PDA

View Full Version : for or against human cloning?


El Sitherino
01-03-2003, 12:57 AM
personally i dont see much wrong with it other than maybe it getting into the wrong hands but that basically goes for anything right?

-s/<itzo-
01-03-2003, 01:25 AM
i oppose human cloning.

its not our place as human beings to create human life forms other than reproduction. i mean what will cloning do for us. why don't we put more time and effort looking for cures of diseases like AIDs intead. something that will benefit our society.

just leave human creation to GODs hands.

BCanr2d2
01-03-2003, 01:36 AM
I oppose it very much so. There is nothing right with human cloning, it basically voids everything that people have fought for over the last 100 or more years. The ability to be an individual, to be unique, and to express that as well.
Once we make copies of ourselves, even if they are our children, it voids evolving into a better species. Do people not realise that humans aren't a static design, that they are forever evolving, changing......

Not to mention the legalities over the certain uses that people have for them, for medical purposes especially. Do we somehow not grant that clone a life, a name, just so that they can save someone else. You are depriving something else, which we would call human, the chance to be that, to have a life of their own. Or do people not look that deep into the whole situation, and look at the ethical, moral and legal ramifications of any situation with a clone.........

C'jais
01-03-2003, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-


its not our place as human beings to create human life forms other than reproduction.

Cloning is reproduction. And don't look at clones like freaks - they cannot be better than a 98% copy of the source, due to a currently unsolveable problem with the cloning technique. Clones are not the same person as their host, and they can never be.

I really don't get this unreasonable fear for the clones themselves a lot of people in here have. Fear the consequences, fear the technique, but for God's sake, clones are just as human as you and me.

something that will benefit our society.

I'll give you cloning that can benefit society: Stem cell research. You clone the usual way, except you don't insert the embryo in a womb, but in a bowl instead. There, you let it grow to about the size of 4 cells. No more is needed, no miracles or hidden tricks involved. These early cells have the ability to morph into any type of cell the body needs (only natural since they need to grow to a whole baby quickly).

Look at Mr. Smith: Due to an unfortunate accident, his spine nerves are ripped apart, rendering him severely disabled. If we clone some of his cells backwards to the stem cell stage, and insert them into his spine, they can actually grow into nerve cells and heal him. That is no miracle, that is cloning healing people. There are a zillion of other possibilities for healing formerly incurable problems with this technique.

But there's another alternative: Cyborgs. Yes, soon we could be able to use nanotechnology to solve much the same problems, only it'd result in a drasticly more mechanical person than we used to know. Imagine non-human circuits in your brain and polymer for your bones.

It all rests on these two options. Which is the way to go?

just leave human creation to GODs hands.

Bah. Human reproduction has nothing to do with belief. It works fine without putting faith into a higher power. It's all chemicals and a bag of chips, just like you don't associate God with taking a leak or bending your knee.

-s/<itzo-
01-03-2003, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
Cloning is reproduction. And don't look at clones like freaks - they cannot be better than a 98% copy of the source, due to a currently unsolveable problem with the cloning technique. Clones are not the same person as their host, and they can never be.

reproduction and cloning is different. cloning is man made its artificial. its tampering with the natural process. thats like comparing ham with spam, it just ain't the same as the original. but thats not even my point. i mean why do we as human beings need clones of ourselves. i just think its unnecessary.


I'll give you cloning that can benefit society: Stem cell research. You clone the usual way, except you don't insert the embryo in a womb, but in a bowl instead. There, you let it grow to about the size of 4 cells. No more is needed, no miracles or hidden tricks involved. These early cells have the ability to morph into any type of cell the body needs (only natural since they need to grow to a whole baby quickly).

yeah, i've heard about this and it is very helpfull.

but the process of cloning someone of yourself, that i oppose because i really don't see any point of it. it won't achieve anything.

El Sitherino
01-03-2003, 02:12 AM
stem cell research is why i think it is ok. i saw michael j. foxes presentation to the senate and man i started cryin cuz it was sad that the parkinsons literally knocked him out of his chair from the twitching and stuff.

FunClown
01-03-2003, 02:13 AM
I personally don't like human cloning and even animal cloning.

Clones are indeed not perfect and almost all if not all have some sought of abmorality that the original did not have. The clones are therefore, put in a state where they have suffering and pain because of scientists who want to make a name for themselves. I've seen the videos of sheep and so forth.

If that human clone is true, a breathing, living human being may age very quick, have other abmoralities and pretty much have a terrible life. All for what cause? Is it an honourable cause?

Should I start giong to a drive in now to order my child? Perhaps I'll engineer someone or get one of those Woody Allen 2000 SX?

Eugenics on this scale is bad. However, if it involves something like living tissue like an organ growing on its own or cloning blood cells I think that is OK. However, stem cells it turns out has been grossly overestimated by scientists, and if they are a human being growing in their early stages I object. The stem cells are a human being developing.

storm trooper55
01-03-2003, 02:14 AM
they cud use human cloning if the worldm population went down or sumfing but it isnt really required at the moment

El Sitherino
01-03-2003, 02:22 AM
i like where this is going just dont turn into a flame war or it will be my ass and you guys dont want that do you. cuz then they would have to clone me ... J/K:p

C'jais
01-03-2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
cloning is man made its artificial. its tampering with the natural process.

You'd be surprised at how hazy the line between "natural process" and "artificial" is. But if that's your standpoint, I'm fine with it.

i just think its unnecessary.

As do I. While reproductive cloning can be helpful in rare circumstances, we're already too many people here. I don't care about rich couples wanting to clone their dead son. Leave him be dammit.

and if they are a human being growing in their early stages I object. The stem cells are a human being developing.

At that stage, they're cells of yourself. I suppose you cry tears of mourning too when you cut yourself, destroying hundreds of cells that could in fact be grown into clones of yourself.

Once you get down into genetics, you can't really define "human".

Think of the poor Mr. Smith mentioned above - if you object to his cloning, he'll never be able to walk again. All because of your beliefs. Are you in a position to judge him like that?

El Sitherino
01-03-2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
You'd be surprised at how hazy the line between "natural process" and "artificial" is. exactly. ok my point you a christian guy right ok so (ill get to your point of view) god gave us the ability to clone therefore its natural yet somewhat artificial.
:edit: my postcount now is 666 is that a sign?:edit:

STTCT
01-03-2003, 02:31 AM
I'm opposed for now. I think that .... if it is in the wrong hands it can be used for evil. I don't think cloning itself is evil persay. But I do think that the people doing the cloning are given this god like ability to control a human as far as its traits or to clone the wrong kind of person. Say they clone more Saddam's or something. Bin Ladens or whatever. Make the ultimate Terror Babies or what have you. Since, you can't really tell who can clone for good or evil I don't think we should clone at all. Its too dangerous.

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
i oppose human cloning.

its not our place as human beings to create human life forms other than reproduction. i mean what will cloning do for us. why don't we put more time and effort looking for cures of diseases like AIDs intead. something that will benefit our society.

just leave human creation to GODs hands.


If this so called god didnt want us to clone, why did he make us able to. Why did he give us an imagination that could come up with such outrageous ideas. If he didn't want it to happen, he could stop it, or he could have disallowed it in the first place. It was his call, and he left us in charge.

What harm can it do anyway?

You think the headlines will be reading "Bin Laden creates a grand clone army"?????.....
If anyone does have clone soldiers, it'll be western civilization, which means our loved ones wont have to go to war....

But by that time war will just be whoever can press the nuke button first, so we won't need them anyway.



But my personal opinion is, if it helps the medical industry with disease research, I'm all for it. Personally, I plan on going into cancer research myself. Cloning for stem cells is something that is direly needed.

Don't you people think it's utterly fascinating that we can completely genetically replicate a human being? It's incredible. It's another marvel of how far we've come.

I think some people are just scared because if we do, it brings us a step closer to their precious god, which makes their god a step less incredible in the eyes of the world.

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by STTCT
I'm opposed for now. I think that .... if it is in the wrong hands it can be used for evil. I don't think cloning itself is evil persay. But I do think that the people doing the cloning are given this god like ability to control a human as far as its traits or to clone the wrong kind of person. Say they clone more Saddam's or something. Bin Ladens or whatever. Make the ultimate Terror Babies or what have you. Since, you can't really tell who can clone for good or evil I don't think we should clone at all. Its too dangerous.


As much as people want to believe it, and as much as we're told of the links, violent behaviour isnt genetically predetermined.

If you cloned saddam and raised him in any old friendly household, he would turn out to be a charming young man. Our environment controls how we think and feel. It's how we're raised that makes us who we are. Every minute event in saddam's life has added up to make him who he is today. If someone had given him a teddy bear for his 5th birthday rather than a toy nuke, maybe things would be different.

STTCT
01-03-2003, 02:53 AM
Agreed....on the whole if clone saddam was placed in a different environment...

However...if someone did clone saddam....I think they would have done it for no good. I'm sure somebody wouldn't go...you know Saddam wasn't that bad he just didn't have the right up-bringing. Honey order us a clone Saddam so we can show the world that he can be good!

No they would clone him to take his place...or be evil. They would make his environment turn him evil.

I guess that's what I was trying to say. I am totally agreed that it is the environment around you that determines your personality and your decisions etc.

I wouldn't mind if a family who couldn't have children wanted a clone of them to be able to still keep the family line open. That's all good. But I still think that even with all the good intentions there are going to be people out there abusing this technology and I don't think that we should have cloning until we able to control it better....and I don't think that will happen soon.

I also think cloning of organs is awesome. I am all for that research. Is that the stem cell stuff?

-s/<itzo-
01-03-2003, 03:11 AM
Good point GonkH8er


But If we cloned people, we would no longer be unique individuals like God made us.


I don't see any good reason to have cloning, except to use it as technology to get rid of birth defects, viruses and for organ replacement/spinal regeneration, etc...


I believe that people are given souls at the moment the sperm touches the egg, be that in the womb, a petri dish, a test tube or where ever else that do that. Is sperm touching an egg. it is the joining of two people, animals, etc in order to create another. cloning is just copying some dna. i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one.

i believe that things other than dna make up the core of who a person is. things such as personality and character. yes, these things are also shaped over time, but people are born with the general outline of them. i really don't think that personality and character can be defined by amino acids, proteins, nucleotide chains, etc. there is much more to people than that.

i don't particularly believe in cloning. it just seems arbitrary

why do we need to clone humans anyway?Have you ever heard the saying "kids are cruel"? What will the REAL children say? God made man NOT man made man. plus the world population is already a problem. Why add more of us who are LIKE us?

Instead of wasting a lot of money cloning people, the money would better be spent on research to prevent the disease and to cure it without crossing moral lines. sure a genetic match of organs would help a lot, but i just think people can do better than this.

Redwing
01-03-2003, 03:13 AM
What's with the way people are bringing God into this? Creating a clone is essentially creating a twin. I guess twins are evil too, then?

Oh, you say God doesn't want us to clone humans? Gee, that isn't arbitrary AT ALL.

However...if someone did clone saddam....I think they would have done it for no good. I'm sure somebody wouldn't go...you know Saddam wasn't that bad he just didn't have the right up-bringing. Honey order us a clone Saddam so we can show the world that he can be good!

No they would clone him to take his place...or be evil. They would make his environment turn him evil.

But he still wouldn't be the same. He would be a different person; he would not be Saddam. It's completely impossible.

Even in your first example, that would be pointless. They wouldn't be showing the world Saddam can be good, they would be showing the world that Saddam's twin can be good.

(Note I'm talking about cloning as a concept - as a practice it does have extremely high potential for problems)

I'm opposed for now. I think that .... if it is in the wrong hands it can be used for evil.

What is there in our existence that cannot be used for evil?


edit: Wow this post sounds mean. Don't hate me, it's 5 AM ^^;;;

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 03:14 AM
But why should a few people doing bad stuff ruin all the miracles it could bring....


James, 2 years old, dies of SIDS while he sleeps. Is it wrong for the parents to want to have their child back? Wouldn't it be amazing if they could have their child back.

"Oh, but they can make another baby"....

... Well that's a bit heartless now isn't it? Sure it may seem a bit cold, even sadistic and mechanical to bring a dead person back to life as a newborn, but personally I'd say to let so many children die and just say "Oh well... lets move on and have another child" is the colder option.


And well, we're not at the stage yet where we can specify a cluster of embryonic stem cells and say "Make a kidney of blood type AB+!"... but..... stem cells can be taken from foetuses under a week old and inserted into the spine of someone with normally irreparable damage and create new spinal tissue so that that person may walk.

The ability to grow human tissue of all kinds opens the door to treating a range of cell-based diseases and to growing medically important tissues that can be used for transplantation purposes. For example, diseases like juvenile onset diabetes mellitus and Parkinson's disease occur because of defects in one of just a few cells types. Replacing faulty cells with healthy ones offers hope of lifelong treatment. Similarly, failing hearts and other organs, in theory, could be shored up by injecting healthy cells to replace damaged or diseased cells

It's amazing what they could do if only it were properly legalized.

