Cloning a human is bad?

[Guv]

There is a possibility that there will be a law making the cloning of a human being illegal in the USA. apparently a lot of people think there is something immoral or unethical about cloning a Human.

What is really wrong with it? A clone is pretty much equivalent to the twin of the person who was cloned, except of course for an age difference.

Is there something wrong with having a twin? Is it because the original DNA was not created by combining genetic material from two different people?

If somebody wanted a couple of clones to be used as needed for spare organs, it would offend me. However, it would not offend me any more than killing a non clone to get a heart or lung.

From the viewpoint of ethics, creating a clone does not seem much different from some of the techniques used to help infertile people have children.

[denniswrenn]

I agree with you, it's not like you're letting one person live again, because obviously, they aren't going to be the same person.

[chrisjk]

Well it is completely and utterly illegal to clone a human here and for good reason.

It's not natural, that's why it is unethical. Twins are natural, cloning isn't.

You start opening up a whole can of worms when you start *****ing with stuff; take this case of the 62 Yr old French women who has just had a son, and the father is her BROTHER!!! It's damn stick. Oddly enough it was an American clinic that carried out the op.

[Guv]

Chrisjk: There is a vast amount of medical technology which is not natural. Should all of it be illegal?

For that matter there is a lot of non medical technology that is not natural.

Should all unnatural acts be illegal. Have a happy life as a hunter gatherer with a life expectancy of about 30-40 years.

Me, I would miss my unnatural computer if we went back to a natural existence.

[SurfDemon]

as long as I can have 5 Claudia Schieffer's to use as my sex slaves.....

SD

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by Guv
Chrisjk: There is a vast amount of medical technology which is not natural. Should all of it be illegal?

No! I'm allowed to pick and chose which I think is good and which I think is bad. You can't pigeon-hole an entire profession, bits of it are good, others are not.

[SurfDemon]

It's probably okay as long as the clones are only used for genetic research, spare parts or sex slaves.

SD

[Gaffer]

One of the problems with creating clones is the effect to the size of the gene pool. whilst this is unimportant on a small level, when you look at larger numbers of clones then could cause a restriction in natural evolution.

The problem is that whereas a majority of gentic and molecular biological scientists see human cloning as being a reference to cloning of body parts (rememebr the mouse with an ear on its back?), and not full B-movie-flick frankenstein cloning.


Mind you this is possible. It was proved in the movie "Island of Dr Maureau"

[spetnik]

Originally posted by SurfDemon
as long as I can have 5 Claudia Schieffer's to use as my sex slaves.....

SD

Yes, but they would all be underage 4 the next 18 years. You would have urself a little prob. there

[SurfDemon]

Actually on for the next 16 years in Britain.... but you have an excellent point.

It might take some time for the first batch, but then we could start producing them regularly (every 5 years), and you'd be able to trade the old ones in after every 5 years for a new model.....

SD

[spetnik]

alright, lets start funding

[Guv]

Gaffer: You thoughts are the first reasonable objection to human cloning that I have yet heard. If I thought that cloning would account for a significant percentage of human births, I would agree with you.

I suspect that most objections are unthinking bias encouraged by the Frankenstein story and the tendency of some people to dislike scientists.

It always amuses me when some body puts down science and scientists because "they (scientists) think they know everything." Actually it is the religious types and the big brother liberals who think they know everything and/or think they know what is best for the rest of us.

Chrisjk: It is interesting that your first comment was that cloning is bad because it is unnatural. When questioned, you say that unnatural is not the real reason: It is bad because you think it is bad.

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by Guv
Chrisjk: It is interesting that your first comment was that cloning is bad because it is unnatural. When questioned, you say that unnatural is not the real reason: It is bad because you think it is bad. [/B]

I hope you're not going to try and drag me into an aurgument, because I ain't going to participate.

I didn't change my story, I elaborated. I think it's bad because it's too far removed from what it natural.

Anything can be taken too far. I say chocolate is a good thing because it tastes good, but too much and you feel like sh*t. The same with this, I reckon it is okay for some forms of "unnatural" medicine, e.g. surgery and the like, but cloning humans is taking that "unnatural" step too far, it's a simple as that.

There's no logic to my logic other than that, and that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

[SurfDemon]

I would just like to stick my hand up and ask...



.... who becomes eligible for government funding for cloning.....



... th einstiens of the world........ is this a good thing?????

[Good Dreams]

Personaly, I still dont know if I should consider cloning bad or not. However, it should be legal to control better the experiments.

[stevess]

I don't really know if I condone cloning or not, but one drawback I can think of is that it could have a problematic impact on genetic evidence in criminal trials. "It wasn't me, it was my clonee"

clonee? Made it up.

