------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Ciervo - 12:06pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1300 of 1986)
As with any other new technology, cloning will likely have far reaching effects on society. As much as we may like, it will be very difficult to suppress it's development. Like any other technology, there is a great abuse/marketability potential, and as long as a profit can be made it will. How long will it be before we can mail order our children? Hmm, I'd like a Michael Jordan, and maybe a Steven King (there's a little variety). Why have a normal baby when you could have a celebrity one? Especially one with great potential that can take care of you financially when you're old (hey, Social Security isn't going to do it)!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
brenda prosser - 12:07pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1301 of 1986)
Well well well, here we go again. Another opportunity for one-way thinking on a two-way street.
What makes us human, my fellow humans, is our *relationships*, not our bone structure or eye colour.
I could give birth to a clone of myself who would be utterly unlike me, as I was raised by different parents in a different country in a different decade -- in short, in a different world.
My genetic material would only provide my baby with my appearance -- including my original nose, God help her. Her soul would be fresh from the origin of the life force, as was mine.
If anything, the cloning issue (!) give us yet another chance to think before we speak.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elf M. Sternberg - 12:10pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1302 of 1986)
Re: Simon Pope - 10:29am Jan 7, 1998 ET (1255) Simon, what makes you think a clone wouldn't be "unique?" You'll have to define uniqueness first. After all, identical twins aren't genetically unique-- they both share the same exact set of genes. They're still unique people; they've each had distinctly different experiences and they'll each have a unique outlook on life.
The same thing would be true of any clone. Even if we cloned you, for example, your clone would have unique fingerprints and, having been born just recently, would have a different outlook on life. Trying to claim that that life would be "un-unique" would fail to appreciate just how unique every life, even that of a twin's, really is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elf M. Sternberg - 12:11pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1303 of 1986)
Re: Curtis - 10:33am Jan 7, 1998 ET (1256)
Plenty of gay people reproduce. That's what sperm donation techniques are for. Being gay doesn't stop someone from wanting children or being a good parent. It begs the question, though-- why doesn't God want you to have children? Are you a bad person? Are infertile couples being punished for some unknown trangression?
In the great list of Thou Shalt's, God specifically tells mankind to go forth and multiply. This is just one more way of doing so.
goto page 1383
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jri - 12:12pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1304 of 1986)
The human race has yet to reach the level of maturity that should be required in order to handle this technology responsibly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Clear - 12:12pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1305 of 1986)
Irregardless of what happens in America--legally or otherwise--cloning will gradually begin somewhere, eventually.
Not only will the exceptionally brilliant be targets for the process, there will undoubtedly be room for less-desirable individuals to literally create a force of themselves. Imagine what the outcome would be if someone like Iraq's current leader were to hire a physician to mass-reproduce himself?
Luckily, the late Adolf Hitler never had this capability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elf M. Sternberg - 12:12pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1306 of 1986)
Re: Eileen Heath - 10:40am Jan 7, 1998 ET (1257)
Now those are interesting questions. As for growing headless bodies for organ transplants, medical and legal precedent has already established that "brain death" is clinical death-- a person without a brain is clinically dead and their organs are available for transplantation. Growing the body rather than getting it from some gruesome accident would provide for an interesting but ultimately minor twist to the issue of organ availability under current law.
As for the question of "ownership" of a viable and sentient human being, law has already settled that issue as well. In-vitro reproduction and other methods of overcoming infertility are expensive, but if the results are succesful the clinic cannot "repossess" the child if the parents fail to pay up. A person is not their organs, and organs do not have rights. A fully cloned human being is a person and has all the rights and privileges therin under our law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Obendorf - 12:14pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1307 of 1986)
Genetic manipulation is a great idea - it might solve a lot of problems we have today. Perhaps we could create fertile intersexed children. That way the problem of male dominance could be shattered. There would no longer be "males" or "females" we would all be one. Can't anyone else see the potential?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Blade - 12:15pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1308 of 1986)
Ohhh... Ideas abound on this highly intellectual page of disscussion... Now, cloning is the ultimate idea... Maybe we could cover the procedure under National Health Care and it would be the ULTIMATE in welfare!!!!
How many of you have read the "NATURE" article on this???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elf M. Sternberg - 12:16pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1309 of 1986)
Re: Charlene Nease - 11:53am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1292)
Charlene, we already "play God" every day as human beings. Human beings live a lot longer than the original design called for. One of the tenents of the Christian relgion (until recently, when everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten it) is that human being cannot change the face of the Earth nor the inhabitants therein. But today, we know that we humans have made irrevocable changes to the way the Earth looks, the way the Earth survives, and to the species that inhabit it. We've caused extinctions, dammed mighty rivers, and removed whole forests. "It's not o.k. to play God?" We ARE playing God!