Clemme w/Stick
01-03-2003, 03:20 AM
I'm against human cloning!

If we started cloning there would be no individualist any more....and that would be like taking away our humanity!!

-Clemme

STTCT
01-03-2003, 03:23 AM
I am against the whole "we lost our son and now we want him back, so we cloned him" ack. That is too freekish to me! You are right guys as far as....No the "clone son" wouldn't be the same son - but in a sense...it is. Do we know enough yet to know that regardless of environment or what have you that the clone would not do EXACTLY what their original did? No cuz we never had a clone human before. And what happens if we suddenly start playing with these genectics making super humans and clones of super humans and then someone like Hitler decides to kill us all. Ack. Given to the wrong hands - this is dangerous. Give me a good reason guys why we "NEED" clones.

Redwing
01-03-2003, 03:33 AM
Do we know enough yet to know that regardless of environment or what have you that the clone would not do EXACTLY what their original did? No cuz we never had a clone human before.

But we have twins. ^_~

Anakin_Solo
01-03-2003, 03:35 AM
im going to annoy a lot of people here, and watch below as people start calling me crazy and weirdo...

But i dont care!

Religon told us to belive that US "man", is the creation of GOD. fair enough, But Did GOD create the Dinosaurs ? if GOD didnt create the Dinos, WHO did? evolution? freak accident? meteor hitting the earth with Alien lifeforms on it?

MARS had life on it long before we did. i really belive that, and its only time thaT WILL prove me right. i have a saying,

Life on Earth is not a miracle,
Life on Mars is...

Our PAST, and future is out there people, in SPACE. It is TOO vast to have us belive WE "GODS IMAGE" are the only living beings with intelligence. 2000 years before Jesus was born Man lived in Africa, look at the evolution of mankind, it changes, adapted, WHY?

if we are perfect? why did it change? Did GOD say "oops made a mistake with this one"

I belive we ARE a creation of Cloning, not of GOD but from an Alien race of men. Long time ago they could have left us here, on Earth as life was formed. maybe MARS was dying... and we came here, but our intelligence and understanding is baffling me?

You can mock me all you want, but as you read this ^, sit back and think.... just think of the planets that COULD have life out there...

OH cloning, didnt take us long to perfect that did it? Did aliens really land @ Roswell? are they helping man?

What other inovations are going to change our lives for ever...

C'jais
01-03-2003, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
But If we cloned people, we would no longer be unique individuals like God made us.

Unique? So DNA makes us unique, is that it?

I believe that people are given souls at the moment the sperm touches the egg [...] i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one.

But cloning also means an egg and a sperm cell touch each other. So that means clone people aren't "soulless" in any way.

i really don't think that personality and character can be defined by amino acids, proteins, nucleotide chains, etc.

This is all there is, as of now. Until you have evidence of a soul, I say we stop letting petty beliefs hinder the progress of science.

God made man NOT man made man.

Are you to argue that whenever a baby is born, it is NOT the product of the parents? Stop living in a black and white world.

Until you have proof of God making Man, stop letting your beliefs hinder progress that might save people.

Plus the world population is already a problem.

If that is your concern, I suggest you go right ahead and advocate abortion, condoms and birth control. Go ahead. Do it and make the world a better place.

Instead of wasting a lot of money cloning people, the money would better be spent on research to prevent the disease and to cure it without crossing moral lines. sure a genetic match of organs would help a lot, but i just think people can do better than this.

Believe what you will. When the world is hanging in a thread because Christians can't accept that their morals are ignored, we'll see who can do better.

C'jais
01-03-2003, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Clemme w/Stick
If we started cloning there would be no individualist any more....and that would be like taking away our humanity!!

-Clemme

Clemme, twins are more perfect clones than we can create (right now). Are they inhuman too? Are they "soulless"?

STTCT
01-03-2003, 03:42 AM
did we learn nothing from Jurassic Park???

;)

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-

But If we cloned people, we would no longer be unique individuals like God made us.


If you raised 2 clones in 2 different households, even if they lived just down the street from eachother, they would be TOTALLY different individuals.... You're just judging a book by it's cover. It's how we think and feel that makes us the people we are. If there is a god, he must approve of a little lack of physical differentiation here and there.... after all, he does allow identical twins and triplets and so-on to occur naturally. Or are they mistakes? Biological errors in his grand scheme.... should we outcast people who look the same, or god forbid, even think the same.


I don't see any good reason to have cloning, except to use it as technology to get rid of birth defects, viruses and for organ replacement/spinal regeneration, etc...

I'd say that's one hell of a good reason. Don't you think wiping out previously uncurable and terminal diseases for good is worth crossing a few moral boundries for?


I believe that people are given souls at the moment the sperm touches the egg, be that in the womb, a petri dish, a test tube or where ever else that do that. Is sperm touching an egg. it is the joining of two people, animals, etc in order to create another. cloning is just copying some dna. i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one.

Well when we finally raise a clones human being, if he turns out to be 'soul-less' as you put it, I'll let that statement slide... But, how is it exactly that you determine if they're soul-less? I'd consider 'soul' to be a person's essence. Their emotions, their way of life. As far as we know, that's all in the brain. Heck, we've even found what PART of the brain.... so if the brain's the same, the 'soul' must be there, my friend :)

i believe that things other than dna make up the core of who a person is. things such as personality and character. yes, these things are also shaped over time, but people are born with the general outline of them. i really don't think that personality and character can be defined by amino acids, proteins, nucleotide chains, etc. there is much more to people than that.

From what I know, emotions, feelings, thoughts..... they're all just chemical reactions within the brain. We've identified that as a scientific proof by observing brain-chemical alterations through emotional changes.


why do we need to clone humans anyway?Have you ever heard the saying "kids are cruel"? What will the REAL children say? God made man NOT man made man. plus the world population is already a problem. Why add more of us who are LIKE us?

As much as we are a terrible generation, full of misfits and evil, we have to admit that we love ourselves and eachother. We like us.

In the biblical sense, yes, god DID make man. He made A man... and he made a woman. That man and woman made their children, who made their own children, who proceeded to kill eachother for no reason and be insanely incestuous...

Man has does so much.... We've come so far... Thus why humanism has come about.. The belief that we've come this far without the help of some omnipotent being. We are in control. We have the power. We have imagination. We can do anything, and we will try it at least once.

Instead of wasting a lot of money cloning people, the money would better be spent on research to prevent the disease and to cure it without crossing moral lines. sure a genetic match of organs would help a lot, but i just think people can do better than this.

The cloning of human embryos IS for research.... we've hit a stop sign with many diseases and ailments, where we cannot progress without the help of stem cells. I'll post a little I wrote for an essay a few years back

-----

Stem cells have the ability to divide for indefinite periods and to give rise to specialized cells. Stem cells are the base cells on which every cell in our body is based. When an unborn child is in the early foetal stage, it is a mass of stem cells, ready to change into the various cells needed throughout the body to be made, eg- nerve cells, muscle cells, etc. For this reason, stem cells are very rare, as most are converted in the early pregnancy stages. In adults and children, stem cells reside mainly in the bone marrow, and to a lesser degree in the blood. There are 3 types of stem cells.

Totipotent – high potential – can become any cell essentially
Pluripotent – medium potential – can become most cells, but not all
Multipotent – low potential – a more specialized cell, with less thing it is able to become


There are several important reasons why the isolation of human pluripotent stem cells is important to science and to advances in health care. At the most fundamental level, pluripotent stem cells could help us to understand the complex events that occur during human development inside the womb. A primary goal of this work would be the identification of any factors involved in the cell specialization process. Some of our most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell specialization and cell division. A better understanding of normal cell processes will allow doctors to try and beat these often-deadly illnesses.

Pluripotent stem cells would allow testing of medical drugs to counter disease in more cell types. This would not replace testing in whole animals and testing in humans, but it is a step towards it. Only the drugs that are both safe and appear to have a beneficial effect will continue on to further testing in laboratory animals and human subjects.


What many consider to be the most potential-filled application of human pluripotent stem cells is the generation of cells and tissue that could be used for "cell therapies." Many diseases and disorders result from disruption of cellular function or destruction of tissues of the body. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace damaged or destroyed tissue, but unfortunately, the number of people suffering from these disorders exceeds the number of organs available for transplant by far. Pluripotent stem cells, specially controlled to develop into specialized cells, offer the possibility of a constant supply of replacement tissue and organs to treat a plethora of diseases and disabilities, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.


2 such uses are explained briefly below.

-Transplant of heart muscle cells could provide new hope for patients with chronic heart disease whose hearts can no longer pump adequately. The hope is to develop heart muscle cells from human pluripotent stem cells and transplant them into the failing heart muscle in order to augment the function of the failing heart. Tests on mice and other animals have demonstrated that healthy heart muscle cells transplanted into the heart can successfully repopulate the heart tissue and work together with the host cells.

-In the many individuals who suffer from Type I diabetes, the production of insulin by pancreas cells, called islet cells, is abnormally reduced. There is evidence that transplantation of either the entire pancreas or isolated islet cells could reduce the need for insulin injections.

The potential for further research and development in the area of stem cell manipulation is extensive, but doctors face a moral dilemma at the same time. The primary source of stem cells for laboratory research is from aborted foetuses. The ethics of whether or not to use a terminated pregnancy for experiments is one people don’t want to face. Many people are actively against the research being carried out, due to the location where the stem cells are obtained.

-------

So being able to clone human embryos for stem cells would mean we wouldnt have to use aborted foetuses anymore. I'd rather use a laboratory-created foetus for research than some baby that a mother didn't want.

Redwing
01-03-2003, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Anakin_Solo
im going to annoy a lot of people here, and watch below as people start calling me crazy and weirdo...

But i dont care!

Religon told us to belive that US "man", is the creation of GOD. fair enough, But Did GOD create the Dinosaurs ? if GOD didnt create the Dinos, WHO did? evolution? freak accident? meteor hitting the earth with Alien lifeforms on it?

MARS had life on it long before we did. i really belive that, and its only time thaT WILL prove me right. i have a saying,

Life on Earth is not a miracle,
Life on Mars is...

Our PAST, and future is out there people, in SPACE. It is TOO vast to have us belive WE "GODS IMAGE" are the only living beings with intelligence. 2000 years before Jesus was born Man lived in Africa, look at the evolution of mankind, it changes, adapted, WHY?

if we are perfect? why did it change? Did GOD say "oops made a mistake with this one"

I belive we ARE a creation of Cloning, not of GOD but from an Alien race of men. Long time ago they could have left us here, on Earth as life was formed. maybe MARS was dying... and we came here, but our intelligence and understanding is baffling me?

You can mock me all you want, but as you read this ^, sit back and think.... just think of the planets that COULD have life out there...

OH cloning, didnt take us long to perfect that did it? Did aliens really land @ Roswell? are they helping man?

What other inovations are going to change our lives for ever...

So...where did the aliens come from? ;)


lmao @ STTCT :D

Anakin_Solo
01-03-2003, 03:50 AM
MARS ?

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by STTCT
did we learn nothing from Jurassic Park???

;)

If scientists got their hands on dinosaur dna, you honestly think a movie is going to stop them? Hell no... :) They'd whip them suckers up faster than you could say "I-thinky-saw-us rex"...


Besides... don't you want to see what colour dinosaur skin really is? :)



And anakin, that dying planet, run and hide on earth theory... Isn't that the basis of that shocking sci fi? what was it called.... the one where that guy got ripped apart by that twister on mars.... mission to mars was it? lol..... good times...

Anakin_Solo
01-03-2003, 03:53 AM
And Gonk, we are all told that life outside EARTH is false. people laugh at you for saying things like that, and yet Water has been found on TWO moons of one of the planets? Cant member which one, might be pluto.

SO i belive Life started out there, somewhere.....

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Anakin_Solo
if GOD didnt create the Dinos, WHO did? evolution?


In a word.... yes....

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by Anakin_Solo
And Gonk, we are all told that life outside EARTH is false. people laugh at you for saying things like that, and yet Water has been found on TWO moons of one of the planets? Cant member which one, might be pluto.

SO i belive Life started out there, somewhere.....

Anakin, don't get me wrong... I'm a strong believer that there's got to be something out there. It's an almost infinite universe. There's other suns with other planets, and yes, ice has been found on the moons on Jupiter. Maybe there's life out there that's been evolving for billions of years. maybe they killed themselves, maybe they've travelled this far out of their way. Maybe there's still life yet to evolve. Perhaps on a distant planet there's a primordial soup bubbling away right now. We won't know in our lifetime. We won't have the transportation capabilities to explore that far that quick.

Anakin_Solo
01-03-2003, 03:56 AM
so tell me Gonk, what is evolution

explain it in English? is it a force? GOD? Mother Nature?

or is it LIFE addapting.

