View Single Post
Old 02-25-2004, 04:34 PM   #2
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
First, I'd like to point out a little more clearly what Eggplant was saying.... cloning is not natural in the sense that you refer because it doesn't happen in nature in that way. Mitosis isn't used for reproduction with humans, we rely on meiosis.

Cloning is natural with other forms of life, particularly simple animals (some worms, etc.) and plants (the elm tree, grasses, etc.).

I think you were referring to "natural" in its colloquial form, however, as in "is cloning acceptable?"

Instance, I would point out that acceptability if often influanced by fear and ignorance, and is certainly so in the case of cloning.

Quote:
Originally posted by Father Torque
... people are trying to clone for personal pleasure. Frankly, i think its sick.
What kind of "personal pleasure" do you refer to? If you mean humans for concubines, then I agree... (that's not happening though). If you mean horses for racing, then I would have to disagree. Why would this be any different than traditional breeding methods?

Quote:
Originally posted by Father Torque
Only animals that are basically gone should have the right to have their species cloned.
Why?

Quote:
Originally posted by Father Torque
I dont think its nescessary for people to clone themselves. it just causes media bundle-ups, are bizzare rumors.
Suppose someone is incapable of having children in any other way?

But the majority of cloning research isn't so concerned with reproductive cloning as with therapeutic cloning. This is a whole different concept. Suppose you knew your child had a defective heart that would give problems at adolescent age? If the technology existed to allow a heart to be cloned and grown in medium that mimics the human body, wouldn't you want that advantage?

The "ethics" that surround cloning research are polluted with dark-age thinking. Too much of the "religious-right" is getting bent out of shape and making attempts to legislate all research to the point that none will occur. There has yet to be a convincing argument that I've seen against even reproductive cloning.

The real danger is that if it is legislated to the point that there is no government support or oversight, private organizations will find some economic value and pursue it. Without oversight. That will be a danger. The invitro fertilization technique is a good example of this.

Quote:
Originally posted by Xerxes I have also heard that scientists are going to clone Jesus by using blood samples from the Shroud of Turin.
You heard wrong. This would be exceedingly difficult, primarily because the Shroud of Turin was a hoax and the "blood" was Vermilion paint. Red ochra was also used. The so-called shroud is a 14th century artifact.

Not to mention that cloning of primates is hampered by some technical problems that have yet to be overcome. Though researchers are very close to solving them.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,