Did you immunize your children? You played God. Did you drive on a freeway? You played God. Did you sit in front of a computer and type away? You played God. You lengthened lives, harnessed the thunder and the lightning that were once God's domain alone. To say that "This kind of playing God is OK, that kind is not," it to argue that you understand God better than other people. That's called hubris and pride and in most religous beliefs it's also called sin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Obendorf - 12:19pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1310 of 1986)
Hey - what about the military potential for genetic manipulation? By combining human dna with that of other creatures, perhaps a super-soldier could be created. Enhanced strength, endurance, eyesight, coordination, venom, gills (for underwater action), ummm... the potential is ENORMOUS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elf M. Sternberg - 12:30pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1311 of 1986)
Wesley Bushnell - 12:19pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1318)
Perhaps, but then it also states that "The truth shall set you free." I've always been fascinated that first commandment of the Lord in Genesis is to name all the animals; I know some scientists who take this as a commandment to learn and identify all the things around them. I've always been particularly leery of the New Testament's take on knowledge; it seems almost antithetical to knowledge, Paul having a peculiarly anti-intellectual take on things.
As to how this applies to cloning, well, that depends on your religious bent. I have none to speak of, actually, although I do find it fascinating how different people can use different quotes from their particular faiths to justify their stance for or against the procedure.
My particular take is that cloning is neither particularly a good thing or a bad thing. It merely is another technique human beings have at their disposal. How human beings choose to use the technique, once they have it, determines morality. Human beings have morality; the rocks, the stars, the information in books do not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T Chau - 12:32pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1312 of 1986)
Helping infertile parents is a lousy reason to justify cloning humans. Aren't there easier, safer, less ethically problematic procedures like in vitro or fertility drugs? They work just as well as cloning, plus the embryo shares DNA from _both_ parents, just like for everyone else. I don't see any advantages for cloning over other procedures.
Although cloning can help infertile parents produce a "child," does cloning really help in family relations when the "child" grows up? A solution for one problem creates another problem in the future.
It's a human experiment that I don't want to be involved with.
Ethically, cloning humans is up there with eugenics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fruend - 12:36pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1313 of 1986)
On The Other Hand/ Lets Clone Slaves! Just think of the possibilities. Clone slaves can be bought in clone department stores. These clones would be genetically raised for doing menial work, sex, and other elements of social aspect. The strongest would be cloned to do the hard work. The prettiest would be the sex toys. And for amusement, the fattest and ugliest would be cloned for the super circuses. Since they are slaves, they would not have rights. Then the rest of the "real" humanity, would be free to explore more vast and expansive pursuits of the intellect. A utopia, or a hell?
Goto page 1397
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Johnson - 12:36pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1314 of 1987)
I cannot help by reply to a common theme that is present in this discussion. The idea that God will send his wrath on the Earth or crush the unbelievers because they are cloning people is ludicrous. God granted every being with the right to choose what to do in their lives. The God that I believe in is an all merciful unconditionally loving God (that is in the Bible as well). Therefore, there would be no wrath of God coming or cruel punishment for the evil cloners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Donovan - 12:39pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1315 of 1987)
If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't the clone have the same growth rate as the original ? This being the case an army of Sudam's or Hitlers or super soilders would take so long to build it would be like most of our highways, obsolete before it is finished. As far as infertility being a sign of "EVIL genes" I can't believe someone with so much ignorance has the ability to have an opinion either way. I hope it happens to you, then tell me how you feel about it. If "GOD" didn't want us to have the power to do all the wonderful and horrible things we do as humans he wouldn't have given us the thumb ! JD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Darbonne - 12:42pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1316 of 1987)
The technology of cloning is fascinating...using DNA from fully differentiated cells to drive the development of a mammal. I do have to ask two questions, one scientific and one ethical: 1. Given the telomerase activity on shortening the telomeres of chromosomes and the effect that has on aging, would people/animals cloned have a shorter life-span? The clone would have started with chromosomes containing relatively short telomeres compared with a conventional baby. 2. Should people be created (by any method) as a means to an end (for organs, etc.) or do all people deserve equal respect and dignity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
boettger - 12:42pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1317 of 1987)
Absolute social insanity.
Has anyone asked about the ramifications to evolution? We are talking about a disruption to NATURAL SELECTION. In the long term, if you screw with this scientific precept, you will distroy the species. It all has to do with genetic pools and population dynamics.
Most people would think that 300 grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park is enough to assure the survival of the species there. In fact, it was not. The genetical pool was too small (aka, inbreeding). Grizzlies from outside Yellowstone were intentionally introduced to enhance the genetic pool. The grizzly population was falling!!!
The problem with society is that inconsiderate individuals (apparently with no morals) like this Mr. Seed who say they are a scientist as though that makes them an expert in EVERY field and gives them the right to do whatever they want. When in fact, this butthead has no integrity to control his greed for success, has no understanding of biology or genetics... is willing to screw with life itself just so he can fill his pockets with the green stuff.
Society should recognize the error here and put a stop to it.
I am not against this technology. I think it has its place in medical science. But just because you want a child (aka, selfishness) is no excuse to abuse mother nature.