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 04:07 AM
Evolution is life's way of saying "Somehow, you were born with this extra thingymajig........ this makes you better than them. They will die, you will flourish. But they may not die. They may stay the same. You may just go off on another tangent to them"

Basically, it's like the whole saddam personality deal. Your environment determines who you are, but in this case, it takes a generation or 100 for even a minute difference to occur.

Evolution is just about how all animals and plants came from a single soupy proteinal existance a few billion years ago.

Evolution is all about chance, adaptation and variation.

There's 2 types of evolution theory. Lamarkian evolution and Darwinian Evolution. Lamarkian evolution has almost been totally disregarded.

Lamark's theory was that necessity was the fundemental base of evolution. For example, giraffes had short necks, but because they needed them to reach higher leaves, they suddenly happened a few generations down the line. Basically, evolution happens because they need other stuff was his theory.

Darwin said evolution happens because by biological fluke, some giraffes are taller than others. They will eat more, and therefore survive better than the shorter ones. Then, by chance and variation, some might be slighty taller again. These ones will survive and flourish. Like pests becoming resistant to DDT or a bacteria strain becoming resistant to antibiotics..

The stronger survive and multiply. Survival of the fittest my friend...



but back onto cloning....

griff38
01-03-2003, 04:20 AM
I am sure there are already cloned humans somewhere on Earth. Who cares?

I remember when test tube babies came around in the 80s. All the usual doom sayers said the same things. Loss of dignity, end of individualism strange and evil doings most certainly!

Now there are over 30,000 living all over the world and nobody cares. Should we do away with them because they were not born like you?

Same thing will happen with cloning.

STTCT
01-03-2003, 04:21 AM
u know i was just reading on cnn....you know those Raliegn people believe sorta wat u believe Anakin.


THE RAELIAN MOVEMENT

Founded: 1973, France

Founder: Claude Vorilhon, who took the name Rael; his book is "The Final Message."

Basic tenet: The old Hebrew phrase Elohim -- usually translated as a name for God -- should have been interpreted as a reference to non-Earthlings "from the sky." These entities are, Raelians say, responsible for the creation of life on Earth.

Membership: The organization says it has some 40,000 members worldwide, with the highest concentrations in France, Canada and Japan. Outside researchers have suggested the membership may be smaller.

Source: University of Virginia's New Religious Movements source


from cnn... read here
Clone story (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/03/human.cloning/index.html)


so...um are you from france...

GonkH8er
01-03-2003, 04:39 AM
Oooooh, and look out, it's coincidence central here tonight, because if you look cloesly, and rearrange some letters, you can see that "Raelians" is just an anagram of "Ar Aliens"




:rolleyes:

STTCT
01-03-2003, 04:42 AM
oooo

and 2003-1337 = 666


the world is going down in clones and nukes this year. we are doomed.

I just merely wanted to say that these cloning people that claim to have cloned the first human (EVE) also believe in the alien's gave us life. But I agree with the poster who asked...and who gave the aliens life?

-s/<itzo-
01-03-2003, 04:49 AM
Cjais why do you always feel to correct other people's opinions. this is not a debate. this thread is clearly base on opinions.

my opinions might not agree with yours but it makes perfect sense to me.

comman man, be open minded and be a little bit of understanding here.

i'm not tryin to compete with you, i'm just voicing out my views.

can't you just respect my beliefs cuz nothing that you will say will change my mind.

C'jais
01-03-2003, 05:12 AM
This ceased to be a debate when people stopped using rational thought. Talk about souls and whatnot has no place in a rational debate. If you want this to be a debate, leave your religious "facts" far out of this.

Now, if you're so concerned about the overpopulation -- Abortions, birth control, condoms.

I'm not correcting your opinions. I'm pointing out that it is your beliefs, your religion that hinders scientific progress which might save people.

STTCT
01-03-2003, 05:19 AM
so we should make clones...and support abortion. Let's kill off humans that are made the normal way and replace them with some clones.

Excuse me but how many children out there do not have homes? How many are aborted? And you guys want some clones.

Take care of the people who are already out there before you start creating new clone ones.

Like I asked before...why do we need clones???

C'jais
01-03-2003, 05:22 AM
STTCT:

I AM AGAINST REPRODUCTIVE CLONING.

Get it?

I am not against therapeutic cloning. Huge difference.

STTCT
01-03-2003, 05:27 AM
phew

just think...if u said things so clearly as that - people will actually read your posts!

ah don't take it so personally....i was refering to others that posted in this as well.

I am for cloning for the whole...organ thing...is that thereputic cloning? I can see a "need" for this. But the whole....lets make another Jane Doe to replace the other Dead Jane Doe...is madness.

Anakin_Solo
01-03-2003, 05:29 AM
Cjais some people out their will use their financial powers to BUY this service...

and to be fair to them, so be it...

is one Cloned human going to end my life?

are we all domed to EVE?

dont think so.

so lets leave this alone....

Oh im from Scotland not France....

and yes i do belive we are a CLONE of aliens.... something is not.... ah forget it...

;)

STTCT
01-03-2003, 05:34 AM
if we are clone of aliens...why do we come in all different races, colors, etc. I guess you could say the same about adam and eve...but seriously.... I believe in aliens too. But I certainly maintain the strong belief aliens did not come down here and give us life.

C'jais
01-03-2003, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by STTCT
phew

just think...if u said things so clearly as that - people will actually read your posts!

I prefer to give detailed reasons for my opinions, exactly so people don't get them mixed up. I actually stated specifically that I see no point in reproductive cloning. But therapeutic cloning (stem cell cloning) is another matter.

ah don't take it so personally....i was refering to others that posted in this as well.

Sorry, it looked as if you were hunting me for saying I like the idea of birth control. And that I happened to like the idea of one type of cloning. I reacted when I thought you couldn't see the difference between the two.

I am for cloning for the whole...organ thing...is that thereputic cloning?

Yes :)

-s/<itzo-
01-03-2003, 05:36 AM
thats not what i meant, man. please don't get it twisted.

when i was talking about souls there was no religious meaning meant by it.

i'm not even that religious, if you're concerned.

if you carefully read what i posted i'm all for the technology part. you know to get get rid of birth defects, viruses and for organ replacement/spinal regeneration, etc...


but as far as having clone of yourself that's what i oppose. its like humans are trying play as GOD which seems farfetched to me. its not our place, its tampering with natural creation.

C'jais
01-03-2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by STTCT
if we are clone of aliens...why do we come in all different races, colors, etc. I guess you could say the same about adam and eve...but seriously....

That there are different races of humans is clearly the result of evolution. If God made us, how come he didn't make us all in his image? Idiocy to me.

UV rays are dangerous. But they also serve to create vitamin D. So, black people are black because they get a lot of UV rays where they're adapted to live, and white people are white because they don't get much. This all fits together because UV rays are both a blessing and a curse, logically we should all be black if UV rays didn't do anything good at all.

Note: I do not want all blacks deported to Africa :rolleyes:

C'jais
01-03-2003, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
when i was talking about souls there was no religious meaning meant by it.

[...]

but as far as having clone of yourself that's what i oppose. its like humans are trying play as GOD which seems farfetched to me. its not our place, its tampering with natural creation.

This is contradictory. You're using the excuse that we shouldn't play Gods, while at the same time stating that there's no religious meaning meant by it.

The last paragraph is not a rational argument, and even if there's no religious intent behind it (which I somehow doubt), it still has no place in a debate. And debates are per definition rational.

STTCT
01-03-2003, 05:52 AM
no I wasn't upset about the b/c thing. Actually I thought you brought up a great point. Why clone people when there are so many people out there already who don't have homes. Like skitz said...its tampering with natural creation bringing back peoples long lost loved ones. I mean not to mention over-population. i mean...i know i'd feel badly very badly if someone close to me died. i mean yes..but i wouldn't want to bring them back to life ie through a clone. People die for a reason sometimes...whether it be natures way of keeping population down...or god...or just cuz...its a natural way controlling population. ah..i'm tired. I'm going to stop now. I'm probably not making sense anymore. :(

-s/<itzo-
01-03-2003, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
This is contradictory. You're using the excuse that we shouldn't play Gods, while at the same time stating that there's no religious meaning meant by it.

The last paragraph is not a rational argument, and even if there's no religious intent behind it (which I somehow doubt), it still has no place in a debate. And debates are per definition rational.

my comments were not religious in general. when i said "i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one." and you replied back saying:

"Believe what you will. When the world is hanging in a thread because Christians can't accept that their morals are ignored, we'll see who can do better."

"This ceased to be a debate when people stopped using rational thought. Talk about souls and whatnot has no place in a rational debate. If you want this to be a debate, leave your religious "facts" far out of this.

first off i'm not even christian. what makes you draw the conlusion that my sayings where christian like. what makes you assume that. and what makes you say this is not a place to talk about religous beliefs in a rational debate. what do you have against christians? just because theres religion, it doesn't have to be a debate.

that whole statement right there is what i responded to. my comments where not, how do you say "religious facts".

and just because i said its not our place and its only in GOD's hands it didn't mean all my saying was for religous reasons.

you can't be so narrow minded here. expand your horizons of thinking. because you only have one perception of me. can't it be that my comments can go beyond religion.

C'jais
01-03-2003, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by s/<itzo
catholic here, dude.

Are these your words? If they are, you're a Christian.

my comments were not religious in general. when i said "i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one." and you replied back saying:

You're quoting me selectively. I did not reply the following to what you stated I did.

and what makes you say this is not a place to talk about religous beliefs in a rational debate.

Because religious beliefs aren't rational. Prove they are, and I'll reconsider.

ShadowTemplar
01-03-2003, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
what do you have against christians?

Depends on their behavior. I have a problem with Christianity (and all other religion, save perhaps the shamanistic ones). My reasoning goes something like this: Jerusalem is taken by christians. The entire population is murdered. Now that isn't normal behavior in warcraft of that time, it was just senseless genocide. All religions have these ´funny´ little quirks (save, again, some or all shamanistic).

-s/<itzo-
01-03-2003, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Cjais


Are these your words? If they are, you're a Christian.

yes they are but Catholic and Christians are totally different. i'm really surprise at you Cjais. i suggest you look for some info on this because i really don't have the time to explain all of this to you. i mean why do you think theres two seperate class for it. what you just said is like saying all religions are the same.

see what i mean. you don't even know your facts but you still ramble on.


You're quoting me selectively. I did not reply the following to what you stated I did.

well you made those comments after i said my statement.


Because religious beliefs aren't rational. Prove they are, and I'll reconsider.

Cjais, ill get back to you on this one. this is a very complex way of thinking so it will be long. its 12:04PM and i haven't slep yet. after i came home late last night i decided to go to Lucas Forums and athe next thing you know i was up arguing with you the whole mourning.

the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking.

so when i wake up i'll get back to ya' on this ASAP.

ShadowTemplar
01-03-2003, 07:28 AM
Catholic and Christians are totally different.

Catholicism is a subsect of Christianity, which is a subsect of Judaeism.

what you just said is like saying all religions are the same.

Aah, but they are... I haven't seen any material difference.

see what i mean. you don't even know your facts but you still ramble on.

C'Jais is generally more up-to-date on facts like you, if what I have seen so far is representative of the two of you.

well you made those comments after i said my statement.

Aah, but he responds to your suggestion of finding a workable alternative to therapeutic cloning, not to soul-less clones, as you claim that he does... Quoting like that is known as ´fraud´ in some circles...

Camus
01-03-2003, 07:33 AM
...owch... Harsh topic... yet I see no blood... O_O :D lol You know... I see "God" all over the place... O_o



The idea of cloning is a moral choice... Just because others do it doesnt mean you have to... :( If you think what you think good... More power to you... :( but lets not forget... Others here think diffrently and dont hold the same views as you... :( You the indiviual... just because there is a clone of you doesnt mean its going to view things the same way... :( Its our views and concepts that make us individuals... :( a Human body is a Human body... :( doesnt matter where or how it was made... Just as long as it posses the few things that can define it as being human... :(


:( thanks for even reading my simple athiest views on cloning... :(

-s/<itzo-
01-03-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Aah, but he responds to your suggestion of finding a workable alternative to therapeutic cloning, not to soul-less clones, as you claim that he does... Quoting like that is known as ´fraud´ in some circles...

goo points but FRAUD! give me a break here. comman, i'm tired as hell and i'm still debating with you guys. to some point my mind is not clear but i do know what i'm talking about.

it was really fun having this intelligent conversation with you guys.

so when when i wake up better get your thinking caps on cuz i have alot to say and i will be more specific next time.

El Sitherino
01-03-2003, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Camus
...owch... Harsh topic... yet I see no blood... O_O :D lol You know... I see "God" all over the place... O_o



The idea of cloning is a moral choice... Just because others do it doesnt mean you have to... :( If you think what you think good... More power to you... :( but lets not forget... Others here think diffrently and dont hold the same views as you... :( You the indiviual... just because there is a clone of you doesnt mean its going to view things the same way... :( Its our views and concepts that make us individuals... :( a Human body is a Human body... :( doesnt matter where or how it was made... Just as long as it posses the few things that can define it as being human... :(
thank you i thought id have to say it.

