------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Hale - 12:21am Apr 26, 1997 ET (#1 of 1105)
Any updated information about the British man who claims to have discovered how to cause an egg to separate, thus producing identical twins or clones?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Drezen - 06:07am Apr 26, 1997 ET (#2 of 1105)
"Cloning", What are the possibilities? For those of us that think this issue out, think about this.... A clone free from any abnormalities, superior IQ, superior intelligence, superior physical strength and absoloutly no genetic connection to any one person. No name, no family, no past, no nothing. A birth certificate that reads "Clone". I don't think so. And of course the C.I.A. and the military have top priority. I think there order would be like this.... Produce a clone that has all the above attributes but include all the genes that will give us a truly destructive fighting machine. Think of it, we could send these "Clones" out into the world to cause death and destruction and they would never be traced back to our Country. The Psycho's at Langley could play there games and not get caught.
We could clone the ideal type of child we want, just get your order in early. Mankind has now stepped over the line. He has now decided to take the place of Nature and God. He now considers himself God. This is truly the beginning of the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
glen mcgraw - 12:13pm Apr 26, 1997 ET (#3 of 1105)
John, in response to the previous remarks about "cloning" CIA operatives, etc., I think you have "cloning" mixed up with "Genetic Engineering". A clone is an EXACT duplicate of some living thing or being. A human form that is Genetically Engineered, by picking genes for intelligence, strength, etc., is not yet available. We are still in the gene identification mode. The DNA code is not understood yet and we are a long way from being able to write a total DNA sequence that means anything. To do this would mean an understanding of life such that we could arbitrarily build a geomolectronic structure that is alive. We are knocking on that door, but nothing has answered yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T.Alexander - 01:26pm Apr 26, 1997 ET (#4 of 1105)
Good point Glen.
I think, however, that there are some rather superior physical types out there already, which would be a joy to duplicate for military purposes. Like an Army of Arnold Schwartzenegers or perhaps, Audie Murphys. Or blend the two!
I think this cloning has some very frightening potentials and the opportunity for abuse is pretty incredible. T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathomchai SAENGDUANGDEE - 01:45am Apr 27, 1997 ET (#5 of 1105)
People have potential to consider scientific discovery as criminal activity of human beings against god or other spirits which he himself have created to protect his soul from the guilty mind. All of the scientific achievements over time were not the mean that human overcome the natural world but they are the mean that human try to be coexistent and harmonized with the physical and biological nature and be a part of its change. The problems do not come from the discovery itself but they depend upon the implementation which is controlled by politics, economics, and norms--human mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad - 06:03am Apr 27, 1997 ET (#6 of 1105)
Hello-
This cloning initially broke the news in The Telegraph a year ago last March, in 03/96! Here are a bunch of articles.
Now...I'm gonna make a prediction, a HUMAN clone will be announced in the next couple of years, possibly in Holland...heheh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James K - 02:49am Apr 28, 1997 ET (#7 of 1105)
I fell that cloning is a part of science that we could do without.Although their is good that could come from it I feel that the bad far outways the good. If the power of cloning fell into the wrong hands think of the destruction that could be unleashed into this world. Mankind is not yet ready to handle the responsibilities that would come from something like this, and probably never will be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harinamdas Acharya - 02:51am Apr 28, 1997 ET (#8 of 1105)
I beleive the major issue in human cloning deals directly with our individual and collective definition of the goal of human life or freedom of religion, as well as with our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. When one human being's rights are subordinated to another in such a way there will be insurmountable negative reactions (bad karma) on both the cloner and the cloned. Better not to infringe on the rights of another and accept what has been dealt to us by higher authority or destiny. When examined, there is no social redeeming value in favor of human cloning. It is the product of a childish facination with biotechnology and imortality, spiritual ignorance, as well as material attachment, and what to speak of a confused psyche.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Himmel - 12:34pm Apr 28, 1997 ET (#9 of 1105)
When examined, there is no social redeeming value in favor of human cloning.
That depends on how you view a clone. If they are looked at like robots then there are many uses that they would be great for.
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Schwind - 12:38pm Apr 28, 1997 ET (#10 of 1105)
It saddens me to think so many people are refusing to see the enormous opportunities cloning is opening up. It's a very simple matter really, if you have religious conflicts with cloning, don't do it. Meanwhile the rest of us are going to stop dragging our knuckles and move into the twenty-first century. As for this "CIA, military and government conspiracy" matter, I enjoy science FICTION just as much as anyone. As real as it may appear, it's still only entertainment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 05:13pm Apr 28, 1997 ET (#11 of 1105)
Jonathan Schwind 4/28/97 12:38pm writes:
>It saddens me to think so many people are refusing to see the enormous opportunities cloning is opening up. << What opportunities are those? I've heard rumblings about the possibility of organ donation as one use, but I have some serious ethical and moral concerns with cloning humans as organ harvests.
I do see an issue here with man acting as God. While there are some benefits to understanding the process of cloning, the risks are great. How do we deal with the possibility, for example, of failed but living results? DNA degradation is something that is a huge concern, and there is as yet no solution for it. And so we take the risk, at the point where human cloning is attempted, that defective results will then leave the dilemma of what to do.
Terminate their lives? Boy, then man really has reached the peak of arrogance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadena Meti - 08:27pm Apr 28, 1997 ET (#12 of 1105)
Draconian Cabal
RE:#11
Man acting as god?! Oh, it's too much man. Sorry, I don't feel like getting into the true bizareness of that statement, see alt.atheism for details, but I'll just say that even assuming there is a god, how does cloning go against its will?
But secondly, as I'm sure someone else has stated but I don't feel like looking, people fear cloning because they think it can duplicate a psychie. No such luck. It takes quantum inferences to develope what we are today, the variable are phenominal, and, if you're of the quantum idealolgy, the fact that we are attempting to recreate makes the recreation impossible due to the influence of the recreation on the processes, from a holistic sociolgoical to a stimulus based orientation to friggin atomic changes. :)
Sadena Meti
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:35am Apr 29, 1997 ET (#13 of 1105)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
I'd really like to know what is so troubling about the prospect of human cloning. It is the contradiction with religion that makes most people frightened at it. This is just another example of science disproving religious ideas about creation, what we are, what we can do, et cetera.
Cloning of people would have the potential of curing diseases, bettering our species and our understanding of our species, allowing infertile people to have offspring, etc. And what better legacy than to raise a child genetically identical to yourself, assured he has the same and better potential than yourself.
It is not the right of President Clinton or any part of our government to involve itself in the "ethical implications" of cloning (our species or others) due to the concept of separation of Church from State. The job of the government is to govern the people, whether they came from sexually produced embryos or nuclear injected embryos. People are people; saying a clone is not a person is the same as saying the parent is not a person. The only difference is that we have taken the randomness out of it; something we do to a large degree already.
As for the cloning of animals other than ourselves, what is the problem? We already exploit other species, and in fact have created completely new species (anything domestic is not a naturally occurring species, but has been produced by unnatural(human) selection). So why not exploit more efficiently? Better meat, more conclusive research, more reliable drugs: these are all very good prospects.
Anyone who is against the progress of this research can go sit in a monastery and ponder spontaneous generation on our flat earth at the center of the universe. I'm sorry, but the Dark Ages are over! Babel will never fall, for we ARE God.
Tom
http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~tanderso
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Schwind - 04:16pm Apr 29, 1997 ET (#14 of 1105)
"How do we deal with the possibility, for example, of failed but living results?" We run the same risks with "natural" child birth. It is a sad story to the general public whenever a child is born with any "abnormalities" and yet the parnets love and nuture them just the same. This is one of the few good aspects we have left in what we call human nature. As for "playing God", man has been doing that for ages. You heard no one complain when we rerouted the Mississippi River so our precious belongings wouldn't be under water. Nature will take it's course regardless and when it does, we will (as we always have) adapt and overcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Schwind - 04:16pm Apr 29, 1997 ET (#15 of 1105)
"How do we deal with the possibility, for example, of failed but living results?" We run the same risks with "natural" child birth. It is a sad story to the general public whenever a child is born with any "abnormalities" and yet the parnets love and nuture them just the same. This is one of the few good aspects we have left in what we call human nature. As for "playing God", man has been doing that for ages. You heard no one complain when we rerouted the Mississippi River so our precious belongings wouldn't be under water. Nature will take it's course regardless and when it does, we will (as we always have) adapt and overcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just_da_facts - 09:18pm Apr 29, 1997 ET (#16 of 1105)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but for the Feds to interfere with "ethical" issues... isn't this bordering on the separation of church and state? Just because Uncle Billy has no vision, what gives him the right to drag down the advancement of science? If you read your history, when X-Rays were first discovered, the zelots ranted that it was of the "devil", to be able to "see" past the outer skin. Remember:
ignorance = fear = ignorance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Smith - 10:27am May 3, 1997 ET (#17 of 1105)
There is much more at stake with cloning than religios issues. What about over population? If human cloning became legal, what would stop some nut from (in effect) mass producing himself? There are also some other moral issues involved which are not based upon religion. What sort of psychological damage could it cause a child when he learns that he has no parents, that he is only a clone of someone? What would others who are against cloning do to the child when they find out? We have to explore what it would be like to be a clone before we embrace the new technology. I'm glad the president has decided to look into the issue further. If this panel of scientists advises Mr. Clinton to make human cloning illegal, and he attempts to pass law banning cloning, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if it's unconstitutional -- and they will do so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Lee - 07:15am May 4, 1997 ET (#18 of 1105)
With so many ethical and moral questions to discuss, it would be a shame to summarily decide them all and deprive ourselves of some worthy entertainment.