Kenneth J. Boettger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Bushnell - 12:45pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1318 of 1987)
Re; Sternberg,
You are right of course. The capicity of man to misuse the teachings and gifts of his religion is understated to say the least. Thank you for reminding me. Still the possibility that cloning is perhaps the greatest force yet seen on the earth and will change the nature of our race is fearful. When we can clone a sheep and possibly a man from a cell, yet still hold a man to be inferior because of a chemical in his skin and the fact he was born in a different lattitude. Its almost like humans are going in the wrong direction, that technology might one day prove to be a dead end. Yet, our sciencetists will march on like an army of steemrollers. wb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Findley - 12:45pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1319 of 1987)
I feel the same way about cloning , particularly human cloning , that I feel about critically ill people on life support system , opposed to both. Both are 2 way streets, but as far as I'm concerned only the latter is. Make no mistake about it, Dr. Kevorkian is no hero of mine, but neither is a megalomaniacal nutcase who think he is Almighty God Himself. I can give at least one proper name on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Nease - 12:47pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1320 of 1987)
Elf--
You need to do a little studying, they have already created a headless frog and it survived. Why not humans?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Johnson - 12:47pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1321 of 1987)
To Walter Darbonne- An excellent and intellectual comment on the life span of the clones. Thank you for introducing something new and informative to the debate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Findley - 12:48pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1322 of 1987)
I feel the same way about cloning , particularly human cloning , that I feel about critically ill people on life support system , opposed to both. Both are 2 way streets, but as far as I'm concerned only the latter is. Make no mistake about it, Dr. Kevorkian is no hero of mine, but neither is a megalomaniacal nutcase who think he is Almighty God Himself. I can give at least one proper name on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN ADAMS - 12:49pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1323 of 1987)
NO NO NO TO CLONING. WHAT WOULD THE WORLD BE LIKE IF HITLER HAD HAD THAT TECHNOLOGY???
Goto 1412
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Fiveash - 12:54pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1324 of 1987)
Cloning to me is like something out of a bad Frankenstein movie. Where does the experimentation stop? We should insert a W into the word, because it is clowning around with nature. Using infertile couples as an excuse does not justify using cloning. What's next, the killing off of bad parents so their children can go to good ones?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Findley - 12:54pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1325 of 1987)
my apologies to staff at cnn for inadvertent reposting. Initially however I was defensive of cloning of sub human organic life forms, but i had heard of mutations in this procedure, which is unsurprising. Like dual or multiple births where the zygot splits, as I believe The Almighty Himself woyld say, "That's how it's done, you mortals."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romie Grant - 12:59pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1326 of 1987)
I can see some benefit for couples without children but where does it stop?,, I'm afraid we may be opening pandora's box.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Darbonne - 01:01pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1327 of 1987)
The technology of cloning is fascinating...using DNA from fully differentiated cells to drive the development of a mammal.
I do have to ask two questions, one scientific and one ethical:
1. Given the telomerase activity on shortening the telomeres of chromosomes and the effect that has on aging, would people/animals cloned have a shorter life-span? The clone would have started with chromosomes containing relatively short telomeres compared with a conventional baby.
2. Should people be created (by any method) as a means to an end (for organs, etc.) or do all people deserve equal respect and dignity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chas Dickson - 01:06pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1328 of 1987)
"You can't stop science," Seed told NPR. "... God made man in his own image. God intended for man to become one with God. ... Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God."
- and there you have it - he wants to be the Jack Kevorkian of Cloning - making a name for himself off the misery of others by the shock value of the publicity he's freely given by CNN - a news agency that has no problem with trying to influence events and 'creating' their own news.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Ogden - 01:07pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1329 of 1987)
Last time I checked, it took a man and a woman to produce a child. If infertile couples is supposed to be an excuse, it doesn't seem to be a good one since supposedly cloning is done from one individual. You wouldnt even be getting the same thing. I can see it now, the couple splits up and the kid is genetically tied to one parent. Lots of business for the lawyers I guess...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Nease - 01:07pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1330 of 1987)
selfish, selfish people. that's all this world consists of. One sex? that's just plain sick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Darbonne - 01:09pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1331 of 1987)
I don't think cloning, with unknown long-term effects, is an appropriate route of providing children to couples desiring a baby.
There are serious scientific questions which should be answered before using a cloning approach to solve infertility problems. One is stated above (i.e. life-span of the clone given the known changes to genomic donor DNA over time, mutations in the donor genomic DNA potentially predisposing the clone to premature disease, etc)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill B - 01:10pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1332 of 1987)
I am appalled by the lack if imagination being displayed. Most of what I read is irrational fear.
What will cloning bring? Think about it - at least try. There will be little to be gained by cloning a full person. Growth acceleration techniques will be learned, the human genome will be mapped. When someone has an organ failure or a limb amputated, the replacement part will be cloned, possibly using the patient as the host. This is only the first crude step into a greatly enhanced world. Don't discard the good to be accomplished because you fear the potential bad. Good and bad, yin and yang - you cannot have one without the other.