Camus
01-03-2003, 08:22 AM
Your welcome... :( but it is true...

ShadowTemplar
01-03-2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
goo points but FRAUD!

I stand by what I said about selective quoting being fraud. I can even give you an example of why this is so: If you said that "Nazism is bad", and I responded with "yes it is", then, if taking a quote out of context was not fraud, someone could claim that, when asked whether "science is bad", I said "yes it is". Now obviously that is not viable...

BTW: People posting here should be aware that even reproductive cloning (which I do not support) only produces genetically identical individuals. Not even their appearance is alike (much to the surprise of the scientists who cloned a cow...).

the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking.

False. Big time. Really big time. Rationalism is clearly defined as being the philosophy of approaching every problem from a logical, empirical angle, and religion does not fit that bill. No way of thinking can remedy this.

*Sees C'Jais' explanation and realises that it is much more complete*
*Points down to C'Jais' post*

Also I think that a MOD should change the poll to reflect the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, because at the present state it can be impossible to cast your vote (if you are for one and against the other).

C'jais
01-03-2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
yes they are but Catholic and Christians are totally different.

If you really mean this, know that you're going up against the dictionary, inventing your own language or perverting the one already established. I'd like to see you win this one.

what you just said is like saying all religions are the same.

Even though I didn't imply that at all, what's the difference really? You worship a god. Sure, the rituals might differ, and even though you're technically the same grade of nutcase as the that Raelian dude, you're still convinced your dogmas are the best - without any proof whatsoever.

well you made those comments after i said my statement.

You've outright lied twice now. Go check where I made the comment you quoted. Go check which piece of text I quoted you from

the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking.

Rationalism is well defined. It's looking at everything from a reasonable/sensible perspective. If you want to change that definition, go right ahead. Sensible means you have to use your senses. This leaves God out. Reasonable means you have to be able to give reason for your opinion. And since reason is based on empirical evidence, it also leaves God out.

You take your pick: Pervert the language or make up your new, improved one.

El Sitherino
01-03-2003, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Camus
Your welcome... :( but it is true... sadly yes.

C'jais
01-03-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Also I think that a MOD should change the poll to reflect the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, because at the present state it can be impossible to cast your vote (if you are for one and against the other).

Most polls in this place are so badly construed I rarely vote anymore. The Christian one was nice, however. Even though my name is Christian, which made me think twice about it.

ShadowTemplar
01-03-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
You take your pick: Pervert the language or make up your new, improved one.

I think that Orwell had an opinion on "language improved v. 1.2" or Newspeak, as he called it...

I recall something like: The perfect tool of oppression...

FunClown
01-05-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by cjais
At that stage, they're cells of yourself. I suppose you cry tears of mourning too when you cut yourself, destroying hundreds of cells that could in fact be grown into clones of yourself.

If all scientists have to do is scratch there arms to get cells, why do they have to take cells from fertilized embryo's?

The embryo is developing into a fully grown human. My arm is not going to kill me the same way taking the stem-cells from a fertilized embryo (human in their very early development stages) would.

I see a very big difference here.

JediNyt
01-06-2003, 12:15 AM
The world is over populated the last thing we need is more people. If your gonna clone something, clone things like healthy organs for transplants and endangered species of animals and plants. As for stem cell stuff I spose its cool to clone fetuses for research in helping people with disabilities like paralysis. Thats a good thing.

FunClown
01-06-2003, 02:47 AM
The world is over populated the last thing we need is more people...As for stem cell stuff I spose its cool to clone fetuses for research in helping people with disabilities like paralysis. Thats a good thing.

Isn't feotus just the impersonal term for a human being. After all weren't you just a 'foetus' once? Perhaps scientists should have cloned you. :rolleyes:

Then again, wouldn't you just be attributing to the overpopulation of the planet. :rolleyes:

However, I don't have a problem with 'theauropetic' cloning as long as we aren't growing another living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being strictly for the purpose of having there organs harvested. There is already enough of that in third world countries going to rich countries. :(

RoguePhotonic
01-06-2003, 05:41 AM
If you think it hasn't been done you must be crazy...and with our technology I'm sure there are countless labs where they **** with genes and have mutants of every shape and form....why wouldn't there be?....it's like if we had a warpdrive technology and never used it....to much to explore not to....

Darth Groovy
01-06-2003, 06:07 AM
I support Theraputic Cloning for stem cell research. I do not approve Reproductive Cloning which is what they did with Dolly the sheep. I think its foolish not to research Theraputic cloning, the advantages would be endless. Think of all the patients that will be saved by not having to take anti-tissue rejection medication from transplants. If that arsehole Senator Brownback gets his way, that dream will be scattered into the wind....

BCanr2d2
01-06-2003, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-

if you carefully read what i posted i'm all for the technology part. you know to get get rid of birth defects, viruses and for organ replacement/spinal regeneration, etc...




Using cloning to remove natural diseases, etc is still saying reprodutcive cloning is fine. That is picking and chosing what attributes get to passed on into the future human genome....

The amount of wrong, IMO, about chosing a "better" baby than others is unbelievable. It is no better than the "Saddam creates an army of super humans" type of event, as it only perpetuates those things that people believe should be continued in humans...

Many of us talk about far fetched events, but so far human history has told us that if people can think of it, then people are stupid enough to try it.

Therapeutic cloning, is still something I am not convinced about. To me, it still gives the "who gives a stuff" attitude where people do not have to care as much for the way they treat their bodies, since they can have organs replaced.
"Hon, I drunk too much alcohol, about time I got that kidney cloned" - There are people out there that would use it that way, and they would have the money to pay for it.

Currently there is no legislation in any country in the world to stop many of the weird and wonderful things that we come up with here on the LF's. It is a technology that is in such an infancy, that we have no idea where it will lead...

El Sitherino
01-06-2003, 06:12 AM
no hes sayin that like a dude is born with a small liver he can go in and get his liver cloned but made normal and then gets it transplanted into him

Darth Groovy
01-06-2003, 06:17 AM
Theraputic cloning is not physically possible at this point, only theory. A human embryo has been cloned but it did not last very long. Basically you clone the embyro and remove the dna and use it to make stem cells which could be used to more or less grow organs that match a particular tissue make up. However the research has been put on hold until some polititions get they're heads out of they're asses.

Nerd_Annhilator
01-06-2003, 02:38 PM
well i heard that the first clone, dolly the sheep aged very fast, 2 times faster than normal, so i think it might have the same outcome on humans,so it is basically,if they did clone people would lower life expectancy. cloning humans also kills the original.....um whats the word.... embrio?

C'jais
01-06-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Nerd_Annhilator
well i heard that the first clone, dolly the sheep aged very fast, 2 times faster than normal,

No.

so i think it might have the same outcome on humans,so it is basically,if they did clone people would lower life expectancy.

No.

cloning humans also kills the original.....um whats the word.... embrio?

No.

C'jais
01-06-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by FunClown
If all scientists have to do is scratch there arms to get cells, why do they have to take cells from fertilized embryo's?

Here's how it's done: You take a cell from the person you wish to clone. You insert the DNA "core" of that cell into an egg cell which has had its DNA removed. Conception otherwise proceeds as normal, but with the slight difference that it's only going to be the DNA from the person you wish cloned that is going to be used. Here's an interesting factoid: In the egg cell, there are mitochondries(sp?) which have DNA of their own. These are not removed, and as such, a small part of DNA remains in the egg cell otherwise sucked dry from that. This results in a clone that cannot be currently better than 99% clone. Which is still fairly impressive.

For therapeutic cloning, you wait until the embryo has developed to the 4 cell stage, and then take these stem cells for further research and (in theory) to implant in the clone host as a way of healing the spine.

It's called an embryo for a reason. At that stage of it, you can't distinguish between a pig embryo and a human one. If you were to examine the DNA in the cell, it'd kill it. The stem cells at this stage cannot be considered an individual. Trust me, in the dictionary sense of the word, I'm right.

Your beliefs are hindering scientific progress which might save people. If the whole world believed the way you do, all the Mr. Smiths would never be able to walk again. The Christian church was once against abortion, sexual prevention and sex before marriage (it probably still is, but it holds no real power today) - the world has changed. It's morals are not the same as yours. At this stage of history, it's much easier to change your beliefs and morals, than try to change the world's. For the latter cannot be done anymore. This isn't the dark ages anymore, where religious belief decided your life in the entirety of Europe. The world has awakened. Excepting perhaps Ireland and the Bible belt.

C'jais
01-06-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
"Hon, I drunk too much alcohol, about time I got that kidney cloned" - There are people out there that would use it that way, and they would have the money to pay for it.

People said much the same things about condoms and sexual prevention: "It's ourageous, imagine the consequences, people can have sex without worrying about the uncomfortable side-effects!" Pathetic. Look at the world's current over population. Most of it is the result of religious dogmas, illegalizing sexual prevention. People starve in some places because the pope has condemned them to keep the baby they're going to have. The intent of it was good, to secure healthy morals. But it has failed. Morals are changed today, but the aftereffects of this preaching has not yet stopped.

Currently there is no legislation in any country in the world to stop many of the weird and wonderful things that we come up with here on the LF's.

Cloning in Denmark is strictly prohibited - all you can do is have a 2 week research period, after which it must be terminated. And that's for therapeutic cloning only. Reproductive cloning is outlawed.

JediNyt
01-06-2003, 07:29 PM
Hey Cjais --->http://www.lucasforums.com/images/edit.gif<---

Katarn07
01-06-2003, 08:07 PM
Are you for or against cloning?
Yes and no to what? For or against. I'm against it.
I think cloning animals is fine and hope to see some clones of fine show dogs in the future. But of course they'd cost a lot and cloning needs to be refined to the point of the Kaminoans. Well, not that sofisticated I guess...

FunClown
01-07-2003, 04:03 AM
Cjais,

This isn't about my spiritual beliefs. Everyone has different morals.

Think of this question. In the four cell stage, because you cannot tell if the embryo contains a human, does it make it right to treat the embryo as though the embryo is insignificant/meaningless. Weren't you once composed of four cells? Are you more special than other humans currently consisting of four cells? I guess this is where we differ. If those four cells are developing into a human I don't want to disrupt and kill the human.

I actually don't really care if some guy in the bible belt or Ireland says cloning is the devil or something. Hasn't a moratorium been held or anything on this issue? I'm not trying to hinder scientific progress. What does scientific progress mean if we stop caring about morals and ethics? I'm just not differentiating between a 4 celled human and a 1,000,000,000,000 cell human. I'm sure you were destined to be a human even before you were 4 cells big.

For your interest, in Australia there is ten years worth of stem cells that scientists may use as long as they get permission from the dare I say it Mother and Father of unused IVF eggs. What ever I say will not hinder so called 'scientific progress' for that amount of time.

C'jais
01-07-2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by FunClown
Cjais,

This isn't about my spiritual beliefs. Everyone has different morals.

It is very much about your beliefs and morals. You think 2 celled organisms are somehow individual, human life. If people start preaching their beliefs to the wrong people, we end up with a scientific halt on our hands. This is what happened in the dark ages - it was immoral to even assume the Earth was not the all-important center of the universe.

Think of this question. In the four cell stage, because you cannot tell if the embryo contains a human, does it make it right to treat the embryo as though the embryo is insignificant/meaningless.

Exactly because it is cells, and cells alone makes it insignificant in this case. The embryo is not human life yet at that stage, it is only a collection of basic elements. If you view this as life, don't even dare to breathe oxygen or eat salt. That's inhuman.

Weren't you once composed of four cells? Are you more special than other humans currently consisting of four cells?

If "I" (there is no I at that stage) were killed when I were but 4 cells, I wouldn't hold anyone responsible at all. You don't exist at that point, so it is pointless to ask this question.

What does scientific progress mean if we stop caring about morals and ethics?

Grrrr..... we don't stop caring about morals and ethics because we view 4 cells as something other than human life. You can't stop science from developing things. You can stop their use, but not the development.

Look at plants. That's certainly more than 4 cells. Yet I doubt you have no qualms killing the odd plant. Or wiping your arse with paper. Life is sacred, yet plant life isn't?

Millions of bacteria and other parasites are killed every time you use the shower. Are they sacred too? Billions of life forms could live for months if you just layed down and died - is your life somehow more holy than their? Is human life superior to other life? This is ridiculously immoral.

Humans can only survive by killing other life. And no, you vegetarians aren't sacred. Plant life is EXACTLY the same life as animal and bacterial life.

It's kill or be killed no matter how you look at it.

C'jais
01-07-2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by JediNyt
Hey Cjais --->http://www.lucasforums.com/images/edit.gif<---

One reply to one person.

I don't care whether you're annoyed by this, I hate viewing huge posts.

