear energy and such, then it would clearly be a resounding Yes, but human life is involved. scientists are toying with nature, "playing god" if you will. trying to alter the way life is created. the creation of life is a natural instinct. if genetic engineering through cloning is used, we take nature out of it. we alter systems. i don't think ethics should be sacrificed for any purpose, good or bad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by lord_darkside_x
Conf1rmed_K1ll.... i ahve to disagree with you on that on the fact we should use such technology. first, the said technology is not tried and true. we have no idea what the outcome will be if we use this technology. second, abuse of this will definitely occur, just as abuse of all other technology occurs. third, religiously this practice would be wrong. no matter what god you believe in, no one has the right to create life. finally though, i believe that no one has the right to decide how a life should be. i believe no human being has the right to decide how a life to be. i believe that everything happens for a reason... call it destiny, call it fate, call it god, call it whatever. we can not limit this force. by doing it we are breaking a law on a level most of us will probably never understand.

---

what an idiot. No one has the right to create life? So every woman that has sex and concieves, she doesn't have the right to create life, is that what you're saying? And if what you MEANT was that no one has the right to create life through artificial means, then what about IVF treatment, or artificial insemination? Is that okay? Are you going to make distinctions, now?

Are any of you people as smart as you'd like to THINK you are? Do any of you know what's going on in the real world? So far, the only living things to have been successfully cloned are fruits, vegetables and a few animals. But there have been problems there, too. Only one out of many embryos survive, and so far, the life span of cloned animals is very short.

Forget that. Forget religious bullshit, and morals and ethics. Think of all the problems that would arise if cloning was allowed. Two clones could breed. That would make mutation a very likely probability, and with it will come an avalanche of new disorders, disabilities and diseases that we know nothing about.

Technology is great! Genetic manipulation and modification has meant bigger potatoes, juicier tomatoes, fatter strawberries, nashi pears, etc, and so on and so forth. But there's a ****ing limit.

This **** pisses me off.

The biggest destruction to man is man himself.

Hehe,
Lost the bet, okay I did not know about it that much and was not sure about you.

But before this gets into a really long droned out thread between the two of us, which it already is becoming, I think I may have the "final agreement" So what all the debate is about, when is a life a life, is it really murder, who is "god", do we have the "rite" to "play" "god", and is it "ethical"

>>> "" <<< quotes would be how would you define ______ aswell

Quote:

---

what an idiot. No one has the right to create life? So every woman that has sex and concieves, she doesn't have the right to create life, is that what you're saying? And if what you MEANT was that no one has the right to create life through artificial means, then what about IVF treatment, or artificial insemination? Is that okay? Are you going to make distinctions, now?

---

maybe you should read the other posts... because as i said....

Quote:

---

trying to alter the way life is created. the creation of life is a natural instinct. if genetic engineering through cloning is used, we take nature out of it. we alter systems.

---

i don't know if i agree with invetro and all that. it too is an ethical question. but that was not the topic. besides there is a difference between "creating life" the way you are taking and "playing god" as i meant it. sorry you misunderstood

3ntropy - i agree... but do you see my point that this is more ethical then forks or computers? this is a stage beyond technology. real:Zero articulated my point as well. this is definitely something living, not a machine or a tool. so that is why i say it is an ethical issue

Ya,
I see your point clearly.
You are judging the topic on your ethics, and I am doing it on my principles.
I agree, it was a bad analogy with forks & computers, to humans. But I was trying to describe my point.

I guess it is just interpretation of the facts, never a right answer. :)

exactly... but that makes the case maybe too controversial to allow. if there is no right answer, it is better to take the lesser of two evils

First off, what makes you think that the government would actually tell you that they had the capability to successfuly clone a human? There's no doubt in my mind that they have the ability to.. if they didn't why are they trying to put a ban on it all over the world? Clones are not real humans and don't deserve the same rights as an actual human. Lord_darkside_x hit the nail right on the head:

Quote:

---

by doing it we are breaking a law on a level most of us will probably never understand.

---

Immagine the consequences of breaking this law. I'm sure it's already been broken and the price for it is more than what I want to pay for technology. It's not worth it.

Quote:

---

Quite true, but does that mean we should ban all of this marvellous technology?

---

I for one fail to see the magnificence of scientist playing God. To me it's more like a horror show that's came to life. There's nothing marvellous about it other than the intelligence it took to come up with the technology.

Quote:

---

SCARY THOUGHT: what if someone has already made a human clone thta no one is aware of?

---

What makes you think that they haven't? If they did, do you honestly think that the public would be allowed to know about it? No.

Quote:

---

nuclear weapons are not for sale to the general public for fear of abuse

---

That dosen't stop terrorist from buying nuclear weaponds. How many 3rd world countries do you think have nuclear capabilities? Where do you think they got the technology? This one's off the subject but ah well.. :D

Quote:

---

No matter what the consequences...

---

That's insanity. I don't know about you but I don't want to pay the price for these government *******s breaking a law on a level most of us will probably never understand. think about what the consequenses for this will be..

Quote:

---

when is technology EVER bad?

---

Weaponds of mass destruction. Fully automatic weaponds. Intercontinental missiles.
Dose that answer your question?

Quote:

---

Human life is something sacred.

---

Indeed it is. What gives scientists and government officials the right to play God.
That's crossing the line between technology and moral ethics and the consequences will be severe.. not something that they should be messing with.

Quote:

---

No one has the right to create life?

---

I think you missed conf1rm3d_k1ll's point. I believe he was refering to scientist creating a life in a lab.. correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Are any of you people as smart as you'd like to THINK you are?

---

No, but I still like to think so. :D

Remote_Access_

Quote:

---

That dosen't stop terrorist from buying nuclear weaponds. How many 3rd world countries do you think have nuclear capabilities? Where do you think they got the technology? This one's off the subject but ah well..

---

i think you miss the point in that. i know 3rd world countries and stuff buy them, but... you can't buy them, that was my point. limitations on them.

Quote:

---

No one has the right to create life?

---

i made this point as well ;)

Eating_Scarlett wtf? I'm going to clone myself and then attempt to breed with it?
Listen to yourself, those aren't the major problems to consider.

The frightening thing would be what will come of cloning humans. Will a clone have equal rights as a seperate individual or will it have to take a license out on it's genes? Could corporations farm clones and use them for whatever purpose?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
when is technology EVER bad?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Weaponds of mass destruction. Fully automatic weaponds. Intercontinental missiles.
Dose that answer your question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it does not. Those weapons of mass destruction have been a safe gaurd to the us for years. Imagine, if we had not had nuclear missles during the cold war, Russia would had fired their nukes upon us, knowing that we did not have any offensive large enough to strike back. Fully automatic weapons have helped us keep peace in 3rd world nations. "Let's go TALK to osama and see if he was sorry, we don't need "bad" guns. I bet he is sorry for what he did." And even back into WWII we STOPPED it with two atomic bombs dropping on Japan. Now how else could he have stopped the war in a matter of days? So, techonology is NEVER bad.