Human Cloning

Quote:

---

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...'

Quote:

---

TLC / Life unscripted
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

Quote:

---

TLC / Life unscripted
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 .

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kezil

---

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

---

Ermm, I don't agree ;)

Quote:

---

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'! ;)

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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_

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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..

Quote:

---

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
Greenpeace
BBC fears erupt over genetic food
Monsanto's genetically engineered soy : this demonstrates what I was talking about, chsh...