GonkH8er
01-07-2003, 09:11 AM
In medicine today, it is still difficult to define exactly when a person is deceased, but doctors believe our current signals such as no EKG activity or a flat EEG to be a very definite sign of when a person has stopped living. If this test for life is used for lack of life, then similarly we should be able to use this method to test for the very first presence of life in a foetus. We know now from medical research that this constant brainwave activity is not present in the pregnancy until approximately the 24th week after conception. This is the beginning of the 3rd trimester. Therefore, the use of a fertilized egg for scientific purposes cannot be classified as murder, because murder, as defined by the Webster dictionary, is “the unlawful killing of one human being by another”, and at the point where they use the foetus, which is quite soon after conception, the foetus is not a human being.

Dr Garrett Hardin, an American ecologist believes the foetus not to be a person, but a merely a blueprint of DNA of the person-to-be. The following quote is his opinion expressed in the words of Michael Crichton.

“It’s like a blueprint. The blueprint of a building is worthless, only the building has value and significance. The blueprint can be destroyed with impunity, for another can be easily made, but a building cannot be destroyed without careful deliberation.”

How does the presence of 1 sperm, out of hundreds of millions which are wasted, in an egg, of which another is wasted every 28 days, make it suddenly more important. Sure, it's got the sudden potential to grow into a human child, but all eggs and sperm do. More pregnancies than you can imagine are naturally aborted soon after conception occurs.

All these monthly eggs going to waste. Why should they have to go to waste when they can be used for research to aid in disease curing and treatment.


And I object to the claim that we treat the embrionic cells as unimportant. We treat them with the exact same respect as if they were growing into a human child. We are just using them for a different cause. A great cause I might add. One of the all time great causes. Medical research.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by FunClown
However, I don't have a problem with 'theauropetic' cloning as long as we aren't growing another living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being strictly for the purpose of having there organs harvested.

That's not going to happen. There is absolutely no reason for growing an entire body just to nick an organ or two. By the time that cloning is stable enough for this to be at all possible, my guess is that we'll have grafts for creating organs.

Besides, once the clone is born (not fertilized) it is protected by laws that would make the scenario you describe murder, one of the most heavily punished crimes in the civilised world.

BTW: Science has to be impersonal, in order to be objective. If it wasn't objective, it would be useless.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by RoguePhotonic
If you think it hasn't been done you must be crazy...and with our technology I'm sure there are countless labs where they **** with genes and have mutants of every shape and form....why wouldn't there be?....it's like if we had a warpdrive technology and never used it....to much to explore not to....

Sure... And the US government is hiding aliens in the Nevada deserts... And the Apollo program was just a big fake...

Those are called "conspiracy hypothesises" and usually don't hold.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Using cloning to remove natural diseases, etc is still saying reprodutcive cloning is fine.

Cloning can't be used to remove natural diseases. You are talking about gene-engineering, which is just stupid for a whole lot of reasons. Some of the techniques are dublicated, but far from all.

Note that replacing an organ with therapeutic cloning doesn't remove the problem, only the effect.

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
The amount of wrong, IMO, about chosing a "better" baby than others is unbelievable.

Add to that the amount of stupidity in it. Our world is an everchanging place, and what is an asset today can very well be a liability tomorrow.

An example where gene-engineering would have done no end of harm is the countries where malaria is widespread: In the populace in those places, a certain genetic defect is more common than on average.

I don't know the English name for it, but it causes the red bloodcells to sort of "fold over", which makes them less able to bind oxygen. A liability in temperate climates, as this means that the person tires more easily. But it also offers some degree of protection against malaria.

Now imagine, if you please, what the effect would be if some noble-minded, but unknowledgeable, person started to "cure" the people living in tropical climates...

I belive that gene-engineering will result in a less diverse gene-pool, as I believe humans to be incredibly narrow-minded. This will be a liability in itself.

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Therapeutic cloning, is still something I am not convinced about. To me, it still gives the "who gives a stuff" attitude where people do not have to care as much for the way they treat their bodies, since they can have organs replaced.

But antibiotics already have that effect (who cares about hygiene, when we can just kill the disease). But we wouldn't want to loose that (that we just may loose it due to exactly that attitude is a different question).

vegietto
01-07-2003, 10:53 AM
i think human cloning is kool i just hope they don't go to far

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Darth Groovy
A human embryo has been cloned but it did not last very long.

Hate to correct you, but that was exposed as fraud soon after. They only made it grow to the 8- or 16-cell stage, or something like that, before it died. Eggs without DNA can be prompted to do that. So it kinda wasn't convincing...

Originally posted by Darth Groovy
Basically you clone the embyro and remove the dna and use it to make stem cells which could be used to more or less grow organs that match a particular tissue make up.

No, no, no. You take the DNA out of the cell that you want to clone, put it in an egg-cell whose DNA has been removed, give it an electric shock, and viola, you have a clone. Then you let it develop a little, and extract the stem cells.

At least that's how it works on paper...

Deft Aklin
01-07-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
This ceased to be a debate when people stopped using rational thought. Talk about souls and whatnot has no place in a rational debate. If you want this to be a debate, leave your religious "facts" far out of this.

Now, if you're so concerned about the overpopulation -- Abortions, birth control, condoms.

I'm not correcting your opinions. I'm pointing out that it is your beliefs, your religion that hinders scientific progress which might save people.

You go boy! I have, for quite some time, been a critical Atheist. Being as such, I lack certain beliefs that had once clouded my judgement, but anyway.......enough about religion or lack thereof.

In any event, I am all for cloning, though I do feel that no clone should be allowed to grow to maturation. I don't want a duplicate of me running around, I already have kids. As far as for scientific experimentation, I am all about that. Stem cell research, organ growth and the like. Go science, maybe we'll get lucky and they will find cures for many diseases and ailments affecting us today. I saw a sepcial in which they grew a human ear on a mouse using stem cells. Amazing stuff. Admittedly, such things can, in the wrong hands bring about very very bad things, but what can't?

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
People said much the same things about condoms and sexual prevention: "It's ourageous, imagine the consequences, people can have sex without worrying about the uncomfortable side-effects!" Pathetic. Look at the world's current over population. Most of it is the result of religious dogmas, illegalizing sexual prevention. People starve in some places because the pope has condemned them to keep the baby they're going to have. The intent of it was good, to secure healthy morals. But it has failed. Morals are changed today, but the aftereffects of this preaching has not yet stopped.

Gah! You beat me to say just that, though I was going to say it in the abortion tread, if it resurfaced...

Originally posted by Cjais
Cloning in Denmark is strictly prohibited - all you can do is have a 2 week research period, after which it must be terminated. And that's for therapeutic cloning only. Reproductive cloning is outlawed.

Only true for human cloning. Law allows you to make a clone of an animal, but you have to terminate it before it is born, even if it is just a day or two before. Now, even our politicians can see that that is silly, and we may have a law legalising animal cloning for research purposes within the forseeable future.

shukrallah
01-07-2003, 11:11 AM
cloning anything is wrong, as for Episode II its just a movie that i like, but that doesnt mean cloning is right.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er
I think some people are just scared because if we do, it brings us a step closer to their precious god, which makes their god a step less incredible in the eyes of the world.

Just what the rest of us have been dying to say for quite some time...

Originally posted by GonkH8er
Our environment controls how we think and feel.

True... and false: This is not quite as well understood as we would like. Last time I checked the standing theory was that it was a little of both.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 11:33 AM
What a load of religious... well, religiousness (in the worst possible sense of the word).

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
But If we cloned people, we would no longer be unique individuals like God made us.

God didn't make us. And clones would still be individual (as has already been explained).

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
I don't see any good reason to have cloning, except to use it as technology to get rid of birth defects, viruses and for organ replacement/spinal regeneration, etc...

Which is pretty much covering all the areas that we claim will benefit humanity. You really need to learn to tell the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
I believe that people are given souls at the moment the sperm touches the egg, be that in the womb, a petri dish, a test tube or where ever else that do that. Is sperm touching an egg. it is the joining of two people, animals, etc in order to create another. cloning is just copying some dna. i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one.

The human does not have a soul. The conciousness is in the central nervous system. Besides, bacteria reproduce by cloning themselves...

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
i believe that things other than dna make up the core of who a person is. things such as personality and character. yes, these things are also shaped over time, but people are born with the general outline of them. i really don't think that personality and character can be defined by amino acids, proteins, nucleotide chains, etc. there is much more to people than that.

Two words: Non Sense!

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
i don't particularly believe in cloning. it just seems arbitrary

I do not believe in cloning either. Because it is not something that can be believed in, just like you cannot believe that a rock will fall if you drop it.

But God is a hell of a lot more arbitrary than cloning.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
God made man NOT man made man.

More irrelevant religion. God did not make man. Period.

-s/<itzo-
01-07-2003, 11:39 AM
And haven't you read in magazines and newspapers that in 10 embryos that undergo cloning experiments, only one is expected to be a success. Imagine 9 lives wasted and sacrificed* for only 1!

human cloning is beset with moral and ethical issues. In trying to come up with one succesful clone, a number of embryos are destroyed.

Take this one:
Doctors will get abt. 400 eggs from up to 40 women donors. They'll suck out the nucleus of each egg with a fine needle. Then these DNA-free eggs and the donor cells from the person to be cloned will be placed next to one another and zapped with electricity. This will cause the cell and the egg to fuse. Then the rebuilt eggs would divide to form embryos. these embryos would be then implanted to another set of women that would act as surrogate mothers. Because embryos often fail to implant, each surrogate mother will get several embryos at once. Up to 50 surrogates would be needed to ensure nine or ten pregnancies. Of these, most will terminate early by miscarriage or by medical intervention. Then it is HOPED a normal baby clone would be born.
Now, think, people...

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
cloning anything is wrong, as for Episode II its just a movie that i like, but that doesnt mean cloning is right.

One word: Why?

And don't give me any religious BS. I am sick and tired of hearing self-proclaimed champions of a god of their own invention bash other people over their heads with self-invented morals, and saying that they have some right to do so. That they had a mandate from heaven. AS IF!

C'jais
01-07-2003, 11:49 AM
Skitzo:

Read what was written about regarding embryos as human life. In all seriousness, I doubt you read it before posting this. If you did, tell us which parts you disagree with.

What you described is pretty much the cloning technique. But it is not flawless right now. Unless we continue to improve on it, there'll always be this huge waste. The cloning technique will get more refined with time.

If you're so concerned about the waste of human life, I suggest you out right now and advocate the use of condoms, abortion and sexual prevention. And stop showering. And don't ever step anywhere, you might just kill some bacteria or insects. In fact, if you're so concerced, lay down and die - that way you can be sure to not hurt anyone. Because merely living hurts other life forms.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
And haven't you read in magazines and newspapers that in 10 embryos that undergo cloning experiments, only one is expected to be a success. Imagine 9 lives wasted and sacrificed* for only 1!

Where is the asterisk pointing to?

Anyway, you are commenting on a technology that is currently under development. And you want to stop that development because it is not safe yet?

Consider vaccines. They were unsafe when they were being developed, because doctors didn't have enough knowledge of how to dose the vaccine. Now we have, and just look how big a help it is.

On a different note, in therapeutic cloning you don't kill any cells. You just reprogram them.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
human cloning is beset with moral and ethical issues. In trying to come up with one succesful clone, a number of embryos are destroyed.

While there will always be a waste, that problem will be less pronounced with time and research. Besides, it's just embryos. It happens alot when women get pregnant (they have some fault and are aborted naturally). That is not a problem exclusive to cloning.

And again: The ethical concerns involved in destroying an embryo are small indeed.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
Take this one: [example follows; see original post]

You are talking about reproductive cloning, not cloning in general. Get your terminology right FFS!

And again: That is a worst-case scenario, which does not take technical improvements into consideration.

You promised something more impressive than your previous post, now that you are more awake... I am not impressed.

-s/<itzo-
01-07-2003, 12:12 PM
Cjais:

thanx for the lecture, i surely needed it.

why do you feel the need to embarrass me. can you respond to my comment and not at me (you do this with everybody).

so you're saying two wrongs make it right. yeah i'm aware with condoms, abortion and sexual preventions and the only thing this will do is add more to the problem.

you're not even getting my point.

how are you going to compare human life to bacteria or insects. its whole different concept.

and you're right its not flawless and it'll never be, simply because its human.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
why do you feel the need to embarrass me. can you respond to my comment and not at me (you do this with everybody).

While I cannot speak for C'Jais, when someone starts kicking religious veiws about, I feel the very strong urge to bash his head with a rock, because religion is the single greatest problem in human history.

Besides, I don't see anyone insulting you anywhere. Point it out, if you please.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
so you're saying two wrongs make it right. yeah i'm aware with condoms, abortion and sexual preventions and the only thing this will do is add more to the problem.

Blatantly false: Those things would actually solve every worthwhile problem you point out (ie.: Those that are not only problems to you because you are religious).

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
how are you going to compare human life to bacteria or insects. its whole different concept.

Read a Biology textbook. I am not going to go all through the first four years of my biology classes here (though it would certainly boost my post count).