What are the rights of clones? What are the rights of derived artificial life forms involving DNA cloned from a multiplicity of sources? Who owns a clone? Or the DNA patterns themselves? Can I sell you a single use copy of my DNA, from which you are allowed one functional clone, but no further clones or derivatives?
It seems like the discussion is too narrowly focused on people who hope to cheat Death. My money is on Death. 100% victory rate. And, blame my Judeo-Christian upbringing, but the idea of growing clones for organ harvesting strikes me as macabre and would make the Abortion fight seem like a lovefest. I think the more interesting facet is that we're faced with the prospect of "people" being brought into existence for very specific reasons, economic, social, scientific or otherwise. For a variety of reasons, perhaps it is advantageous to limit the number of genetically distinct soldiers to an optimal or controllable handful. Or, say, once suitable phenotypes for deep sea mining manifest themselves, corporations won't have to rely on the vicissitudes of nature and the vagaries of the recruitment process to create an effective workforce. More likely, cloning will enhance the ability to procure a sufficient supply of superior knowledge workers, with the vast majority of natural occuring humans being clearly unsuitable for increasingly demanding technical tasks. Which brings up issues like genetic brokering, the boon for disease research...blah blah blah
Another big reason for creating humans with a known phenotype is sexual. An obvious boon for the sex industry. An entirely new angle on mail order brides. I, for one, would have a vastly revised standard for a mate. Fashion, Hollywood, and TV with their penchants for image would probably keep certain faces active indefinitely. Obviously, religions have strong motivations to "reincarnate" their messiahs and most holies. Realistically, so do political entities. FDR would have had to duke it out with Reagan.
At any rate, none of you can seriously doubt that, if we blindly pursue such madness, the ensuing upheavals will result in world-spanning warfare. I figure our recent world wars can reasonably be blamed on mechanization, a net win I think at any rate. But perhaps we are better off if we consider the worst case scenarios that might arise as a consequence of our technological triumphs. Having said that, I think that the genetics groupies in the press blow a lot of smoke up our ass and I seriously doubt we're in danger of living with Donald Trump in perpetuity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Lee - 07:36am May 4, 1997 ET (#19 of 1105)
Garrett, I agree that a law making cloning illegal is in principle unconstitutional, beyond the scope of Federal power. But the spirit of the 9th and 10th Amendments has been so savagely raped and plundered, that in practice, I think that the government would win (though perhaps not without a few spins on the legal formulation).
Hm. I wonder if clones would automatically possess citizenship, seeing as they might conceivably not be "born" in the legal sense (throw in an artificial womb if necessary).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Costanzo - 10:08am May 4, 1997 ET (#20 of 1105)
All forms of human cloning research should come to an abrupt halt. We are living well into the 80's now and I think that is just fine enough. There is no way in which to overcome death, and as we extend life further we find new ways of causing the body to suffer. As far as cloning to "improve" upon mother nature and congenital or inherited diseases, this is a form of creating the perfect human that is unnacceptable. Just think how this technology would have been used if Adolph Hitler had it as a tool. Enough is enough!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Smith - 10:29am May 4, 1997 ET (#21 of 1105)
I agree with many of the others in support of cloning. I think it is importnant to make sure that the line between church and state stays there, for if it should ever be broken, we would fall into another period of nonadvancement, much like the first thousand AD years.
As to the uses of cloning, there are a lot of benefits. For one thing, if organ donation is the idea, we don't have to clone complete humans. If we can't do this already, we will be able to in the near future. The cloning of an isolated organ, with a little genetic manipulation to make it in "perfect" condition, would be a huge help to people who have been born with or developed organ disorders.
As to an statement made by Mr. Schwind, there are government conspiracies, but this is not one of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson - 10:35am May 4, 1997 ET (#22 of 1105)
Any one know the problems posed by cloneing? Just think about it! There are all sorts of problems that people have not even begun to explore. Want a clone? Then you get the responsiblity of the problems entailed with it. Here's Just SOME of the problems. This is all I could thank of at the time.
1. Increase the population. Unless you know of a habitable planet it will just make the problem worse.
2. Live forever. The worlds going to hell anyways.
3. Have slaves. Want a revolt on your hands? Slaves tend to do that.
4. Have one huge medical bill if you transplant your brain. Good luck finding a qualified doctor.
5. Add more people with bad genes to the gene pool? With clones it wouldn't be long until one of your clones did the funky with a reletive clone, Incest. That is a whole new problem in it's self.
6. If one lived forever what would one do to occupy your time as an immortal? Work the same job forever? What about the retired people on Social Security, should they be on it forever living off of the system?
7. What about the rights of the Clones they are human too. 8. Who the Heck wants the possibility of running into themselves on the street.
These problems may sound phony or made up but no one knows what horrors we will unleash upon ourselves if people just don't think about what is involved in this cloning business. Now who's the fool the fool or the fool that follows him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Smith - 02:28pm May 4, 1997 ET (#23 of 1105)
Cloning has many benefits, which can be seen if you aren't interested in breaking the line between church and state as many here seem to be. For one thing, we can clone just organs, instead of entire people. This has obvious benefits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:35am May 5, 1997 ET (#24 of 1105)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Bill, <[email protected]> or <#[email protected]>,
You sound as though you have thought much about this cloning deal, but I think you are letting fear and ignorance get the best of you.
Let me ask you something are you totaly out of your mind?
Quite contained, thank you.
Clones of Humans will not be just like the original they will only look the same.
Clones are exactly identical in all genetically dependent traits... they will most definately have different personalities, but many other human traits (tastes, fears, intelligence, etc) are of unknown dependence and much disputed in the scientific community. It is this very frontier of knowledge that makes cloning so lucrative... we will learn the basic nature of genetic traits versus environmental traits by noting the differences in two or more genetically identical people. This has wide reaching impact, from raising a child to schooling to criminal prosecution.
I know how medicine works I have read several Books on the topic including College level Anatomy books, Medical Books, and Physican Drug Indexes,
Really? I just took my final exam in Organic Chemistry and Microbiology is next week.
and no neurosurgon on earth can transplant a brain, too many nerve connections, and even if you could you would be in for one heck of a medical bill, ever go a hospital bill? try multiplying that several times.
The medical technology is not yet available, true. That is why cloning is so important: it will advance that technology tenfold. But, supposing you did want to pursue a brain transplant into a healthy young body, it is not as difficult as you might imagine. The only nerves that would have to be severed and reconnected are those in an area between the right and left hemispheres where the two halves communicate between each other and the spinal cord (which holds no memory or person-specific functions). While this would still require at least ten years of study and research, it was discussed previous to cloning technology that it might be possible to have a computer read the transmittions through the aforesaid region and transfer a person to silicon. So, organic transplantation is not as far-fetched as previous ideas. As for a medical bill: who cares how much it costs, since you are essentially buying at least sixty more years of life (all it would require is making a small investment early in life and watching it mature safely and securely into enough to buy another sixty or so years). In fact, you could make enough money in one life time so that you could live off of the interest for eternity.
Clones would not be your property either, it's not ethical to have a human as property, we as a country settled that in the civil war. And yes human clones are humans only concieved and born in a different matter.
True, a fully functional clone of yourself would have the same rights as anyone else. However, it is possible to grow a clone without any mental capacity (essentially brain dead), whose sole purpose is as the host body of the donor genetic code. It would not be a person by most, if not all, definitions (excluding the fact that it has human DNA). Ethically, there is nothing that separates this body from a slug. Similarly, such bodies could be grown in mass and harvested for individual organs. But self perpetuation can occur in another way -- by leaving a legacy. You could have a clone made of yourself, and then raise that new person as your own child (allowing a new, but guided, personality). This is particularly advantagous for people who are infertile but want their bloodline to continue.
<continued...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:39am May 5, 1997 ET (#25 of 1105)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
<...continued>
Besides why would anyone want to 1. Increase the population. Unless you know of a habitable planet it will just make the problem worse.
The same reason anyone wants children.
2. Live forever. The worlds going to hell anyways.
I certainly like the idea of immortality. In fact, all people have the basic instinct of self-preservation. Nobody wants to knowingly allow their own death when it could be prevented, excluding the psycological illness of suicide. And maybe people would be a little more cautious of letting the world go to hell if they knew it would be their eternal home. In fact, then people wouldn't need to make up mythical ideas of an eternal after-life in heaven; for we could make this our real heaven.
3. Have slaves. Want a revolt on your hands? Slaves tend to do that.
I don't think slavery was ever on anybody's mind in wake of the news of cloning.
4. Have one huge medical bill if you transplant your brain. Good luck finding a qualified doctor.
I already discussed this. It is not a problem at all. In fact, it is just the opposite; this is the solution to economic problems, you would never have money problems again.
5. Add more people with bad genes to the gene pool? With clones it wouldn't be long until one of your clones did the funky with a relative clone, Incest. That is a whole new problem in it's self.
First of all, the gene pool is no longer evolving (it cannot without natural selection; we are a global, unisolated genetic group), therefore, all genes are created equal (none necessarily good or bad). And I don't think anyone really wants to make millions upon millions of clones of himself (just one or two would suffice for most people). Not only do genetically similar people often find each other sexually unappealing (brothers and sisters, for instance), but there are enough people in the world for that to be very unlikely anyway.
<continued...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:40am May 5, 1997 ET (#26 of 1105)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
<...continued>
6. If one lived forever what would one do to occupy your time as an immortal? Work the same job forever? What about the retired people on Social Security, should they be on it forever living off of the system?