[spetnik]

wow, a morality thread not started by jesus4u

[SurfDemon]

Originally posted by stevess
I don't really know if I condone cloning or not, but one drawback I can think of is that it could have a problematic impact on genetic evidence in criminal trials. "It wasn't me, it was my clonee"

clonee? Made it up.

An excellent point! What's the story with this? Do clones have identical DNA....? I imagine they do... but does anyone now?

SD

[spetnik]

Originally posted by SurfDemon


An excellent point! What's the story with this? Do clones have identical DNA....? I imagine they do... but does anyone now?

SD

I think there are still slight DNA variations w/ clones

[SurfDemon]

OK, can anyone honestly stand there and say that we shouldn't clone Claudia (see below) for our personal sex slaves....



I rest my case.

SD

[spetnik]

wow, sd, ur wife knows u have that???

[stevess]

Here's a good excerpt from a book if anyone is interested:
http://www.globalchange.com/books/Genes3.htm

It sounds to me like clones are basically the same thing as twins, which makes my last statement inapplicable.

[spetnik]

well, then why is it there are always differences between identical twins? I know two twins, one has a huge mole on her chin, and the other does not. And almost all twins I know have different personalities.

[stevess]

That was my point exactly. They are not identical, that's why my statement about complicating criminal evidence does not apply.

[spetnik]

o, now ic. i didnt read ur last post correctly. What im doin up now anyways is beyond me

[Guv]

Clones have nuclear DNA identical to the donor of the cell nucleus, but the mitochondrial DNA from the cell wall is different. With identical (not fraternal) twins, both types of DNA are identical, since the mitochondrial DNA from the cell wall of the ovum is provided by the same mother.

It would be possible for a woman to have herself cloned using her own ovum, resulting in both types of DNA to be identical.

In a criminal investigations, I think (am not sure) they analyze the nuclear DNA only, so there would be a problem with clones.

It still seems to me that there is unjustified concern relating to cloning, nuclear technology, and genetic technology.

Science yes! Superstition boo!

[kedaman]

unnatural

unethical

immoral

Those words are bad definitions for what we think is disgusting, i don't so i can only see how this is rooting at a human stupidity level. Psychology could explain a lot but i don't care, to every action there's a reaction, trying to prevent the earlier, and it ends up with a new balance, which sooner or later will be defined as the new "natural" and we won't mind human cloning anymore. Within a finite isolated system an unisolated system will appear changing but within the full scope nothing really is, so "natural" defines an illusion.

I'm well up for cloning, I wouldn't mind transfering my brain on a mechanical body preserving me for hundreds of years, i wouldn't even mind, actually would prefer to be stored and running everlasting on a harddrive rather in DNA molecules in this sick world.

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by SurfDemon


An excellent point! What's the story with this? Do clones have identical DNA....? I imagine they do... but does anyone now?

SD

The answer is yes, they are genetically identical, as long as the source of DNA is the same.

As the organism grows, their genetic make up can vary due to mutation in replication of DNA, but the frequency of these mutations are low. Too low in fact to say they cause any real difference in genetic makeup between a parent and a clone organism.

Don't forget, chimpanzees have a 99% DNA similarity to humans!

[/\/\isanThr0p]

first:
I really agree with Kedaman he had a lot of good points. I really think that our brain is the most valuable thing about us, so I wouldnt mind having my brain on a well I guess in that case "Host" computer. Especially thinking about having a human working brain, with the free expansion possibilities of computers. I should start programming myself
No but really it would be so interesting having a human brain think way ahead by speeding it up and giving it more memory!!

Well than some comment on an earlier post. Someone said something about stopping our evolution. I am not trying to promote social Darvinism here and I feel wierd about touching that topic here, but to me human evolution is over, because of our social systems. Survival of the fittest is still alive in bussines, but not in replication. Actually it is the les fit that often have many kids. So I would say no matter what if there is evolution we are working backwards.
BUT PLEASE GET ME RIGHT ON THAT!!!! I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD STOP OUR SOCIAL SYSTEMS OR KILL WEAK PEOPLE OR ANYTHING.

[Behemoth]

Human technological advance is limited by our intelligence, technology, and other circumstancial aspects. Genetic evolution isn't. As soon as we start applying our technological knowhow to that which was once natural, we impede its evolution. Short-term, cloning is probably not a bad idea, but in the mid- to long-term, our populace will be decimated by genetic disease, simply because we were unable to keep up.

I realise this sounds like reactionary mumbo-jumbo, so I draw your attention to our current use of anti-biotics - the wonder drug, now rendered near useless through overuse, and we've never yet improved upon them. A growing number of bacteria are now resistant to them, and because our technological advance can't keep up, we're now plagued by them.