C'jais
01-07-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
Cjais:

thanx for the lecture, i surely needed it.

What lecture?

why do you feel the need to embarrass me. can you respond to my comment and not at me (you do this with everybody).

To the contrary, I sticked to the point. Please be specific where I attacked you ad hominem.

I'll disregard this attack myself.

so you're saying two wrongs make it right.

Oh, did I?

yeah i'm aware with condoms, abortion and sexual preventions and the only thing this will do is add more to the problem.

Will abortion and condoms ADD to the problem? Why?

you're not even getting my point.

Of course I'm not. But even though I don't get it, please be so kind to state where I'm wrong.

how are you going to compare human life to bacteria or insects. its whole different concept.

It is not. You're placing human life on a piedestal above everything else. I suppose you find the part in the Bible where it says that "Man shall hold dominion over every other forms of life" (paraphrasing) really sound and true. It couldn't possibly be more immoral. The Bible is good wisdom in some places, but this part of it makes me rebuke in disgust.

Sorry to bring the Bible up again, but I feel you've got a fair bit of inspiration from it if you regard human life as something different from plants and insects.

And you're right its not flawless and it'll never be, simply because its human.

Hmmm... since you aknowledge the existance of something "flawless", please be so good as to point out something in nature which is perfect. And no, God doesn't count - we have to sense it for it to count as proof.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
The Bible is good wisdom in some places,

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Bible contains some codes of conduct that are probably good wisdom because those are common sense that is not introduced by the Bible. And where it doesn't apply common knowledge of how to survive as a tribe it is probably the most hate-filled book on the market.

C'jais
01-07-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
And where it doesn't apply common knowledge of how to survive as a tribe it is probably the most hate-filled book on the market.

Hehehehehe...

I especially quite like the parts in the Old Testament where God slays hundreds of people for reasons completely immoral today.

But I guess he's the boss, since he so obviously does not have to follow his own rules of compassion and morals.

-s/<itzo-
01-07-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Cjais

To the contrary, I sticked to the point. Please be specific where I attacked you ad hominem.

The way you respond to my comments. like the last paragraph in your respond. you made me sound like I'm naive, uptight. like the only way of thinking is your way. shutting my views down. its just the way you act towards the situation. i sense negativity.


Will abortion and condoms ADD to the problem? Why?

i think you missundertood me. when i said "yeah i'm aware with condoms, abortion and sexual preventions and the only thing this will do is add more to the problem."

what i meant is cloning will add to the problem not condoms, abortion, etc.. just got carried away and forgot how to write proper sentences.


Of course I'm not. But even though I don't get it, please be so kind to state where I'm wrong.

thats the thing. you always think you're right. if someone goes beyond your beliefs you automatically turn your shoulder the other way. stop thinking narrow.



It is not. You're placing human life on a piedestal above everything else. I suppose you find the part in the Bible where it says that "Man shall hold dominion over every other forms of life" (paraphrasing) really sound and true. It couldn't possibly be more immoral. The Bible is good wisdom in some places, but this part of it makes me rebuke in disgust.

why do you always have to turn this into a religion issue. once and for all i'm not religous. you making it sound like i'm some sorta die-hard gehova's witness preaching my beliefs which i'm not trying to do. all life forms are precious but comparing the two it just inane. so you're telling me human life and an insects life is the same in terms of value. answer me this. did you ever kill an insect before? thousands of times i bet. did you ever kill a human before? never, you wouldn't even think it (unless you're sick in the head). there just much more at stake when you're refering to a human life. you can't go to jail for killing a bee. like i said before its a whole different concept.


Sorry to bring the Bible up again, but I feel you've got a fair bit of inspiration from it if you regard human life as something different from plants and insects.

again, this is not a religous thing. ok get this straight. i grew up as a catholic. but as i mature and be able to think for myself there are some beliefs i question about my religon so i don't stand by it fully. but i do believe in GOD. its like believing in faith or hope.


Hmmm... since you aknowledge the existance of something "flawless", please be so good as to point out something in nature which is perfect. And no, God doesn't count - we have to sense it for it to count as proof.

here we go again. you keep mentioning GOD and the Bible to my face (thats hitting below the belt). nothing is flawless. you act like cloning is just a simple process which it ain't. there are alot of life at stake during the experimentation, the whole process in general. its much more complex than what you think.

ShadowTemplar
01-07-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
The way you respond to my comments. like the last paragraph in your respond. you made me sound like I'm naive, uptight. like the only way of thinking is your way.

"Orthodoxy is not a way of thinking, it is a way of not thinking." -Orwell

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
what i meant is cloning will add to the problem not condoms, abortion, etc..

Not therapeutic cloning. You are confusing therapeutic and reproductive.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
thats the thing. you always think you're right. if some goes beyond your beliefs you automatically turn your shoulder the other way. stop thinking narrow.

While I cannot speak for C'Jais, I do not belive. Nor do I know. I think. And when I see something that defies logic and rationale or an unfounded prejudice or opinion, I heel against it.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
why do you always have to turn this into a religion issue. once and for all i'm not religous.

Aah, but it was you who brought it into the thread:

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
just leave human creation to GODs hands.

Your words exactly.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
you making it sound like i'm some sorta die-hard gehova's witness preaching my beliefs which i'm not trying to do.

No. C'Jais doesn't make you look like a religious fanatic. If you did not make yourself look like one, all he could do was make himself look like a fool.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
all life forms are precious but comparing the two it just inane. so you're telling me human life and an insects life is the same in terms of value.

False. He says that a human embryo is as precious as an insect. You have yet to convince me otherwise, or even present some semblance of rational argumentation for it.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
again, this is not a religous thing. ok get this straight. i grew up as a catholic. but as i mature and be able to think for myself there are some beliefs i question about my religon so i don't stand by it fully. but i do believe in GOD. its like believing in faith or hope.

But being a declared Catholic does make you religious. And saying that God is against the progress that science makes, this must be "a religious thing" to you.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
here we go again. you keep mentioning GOD and the Bible to my face (thats hitting below the belt).

Ooh, but you mention God and the Bible too, no? In the beginning of this thread you tried to justify your opinion with God, no? Well, that's what it looks like.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
there are alot of life at stake during the experimentation, the whole process in general.

"Life" is killed every second. And there is no human life at stake in these experiments.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
its much more complex than what you think.

I think that C'Jais is a lot more knowledgeable in this field than you, seeing as how you continually fail to distinguish between reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

C'jais
01-07-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
The way you respond to my comments. like the last paragraph in your respond. you made me sound like I'm naive, uptight. like the only way of thinking is your way.

The part about God being the boss? Or the part about you laying down to die if you're so concerned about life?

i think you missundertood me. when i said "yeah i'm aware with condoms, abortion and sexual preventions and the only thing this will do is add more to the problem."

what i meant is cloning will add to the problem not condoms, abortion, etc.. just got carried away and forgot how to write proper sentences.

Oh, reproductive cloning will certainly add to the problem, you're of course right there, but sexual prevention will take away from the problem.

thats the thing. you always think you're right. if some goes beyond your beliefs you automatically turn your shoulder the other way. stop thinking narrow.

What beliefs? I'm not of a narrow mind, I'm open to new facts. I just haven't seen any so far that point toward there being a higher moral.

why do you always have to turn this into a religion issue. once and for all i'm not religous.

You made it a religious/irrational debate once you introduced unprovable things such as souls, God and whatnot. Believe it or not, you were the one who first started stating that "God makes babies" etc.

did you ever kill an insect before?

If you really want to know - I go out of my way to not kill any insects. I don't swat flies or mosquitoes. I once broke the brake on my bike from trying to avoid a caterpillar on the road.

But of course, I can't make absolutely sure I don't kill any insects/life since that is unavoidable. The thing that bugs me is that you're placing human DNA higher than everything else. It's the "In theory we're better than everyone else" attitude I have trouble accepting.

If it was my pain or life versus that of an animal, I'd place myself higher. I am the all-important character in my life. But I do not view human life as somehow more holy/important than that of animals.

again, this is not a religous thing.

Right, ok, it isn't. But it's still beliefs we're talking about. Whether they're religious or not doesn't matter. You didn't seem to take the Raelians very seriously since they claimed life originated from aliens. I'm doing the same thing here. God/Aliens created life on earth - it's both the exact same hogwash.

Tell me why your beliefs are more important, better, true and wiser than those of the Raelians.

there are alot of life at stake during the experimentation,

Is there? As we all know, cells are alive. But therapeutic cloning does not kill those cells. They're reprogrammed, as Templar said.

its much more complex than what you think.

It may be. But I find your view on these things very simple black and white categorizations. Let's see: We have human life, animal life (lesser life?) and non-life.

FunClown
01-09-2003, 06:02 AM
Posted by CJAIS
It is very much about your beliefs and morals. You think 2 celled organisms are somehow individual, human life. If people start preaching their beliefs to the wrong people, we end up with a scientific halt on our hands. This is what happened in the dark ages - it was immoral to even assume the Earth was not the all-important center of the universe.

I was keeping my spiritual beliefs out of this debate because I can not speak for God. All I know, is that humans now posess the technology to clone. I can however, speak for my own views on the subject.

BTW, I like Copernicus. I was reading a book "A History of Science: 1543 - 2001" and it mentioned how it was only brought to the Roman Catholic churches attention in a seperate court case unrelated to this relating to a cult that had started up. The Roman Catholic church got it in their heads that because the cult believed in Copernicuses theory the Roman Catholic church targeted Copernicus. I am of course not Roman Catholic and do not attest to their views, so they are not relevent as far as I am concerned. They actually slaughtered ancestors of mine to be honest. So ramble on all you want about what they have done, but don't aim it at me.

Also, the dark ages, science only came to a hult in Europe. The Arabs took off where Europe had left off.

As far as life and cells, I'll just agree to disagree before it turns sour like the rest of the thread. I've known to many of these debates. ;)

Cheers and this thread twas good while it lasted. :)

GonkH8er
01-09-2003, 06:57 AM
Thread moved to our flashy new forum :)

Andy867
01-09-2003, 11:52 AM
Ok, all you guys and ladies keep bringing up the fact of how human cloning will terminate individualism. Well, to me, its a choice. We are WANTING to give up individualism to have this "clone." Its just like joining the military. We are giving up our right as an individual, but no one really opposes that. And the military is just a way of cloning everyone to be a perfect being. I know that there is the fear of getting in the wrong hands, but that like someone said on page 1 goes for almost anything. look back at late 2002 and with John Muhammed Williams and what happened when a gun got into his hands. Does that mean we have to stop making guns because they get into the wrong hands. No, of course it doesn't. People just need to use common sense, because every person born on this planet knows the difference between right and wrong, even though they may not accept it.

C'jais
01-09-2003, 01:21 PM
Well said Andy.

Technology isn't going to do harm. It's the use of it that might prove to be a dangerous idea. Just as nuclear research yielded both nuclear powerplants and nuclear bombs, so do cloning have both a positive and negative aspect.

Telling people to stop researching electricity because it'll result in fighter jets and humans playing God with light is no good idea. Telling people to stop researching cloning because it'll result in reproductive cloning and genetic engineering on a grand scale isn't wise either, as it can be used for good purposes as well.

Andy867
01-09-2003, 03:40 PM
And what about artificial insemination? That's artificial by name, yet it is a part of the reproduction of humans. Think of how many sperm donors there are. Are we going to stop artificial insemination because we are selves are playing "GOD" to help a woman get pregnant. Cloning is just another form of artificial insemination if you think about it. Because sperm contain the DNA of the host which is then being passed on to another. You guys REALLY need to think on the other side of the border before saying, " CLONING?! OH MY GOD!! HISS HISS!!" And with cloning of humans comes the idea of cloning humans parts, which will become effective instead of waiting for someone to croak or get into a fatal accident just to donate their organs. What if those same organs were cloned? How will we know how the organs will react unless human clones are produced to see how the cloned organs work and react with natural/uncloned organs/host bodies.

El Sitherino
01-09-2003, 05:44 PM
ok not that im religious this is just something i dont get. ok ? when people say god doesnt want this. well first off what did god personally tell you this? i dont think so. so you cant speak for god. second right gods against this huh well then why did god give us the ability to do it. and dont tell me to test are will. thats crap god already knows you have will. if gods all powerful and knowledgeful he would know you have strong will power and convictions therefore religion should in no way halter science. if god really cared for us he wouldnt give us these diseases that the only way to cure at this point would be through theraputic(sp?) cloning. repeat theraputic. not reproductive. so stop with the god is against it thing cuz god isnt you are. thank you have a nice day.:)

RoguePhotonic
01-09-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Sure... And the US government is hiding aliens in the Nevada deserts... And the Apollo program was just a big fake...

Those are called "conspiracy hypothesises" and usually don't hold.

Well without getting involved in a conversation I don't want to be in I will just say that if nothing has been done...then I just shake my head at scientists.