If you can not find the value in life, that is a problem entirely of your own. I, for one, would continually improve myself; I would forever expand my knowledge (go back to school for all possible fields and do research on the frontiers of each), I would launch a financial empire and then use the profits to begin a major space exploration campaign (which I would lead to the farthest reaches of the universe), I would go into politics and create the perfect utopia, et cetera, et cetera. The older, the wiser. If, ever in the millenia following, I were to explore every possible piece of knowledge about our universe and I became exceptionally bored, I might then consider letting myself die, but I doubt it. Social Security? First of all, it shouldn't even exist in this country, but that is another discussion altogether. Second, people would not retire anymore in the common sense of the word.
7. What about the rights of the Clones they are human too.
I already discussed this, fully functional clones would have the same rights as anybody else. That is why no one should fear slavery from this wonderful development. However, cloned bodies or organs would not have the rights of a person, just as dismembered body parts do not currently have rights except as they pertain to the consciousness which makes claim to them (i.e. the brain).
These problems may not seem real but they will be if we bring on the clones, just think about it unforseen problems in the future that the ones mind could not possibly fathom, Trust me it will boggle the mind. So before you decide that your going to clone your self when that day comes just think about it for a while.
On the contrary, these problems are real, just insignificant, because they are not really problems at all. They only seem wrong to the uninformed person. I suggest you rethink your position before writing this type of a response in any kind of more public form; you will only be supported by other ignorant people and laughed at or looked down upon by the intellectual community. Unfortunately, the executive officer of this country is just as misinformed as you are.
And please refrain from mailing such comments to me directly. If I want to read your ignorance, I will choose to do so from the public forum such as this.
P.S. You talked only of HUMAN cloning. Animal cloning is another field altogether and can lead to many great medical breakthroughs.
P.P.S. Check out my web site at http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~tanderso . I have a feeling that you would have a special appreciation for the particular page http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~tanderso/Religion.html Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 10:19am May 5, 1997 ET (#27 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Garett,
What about over population?
I really wish people would think about this before they write it down. WHAT ABOUT IT? How does cloning increase the population any more than sex does?
If human cloning became legal, what would stop some nut from (in effect) mass producing himself?
Same ignorance working here. What stops nuts from biologically mass-reproducing themselves right now? Who wants to raise mass-produced children? They don't come photocopied! They have to be provided for: clothes, shelter, food, education ... or else they will just die!
There are also some other moral issues involved which are not based upon religion. What sort of psychological damage could it cause a child when he learns that he has no parents, that he is only a clone of someone?
WHAT?!? A clone DOES have a parent. And if that parent is married, the clone has two parents. In fact, I forsee men having clones of themselves born through their wives due to infertility on either side. A clone doesn't just pop into existance; a clone is but a child who is raised like any other.
What would others who are against cloning do to the child when they find out?
Any harm done would be extremely illegal and would result in the criminal prosecution of those ignorant people. Perhaps we should outlaw religion since that is what provokes people to do such as you suggest (like killing abortion doctors).
We have to explore what it would be like to be a clone before we embrace the new technology. I'm glad the president has decided to look into the issue further. If this panel of scientists advises Mr. Clinton to make human cloning illegal, and he attempts to pass law banning cloning, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if it's unconstitutional -- and they will do so.
No branch of government has any say in this issue. That would be similar for the president to say that you cannot choose a wife because of the way she looks... you would be deciding the genetic make-up of your children; you must take a wife at random. Please think about things before you blurt them out, unless of couse you are trying to look stupid.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 08:14am May 6, 1997 ET (#28 of 1108)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Always a fun topic...
Pro Cloning Research
There is much to be gained by our race in learning more about how our genetic controlls function. If the process that was used to activate the entire gene structure in a mature cell can be refined so that specific gene structures can be activated or deactivated at will we will have the basis for an entirely new form of medical treatment. Damaged organs could be effectively instructed to repaire themselves, cancers would be history and congenital birth defects would be repairable.
Con Cloning Research
Cloned fetuses should be treated with the same respect and care as any other fetuses. Reaserch should be regulated to prevent planned abortions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 01:40pm May 6, 1997 ET (#29 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
To me the clones will be real human beings with a different method of reproduction, but separate identity. It seems, the scientists, at least in beginning will not be able to clone the separate body parts without human mother. So if humans remain human, extracting a body part from a clone will be a crime and cannot be the property of the original or the producer. Further the natural process of heterosexual reproduction has its procedure for curing genetic disorders, the cloning will surely lose some genetic information; in my view. Human cloning will also carry some social problems e.g. it will lack the natural umbrella of parents in the natural way. Although we claim that we have learned some lessons by the results of interfering with our natural environment, it seems that we have yet to learn the basic lessons. Cloning however proves that if man can do it without a father, then Creator of man has surely the power to produce a child without father, also remember; when scientists said that the DNA in fossils can be used to produce pre-historic animals, then why not our Creator can give us a second life. After all the man only do whatever the rules of nature allow, and Creator of the nature is One who has set its rules. By all this I do not mean that the cloning research should be stoped. Excuse me for my mistakes as English is not my mother tong. Thank you for reading, Sohail A Zia, Karachi-Pakistan. 5/6/97 Email: [email protected] & [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Thomas - 02:50pm May 6, 1997 ET (#30 of 1108)
Cloning is playing God. Humans should not play God. We are fallible, we make mistakes. Cloning humans is a mistake. We don't know what we are getting into. We developed the technology to destroy the world, let's leave it at that shall we?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vance ... - 12:34am May 7, 1997 ET (#31 of 1108)
think of it this way..... you got someone else to take the blame !! : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vance ... - 01:06am May 7, 1997 ET (#32 of 1108)
I was just thinking, What if Hitler had got his hands on this technology ??? ..... Remember he wanted to create group of elite super beings ?? All he does now is make one and clone the rest !!
Jurassic Park, maybe thats not just a story any longer. Then again... there are no longer any endangered species!! See, all one has to do is clone a couple of thousand White tigers in case we cross the red line !!
There's much more ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew O'Reilly - 08:57am May 7, 1997 ET (#33 of 1108)
Cloning is no more playing god than two people engaged in reproduction the old-fashioned way. If scientists continually listened to the people who shout "We can't play god!" then I bet we would still be living in caves and trembling at the sound of thunder, thinking the higher powers were angry with us.
As for cloning a super race of Hitlerites...as has been mentioned countless times, each and every one of thos clones must be raised, educated, nurtured, etc. So, an army of warrior children would need an army of caretakers. I am also pretty sure that if some nation were cloning an army, we might take note of it during those 18 years until the children mature.
As for saving endangered species, it might help some, but not much. We'd eventually have a species of genetically identical members which would inhibit successful reproduction for that species. I think it would be wiser to work to ensure the natural survival of a species.
Anyway, those of you who claim we are playing god and making a mistake, tell us why this is so. Don't support your position with your statements of fear. Give us solid reasons. Maybe then we will listen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde Dicks - 01:26pm May 8, 1997 ET (#34 of 1108)
Concerning playing God...
PLEASE NOTE: I have tried to keep this non-denominational, and not even specifically Christian.
Assuming you believe in a Creator, bear in mind that everything we (the creation) are capable of is because "he" gave us that capability. Otherwise, we ourselves would be creators!
In my opinion, the only reason we should not use an ability given to us by our Creator, is if he has instructed us otherwise, either explicitly or implicitly.
How do we know that it's not the Creator's intent for us to use the ability to clone? Perhaps it is, and perhaps it isn't. However, I do not think that any government should have the power to prevent research in this or any other area. Prevent a specific practice... maybe, but ban research? Isn't that reminicent of the dark ages? Couldn't you equate THAT to playing God?
This is such a huge topic, and there is so much philosophy involved to consider. I appreciate the intelligent and thought-provoking comments on this message board. Thanks "A.D.O." and others.
Hope you all have a good day!
[email protected] OR [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad - 05:54pm May 8, 1997 ET (#35 of 1108)
This cloning issue originally broke the new in The Telegraph a year ago last March '96! Here are the articles.
CNN does not the news world make!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 06:53pm May 8, 1997 ET (#36 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
NOTE: I am keeping this non-denominational, and not specifically christian.
We don't need to play God, we are God. We created God, we perpetuate God, we gave God his powers, now we should just get over our infancy and kill God. We would be much better off. We can do whatever we like as long as the majority agrees; our only law-maker, our only enforcer, is our fellow man.
Please don't send me "God loves you" mail and make me think you, specifically, are the most ignorant person in the world. Instead, go here: The Vestibule of Truth
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vijayan Chomatil - 12:18pm May 9, 1997 ET (#37 of 1108)
I think that the world will be much worst off if we "killed" god tom. God is important in the morality of the human race. Do you know what happened in russia when the existance of god was denied? Anyway, i'm not a religious person myself but i do think that humans need god. Anyway, i think humans also need the merits of cloning research since cloning will help us learn a little more about the biology,genetic, and behavior interactions of our bodies. As for indangered species it is help full to an extent.. Sorta like pressing the reset button on the last generation of "soon to be extinct" species. If we infact was the causation of the extinction then we should do everything in our power to stop it. "replay it in a different environment!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin C. Smith - 12:33pm May 9, 1997 ET (#38 of 1108)
There are a few problems with the direction of this conversation. First, scientist are no where close to cloning people, so we probably shouldn't be focusing on that quite so hard. Second we are not talking about cookie cutters here- at best we are talking about identical twins raised apart in terms of the similarities between clones. Third, there is still the necessity to have the clone born by a real female mother- and we now know that much of what goes on in the womb affects the development of the eventual offspring, so the clone is even more different. The primary place where cloning is likely to be of use is in the lab to research geneticly based diseases or produce experimental test subjects, like say chimps that can develop AIDS. I wouldn't worry too much about an army of clones yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 02:16pm May 9, 1997 ET (#39 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Vijayan, God and 'morality' have nothing to do with each other. There are millions of atheists in this world, and still theists commit more of the crimes. Russia had nothing to do with God -- the USSR collapsed because they attempted socialism under a dictatorship, the two of which are mutually exclusive. Cloning has nothing to do with God. In fact, nothing has anything to do with God except misguided, backward people.