Basically, if you keep moving the goalposts, nature will move them further. Why should we actively encourage these troubles? we should save cloning technology for when we really need it.

[simonm]

Actually it is the religious types and the big brother liberals who think they know everything and/or think they know what is best for the rest of us.

I'm not quite sure why you associate 'liberals' with the 'big brother' concept since in Britain, being liberal is synonimous with freedom of the individual and tolerance; the opposite of the meaning that you seem to associate with it.

Generally though, I think the whole issue of genetic manipulation (cloning, modification and cross over) is that it blurs the whole distinction between species and particually the distinction between humans and animals.

Also, what about rights? Presumably, clones would have identical human rights to non-clones? But do they? Do I not have some sort of "ownership" over my DNA sequence? If I do, then does that mean that my clone would not "own" their DNA? If I don't, then could anybody clone me without my consent?

There are a whole range of ethical issues that need to be resolved by public debate and should not merely be dismissed out of hand.

[Mark Sreeves]

I don't really have an opinion on human cloning, other than I totally fail see the point in it.
I think the use of animals to develop of the techniques is wrong and immoral.

"Dolly the Sheep" was the first cloned animal. She was actually the first successfully cloned animal. Many other sheep had to die in the process, including the sheep which "donated" the cells from which Dolly was grown.

Horses are being developed in the same way with many healthy mares being sacrificed in an attempt to produce the perfect racehorse. What is the point in that???!!!!

[Gaffer]

The ethical buck stops at full human cloning. it will never happen withing the boundaries of international law. Its best to get that fact understood in order carry on this discussion

[adamcox]

In my opinion, full cloning of people should be illegal, as there is no need to do it is there really, apart from maybe research

What they should however allow is the cloning of parts of people, when say someone has cancer of the liver, they should be able to make up a new liver and then use that in the transplant because fair enough, the chance of cancer reoccuring would still be there, but the amount of people dying from cancer would almost certainly be reduced and the chances of organ rejection would be decreased.

Just my (0.02*1.6)pence

[Mark Sreeves]

Originally posted by simonm

Sterilisation is the best approach. If mothers keep churning out babies that they are unable (or can't be bothered) to look after properly then they should lose their "right" to have children. Infact, I do not believe having children is a univerasal human right. It is a privillage.

Oh yeah I agree totally!

[kedaman]

What drives humanity forward now is morals and ethics, the way you think will control you and the ways we think will control the humanity. How much do you think we are free to do what we want or how much do you think you can change your environment? You probably think what you can accomplish under a lifetime is enormous, but within what scope? When it comes to humanity you are just a drop of water in an river, try to go in the other direction, it's impossible when you can't even move but follow the river.

As a human, i'm unable to change my environment, my fate and my freedom is restricted to my mind, this is how i picture world today. Tomorrow you have arrived at the sea, you're free to move in any direction you want. Tomorrow you would look back at now and think how disgusting life really was, how absurdly you were trapped in it's environment, how you struggled to accomplish something and then died in the process, tomorrow you won't need to adapt yourself to your environment, tomorrow the environment adapts you.

[simonm]

Kedaman, You might be right about being unable to change society but that won't stop me debating it. I just like ranting and raving, not becuase I think I can change the world, but rather because I enjoy argument.

[Mark Sreeves]

Originally posted by simonm
I enjoy argument.

You don't!!

[CiberTHuG]

So, I have a moment, figured I would post an opinion. This is not my opinion, but the opinion that I feel the Federal government has no choice but to adopt.

"We, as a nation, can not condone cloning of human subjects at this time. There are not only several ethical and moral debates sparked by this, but several scientific problems that arise. We can continue our support of the research into cloning, the research into genetic drift and anomolies introduced, the research into cloning organs, and the research into geneticly engineering human subjects, but at this time... this is a terrible force, a genie of such awesome power, that we dare not endorse this technology until we are fully prepared to get what we wished for."

Far as I'm concerned... the biggest problem right now is, who's to say I can't clone you? You don't have a patent on your genetic code. And I don't have to steal it from you, you can just visit my house. We've shown that we can barely promote the technology that is the Internet without slapping a banner ad on it. I'd hate to see of the new and creative ways marketing can ruin the idea of cloning.

[kedaman]

Right, but cloning isn't that bad, one day you might even loose your individuality, we might unite in a giantic database functioning as one big animal, one big huge brain of knowledge. Some day life will become needless too and universe might notice it can live without it to fullfill its purpose. Or maybe it's the universe that had fullfilled it's purpose and it's time to move on for humanity.