Though I fail to see how this could be considered a conspiracy.

And I believe the apollo program was a fake:p .........

razorace
01-10-2003, 01:51 AM
Cloned humans aren't against the laws of nature. It's not like you're photocopying a person.....a clone will be a totally different people than the clonee.

Darth Groovy
01-10-2003, 05:18 AM
Not completely different. The same genetic make up, but a different physical appearance, yes. To overlook the potential of theraputic cloning is pure ignorance and utter foolishness. :(

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by FunClown
Also, the dark ages, science only came to a hult in Europe. The Arabs took off where Europe had left off.

*coughtheGreatLibraryofAlexandriacough*(1)

Well without getting involved in a conversation I don't want to be in I will just say that if nothing has been done...then I just shake my head at scientists.

I see it as a very real possibility that no cloned humans have been born. Why? Because the people who have the expertise to do it have reputations to protect. And current consensus in the scientific community is that reproductive cloning should make you pariah.

BTW: Those "hoax claims" against the Apollo Program pop up from time to time. So far, to my knowledge, NASA has been able to refute them all... But this is kinda off topic.

1) The Great Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground by a Islamic warlord. A litterally irreplaceable compilation of works on math and science (or rather a philosophical proto-science) was burned to ashes to satisfy the religious dogmas of one person.

razorace
01-10-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Darth Groovy
Not completely different. The same genetic make up, but a different physical appearance, yes. To overlook the potential of theraputic cloning is pure ignorance and utter foolishness. :(

Well, different in each way we consider people individuals. Do we not consider identical twins different people?

Admiral_Ackbar8
01-10-2003, 05:48 PM
when they get to human cloning which i think will be in about 50 years would be dangerous
there are some many things that could go wrong and why would you want to have a clone of your self
i wouldnt like it that much

Taos
01-10-2003, 06:50 PM
Personally, I don't care if they clone people or not. I'm sure the military would like to try to find someway to use this to their advantage.

"Just send in the clones, they aren't important."


I don't claim to know a lot about the topic but I am trying to read more about it.

C'jais
01-10-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Leemu Taos
I don't claim to know a lot about the topic but I am trying to read more about it.

Ahh good idea Leemu :)

Here's a bit to help you on the way: Clones are not subhumans. If anyone seriously still believes this, go on and tell us why. Now, it is just as hard to grow a clone as it is to grow a normal human. In fact, it obviously takes more work because scientists have to fiddle with the process.

Also: Everyone should know the difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. If anyone don't know this, read this whole thread.

razorace
01-10-2003, 09:28 PM
It should be noted that cloning for miltary purposes would be insane. The cost would be huge, plus, you'd still have to grow and raise them the old fashion way.

teutonicknight
01-11-2003, 01:22 AM
It should be noted that cloning for miltary purposes would be insane. The cost would be huge, plus, you'd still have to grow and raise them the old fashion way.

Acutally, in the future, I don't beleive that it would be insane. We as humans can do so much with DNA now (genecticly altering food), that I beleive in the future we will be able to genecticly alter the clones to have accelerated growth. I do worry about that though, and what would happen it the technonogy got into the wrong hands.

I'm personally agaist cloning, but I agree with stem-cell research and what-not.

razorace
01-11-2003, 05:48 AM
How would feeding, growing, training a clone be better than simply using robotic weapontry or conscripting "normal" humans?

Plus there are some huge technical hurdles to pass before something like this could be even thinkable. Any one of these are decades away.

1. A way to speed up the aging process from 0 - 18 years.
2. Teaching techniques to educate such speed aged individuals.
3. Artifical Wombs

Since this sort of tech will be not possible for, at least, decades, we really shouldn't worry about it. It's like making regulations for transporters before they actually exist. :)

Andy867
01-11-2003, 01:51 PM
This is starting to sound like the Genome Project from Metal Gear Series With Big Boss, Liquid and Solid/Solidus Snake. S3 in other words. They used the dna with some altercations to make liquid and solid snake function like combat fighters with focalized training for war and close combat. So, would it be so hard in the next say 50 years to study DNA strands that exceed normal muscle growth and faster foot speed, better reflexes. because all of this deals with our genetic make-up and training. So what would stop the military from doing so? You know they are always looking for new ways to win wars with less casualties.

{BK}SupremePain
01-11-2003, 02:19 PM
i am personaly torn on this subject.... on the one hand, people not able to get pregnant could have children and on the other hand, if the technoligi fell into the wrong hands there could be caused a big problem in the world... in cloning itself i think it is okay, but a problem could be that people would look down on people that were cloned as not real humans... that is if they should find out somehow...

C'jais
01-11-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by {BK}SupremePain
if the technoligi fell into the wrong hands there could be caused a big problem in the world...

Right.

Everyone, what exactly is it that you fear if the cloning technology "fell into the wrong hands"?

AOTC'esque clone army scenarios?

{BK}SupremePain
01-11-2003, 02:44 PM
lol.... no sorry i should have said... i dident mean like creating a army of clones sorry i meant .......... people cloning and selling human lives on the black market, groving slaves etc. i dont know if you find this a bit exentrick but... i think its definetly a chance considering that some people now adays actuly kidnape human beings and sell there organs to hospitals

C'jais
01-11-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by {BK}SupremePain
people cloning and selling human lives on the black market, groving slaves etc.

I don't think we'll get to the point of growing slaves. Clones have just the same rights as normally bred humans. If someone wanted to sell slaves, he could already do it now. It'd be tough work though, as the slave owner would have to get the clones raised from birth, which would literally take ages. Better to just grab some fresh, mature ones already grown to the right size.

i think its definetly a chance considering that some people now adays actuly kidnape human beings and sell there organs to hospitals

I think that's an urban myth, but I'm not completely sure. I don't think hospitals just accept organs coming in from the streets, and I guess they have to be carefully transported as well. Not to mention that they probably won't as good a prize to make up for all the work.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 02:58 PM
Ok sorry I'm a little late here :D

I disagree with cloning for all reasons but here is the main one... human males were made with a penis and human females with a vagina for the specific purposes of reproducing. If we take that away then we are losing something very valuble. Even those people who are unable to have a baby because of complications then they can always adopt.

{BK}SupremePain
01-11-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Even those people who are unable to have a baby because of complications then they can always adopt.

yes they can adopt but the child wouldent have there DNA

C'jais
01-11-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
human males were made with a penis and human females with a vagina for the specific purposes of reproducing. If we take that away then we are losing something very valuble.

No need to worry. I don't think people are going to give up sex any time soon.

And I honestly don't think everybody could/would have their child cloned if the option was there. Think deeper about it: Would you want your child to be a hybrid between your partner and you, or a complete replica of either? I don't think most people are that egoistic when it comes down to it.

{BK}SupremePain
01-11-2003, 03:20 PM
I think that's an urban myth, but I'm not completely sure. I don't think hospitals just accept organs coming in from the streets, and I guess they have to be carefully transported as well. Not to mention that they probably won't as good a prize to make up for all the work. [/QUOTE]

i can tell you this: i know a guy that onced was on a tour bus in south amarika they stopped to look at a sight when sudenly one of the people on the tour were missing they called the police and there was a big search after him, the police later found the man in a gutter sleeping they took him to a docter and he discovered a scare on the mans tummy... someone had taken the man , taken his kidney and pitched him back up again.. the docter that ecsamended him saw that it was very professional... the people that had done it definitly knew what they were doing....
you see the people that does these kinds of things are professionals the hospitals just look the other way and dosent ask questions..... and i can tell you they definitly make a lot of money doing something like this, it may even be docters on hospitals doing it, that could explain that they realy know what they are doing and dosent cuase so much damage on the people

and about the other thing i said that it could seam a bit exentrick
to some people... so .....

razorace
01-11-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Andy867
So, would it be so hard in the next say 50 years to study DNA strands that exceed normal muscle growth and faster foot speed, better reflexes. because all of this deals with our genetic make-up and training.

True, but that's not cloning. That's genetic engineering and a different subject. :)

And I honestly don't think everybody could/would have their child cloned if the option was there. Think deeper about it: Would you want your child to be a hybrid between your partner and you, or a complete replica of either? I don't think most people are that egoistic when it comes down to it.

Very true, if they could get the technique down right, they could just combine the parent's DNA and create a new set for the baby (just like the old fashion way).

Andy867
01-11-2003, 05:11 PM
But then think about it razor, when the right genomes are chosen, they are placed into the selected DNA code strand, because most the of the original DNA has to remain in order to make-up the rest of the genetic material. So most of the person would still be a clone, just enhanced in a sense. And cloning could be considered genetic engineering since the cloned dna wont be 100% exact, its just that, genetic engineering. Anything that deals with alternations or extractions of genetic material, especially that of a clone dna strand, can be categorized as being genetic engineering.

razorace
01-11-2003, 07:24 PM
And your point is?

Master_Keralys
01-11-2003, 07:26 PM
Most of you are missing one critical point throughout this topic. The truth is, we don't NEED cloning! It is quite possible to take stem cells - yes the exact kind needed - from a fully grown human adult. There is no requirement for cloning. (Also, since when does "rational" apply only to atheists? Newton wasn't an atheist, neither was Galileo, daVinci, or many others.) The point is, there is no need for cloning, so why do it when there are other alternatives that don't require taking a human life? Because it is murder, pure and simple. The heart is beating pretty early, and anyone who's ever seen an ultra sound recognizes life - human life - even in a fetus.

razorace
01-11-2003, 09:55 PM
Stem cells from where in the adult body?

El Sitherino
01-12-2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by razorace
Stem cells from where in the adult body? exactly where the hell are stem cells located in adults?

C'jais
01-12-2003, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Most of you are missing one critical point throughout this topic. The truth is, we don't NEED cloning! It is quite possible to take stem cells - yes the exact kind needed - from a fully grown human adult.

And where would these stem cells reside in a grown adult? But you're right of course, we don't need cloning. We don't need stem cell research to save lives, but it's still a pretty neat idea. Just as we don't really need TV's, medicine, antibiotics etc.

The heart is beating pretty early, and anyone who's ever seen an ultra sound recognizes life - human life - even in a fetus.

The heart is beating pretty early? It's not at all beating when we take the stem cells from the 4 celled embryo and reprogram them to another kind of cell. Y'see, there's no killing involved in stem cell cloning. No cells are going to die. No life will be murdered. Of course, abortion is another matter, but save that for the thread about it.

GonkH8er
01-12-2003, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
exactly where the hell are stem cells located in adults?

Recently discovered actually. Stem cells in adults have been found in a few places, for example, umbilical cords, and bone I believe.

Apparently it's just as, if not more useful than foetal stem cells. Aborted foetuses and cloned embryos are a far more plentiful and reliable source though.

razorace
01-12-2003, 03:56 PM
I guess I remember that about the umbilical cord. But, it's a pain to get to ether source. Getting to stuff inside the bone is very painful for the patient. The umbilical cords have to be carefully removed to preserve the stem cells inside the cord. (I think the cells are inside the blood that's in the cord.)

Master_Keralys
01-13-2003, 03:50 PM
The thing is, it is more convenient to destroy fetuses to harvest the stem cells. And more difficult and painful to get them from anywhere in an adult (the spine is a strong source of stem cells, too). But which do you think most people would prefer, a lot of pain, or a cure for their disease?

As far as convenience goes, is it convenient to raise a child with Down's Syndrome? Is it convenient to raise children at all? Or how about people who aren't working today because they're old - should we just remove them because they're not convenient?

What differentiates us from Hitler if we're willing to sacrifice others for our own convenience? What's changed in the past 50 years? If there is no absolute morality, then there is no right and wrong except what is right for each one of us. If that's the case, what's wrong with the Columbine massacre, or Hitler's genocide, for that matter?

C'jais
01-13-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
What differentiates us from Hitler if we're willing to sacrifice others for our own convenience? What's changed in the past 50 years? If there is no absolute morality, then there is no right and wrong except what is right for each one of us. If that's the case, what's wrong with the Columbine massacre, or Hitler's genocide, for that matter?

There is no right and wrong. Until it's been proved, we'll have to assume there isn't any.

'Thing is, what Hitler did wasn't a benefit to individuals in any way. No good came out of it (none which could make up for the killings).

Actions that hurt individuals and/or society is to be avoided. Anyone can make up their ideals of right and wrong that end up hurting society. This is what Hitler did. And his ideals were no more false than the Jew's or Christian's.

Mandalorian54
01-13-2003, 04:59 PM
I'm against cloning, come on it's stupid if you think about what happens to the clone, his life will be a nightmare, he'll be living in a test tube, he wont have parents that love him with the same aspect of someone who gave birth to him.

he's going to be a serial killer or comit suicide.

I'm betting he's going to have birth defects and be retarted or somthin.

razorace
01-13-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
The thing is, it is more convenient to destroy fetuses to harvest the stem cells. And more difficult and painful to get them from anywhere in an adult (the spine is a strong source of stem cells, too). But which do you think most people would prefer, a lot of pain, or a cure for their disease?