Kevin, I agree completely that many people in this discussion think that cloning is analagous to a cookie cutter. This would be extremely erroneous. However, you are incorrect in saying that scientists cannot clone a human. There is no difference between cloning one adult mammal from another. A sheep or a human; the DNA, the embryo, and the method of gestation are nearly identical. I do agree that the primary environment for cloning in the near future is research labs involved in animal testing and, additionally, in agriculture.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:09pm May 9, 1997 ET (#40 of 1108)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Wow, we need some perspective here! There is nothing heretical in cloning, we are not making life afterall, just reproducing in a rather odd way. The only thing that is different about this process than the one we are all more familiar with is that the genetic parent can supply any cell to start the process.
I agree that reaserch should not be banned at a conceptual level. I do feel that certain practices should be illegal, those being anything that infringe on basic rights. Just because a person starts out in a petri-dish instead of a womb they are no less a person.
One thing that should be considered; Using a single source of genetic material you do not get the "error checking" that you get when you use two full sets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harinamdas Acharya - 03:40am May 10, 1997 ET (#41 of 1108)
Mr. Fosberg I feel that of all the respondants you seem to have a professional understanding of the subject. Unless one knows what the actual breakthrough the British biotech researchers announced about a months ago was one can hardly draw an intelligent conclusion.
I am not a biotech scientist but I know that selective gene manipulation to heal damaged organs as you have suggested may be a possibility because no other living being is involved. Everything is up to the individual patient and doctors. Even organ donation at death has been a success because it involves a donor who died of "other" causes. However, organ harvesting from living or even genetically engineered "half" living humans as has been suggested is more science fiction than reality.
The growth of human skin in laboratory conditions was recently announced, which if true, I feel is an advancement of medical science. However, to genetically engineer (grow) more complex human organs invitro will rapidly become more and more impossible, because it begins to challenge the supremacy of the Creator as the Father of all living beings.
On a more philosophical note, life must come from another living entity and cannot be created by combining the 96 or so inert material chemical elements alone, which is supposed to comprise all matter in the material world as we know it. Therefore life or consiousness has a nonmaterial or spiritual origin. In other words, material scientists can take genes, sperm/eggs or other biological material from a donor living entity and so-called create life but they cannot produce life from material chemical elements alone, because life is actually spiritual in origin. Scientists should try to find the chemical(s) which produce life or consciousness then perhaps they can inject it into a dead man and bring him back to life. (joke)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadena Meti - 02:05pm May 10, 1997 ET (#42 of 1108)
Draconian Cabal
Argh, forgot about this group
Um, I did a bunch of postings under Food and Health Medical News Genetic Engineering
Which I probably should have done here too. You might want to take a look at them.
Sadena Meti
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Kantz - 06:02am May 11, 1997 ET (#43 of 1108)
Tom, While I agree in principle with what you are saying, I think you need to lighten up. Just because you disagree with some one on a philosophical level, hostility simply perpetuates the destructive world view I assume you oppose.
Gregg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotty Childress - 08:57am May 12, 1997 ET (#44 of 1108)
college student - Drama major
Cloning is something we must be very careful with. It has advantages and disadvantages, as all things do. The problem with cloning would be misuse, and the way people are, it would definitely happen. If it could somehow be controlled and kept secure, I think it would be alright for scientists to continue research and the use of cloning. So many of us could benefit. When cloning, its possible that a person doesn't necessarily have to be cloned, but maybe organs or something. I'm not exactly sure how all of that works, but if they can come up with a mouse that has an ear on his back, I'm sure they can figure out how to create a pig with a compatible heart to humans. Who knows?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:12am May 12, 1997 ET (#45 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
All,
I can't believe they DELETED my message! It may have been (a little) off topic, but it was only in response to the ignorance I have seen here. Gregg, it may have been harsh, but how do you react when people try to push their ignorance onto you even though you know better? I am trying to correct the lack of knowledge people have on this subject; especially for the people who post on this board with tons of objections to the technology, but no understanding of it whatsoever. For instance, people still believe that this has anything to do with God -- it does not. And others don't know the most rudimentary thing about cell biology. You cannot possibly discuss a topic you know nothing about. But I guess people try to do that all the time; that is why we get some really rediculous decisions in this country.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Himmel - 04:19pm May 12, 1997 ET (#46 of 1108)
"You cannot possibly discuss a topic you know nothing about. But I guess people try to do that all the time; that is why we get some really rediculous decisions in this country."
Tom,
Aside from freedom of speech I think this message board is for expressing opinions. All of us have opinions and are free to place them here. No qualifications regarding knowledge of the topic are required.
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 08:10pm May 12, 1997 ET (#47 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Alan,
You cannot have an opinion if you don't understand what you are having an opinion about. A discussion goes two (or more) ways. You must be able to put up valid arguments; not assumptions based on half-truths, in order for any discussion to occur. Please, I believe strongly in freedom of speech, but I simply ask: if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post ignorance. Questions are fine. Opinions about what you DO know are fine. But it really angers me when people post opinions about what they don't know or even try to find the truth for. If I were to give you an opinion about something you know well, but I clearly am mistaken, you would try to set me right too.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 09:57pm May 12, 1997 ET (#48 of 1108)
Tom:
One person's fact and reality is another's falsehood. We are in an area of discussion that involves more than hard and fast provable fact.
Science is ever-changing and ever-dynamic, mainly because it rests upon hypotheses and theories which are man-made. The truth contained in them is therefore relative, and directly contingent upon the truth of the premise.
Now, that said, let's return to the question of cloning. I haven't seen anyone address the danger of disease wiping out a series of clones because they all have the same built-in weaknesses or lack of resistance to a given strain or disease.
This to me is something worth thinking about...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Himmel - 08:51am May 13, 1997 ET (#49 of 1108)
Tom,
"If I were to give you an opinion about something you know well, but I clearly am mistaken, you would try to set me right too."
The short answer is that I have enjoyed reading your opinions and in many ways they have helped me in furthering my scope of understanding. At the same time I also enjoy hearing others feelings about this topic and hope that we can all continue to express an opinion without fear of bashing.
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 08:56am May 13, 1997 ET (#50 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Karoli,
Most of what we are talking about is backed by hard evidence. But, even if it weren't, a good understanding of the theories surrounding the subject are enough to discuss it; the info contained in one news report is not.
I don't think that suseptability to disease of one particular clone group is such a problem. First of all, no group of clones would ever be forseably more than a few members. Secondly, no two people or animals show that wide a gap in their suseptability between the two. There are always extremes to both sides (super-suseptible, super-immune) but most are in the average range. Thirdly, since a clone is made from the same adult that it will become, it is possible to see weaknesses prior to cloning. In the case of research animals, clones would be made from animals with the most desireable traits. In fact, the "problem" that you propose is one of the reasons cloning technology is so important to medical science; a group of cloned animals would all have the same tolerance to a specific germ, so the effect of a treatment can be studied precisely by noting the differences that occur between genetically identical animals whose only difference is the treatment.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 01:44pm May 13, 1997 ET (#51 of 1108)
Tom:
>First of all, no group of clones would ever be forseably more than a few members. Secondly, no two people or animals show that wide a gap in their suseptability between the two.<
It is my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the visions for human cloning would be to harvest organs for organ transplant.
Though this is a prospect out in the future, it raises some ethical and scientific questions for me.
How would we clone organs without cloning humans? And if we were to use this technology in some fashion where organs could be cloned and harvested for transplant, isn't there the very real possibility that the process could create susceptibilities en masse to certain viral strains?
Because we are not at a place where we can identify how viruses mutate, are we not placing anyone who receives such a transplant at risk?
Karoli
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:06am May 14, 1997 ET (#52 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Karoli,
"Harvesting" organs would be wonderful application of cloning technology; the thousands of people waiting for organ transplants would be sure to get one. Ethics should never come into question since we are not talking about people; we are talking about one or more organs, none of which is the brain.
It is possible to grow a single organ from a single cell as scientists are learning about turning off genes that make proteins specific to one organ and turning on others. Cells naturally reproduce, and stop reproducing, because of signals sent by neighboring cells. By learning what these signals are, it is possible to make a cell grow any organ and stop growth at any time.
It is also possible to grow an entire human, but without a brain, so that it is no different ethically than chopping up a jelly-fish. The organs could then be taken as needed. In fact, the same COULD be done right now; instead of aborting a fetus completely, the brain could be destroyed before it develops and the body allowed to grow.
As for diseases in an organ population, of course it is possible, but I'm sure that they would be grown and stored in a completely sterile environment; they wouldn't just be left laying around on a shelf in the basement, there would have to be strict standards. And not all of the organs would necessarily have to come from the same genetic sample either. It would be desireable for someone with an organ that may fail down the road to use one of their own cells to grow a new organ in advance, then there would be no chance for rejection.
Someone brought up the point (I think under the Medical/ Genetic Engineering board) that "Mr. Al Coholic" will sit around abusing his body with beer all day assured that he has a new liver waiting for him in some lab. I don't see that this is a problem; I know lots of people who go off-roading and kill their car assured that there is a new one waiting on a lot somewhere. How is it different when it is biological?
What do you mean when you say "we are not at a place where we can identify how viruses mutate"? It is clear to science HOW viruses mutate, just not necessarily WHEN they do. But, like I said before, I'm sure that they would be kept in very clean environments and not necessarily equally susceptible.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin C. Smith - 11:39am May 14, 1997 ET (#53 of 1108)
Tom, That last post gave me the willies. "NO different than cutting up a jelly fish"? I think you may have missed a bioethics seminar somewhere. Organs for harvest is dead issue in this cloning debate anyway. Current efforts to produce artificial substitues for organs is advancing at such a rate that I would be very surprised to see real biologicals at work in twenty years. Substitute bioengineered organs derived from antigeniclly negative porcine and bovine cell lines are currently in the works for pancreas, liver, and thyroid replacement. Mechanical substitutes are in the works for hearts, kidneys, and lungs. All of these are expected to be more efficient than orginal specs, as it were. Also they would be easier to transplant and require less planning ahead (a cloned replacement needing advanced planning to grow, artificial coming off an assembly line.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 05:42pm May 14, 1997 ET (#54 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Kevin,
I'm sorry, but I don't see where ethics could possibly come into play; perhaps you could explain. There are disadvantages to artificial organs... mainly that they are not seamlessly compatable as biological replacements are. Also, they are rarely very customizable, size in particular. In many cases, they may be better (more reliable, etc); but it is usually advisable to go with something that has been proven for millions of years. A clone of your own organ was built specifically for your body. Also, biological organs are hundreds of times more efficient (I don't remember the exact numbers, but I recall one time hearing how much energy the heart uses... miniscule amounts; and how much liquids the kidneys filter everyday, amazing). The best humans can do in engines is less than 10% efficiency by simply instantaneously oxydizing a large portion of fuel for the heat produced and then converting that to other forms. Yet, in the body, fuel is used molecule by molecule, energy released only when and where it is needed, for an efficiency that approaches 100% (but not quite, because there is always some entropy). In short, artificial organs, unless they are somehow powered by the body itself, are going to require some form of external power source. What would be really ideal would be an artificial liver that can run off of the fat in a beer belly :)
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 12:27am May 15, 1997 ET (#55 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
With respects to Mr. Tom and all others participating, I refer here my previous message No.29, and Mr. Tom's message No.36. As of this forum, we the existing humans in a time frame are making discussions for clones/cloning. The purpose of a discussion is not just to present opposing views, but to understand from each others' views. I am happy to learn that Mr. Tom has handsome knowledge of the science, and I feel sorry that whatever I expressed lacks the exact state of the science.
But I would like to refer here the very basic law of Physics - the law of disorder (& entropy), which states that if we take white balls on one side and black balls on the opposite side of a tray, then if we shake the tray, the balls will get mixed, i.e. a simple work done has increased disorder. One the other hand if we want to separate the white and black balls then only by using an intelligent work done e.g. our intelligence we can do so.
The nature, the evolution, the rules of physics, the rules of all the sciences that apply to our body and our universe are not made by our intelligent work done but before us, we only discover and use these rules and for the Creator of these rules we call God. Though majority has never been a deciding factor in view of a scientist, but if we talk about majority then majority of your country to my knowledge is believer of God.
Science by itself is not wrong nor right, but by the wisdom by which it is used or applied. And wisdom varies by ones believes. We will be having all together a different set of ethics for a person saying that our present life is the only life and no God, than a person who believes in Creator and life after death. After all what would be better - that a human so precious as compared to all other known forms of life to humans; that it can explore the creations of its Creator comes into life and just vanishes, or the first life becomes a test for the second life which is a shared thought of many human religions. By all this I do not mean that any scientific research including cloning should be stopped. Thanks, Sohail Zia, Karachi - Pakistan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:48pm May 15, 1997 ET (#56 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
Your thinking is a bit flawed in your argument using thermodynamics to prove the existance of a creator. It is true that we are highly organized creatures, and that the laws of thermodynamics say that everything tends to increase entropy. However, we do not break those laws in our organization; for every piece of our bodies, there was a reaction which increased the universal entropy in order to create it. Sometimes a reaction is "assisted" by a catylist such as a protein or a certain pH, but these are just conditions that developed due to evolution... a process in which we slowly became more organized from trillions upon trillions of these tiny steps.
An analagous situation is a star, such as our sun. This is a very common occurance in our universe, but just consider that the laws of thermodynamics would suggest that everything should tend toward a uniform gaseous state throughout the entire space. However, there are other forces operating as well, such as gravity. Gravity causes particles to coalesce. You may think that they become more ordered by doing this; however, while they lose potential energy, they gain kinetic energy. They heat up and emit electromagnetic radiation, increasing the universal entropy. That is why stars burn, they are highly organized but are increasing entropy. Such is with life. We are highly ordered, but everything we do increases entropy. The forces that cause our bodies to exist are many and various chemical forces. While you might argue that the elements which compose our bodies ought to be more likely to exist in common states such as water and graphite and carbon-dioxide, et cetera, think of the following analogy. Solid water is ice, and its common state is as a sheet crystal lattice such as that which covers a lake. However, other forces cause it to form structures (such as icicles and snow) which are, when you think about it, rather ordered and logically improbable (using the logic that we should be graphite and water).
Similarly, our bodies are a result of a process initiated by the same such principles, but rather than gravity as the primary force, various chemical interactions resulted in a "more ordered" form of the chemicals from which we are composed. For example, the properties of lipids (such as those found in all cell membranes) tend to make one end of their structure attract water and the other repel water (due to polarity). This is why fat floats. So, when a bunch of these molecules are next to each other, the hydrophobic parts repel water and end up facing each other while the hydrophillic parts attract water and end up facing away from each other and out into the water environment. This forms what appears to be a very ordered structure but it is, in fact, formed because it is obeying the laws of thermodynamics. This, BTW, is almost the exact form all cells take, so it is rather clear what forces began cellular evolution and the life as we know it. So, I am sorry to tell you (not really sorry), that your rather simplistic attempt to use thermodynamics to necessitate a creator is flawed. I do, however, applaud your attempt at using science to explain your beliefs rather than just quoting the bible. Please, by all means, learn more and question more.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 07:22am May 16, 1997 ET (#57 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
With respects to Mr. Tom and fellows of the forum.
It is of no doubt that there have been two classes of human believes throughout the human history i.e. one who believe in a creator and the one who do not, both have their own reasons to remain. As far as I am concerned I belong to the believer in One Creator class. To me even if you emulate the exact process of evolution and then complete all the chain to present human destiny, still the truth that I will find then, is that Creator is the one who created the rules of nature; the rules of evolution, the rules of physics and of all sciences including gravity.
Because the truth of past and the present is that we only discover and use the rules of nature and are still in the process and will remain so; as a scientist you yourself can find this by studying different sciences.
To me there are also other reasons to believe in one Creator which I have not quoted in this forum because I do not want to say any thing which is only limited to my kind of believers.
However by all my messages - present and previous, there is one thing that I wanted to express, that this research effects all human being, so ethics of the believer groups should also be taken into account. And again I would like to say that my group what ever; cannot oppose any scientific research so easily that I have observed in this forum. Sohail. (prev. message #29 & 55)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Arenson - 03:07am May 19, 1997 ET (#58 of 1108)
Reader Beware, this is one of my longer posts -- Sorry!
This definitely seems to be one of the more passionate topics I've observed. I did take the time to read each and every message very carefully.
Scientists are definitely an interesting breed! This , I can attest to with fact. Both my father and stepfather have a Ph.D. in various areas of science. To attempt to convince a scientist or one aspiring to be a scientist, the concept that there is room for theology is impossible and a waste of time. Scientists seek the truth, want proof of it and do not accept anything less. Therefore, the knowledge of God can not exist.
So now on to Opinion , according to Webster's: A judgment or belief formed without certain evidence; belief stronger than impression, less strong then positive knowledge; judgment or sentiments on persons or things as regards their character or qualities; settled judgment or persuasion; belief (religious opinions) .
Then there is you Tom:
Opinionated - Obstinate in opinion; opinionative; conceited..... (also from Webster's)
Conceit/ego can be a good thing when used in the desire to move forward in seeking knowledge, as long as respect for one's mankind is evident. No man is an island to himself.
I haven't made up my mind whether I am absolutely against or for the concept of cloning. True, true I will be the first to emphatically state that science is not an area I qualify to speak intelligently in with detail. With that in mind, I fully except a cheap shot in return -- I know that in writing this.
To discount what Clyde, Gregg or Sohail posted is totally disrespectful. I felt that their posts were well thought out and had as much right to be printed here as all of yours. Some of what you say on a scientific level may very well be true, but you Scare the Hell out of me! Your mind set is similar to the thought process of Hitler. Somewhere you stated about people not thinking about slavery. The whole problem is not enough thinking goes with all the questions in new developments/creations. We really don't know the outcome will be COMPLETELY!
It was also stated that the concept of atomic power was to be for the benefit of mankind! Tell that to those who remember their lives being demolished in Japan, sickness in the Nevada deserts or whatever corrupt germ warfare has been used adversely to date.
In this next paragraph I am over amplifying!
Life/Truth is Stranger than Fiction. Where does this stuff come from and amplified to make good effects/story? I am sure I wouldn't be off the beaten track to state many who would visit a technological site also enjoy good ( or Mystery Theater 2000) science fiction movies. Many of those concepts aren't very far off the path as it stands now. Envisioning running for my life cause my likeness is now growing from a pod , ending up in a sterile white room 'cause HAL dejected me, or being chased around by a superior race that now rules causing me to escape above ground really leaves room for pause if ending up in the wrong hands. Remember, I did say Over Stated.
Its a real mixed bag of tricks to determine where government fits in all of this, as with abortion, smoking, drinking, school prayer and the gun lobbyist would say gun control. The element of how the United States got created in the first place is getting lost in the mix as people can't handle many of the rights responsibly, causing the rest to suffer.
Tomorrow's world can be extremely exciting! Think about this thought in closing: There have been more inventions in the last 130 + years then since the entire creation of mankind (whether evolved from the ocean or part of the 7 day package). That was foretold in 1863, but you wouldn't believe me, and that my friend, I am extremely secure in my knowledge.
Thank all of you for your indulgence or can't say as I blame you if you passed me over!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just_da_facts - 08:22pm May 21, 1997 ET (#59 of 1108)
Well, Juli might be a bit long-winded sometimes, but she is absolutely RIGHT! Instead of dwelling on unfounded fears, let's open our mind to the potentials. Lots of folks were against automobiles because they dwelt on their unfounded fears that it would be just kaos on the (dirt) roads, cars killing everyone (before my time - so I've heard). But with the new technology came appropriate controls (my past tickets can attest to that).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Arenson - 04:18am May 22, 1997 ET (#60 of 1108)
JDF, you wouldn't believe how oughta breathe I am! The last of the hot wind is being used for laughter! Mirah over powered me....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harinamdas Acharya - 04:39am May 22, 1997 ET (#61 of 1108)
This board wasn't on my network for over a week. Does CNN play games???
Seems that Tom has a fetish for the big bang and Darwinism. I hope he didn't expect Zia to comprehend all that he wrote. Matter of fact I bet nobody could. In philosophical logic it is called word jugglery or the straw man argument, typical of the empiric epistemology.
I think recently it was announced that a group of "experts" concluded that human cloning was indeed immoral.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:47am May 22, 1997 ET (#62 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
If you can explain everything without need to evoke the concept of god, then why do so? It is because you have been brainwashed by your culture to do so.
Juli,
Since there is no reason to attribute anything to god, science will never attempt to do so. You will never convince a scientist of anything without evidence to support your position.
The reason I discount, or rather disprove (by reason at least), some opinions of others is because I have knowledge that enables me to do so. For instance, there was error in your last message: you mention the fear of running from your likeness. This, however, can never happen from the technology we are discussing. Let us say, for example, a twenty-five year old is cloned unknowingly by some enemy of his. Well, by the time that clone is twenty-five and looks like his father did, the original is already fifty years old and no longer looks like that. It is comments like yours that I so aggressively correct because they were made without bothering to learn if the opinion is valid. If you are not sure of a fact, ask someone (on this board for instance) for the correct solution before defending an opinion that is clearly false.
I don't try to flame anyone, but when someone imposes a strong opinion on me, that I know is not correct, I WILL correct it. Should I somehow lose myself and profess something that is not true, feel free to tell me so.
Harinamdas,
I don't have a "fetish" for anything -- I defend the evidence and reasonable theories over myth and ignorance. My argument was not word jugglery, it was a coherent response to the argument Sohail proposed. If you could not understand it, I am sorry, but I assumed Sohail could understand it because he is the one who evoked thermodynamics to begin with.
No group can ever decide what is moral for anyone else. Morality is a completely individual thing. Only laws can be imposed on individuals by the group... and I don't think there is a law against cloning, and certainly hope not, because cloning is not a bad thing -- especially when you actually separate it from the science fiction/horror movies you get all your facts from.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Arenson - 11:07pm May 22, 1997 ET (#63 of 1108)
Tom, I totally agree on the moral issue! As far as running from my likeness -- did you forget I was overstating ? I was referencing the movie the "Body Snatchers" as an extreme to the possibilities. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whenever I interject anything related to theology, I do so only to open up avenues and not to be discourteous to anyone who may be reading this or any post with a sense of possibly being insulted. Certainly not to profess! Then I would be sitting in judgment! That too, like Morals, is a very personal thing and I am of the school that trying to intimidate someone into believing a certain way via theological vehicle is asking for certain judgment in return (NOT BY ME-eesh). Whatever gets anyone to a place of calm is terrific! So w/o passing out from lack of air, JDF, I hope I have at least cleared up my itsy bitsy opinion on that note! (Groan, doomed to be pulled apart - can I cc last paragraph to all topic sites?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 05:47pm May 23, 1997 ET (#64 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Juli,
I didn't mean to attack you specifically for your overstatement, but all those who already responded with an opinion of similar argument, and actually believed it. It was my point to defend myself from the statement you said earlier about me "discounting" others' opinions, when that is not the case at all.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Arenson - 11:43pm May 23, 1997 ET (#65 of 1108)
Tom,
I didn't consider it an attack! No problem! Maybe there is an issue in other messages/sites where messages are stripped out of context so that what was said isn't said anymore -- kind of like the circle of friends telling a secret ---The End of the Line 'sure do get interesting'!
BTW is the board getting cloned in the last 48 hours - I've been bounced out more times then I think - do to the fact I have to hit "end task" - just be band width? Anybody know?
CNN, bet you didn't even know your own popularity would multiply (OOps there goes the clone thing again) so fast in a month?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 02:17am May 25, 1997 ET (#66 of 1108)
Juli,
There is some kind of bug on the boards. I've been bounced every time I try to post on anything in Sci-Tech. I sent an e-mail to the sysop begging for something to fix it.
I get completely bumped from everything -- have to shut down and reconnect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Arenson - 04:55am May 25, 1997 ET (#67 of 1108)
Karoli,
This the first time I have gotten on! I got bounced off about every other minute the last 72 hours... Sysop, I am beginning to think is a figment of our imaginations. I spent the entire day disk scanning, fragmenting, compressing --thinking it was me as I was bugging everyone else!!! I could only go into the unpopular topics (save one, by accident) that had no traffic and tonight still get bounced out...Thank you so much for letting me know this!!! I'm not crazy after all. Just talkative.
Hello out there! I am wondering (since I did notice in fav CD Music area it had literally multiplied with in no time) if there may be people using "cloned" passwords occupying an unusual amount of space? Hacking away at it???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:47pm May 25, 1997 ET (#68 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Juli & Karoli,
It must be on your end, cause I've had no problems. Are you using a modem? If so, it is probably a bandwidth problem. I have a T-1 through my school, so that is not a problem here.
Juli,
For someone who gets bumped out of everywhere, I sure see your opinions pretty often ;)
Tom
PS This is getting quite a bit off topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harinamdas Acharya - 10:13pm Jun 3, 1997 ET (#69 of 1108)
It was reported in the Wall Street Journal that someone has started a business of freezing dead bodies and body parts for possible cloning in the future. $1500/yr. for the whole body, $250/yr. for the head only, and $200/yr. for the brain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 12:29am Jun 4, 1997 ET (#70 of 1108)
Harinamdas Acharya 6/3/97 10:13pm,
Really? When was that report published?
Don't they have to get public health permits or something?
Geez, seems like there's always a bizarre opportunity to make a buck, eh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Simonson - 04:29pm Jun 4, 1997 ET (#71 of 1108)
I wonder if cloning provides the method for the coming Antichrist to recover from a fatal wound? At any rate, if developed to the extreme of cloning living humans we could eliminate the habit of talking to ourselves and talk to ourselves, not that we'd have any fresh ideas!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Block-Baker - 05:03pm Jun 4, 1997 ET (#72 of 1108)
Let's look at this cloning subject logically, shall we?
To clone anyone, you have to have the following:
1. Money for the procedure (I'm sure it isn't cheap!)
2. A woman willing to carry the embryo/fetus to term
3. Willingness and resources to raise the child
Ok. Number one would eliminate many people from cloning themselves (even just one time), because they don't have the money. Number two would eliminate a lot of people because either they are a man and don't have a woman willing to carry to term, or they are a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. Number three eliminates a bunch more people who do not want to raise a child, or don't have the resources.
A clone is a person, just like you and me. Just because they are genetically the same as the donor, does not mean they are not individuals with the same constitutional rights. Plus, because they will be raised differently than their donors, they will not be exactly like their donors. While personality is partly genetic, it is also environmentally-shaped.
Identical twins are genetically identical, but they are individuals... no one suggests they are not real people.
I think cloning would be a great benefit to the thousands of infertile couples who want a child of their own.
To see a "realistic" view of cloning, rent the movie Multiplicity starring Michael Keaton. Although his clones come out fully grown, the nature vs. nurture aspect is extremely accurate.
- 06:23pm Jun 4, 1997 ET (#73 of 1108)
What would be the premise for cloning someone, other than possibly as a means for disease control (to study an individual from birth through old age)!!! These cloned individuals would be human beings just like the rest of us. Would it be morally or even constitutionally acceptable to study someone without their prior knowledge or agreement??? I think NOT!!! In the movie Multiplicity the clones were all fully grown adults that could agree to a study, but what of a new born baby??? Babies do not have the means for any agreement.
I cannot see any good reason for cloning except to create the perfect society. It is just not right!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Stiehm - 09:20pm Jun 4, 1997 ET (#74 of 1108)
I'm just addressing one point since this sort of forum is quite poor at dealing with extended and complex arguments with many people at the same time.
How do we use of the principle of 'separation of church and state' to deny the state any right to establish laws which prohibit unethical or immoral activity (It seems premature to try to distinguish the two at this point).
My position does not suppose that the state may not prohibit certain activity (laws prohibiting oral sex on the basis of immorality), however it does seem to me that if we eliminate all laws which were ennacted to prohibit either immoral or unethical activity we've left ourselves with little more than trade law.
How do we justify laws against the desecration of corpses or cruelty to animals, for example?
This may well be an attempt to set up some philosophical boundary on what types of laws - what sorts of immoralities - the state may prohibit. I think we need to be a bit more critical in establishing what constitutes that boundary. It seems to me the old saw of church and state separation cuts too big a swath in this particular instance. I don't think it's the appropriate tool for the job, although another principle might be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 01:44am Jun 5, 1997 ET (#75 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Cloning And Ethics
Sorry I could not find enough time to show my presence for a while. I would like to thank all who considered me with kind words in their messages.
Every issue known to us is a human issue e.g. environment, wild life extinction, pollution, injustice, terrorism etc. so is the issue of cloning.
Solving any issue requires understanding i.e. knowledge......and wisdom. Knowledge alone will prove insufficient. Knowledge And Wisdom; is an old story expressing the difference in between. Wisdom is yet mankind's need and will remain till the existence of mankind. Wisdom is known to be necessary for using knowledge the right way. Yet the wisdom comes from factors like the knowledge itself, experience, belief, obedience, intuition, futuristic vision, instinct, logic, comprehension and many more. Wisdom requires ethics which come from belief - that varies extensively among people.
It is every body's right as well as duty to say or express the truth which one know or believe. It is also every body's right as well as duty to leave the doors of listening open.
And it is accordingly every body's right as well as duty to remain honest with his/her/them own considerations of the felt or discovered truth; irrespective of the fact that the felt, claimed or discovered truth is of believing in Creator (God) or atheism (please note: I am not speaking or advocating here of any single group's truth). Here I am talking about persons who choose their faith by understanding and self choice. However there are many who fall to a faith 'deaf and blind, many - only inherit and do not care about faith, some after inheritance become allergic due to the adulteration present in religious thoughts and some become hypocrites to their faith for the timely advantage.
In order to remain with the truth a phenomenon 'hysterises of belief' is essential. Without this phenomenon nobody can be a stable person, but the phenomenon does not ask for closing the doors of listening or to develop a feeling called 'I am always right'. Instead by listening we can always check that we are right or wrong.
It is also everyone's duty to respect others thoughts and to touch them with a care of delicacy instead of suggesting that a person has been brain washed by his culture. For the science itself, is in the process of growth and evolution. No scientist claim any final theory for the creation of universe and this seems to remain so. A true scientist always know this and never claims to be an authority of any knowledge nor considers any one ignorant as there is no single person and never will be educated to a level of authenticity of all the sciences in the universe. That is why its everyone's duty to tell whatever knowledge one finds to be true. And that is why apart from the atheism of Mr. Tom Anderson, I respect him for spending his so much time and effort to correct the views of others about cloning to a level of his knowledge and as far as cloning only is concerned.
(previous message # 29, 55, 57 ) <continued>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harinamdas Acharya - 02:38am Jun 5, 1997 ET (#76 of 1108)
Karoli Kuns,
I think it was Wall Street Journal around May 30th. I mentioned it here because I thought it would grab somebody's attention after a week of no messages.
CBS also reported today that congress is going to allow the cloning of human embryos for research only. Embryos I think is three months after conception, which I believe is not recognized as a living person by the federal government.
As you know a human being is the highest life form on earth and therefore it should not be killed. Couldn't they restrict research to animal embryos?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Somers - 02:55am Jun 5, 1997 ET (#77 of 1108)
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. -- Hal Abelson
So whats Wrong with cloning when I was a kid we used to enjoy watching the clones at the circus especially the ones in the little cars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Arenson - 04:32am Jun 5, 1997 ET (#78 of 1108)
Sohail (Sohail Zia 6/5/97 1:44am), what a wonderful post you have written thus far in connection with wisdom and knowledge and having the responsbility of using them together. Look forward to reading the balance!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aly Abou-Seeda - 05:47am Jun 5, 1997 ET (#79 of 1108)
It seems the main issue everyone is concerned with is the effects of cloning on their morality, the desecration of corpses for genetic materials, the killing of the clones, the right for the clone to choose, etc. What I would like to know is why is no one speaking for the good that could come from it? The millions of lives that could be saved from a painful death from organ rejection, or the cures possible from cloning a stream of white blood cells, brain tissue?
People speak about the harm and seem to ignore the good that could come from it.
If we as humans could change our history would we refuse to test radiation on humans? Marie Curie gave us x-rays, and thanks to her research we can look inside people and can help them. Does it change any of our beliefs ? I think the answer is no.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Norrgard - 11:25am Jun 5, 1997 ET (#80 of 1108)
We still return to the question of when a person becomes a person. Some believe that an embryo, a fetus, IS a baby and a baby is a person entitled to life. I believe that an embryo or a fetus, is a baby and am deeply saddened by the decision to allow for medical research using these defenseless children. I guess calling these children by a different name makes it easier to use them for research, and easier to kill. How sad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rosen - 12:00pm Jun 5, 1997 ET (#81 of 1108)
I agree with the viewpoints of Beverly Norrgard regarding the position on when human life begins, but, I believe that the issue here is much easier to deal with than the issue of abortion.
With abortion, we must respect the rights of the mother as well as that of the fetus/baby/embryo. If we create an embryo without a mother, we no longer have any conflicting rights. In other words, the embryo/baby should be the only entity which we are concerned with in the ethical treatment of this issue. We should ask ourselves whether we can, beyond any reasonable doubt, regard a fetus as a non-living (or non-human) entity. If there is any doubt as to whether the fetus could be considered human, then we should NOT experiment on it.
Remember, this is not an argument for or against abortion. We are not discussing the rights of women here, we're talking about human life, and if we are not intending to complete the development of this project (a baby), then we shouldn't even start it.
Ironically, I don't object to cloning in general, I just don't believe that we should start something that we don't intend to finish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Pellegrino - 01:35pm Jun 5, 1997 ET (#82 of 1108)
Cloning is o.k. if your cloning Alyssa Milano or Karen "Duff" Duffy, the Charlie Girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Parker - 01:37pm Jun 5, 1997 ET (#83 of 1108)
Let me get this straight. If my wife removes one egg, we remove its nucleus and insert the nucleus of a somatic cell from our child who was just in a fatal accident, and my wife carries the cloned zygote, it would be desirable for federal authorities to descend on the scene and stop us? This is the kind of society we want? Strange.
I do not have a wife or son. This is something I just dreamed up. But the consequences of this law will be very real. What people do with their bodies and gametes is best left up to them. This is kind of like banning identical twins, or fertility drugs, which can cause twinning.
Kevin Parker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Duggan - 03:14pm Jun 5, 1997 ET (#84 of 1108)
im am a student of kirkland jr. high. I think cloning should be forbidin. I think that maybe if you had to clone animals (cows and such) for food in the future, that would be ok, but not people. Crimes and law suits would be easy to pass off by just saying, "It wasn't me! My clone did it!" and i think they could get off doing it. I also think that there would be alot of bad books and movie like this. Anyway lets stop cloning!!!
=8= ) ASHCROW2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Clarke - 04:25pm Jun 5, 1997 ET (#85 of 1108)
The big question I have is, where are the souls of the clones? I think one human clone should be produced so that people can see what they are like. I think clones could have a negative affect on the community. Because some nut will get a hold of it and try to build a super race. To me right now the negatives out way the positive. What about the dolly the sheep clone, last I read Dolly went crazy, she was attacking people and trying to bite them which isn't anything like a lambs behavior. What would it do to humans. I believe every person has a dark side, Would the clones bring out our dark sides. Would the clones be considered people? Would they be responsible for their actions. What if the clone kills the real person? How would we ever find out who is real and who isn't? These are just a few questiion. Their two many an answered question that??
Michael Clarke
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harinamdas Acharya - 11:24pm Jun 5, 1997 ET (#86 of 1108)
To #83 above, what's wrong with doing it the old fashion way? Besides isn't variety the spice of life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Walter - 02:09am Jun 7, 1997 ET (#87 of 1108)
Elite, clone thyself; Immortality, thy fondest dream come true. Science provideth the means at last to clone the likes of you! Has evil ever before reached these lofty heights? Broken the barriers to reveal such sights as an endless chain of Devine Rights; of dreams come true that once were mights?
Fresh eyes for the greedy banker; a new kidney for the drunken prince. Matters not that the donor dies on the table, his parts are there for the financially able! "Do away with the unwashed masses, needn't tolerate 'em any more! With these clones, we'll show 'em all how, their betters'l live forever now!"
They'll clone young Aryans, handsome, blond and tall, and grow 'em like sheep-wall to wall; for the time the aging chief, facing his moment of truth, calls for delivery of his fountain of youth! Then they'll transplant his brain into a young body of choice, and the people will be made to rejoice.
The elite lust for immortality, They are all of one mind, to live forever in a garden of Eden, worthy of "Their kind", leaving all undesirables behind. Eons from now, when future archeologists dig among the seven seas, they'll find how mankind evolved into a society exactly like--BEES!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Hashimoto - 02:03pm Jun 7, 1997 ET (#88 of 1108)
This tampering and poking with life is not a game. These embryos produce something man can not control. We can not make desisions for someone else (whether they should exist or not, what they should be, why they should be...) Playing God is wrong. I realize the good intensions of our scientists, I know they want to help but what will come of this? If people begin to control the genetic uniqueness of someone else, how will that clone feel? "I'll just save another 'junior' in the freezer for life insurance. If this one dies we'll have another one just like him." What about all the risks? Mutations and defects are very likely. God the creator loves us just the way we are. Can't we be satisfied with ourselves and each other too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Ruben McDavid - 10:09pm Jun 7, 1997 ET (#89 of 1108)
We invite you to read the Truth about the genetic legacy of Christ and cloning issues in our Genomics Report. The concept of genomics as a protective mechanism of human progress is a misnomer to shield us from the terrors of the future.
C:\Website\MindBasic\genomics.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Palonus - 10:53pm Jun 7, 1997 ET (#90 of 1108)
Wow! First I read the CNN article about how the Bioethics Advisory Board is caving into political granstanding & public hysteria & recommending to stop Federal funding of hunan cloning (& "encouraging" private researchers to stop researching). Now I come here & see some of the stupidest blather I've read or heard in weeks.
First of all, allow me to douse the fires of superstition with some basic FACTS:
Cloning a human does NOT mean an army of clones (unless the "mad cloner" can find an army of women willing to be surrogate mothers for 9 months).
A cloned human is a HUMAN. Cutting up a cloned human involuntarily for spare parts would be just as illegal & immoral as cutting up a naturally-conceived son/daughter.
If a clone doesn't have a soul, then neither does a test-tube baby. Which means there are thousands of people walking around today already who have no souls. The reality is: Life is precious no matter HOW the human gets created: au naturel, turkey baster, test tube, or genetic sequencer.
I thought people online were supposed to be on the leading edge of society. But it's really disappointing to see such basic ignorance & voodoo thinking.
I dunno what makes me madder. That, or the fact that when I installed VXtreme today, it trashed my system. Ugh!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P Henry - 11:23pm Jun 7, 1997 ET (#91 of 1108)
Talk about a pandora's box. There are certainly distinct advantages to the technology - but what a strange concept. Granted present technology requires a woman to "grow?" the unborn clone, but such may not be the case in the future.
There is certainly some cause for concern as to where do we go from here. I would hope that legislators would at least consider whether or not the rights of potential clones are or are not guaranteed by the constitution and if not then perhaps do something about that before the issue has to be brought before the courts. The reason that I say this is if someone where to generate a clone, through means other than a womans womb, because it is that person's creation would it be considered a person or personal property. I think that the issue unto itself is certainly one that must be considered. After all if you have created the clone through your own devices, by legal means of course, is the item(in this case 'person') not yours to do with as you please?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Warrenfeltz - 01:46am Jun 8, 1997 ET (#92 of 1108)
Geez... Out of eight messages I read here, only one had anything resembling a shred of common sense (#90- it was also the only one that did not contain multiple spelling errors). You would think that people who are at least smart enough to operate a computer would be able to think a thought through to its logical conclusion. Cloning is not feasible for humans yet. I recall reading an article that stated that sheep are specially suited to it. Even so, there were DOZENS of failures before Dolly was produced. These posters, however, see the word 'clone' and immediately begin spouting semi-literate religious gibberish about whether or not a clone would have a soul and what we can do to stop the evil plot of the nazis to clone Hitler. Even if the cloning of humans were to become feasible in the future, it would be a fairly expensive operation and would not be taken lightly. One last word on whether or not the clones would have 'souls'- If a clone does not have soul, then the millions of twins on this globe do not have souls. For what is a clone? Only an exact duplicate (gene-wise) of the DNA donor. And what are twins?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Fisher - 07:03am Jun 8, 1997 ET (#93 of 1108)
So, the highly moral politicians are telling the scientists not to clone humans, because it's "wrong"? Now politicians have also arrogated to themselves the position of moral arbiter. Considering the mess politicians have made of this country, they should not be given a voice in deciding what is "moral". In fact NO ONE has any moral authority over anything. Why, should we leave such decisions to Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell, or some ultra-orthodox rabbi? All these people have axes to grind, and live only for telling others how to comport their lives. The sharp end of "moral authority" is when the moralists use state power to imprison and punish those with whom they disagree, not unlike the Catholic church during the Inquisition. The catholics claim that they didn't really burn anybody at the stake -- it was the civil authorities.
Sure, ethcists: let's make more Galileos (20 years house arrest); more Giordano Brunos (burned); more Johan Hus's (burned). But knowledge won't stop, no matter what self-important troglodytes try to stand in its way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 11:25am Jun 8, 1997 ET (#94 of 1108)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
Permission to ban human cloning is hearby denyed.
I do not ceed my medical or reproductive choices to any government. These choices are my fundimential human right.
I think it is a great idea to remove goverment funding from cloning research though. After seeing how they have screwed up atomic energy I would rather not have them involved.
Regards,
Carl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
alan whitsett - 12:01pm Jun 8, 1997 ET (#95 of 1108)
What is the difference between humans "cloning" themselves and a virus mutating itself to avoid elimination? We are only larger versions of the same situation. Our medical technology has developed in an attempt to overcome disease just like some virus change to overcome the latest medications. Cloning seems like the ultimate "fix". As long as the DNA is not effected by disease or mutation you can simply create a new version of yourself everytime you get sick or injured. I'm sure that HIV will be envious of our ability. It will be interesting to find out if our "soul" makes the transition to the new body. If it does, then there will be some new thoughts about the validity of God as we perceive Him. Will the soul's transition be a sign of His approval? Or, will it create more questions about His existence? Wait and see....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ince - 12:14pm Jun 8, 1997 ET (#96 of 1108)
I agree with Clinton's decision. While suporting the issue of human cloning. If someone wants to bring forth the money and a person is able to make decisions for him/herself then by all means do so.
The possibility of cloning may end the days of birth defects, disease due to inheritance, and many more health problems that humankind has faced without choice.
We have all progressed through time due to evolution, our children are stronger, wiser, and healthier than we were 25 years ago all thanks to medicine.
Science isn't trying to make a perfect human being, a huge cloning army, they're trying to make life a little easier to live through the eyes of future children.
After all isn't that what life is all about?
OUR CHILDREN?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Gallicho - 01:37pm Jun 8, 1997 ET (#97 of 1108)
The question that must be asked is not 'should federal funds be used to rserach human cloning?' but, 'why do we think cloning is wrong?' There has been no satisfactory answer to that question, if it's even been asked at all. A ban on research is a ban on knowledge, and a ban on knowledge is a passive and fearful stance, and one that Americans can no longer afford to take.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P Henry - 04:20pm Jun 8, 1997 ET (#98 of 1108)
To clone or not to clone that is the question..........
For those who are fearful of the individual being cloned I do believe that the clone will not be the same person as the one from whom the clone was taken. One must remember that the character and personality of an individual is very strongly affected by their surroundings and experiences in life. Being that science has not presented us with any means to transfer knowledge and experiences from individual to individual with any completeness we would not have to worry about some nut regenerating him/herself with an exact replica. The only thing that this technology presents to us at this point is to produce a mechanical image of the DNA donor.
As far as the issue of a soul is concerned, with regard to the religious zealots who have been aroused to a state of paranoia. According to their definition I have half of my mother's soul and half of my father's soul, being that they had three children that would imply that they each have - 1/2 souls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Ruben McDavid - 04:38pm Jun 8, 1997 ET (#99 of 1108)
In response to my e-mail, I would like to add this additional statement about cloning and correct my address site where you can read our Genomics Report and draw conclusions. http://home.earthlink.net/~yanomami/Index.htm
The future role of the Christian church is to become a key ethical guardian of genetic diversity, protecting the wilderness heritage of the natural species and acting as the conscience of the biosphere in considering the changes we may make using genetic engineering and making sure these will not reduce biodiversity.
Its global network can provide both a uniquely powerful means for active conservation - 'the true vine' realized - and a repository for germ lines of key species and varieties held for the benefit of All, alongside botanic gardens and germ plasm libraries. Its message shall be the feminine one of sustainable population and fertility - the 'way of the valley' as Lao Tsu described. This is the Church's natural heritage, as the last global manifestation of that ancient fertility cult which goes back all the way to the Paleolithic as the Great Goddess and Bull of Heaven, now represented by the mother-son figure of Mary and the resurrecting sacrificial Christ.
Its celebrations, mysteries and rituals remain for us to rediscover and refashion in this mingling of 'light' and 'dark' principles. There is one and only one way this transition will be achieved and that is by synchronous wisdom - by enlightened people choosing to act together to give the Path of the Seed the momentum of true enthusiasm, infectiously like mushroom spores, the last spermatogenic crisis, not for the hypothetical reality or heroism of a visionary Messiah or Mahdi, because we are accidental players just like you, but for the wisdom of preserving of the immortal heritage of the Mother - the genetic endowment of Eve.
It is from Eve we have come and it is through the love of Eve that we are immortal in the flesh. This is the science and this is the truth! In Jesus' own words: "To this end I was born and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth." This truth is science with conscience. The term 'genetic holocaust' applies to cloning to describe the collective loss of genetic, species and ecosystemic diversity, not to promote a sensational or emotional attitude, but because in all frankness, the rapidity, and severity of the current extinction fully justifies the term, as does the fact that it is occurring, not by natural or astronomical catastrophe but by the intentional application of human impacts which, in all evidence, are knowingly arriving at the extinction of the majority of genetic diversity on this planet, which has taken a time scale of 3500 years to accumulate and which we will never replace and at best can recover from over a time scale of 50 to 100 million years of 'new' evolution.
The above are some excerpts of a paper authored by Chris King for the Internet project "The 28th Parallel" in collaboration with Richard Shand. The concept of Genomics as a protective mechanism of human society is a misnomer to shield us from the terrors of the future.