Dude, donating stem cells is a voluntary act. We're not stealling fetuses to harvest stem cells. :P Plus, there's a safety issue with getting stem cells from adults that isn't a problem with fetuses.


What differentiates us from Hitler if we're willing to sacrifice others for our own convenience? What's changed in the past 50 years? If there is no absolute morality, then there is no right and wrong except what is right for each one of us. If that's the case, what's wrong with the Columbine massacre, or Hitler's genocide, for that matter?

We do it all the time. If you live in a nonthird world country, you're indirectly useing others for your personal benifit.

Morality is determined by your culture, society, upbringing, religion, etc. There's no evidence of an "absolute" moral code.

Master_Keralys
01-14-2003, 10:57 AM
It's not voluntary for the fetus.

Andy867
01-14-2003, 12:25 PM
I'm betting he's going to have birth defects and be retarted or somthin.

But that's the beauty, if you want to call it that. You will know exactly how the dna will be setup. You will be determining everything. Its like picking a computer. You will know exactly how it will look. Its not like you would be buying a Gateway E-Series Tower and get a Compaq Presario or something.

razorace
01-14-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It's not voluntary for the fetus.
Does my finger have any say on what it does today? :)

Master_Keralys
01-14-2003, 07:38 PM
No. But your finger isn't going to turn into an unmistakably human group of cells within the next three weeks, either.

razorace
01-15-2003, 12:46 AM
'Cause it's already a bunch of human cells. Duh!

Psydan
01-15-2003, 07:51 PM
Razor, if we let your finger try to make decisions, no matter how long we wait, it's never gonna develop any further, you could let it sit there for all of eternity, and it would never make a decision, but if you let a fetus develop, it will eventually be able to make decisions.

BUT I think that cloning is wrong in its very essence, unless you can clone organs without endangering or aborting life, or if that is how people choose to reproduce (test tube babies don't seem argued about, though I see nothing wrong with the "old fashioned" way, for any evolutionists, that was the way we evolved ((by the way, I never understood, which came first male or female?)), so why not use that process?) I do see a problem with taking stem cells from developing fetuses though, if you let those cells develop into a human life, then 20 years later you killed it, it would be a criminal offence, but using it to make organs is ok?Another problem is that we haven't perfected it, if it can be perfected, and it took 276 failed attepts to make the first cloned mammal. Do we really want to take that kind of risk for a new novel way of reproducing?By the way, with cloning there is no "sperm connecting with egg", otherwise the genes would come from different parents, it is taken from a cell off of the "parent" and that person is the genetic equal to the clone. Even so, it is still a human life, so I believe that if human cloning is possible, that the clone will be fully human, with a soul and full rights as a human(for those like me who believe that people have souls).Also, a clone takes the same amount of time to develop as a normal child, so why is there a fear of clone armies?

razorace
01-15-2003, 09:11 PM
I think you have a point about devaluing human life but I disagree with how it relates to cloning. You first have to be able to clone a whole person before you can expect to be able to clone individual parts for medical purposes. As for failed attempts, they're more likely to simply result in a miscarriage or non-growth than some sort of birth defect mutant. These are all possibilities for normal human reproduction.

Master_Keralys
01-17-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by razorace
...You first have to be able to clone a whole person before you can expect to be able to clone individual parts for medical purposes. As for failed attempts, they're more likely to simply result in a miscarriage or non-growth than some sort of birth defect mutant. These are all possibilities for normal human reproduction.

Okay, number 1, you don't have to do so. In reality, it's much easier to clone an organ that a whole organ! That's simply logical. Secondly, you're correct about those possibilities. Except for the important point that the probabilities are much higher in cloning situations than in normal pregancies.

Also, there is no way to "customize" a clone; it's not like buying a computer: it's actually an exact copy of a person, not customization. WE don't have the technology to do that kind of genetic manipulation yet. Hopefully we won't ever. Or if we do, we won't ever use it.

razorace
01-17-2003, 04:59 PM
DNA doesn't work that way. Cloning the whole body is much easier since you don't have to know how to make the cloned cells be a certain body part OR figure out a way to make the cloned part grow into a whole organ OR keep it alive outside the body.

Master_Keralys
01-17-2003, 06:07 PM
Cloning the whole body is much easier since you don't have to know how to make the cloned cells be a certain body part OR figure out a way to make the cloned part grow into a whole organ OR keep it alive outside the body.
:confused:
Actually, that's the whole point of stem cell research - to be able to grow cloned body parts without growing people at the same time. Since it's bad to kill them once they're out of the womb, but it's okay when they've not yet been born. Do you see the irony here?

If one cannot define an unborn "fetus" as a person, simply because it is reliant on it's mother for everything, then where does one draw the line? Using the same rationale, infanticide can be justified, since the baby is completely dependent on the mother for everything. Thus, if the mother doesn't want to have to continue to deal with the baby, or if she wants to have it killed for scientific research, isn't that her choice, at least if we follow that rationale?

One can thus see that without at least some[ moral restraints on cloning, there will be an endless loss of the value of human life. It is disturbing that some people will have conniptions over a tree being cut down, but fail to protect human life. Am I the only one that sees the idiocy inherent in this?

razorace
01-17-2003, 07:04 PM
I agree there has to be some ethical/moral boundaries to the research.

However, I think you're assuming that all people value human life. They don't. I think our personal value for a person's life is based on our relationship to them, weither we deny it or not.

Psydan
01-17-2003, 07:47 PM
Razor, it's not assuming that they do have respect for human life, it's that they SHOULD, human life is a special thing, and it shouldn't be wasted, people should really think before they support things that do involve the use of human life as a scientific tool, and that if it is used before birth, that it's not dead, therefore it's "ok" to use it. They have been experimenting with genetic splicing, and recombinant DNA, though and someday we might be able to grow human organs inside of animals, and if we can eat them, why not use them as spare part-growers? That would be the best solution, because it wouldn't raise moral issues (except maybe among animal-rights activists) and we could use them without taking away human life.

razorace
01-17-2003, 08:51 PM
Animal/human organs are good to a point. Since they don't have the same DNA as the patient, there's a risk of rejection AND the patient MUST take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. Cloned organs wouldn't have that problem.

And, what about all the lives that could be saved thru the benefits of cloning? Are the lives of a few unwanted fetuses worth more than the trillians of lives that could be saved thru cloneable organs in the future?

Life is special, but we have to put a value on human life to be able to function as a society. People die, society has to live with that.

ShadowTemplar
01-18-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by teutonicknight
Acutally, in the future, I don't beleive that it would be insane.

I don't think that you have to worry about that... By the time we can accelerate human growth, we may just as well have remote-contolled robot soldiers... After all we already have remotecontrolled spy-planes.

Master_Keralys
01-22-2003, 04:21 PM
Are the lives of a few unwanted fetuses worth more than the trillians of lives that could be saved thru cloneable organs in the future?

Number one, its a lot more than a few lives. It's millions. Next, it depends on what your perspective is. If you're saying that human life is valuable because society says it is, then you're missing the point that some primitive societies have no such taboos - and are thus inherently violent. If, as a society, we refuse to state that any kind of killing of innocents that is not unavoidable (i.e. casualties of war that cannot be prevented) is wrong, then we are necessarily barbaric and evil in our nature. That is the only true difference between advanced civilizations and barbaric tribes - our perspective on human life.

razorace
01-22-2003, 05:11 PM
Millions of unwanted fetus? I don't think so. We're only using the fetuses for stem cell research. If and when stem cells are used for real medical application we're probably going to use stem cells from the patient's body to prevent risk of rejection. For people that can't do that, we're probably have grown cultures of stem cells like a blood bank.

Breton
01-22-2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Number one, its a lot more than a few lives. It's millions. Next, it depends on what your perspective is. If you're saying that human life is valuable because society says it is, then you're missing the point that some primitive societies have no such taboos - and are thus inherently violent. If, as a society, we refuse to state that any kind of killing of innocents that is not unavoidable (i.e. casualties of war that cannot be prevented) is wrong, then we are necessarily barbaric and evil in our nature. That is the only true difference between advanced civilizations and barbaric tribes - our perspective on human life.

The point is, a fetus is far from a human life. Yes, it might denvelop into it, but caring so much about fetuses is just the same as crying over all the billions of egg and sperm cells that are wasted each day, because they could be used to create new life.

Master_Keralys
01-23-2003, 05:23 PM
The point is, a fetus is far from a human life. Yes, it might denvelop into it, but caring so much about fetuses is just the same as crying over all the billions of egg and sperm cells that are wasted each day, because they could be used to create new life.

Actually, there's quite a difference between the two. Genetically speaking, since that seems to be the theme of the day, a fetus is completely human. Egg and sperm cells are not; they only carry half the DNA necessary, so they would never develop into humans, not given a million years. But given four weeks, there will be a heart beating, and not much longer before brains signals are detected. Regardless of the level of development of those brain waves, they're human brain waves all the same. Just because a person with Down's syndrome doesn't think at the same level as you or I does not mean that they're not human, does it?

We're only using the fetuses for stem cell research. If and when stem cells are used for real medical application we're probably going to use stem cells from the patient's body to prevent risk of rejection. For people that can't do that, we're probably have grown cultures of stem cells like a blood bank.

If that's the case, then why not use them from grown adults in the first place?. And don't tell me it won't take millions of fetuses. It took over two hundred attempts to clone the first mammal successfully, and if that's the case, then it will be over two hundred attempts to just get the stem cells growing right. For actual research - it would take an exponentially increasing number of fetuses for each different experiment/research!

ninja
01-23-2003, 06:25 PM
i am for human cloning. but only if a person wants to be cloned, or have permission to clone from that person. i believe we need to master as much science we can for our species to evolve into more intelligent beings.

razorace
01-23-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys

If that's the case, then why not use them from grown adults in the first place?. And don't tell me it won't take millions of fetuses. It took over two hundred attempts to clone the first mammal successfully, and if that's the case, then it will be over two hundred attempts to just get the stem cells growing right. For actual research - it would take an exponentially increasing number of fetuses for each different experiment/research!
:rolleyes: Check your facts please. We already know how to grow limited cultures of stem cells. And we can't just use one batch for a number of reasons, mainly for the same reason you can't just test a drug on a single person. The scientist aren't KILLING fetuses for their stem cells. These are fetuses that are going to be aborted anyway.

^Invader
02-02-2003, 04:49 AM
Ladies and Gentleman we have now entered the Earth Clone Wars heh sorry

**usless post**

Pnut_Man
02-02-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by ninja
i am for human cloning. but only if a person wants to be cloned, or have permission to clone from that person. i believe we need to master as much science we can for our species to evolve into more intelligent beings.

Hell ya! The Human Species has so much potential, we have to unlock it!

C'jais
02-02-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
Hell ya! The Human Species has so much potential, we have to unlock it!

If there's a even a slight possibility that it might save lives, then yes.

Master_Keralys
02-02-2003, 12:40 PM
razorace - you're right about that - and we're back to abortion. When does it have a right to live?

And while we know how to grow them in cultures, we don't yet know how to grow specific organs, do we?:p It's one thing to use them from adults, where no one is going to be harmed. But if you give that "fetus" a chance, it's going to be fully human within 6 months (which is I think the earliest a premature baby has survived - so by any definition, it's alive by then). Why is acceptable early but not late? There's little difference as far as it goes, except cost. Which is really the defining issue here, I think. It's cheaper to get it from fetuses than from adults. So we're down to a politic based entirely on expense. In which case we should get rid of all Alzheimers patients, MS, cancer, etc - just kill em and save us the expense. But we don't - because they are - or in some cases were people capable of determining their own fate. So we keep them alive after they've lost the ability to think rationally, but not before? Why?

razorace
02-02-2003, 05:03 PM
That's why we need cloning tech. We could just clone the organ or stem cells needed for treatment. Like I said before, you gotta be able to clone the whole package perfectly before you can figure out how to clone individual parts.

ShadowTemplar
02-04-2003, 12:47 PM
Keralys: Given the amount of time you appearantly spend on posting to this tread I find it amazing that you don't seem to care for the simplest of the biology governing the processes herein described:

1) The moment you take a useful (ie: totipotent) stem cell and put it into a petri dish and feed it, you essentially have a clone of the host. Distinguishing between the two makes just as much sense as distinguishing between methane made by cracking oil and methane made by hewing pig-dung into a tank and waiting. In short: If you assume that an embryo has rights then you must, logically, also assume that the "embryos" that the body (maybe - they weren't confirmed last time I checked (not the useful (totipotent) ones)) contains have the same rights. After all, if you stick them into a woman's uterus then they will develop as if they were a normal foetus.

2) Growing organs is vastly more complicated than growing a full body. You need grafts, you need to know how the cells communicate, ect.

Echuu Shen-Jon
02-08-2003, 04:58 PM
Two of me??

Scary thougt...:D, however if it only was used for treatment, I'm not against....It can be misused though....

:duel: