------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ray - 11:50pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1796 of 1986)
I disagree w/ David Price on the inbreeding comment. (The rest I wholeheartedly agree with). The danger of inbreeding results from partners with related DNA backgrounds. You end up with hidden recessive traits becoming dominant. With cloning, you have 100% of one person's DNA... there is no inbreeding unless the clone decides to mate with a relative it was cloned from. It is no more inbred than the clone "parent." I suppose if you keep cloning the clone, and the clone's clone, etc., you'd get random drift in the DNA and potentially bad mutations - but, for the initial clone, I don't feel inbreeding is an appropriate choice of terms...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Dawdy - 12:18am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1797 of 1986)
Here's a moral issue for the anti-cloneing side:
What if your doctor told you that if you had a child there was an X% chance that the child would have Downs syndrome or some other terrible genetic disease? However, by haveing a clone of yourself implanted as an embryo, you would be able to have a child who would not be at risk for genetic problems. Which is more "moral"- knowingly bringing a seriously handicapped child into the world "the way God intended", or haveing a child who has your genetic makeup, but who will be raised in a different environnment from your upbringing and will in time become a unique, special individual in their own right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judi Bonham - 12:22am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1798 of 1986)
To Jim Dawdy #1860
My response would depend on what the 'X%' was. If you're talking 5%, I'd go for the natural route and take my chances. If you're talking 95%, I wouldn't bear a child. I personally wouldn't choose the cloning route no matter what.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preston Crawford - 12:53am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1799 of 1986)
Exactly. Reproducing isn't mandatory, last time I checked. There are plent of children needing food and a roof over their heads. To me that's argument enough that people don't "NEED" to reproduce SO BADLY that cloning would become a necessary option. Adoption still works. Heck, I might adopt even if I can reproduce, simply because there are enough mouths to feed in this world.
The other compelling argument is that genetics have long been nature's way of protecting species from their environment by giving them the ability to adapt and change. Cloning runs contrary to this in the worst way. Clones would eventually (unless there was deliberate genetic tampering and even then science isn't perfect) become stagnant genetic forms that wouldn't be as well adapted to pathogens, etc.
Cloning humans just doesn't make sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Larsen - 12:56am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1800 of 1986)
Jim (#1860) I've been there, done that and even IF cloning was available, I would NOT have decided on that route. In 2 pregnancies, I was told to ABORT, however, it was my belief that whatever the condition of the child at birth, I would love it, keep it and care for it - no matter what. Guess what...BOTH doctors were absolutely wrong! Thankful I am to have two very special children, neither have any mental or physical handicaps. I also experienced a MOLAR pregnancy (1 in 2,000 are at risk) and I'm lucky to be alive. Doctors PRACTICE medicine, they themselves can not guarantee results nor do they have all the right answers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banjo Smith - 01:08am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1801 of 1986)
In the beginning surgery was playing God, then reviving a drowning victim was playing God, then heart & liver transplanting was playing God, and now cloning is playing God. If you have a belief that God is against these things ask yourself why he would give man the ability to do them. I would guess he is capable of withholding that ability if he wanted to. Who are you to judge otherwise? Are you playing God?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
john boak - 01:26am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1802 of 1986)
A message for all the scared "sheep" out there, cloning, and its complimentary bio-technologies, has already started to change the HUMAN condition (creature) that we know. Stick around for a hundred years or so when we are helped along with cloned organs, and have a choice of eye, skin, hair,(or scale) colors....have various enhanced senses...of choice, and can count lifetimes in the thousands of years. In direct opposition to the idea of cloned identical supermen and "armies" , the new human race will be composed of an incredible amount of rich diversity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Walters - 01:29am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1803 of 1986)
Human cloning should be barred! The original idea to provide babies for childless couples is fine, but how long do you think it'll take before the cloning thing gets out of hand? Once the procedure is developed some egomaniac will find some way to produce a number of copies of himself/herself. Stop it before it begins!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Halverson-Johnson - 01:36am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1804 of 1986)
Clone humans? Why not? We've already invented nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, why not jump in another pool without looking first! Not to turn this into a religious/moral message, but God created people with free will, and the ability to make their own decisions. If Humankind wants to screw around with something like cloning, go for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wood - 01:38am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1805 of 1986)
Cloning will add one thing to life that no one seems to be understanding. Life. Life in a million ways.
Hunger will no longer be a problem, clone a few million sheep, a few million cows, etc.
Food for everyone.
Now, as far as cloning humans is concerned, the only good implamentation to that would be colonization. It is inevitable. We will eventually have to move from this small rock that everyone is so fond of, and that everyone thinks is the center of life. Please.
Look at reality, send a rocket into space, with say 100 scientist, 10 units used for cloning, and 1000 tubes filled with dna. When they arrive at the designated planet, they then begin the process of building, colonizing, and most of all, cloning.
The earth was destroyed in the past by meteorites, way before "God" was introduced as a possibility. The earth will be bombarded with meteorites again in the future. Mankind is two care free to design warning systems let alone defenses for such things. Instead, we war with one another over stupid things.
Let cloning be our gateway to life, same as test tube babies. You have a right to being cloned, just as much as you have a right not to be cloned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Williams - 01:42am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1806 of 1986)
Lee Stapleton wrote, "and please leave the 'god' thing out of it. it has no place in a debate such as this."
Lee, you really haven't a say in this matter. This is a valid part of this dicussion whether God is a belief of yours or not.
You also wrote, "nor do i care to listen to anyone else's religious opinions." This, too is beyond your control. Everyone read of your beliefs on non-religion, thus you are subject to the discussion's inclusion of a God.
As for the topic of cloning, I am against it because of personal beliefs but I also recognize that we will not stop it from continuing. May we as humans have the intelligence to use it wisely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abrie Nel - 01:54am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1807 of 1986)
Human Cloning needs no Seed to be a reality. Someday, someway someone will find the money and resources to clone humans. We must deal with its implications and it cannot be a national debate, it must be dealt with at an international level (e.g. the United Nations) and with the necessary urgency. The Dr. Seeds of the world will get no further if there is no market for the product that he plans to offer. I suspect, however, that there will be a thriving market...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sandidge - 01:58am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1808 of 1986)
Best case: cloning will be a sufficiently small percentage of total reproduction that it has little impact; replacement parts let us live until we finally fade away (i.e., too many brain cells die -- everybody gets Alzheimer's).
Likely case: cloning will eventually impact species viability and variability; "brainless" clones will provide replacement parts. But enough brain will be necessary to support the cloned body, say equivalent to a hamster. Look out for the animal rights people!
Worst case: The purchaser owns the clone. Imagine being a fully aware clone as parts are intermitently harvested for your owner's benefit!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Jon Paul D. - 01:59am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1809 of 1986)
G. Richard Seed seems to fail to understand the complexity and failure rate of the cloning procedure that is being developed by the Scottish team and which is far from being prefected. The success of "Dolly" represents a success that came about only after failure of thousands of trials. The cost does not out wiegth benefit and therefore his little "business" will not be profitable which is the main motivation. Lets not forget however that genetics only makes half an individual, the other half comes from socialization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Miller - 02:01am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1810 of 1986)
Unlike all other animals on the planet, humans are special. We were given, along with an animal instinct, a certain spiritual inclination. That leads us to morality, kindness, and decency (for most of us!). Since, upon birth, God instills in a person this characteristic, cloning would not have this effect. Therefore, all the humans that they clone will only have an animal nature. It will be very apparent that the idea of cloning humans is stupid, because it will just create animals that look like humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gimon - 02:12am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1811 of 1986)
Too late folks. Nature beat us to the punch. You see, she's already made lots of clones. They're all around us.
They're called 'identical twins'.
So if you want to know what the world will be like with clones, look around, we're already there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ropars - 02:38am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1812 of 1986)
I think that science should generally be viewed as neither good nor evil. But I also feel a general scientific consensus should examine new projects objectively to insure rights aren't violated.
Whose rights? These children will be called "clones" (just as unborn children are called by the dehumanizing term "fetus")-and will theoretically lack protection under the Constitution (remember it covers all those "born" in this country). So we could have generations of non-citizen guinea pigs. Without rights, they can then become property to be exploited.
And besides-has anyone else noticed this Frankenstein's name is Richard Seed-"Dick Seed?" Tell me that's a real name... Rob Ropars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Mayes - 02:44am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1813 of 1986)
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Science will continue to bring about new and controversial knowledge. Isn't that why we have this forum on the internet now? A clone is not a human engineered animal. It is simply a copy of a real living being. Should we make a law that identical twins should not be allowed to coexist? It is exactly the same thing. The only difference is time and technology. I don't think that anything said here today in this forum has a real impact on what will happen in the future. It's simply a place to exchange opinions for people that have to do that for their own consciences. Conscience is the whole thing behind this. "Con" "science" !!!!!! Hmmmmmmm?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy C. Lundberg - 02:49am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1814 of 1986)
I must preface my response by stating that the concept of banning scientific exploration is the same as burning books. DNA research is truely the greatest expedition of all: who and what are we and why? how intense!
However, human cloning represents a bigger issue than just the idea of replicating DNA. Rather, the issue lies in humans' fear of human nature (good vs.evil). We can barely deal DNA now because we still actually hate, discriminate and kill people because of the color of their skin. But yet we feel that we are evolved enough to now clone people. Hey there's some intelligent thinking!(little sarcasm) We may be smart enough to create people, but we are barely intellectual enough to handle the concept of solar power or world peace. It's like a "curse of consciousness" We are still primates, just REALLY grandiose. Hmmm...didn't an evil little man from Austria once wish to create a master race? "Those who forget the history..."
In the Age of Information, the question is who is going to have access to this technology? The highest bidder likely and thats not likely going to be a family wishing to have a child.
well, just some thoughts, I love science and it is a great tragedy to inhibit it. I just have difficulties believing that the collective human species can handle this responsibility. "those with the most toys win" and we are still little children in an evolutionary sandbox.
We'll see and I hope I am wrong:)
Jeremy C. Lundberg Manhattan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Stuart - 03:05am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1815 of 1986)
The successful cloning of humans will only further decay the crumbling rationalism of THE CHURCH. If WE are actually the creator of life, then it is only more so obvious that a "soul" is merely a complex network of neurons...
Man creates GOD to control society.
Man destroys the idea of GOD.
Man becomes GOD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keifur Smith - 03:14am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1816 of 1986)
Banjo, if you check back in your Bible, you will find that God did not give us these abilities. We gave ourselves these abilities by defying God's instructions. If God had his way we would not be worrying with anything now, let alone the thought of us becoming gods ourselves. Mr. Seed is way off base in his comments concerning this issue. In no way should we try to be equal with God. Cloning is not what God had in mind (along with several million other things), when he put us here. I truly wish we were what God intended us to be. I am reposting this because I initially made the mistake of mentioning a # which keeps changing. (I guess I am not a god or I would have known that would happen).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Abrashoff - 03:20am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1817 of 1986)
When Galileo asserted that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but that it revolved around the Sun, he was charged with heresay and nearly executed. Irrational fears of change and of the unknown are the greates impediment to human advancement. If you are a religious person, then you must acknowledge these things: God created man, God chose what level of intelligence man would possess (what man could understand and what he couldn't), and God chose to make human organisms based on DNA sequences. Not only did God provide us with the tools and abilities to achieve genetic engineering, but he also failed to tell us not to do it. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention anything about tampering with the genetic code. I don't think that cloning is in any way "playing God". Right now, without cloning, people routinely decide when they want to try to have children and when to use birth control to avoid having children. This means that people right now decide when to create a life and when to suppress it. People don't seem to realize that things change. The way of life that we lead is very modern. Human civilization is over 5000 years old, and as recently as 50 years ago people had a radically different view of what was acceptable and unacceptable in society. Things will be different 50 years from now, and so on. In the grand scheme of things, cloning is just another step on the ladder. 1000 years from now, when people look back on this period of history in much the same way that we look back on the middle ages, they will say "those people were actually opposed to genetic engineering because they thought it was God's territory" and, in the same way we think of the middle ages, they will say we were fools to be afraid of nothing more than a system of biological chemical interactions that are niether good nor evil, but simply exist. (short version: cloning=good ; opposition=bad)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEHUDA DOUTCH - 03:20am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1818 of 1986)
HELLO IM YEHUDA FROM ISRAEL
IM RELIGIUOS JEW KNOW THE BIBLE AND THE WAY OF GOD VERY WELL, THE OPINION OF THE JUDAISM IS NOT TO CREATE AND CHANGE THE WORLD AS WE WISH ,SURE NOT TO COPY BABIES.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramsey Botelho - 03:31am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1819 of 1986)
Cloning is synonymous with the artificial creation of a monozygotic or identical twin. In other words, if you were to have a clone made of yourself you would be both its mother and father. This isn't too far from what naturally occurs within the womb when a single egg is fertilized and spontaneously splits into two developing embryos. The second sibling would have to come from the original or parental zygote, so to speak.
Don't speak of shared consciousnesses or minds, a clone will have its own. The only thing shared will be its geno/phenotype. They will have close to 100% shared genetic makeup, but remember this, separate bodies. Don't consider them any less.
We are on the verge of the greatest mass extinction since the fall of the dinosaurs. Populations of endangered species have hit all time lows. Cloning could help, but the drawback is the lack of genetic variation. In time, however, genetic recombination of chromosomes could occur thereby diversifying genetic variation.
My concern is not whether or not we should use cloning, but whether or not we have any right whatsoever to obliterate any species of plant, animal or what have you from the face of the earth. If cloning is the last resort then utilize it with good intentions.
We are all woven from the same unbroken continuous strand of thread that makes up the life quilt, from the lowliest micro-organism to the greatest whale. A clone will not break that strand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jo yama - 03:38am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1820 of 1986)
Nathan I agree with you completely. Well said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Cobb - 04:06am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1821 of 1986)
Our mind's ability to accept, retain, and reconcile contrary thoughts is remarkable. Cloning is wrong, some believe, while at the same time enjoying the existing benefits of the modern world. Life is special, they argue, but at the same time think nothing of wearing a fine pair of leather shoes. Homosexuals are ungodly, some say, while their Bible says Love Thy Neighbor.
Each and every one of our thoughts are selfish and self-serving. There is no exception to the rule. On all issues, we take the side that provides us with the most security and benefit. For some, that is the solace of God, for others it is the promise of science. Thoughts on cloning are only a reflection of one's fears or hopes. Don't fool yourself otherwise.
If someone wants to make some money off clones, power to them. If someone wants to create people in their own image, I say go for. If someone speaks eloquently of the sacredness of human life, I will admire their passionate appeal. All responses are satisfactory.
Cloning will happen eventually. It will be used for tremendous good and tremendous evil (just like religion and everything else). The players and possibilities of history periodically change, but the game will remain forever the same. You have to admire and laugh at our consistency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Insley - 04:28am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1822 of 1986)
Creating potentially sentient life because you want to,or because instinct drives you,seems to be an acceptable goal. I would ask the question "Is it?" JIM INSLEY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tycho Hoogland - 05:30am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1823 of 1986)
Consider this: Clones are sentient beings with thoughts and feelings just like any other human being. However, I think of the following case and then have my doubts about cloning from one's own cells.
Take for example an infertile couple. They decide that this is their last chance of having a child which is really (biologically) their own. Ofcourse it isnt because all the genetic material will be donated by one of the parents. Knowing that this child is cloned from one of your own cells, wont you have a lot more expectations than if you had a 'normal' child? You would probably project all your own failures and achievements onto this child. It would be a second chance to be you, but now you could do it all over and do it right! The child would probably become less happy and more frustrated than the average child. Clones should be protected from this faith. But then, what other purpose would clones serve, apart from being organ donors?
Amsterdam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P I Johnson - 06:23am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1824 of 1986)
Paul Johnson, South Africa
Playing out the debate over cloning as only and necessarily some sort of absolutist clash between creationism and science is not necessarily helpful. Surely we dare not miss the profound potential - particularly in the areas of prosthetics and organ replacement - of the intelligent blending of genetic engineering and cloning technologies. If there is nothing wrong with producing a plastic limb for someone, why not produce the real thing? It's called technological advancement! Of course, there is an issue of the recreation of total beings as a moral issue, but it is not the sum total of the issue. There are potential benefits to these emerging technologies that could fall short of the debatable option of total replication.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Sokolov - 06:48am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1825 of 1986)
I wonder why nobody mentions one obvious problem with cloning. There is a matter of illegal cloning, cloning againts somebody's will.
If someone can get his/her hands on genetic material, he/she can recreate that persone. It won't be easy at first, but will become a problem in a few years from now. I can imagine it will be possible some day to clone humans from hair follicles or nail clips. Think about going to a barber.
I am sure some will object to having their copies walk around. And some will pay big money to have movie stars, athlets, or models for children. At the time of impregnation the mother would already know what her child would look like and what his strengths would be. Look at the hoopla with Diane. If it were possible, someone would want to get her for a baby.
And then something should be done with inheritance laws. The clone is the same as a twin brother. Would a clone possess the same rights as a normal brother? What if I get Bill Gates' clone for a child, would that child have any rights to Gates estate?
I support cloning. I also believe it should be regulated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Hunter - 07:07am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1826 of 1986)
I sympathize with infertile couples who want children but in this way?? No way. It isn't right. It is kind of creepy. And from what I've seen of the human race I think like every good intention, we always find a way to subvert the most honorable to something less. I am a Christian and I have a problem with things like--would they possess souls? I can't imagine that God would want two of anyone walking around. He created everyone on this planet and I think he had a good reason to make us all different.
My vote is NO resoundingly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Peterson - 08:03am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1827 of 1986)
There are two assumptions being made that may need modifying:
1) cloning is evidence for the absence of God;
2) all Judeo-Christian views oppose cloning.
Opine as you will, but neither is necessarily true.
Since cloning cannot occur without human intervention and guidance, if anything, it argues for extra-intelligent involvement with life on earth.
The New Testament states "the body without the spirit is dead." If, then, a body is living, it must have a spirit, and is as accountable to God as the next person. (I cannot speak for Rabbinical thought on the matter.)
Personally, I see this as a 'Proceed with caution' endeavor. The irony is that just as even forced abortion and Kervorkianesque medical practice spreads on the one hand, we wish to manipulate life at the other end. If we are unable to respect all life ~ PERIOD! ~ cloning is pointless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Huard - 08:19am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1828 of 1986)
I am absolutely positive that human cloning is not part of God's plan for us. Who do they think they are anyway? God?! As humans, we could never have the His wisdom and compassion to effectively administer human cloning. Our human biases and prejudices will run rampant.
That whole process has to be stopped!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Jones - 08:22am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1829 of 1986)
Cloning? Why not?
For all the hullabaloo about ethics, the new human would be quite independent with it's thinking processes and would be a genetic identical. So what? I can't see anything wrong with it, morally wrong? Who determines that? Our technology is taking us way past anything we ever dreamed of and all this chatter about morality and ethics are already shot to hell by the immoral things we do now anyway.
I say, clone away!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Tinsley - 08:25am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1830 of 1986)
Mr. Seeds comments (on his NPR interview) about "God intends for mankind to achieve the same level of knowledge and power as God" is laughable. While The book of Genesis does state that God created man in his own image. Genesis nor any other book of the Bible ever hints at mankinds equality with God. I think humankind is growing in knowledge by leaps and bounds, but we always have much more to learn. We don't come close to understanding the Human mind. When will we reach that Wisdom? How long after that will we gain the knowledge needed to speak a universe into existance as God did?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 08:38am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1831 of 1986)
What do we do if a clone turns out to be defective somewhere along it's lifespan? Throw it in the dumpster? It sounds like a can of worms to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Roberts - 08:47am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1832 of 1986)
The greatest intristic value of human life is that we are all different, each of us unique in their own way. From this we gather strength as a society. Duplicating another human being would only dimish the value of the individual.
Take for example one of the most famous pieces of art in history... the Mona Lisa. Do you believe it would be so treasured if a hundred of them existed??? Do you think Elvis Presley would be an icon of modern American culture if one of ten of him died???
Human society intstinctively pushes the boundaries of science and technology seeking improvement of life and constantly uncovering POTENTIAL disasters (fire, nuclear power, etc) only to use them as the next step forward. How is it we constantly overcome these discoveries?
~ Personal Thoughts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
wilhelmus van bindsbergen - 08:48am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1833 of 1986)
For those of you who believe in God(s), if cloning is not supposed to happen to humans, it won't. Lions don't breed with leopards. There is a reason for this.
God(s) will be God(s) and men will be men. The cloning scientist is simply playing man. This is what MEN do. I don't want to hear that these scientists are playing GOD. (sorry if this offends you, but it is the truth.)
I have the feeling from what I read about cloning that people are believing that if one individual is cloned, the clone is not only going to develop into the same occupation as the host, but the clone has already done so as soon as it is born. That is to say, if Albert Einstein was cloned (this is possible, his brain is preserved somewhere), he would come out of the womb and say E = mc^2 with a moustache and messy gray hair. Why do you people believe this?
I agree with Dr. Seed. "I think it will blow over." When young kids today (in the US) get pregnant, their parents (generally speaking) insist that their child should not keep the baby, they are angry and say I'm not caring for that thing. However, when the baby is born everything is reversed. The baby is loved and cared for by everyone in that family.
I feel its the same situation here. I see most people and religious groups saying "No, No, No" to cloning. But once a woman is pregnant with a clone (why can't we say duplicate chid or something?) the Pro-Life religions have to immediately change their minds.
Send in the clones! I also say, do NOT clone a clone. Genetically speaking, I think scientists will not like the results.
Wilhelmus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hogan - 08:50am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1834 of 1986)
A clone would be the same as an identical twin, not the same person, as some seem to think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 08:51am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1835 of 1986)
I think the most irresponsible aspect of Dr. Seed's work is that he refuses to wait until the ethical debate has a chance to advance. Obviously human cloning is a contentious issue. A scientist sensitive to the sociological impact of his work should wait until the ethical landscape clears up a little. I'm not saying that he should wait until everyone agrees, but he should at least allow the ethics to evolve and mature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Winnington - 08:55am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1836 of 1986)
I dont like the idea of cloning "complete" people for any reason. I believe that cloning would stand in the way of biological diversity, and that is the way that evolution moves forward. If you have an infertile animal, be it human, or any other form of life, nature has made it infertile for a reason. The weak and the sick are weeded out by natural selection. I do however believe it is OK to clone parts of people, i.e. to grow someone new kidneys, or a new liver, etc. I think that is the best, and most responsible use of cloning as it pertains to human beings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Page - 08:57am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1837 of 1986)
This Dr Seed guy is a little crazy in his beliefs but I think after it has been done people will see that it is not much different than invetro fertilization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 09:02am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1838 of 1986)
Something else people need to remember is that people are more than the sum of their genes. Each person is defined also by their experiences, their relationships, their memories, etc. A person and their clone may share genes but be very, very different in other ways.
I am uncomfortable with cloning on a gut, emotional level, but I recognize that it's going to happen anyway. We might as well get used to the idea and try to work out ethical guidelines for it (just as we have with other new technologies). It's not quite the end of the world.
Yes I do believe in God. And no, cloning does not shake my faith. My fellow believers, we're not screwing up "God's Plan", because we're not capable of doing so (after all, God is God, we are NOT, no matter how much we think we are). I'm sure God was not exactly pleased with the atom bomb either.
Relax and let's talk this over intelligently. Religious people are important in any big ethical debate like this. Let's not get thrown out of the room by simply holding our ears and shouting "NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shyamprasad Kunchala - 09:04am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1839 of 1986)
K.M.SHYAMPRASAD CHENNAI,INDIA
Those who are hoping to harvest organs for transplantation from cloned humans are forgetting that cloned humans will be humans enjoying the same rights as other human beings. Nor can you cannot simply discard cloned humans if they turnout to be defective as if they were a broken toy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Kelly - 09:10am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1840 of 1986)
If we have learned nothing, we should realize by now that religious based fear and ignorance is no excuse to stand in the way of scientific development. When will we grow beyond burning witches at the stake? Least we forget, it was less than 400 years ago that the church placed Galileo under house arrest for claiming the earth was not the center of the universe. Surely history will view our current cloning issues in the same light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Peterson - 09:18am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1841 of 1986)
For years scientists have been able to take human embryos that have divided to, say, 4 cells, and seperate those cells. What do you have then? 4 seperate embryos. Not only have htey been able to, but scientists have actually done it. Egg fertilizes, divides, scientist seperates, 2 embryos. Embryos divide, scientist seperates, 4 embryos. Then 8. I read that they have obtained up to 32 independent embryos from a single fertilized egg. They have been doing this since the early 90's, I think. While comdemned by many as unethical and immoral, (I believe rightfully so), it did not produce this huge episode of wailing and grinding of teeth.
The current cloning technique is essentially no different. Instead of seperating cells in the embryonic stage, however, they can now take an adult cell and convert it into an embryo. What's the difference? It's just delayed.
Right or wrong, this has been going on for years. Cloning is really nothing new.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Cooper - 09:26am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1842 of 1986)
What Dr. Seed is forgetting, is that the Scottish scientist that cloned the sheep had many failures before they got Dolly. (I think that is what they named the sheep.) Dr. Seed will then be experimenting on human beings to prove his arroant claims. To me, this makes him a ziliot!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 09:33am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1843 of 1986)
I think she was named Dolly because she was cloned from a cell taken from her (mother? genetically they're sisters.) mother's mammary gland.
Hence Dolly.
Dolly Parton, get it?
Yes, I'm being perfectly serious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
linda mcmillan - 09:35am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1844 of 1986)
I'm not of a scientific mind, but one potential problem seems apparent to me: What will this do to natural selection and genetics? A hundred years from now, what type of man will walk the earth? A perfect man? It seems to me the potential to decrease the gene pool looms largely over this rush to clone. Will parents choose a duplicate clone of their mate over the natural process of procreating? Someone posted earlier that some parents would certainly project expectations onto a clone of themselves and I agree with this. How many of you would naturally expect a clone of yourselves to be a more perfect you, because of your involvement and knowledge of your strength and weaknesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mickey buck - 09:35am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1845 of 1986)
Cloning no more proves or disproves the existance of God than creating a meristem orchid (a cloning technique for hard to fertilize/germinate orchids). If you cloned one person fifty times, there would be fifty souls. To suggest otherwise would be like telling twins that the first born has a soul, and the second does not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Roszel - 09:37am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1846 of 1986)
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,...", is from the Nicene Creed in my faith's (Catholic) Profession of Faith, prayed every day. It is wrong to clone. I saw a quote posted that said if men can clone humans this would be strong evidence "against" the existence of God. I almost laughed out loud. It only proves mens arrogance.
Paul F. Roszel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Waggoner - 09:41am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1847 of 1986)
Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind
This guy is crazy. I saw him on Nightline and he is blaspheming the God of heaven. He said that he thought that cloning would give us the power to be almost God. He calls himself a Christian but he has a pride problem. He is like the Devil. The devil wanted to be God, just like Mr. Seed. God banished Satan. Mr. Seed is a hypocrite and the bible says anyone who wants to be God and doesn't repent will burn in hell. Mr. Seed wants to be God and unless he repents he will suffer eternal torment. I hope he will realize this. Question: What if a nutcase clones Hitler?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcday - 09:44am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1848 of 1986)
God is on His throne and we will all be held accountable to Him for our actions. In my opinion cloning human beings, discarding the imperfect and/or unwanted is far and away removed from God's plan for the human race.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 09:46am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1849 of 1986)
There've actually been some very good points made in the last few posts. I agree with Mike T. Jones that the worst part is that Dr. Seed's not waiting for the ethical debate to conclude. As a physicist, I am profoundly embarrassed that Dr. Seed would just dive in like this with absolutely no sense of respect for the ethical controversy this has ignited in his own society. And to say things like "it's impossible to stop science", as if ethical constraints on the implimentation of technology shouldn't even exist makes me wanna puke. It's like he's wants to look like some neo-luddite's sterotypical image of the hubris-driven, Frankenstein/Strangelove-esq mad scientist. It seems almost like he's secretly trying to speed up anti-cloning legislation.
My two cents on the ethics of cloning humans: I don't think we should do it. It's true a lot of people need to know that a clone would only have the genetic material of the original but would still be an individual, since his or her life and growth experiences would be unique, and the clone would be a full fledged human being. But I think that's the exactly the problem. The important ethical considerations are relative to the rights the value of the clones, not the rest of us. Clearly, the nightmare scenarios must be avoided so you have to draw the line somewhere, and I can understand how some people can consider drawing the line at allowing cloning for infertile couples, since that's the closest thing I can think of to a legitimate reason. But if you think a bit further, there are other, and probably better, options and, more importantly, you need to consider what the implications will be for the child and his parents. Will this have no effect on the relation between the child his family or others outside the family? How will this effect the child, to know eventually that they're simply a genetic copy of a parent? Is this
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jim miller - 09:47am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1850 of 1986)
The biggest barrier to human cloning?
The problem of nomenclature.
As a clone, you could have up to 5 (maybe more?) people directly involved with your, er, production. This illuminates the first nomenclature problem: Is a clone produced? Germinated? Fertilized? Xeroxed?
I can see Dr. Seed, as he makes clones, saying "Makin' copieeeees..."
Getting back to the 5 people. You have the DNA donor. You have the egg donor. You have the uterus provider. (Any of these three may be the same person.) You have the DNA provider's genetic parents. You have the uterus provider's spouse (maybe). (oops that's 6.)
For cryin' out loud, who do you send the card to on Mother's Day? The woman who gives birth to you has some claim on motherhood. The person who provides the DNA has some claim on parenthood, although they're really your genetic twin sibling. You share the same parents genetically as the DNA donor.
Jeez, we're going to have to come up with new parental words. Don't worry, I'm working on it, I'll let you know when I acheve a breakthrough. This is delicate work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Blumberg - 09:49am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1851 of 1986)
Cloned humans what an interesting idea... Much has been made about the "inhumanity" of this idea. The only problem with this is what we "humans" do with the technology.
Will someone responsible attempt this or will some group attempt to mass produce soldiers to conquer the world.
Flash back 50 or so years... To World War 2 .. apparently we can have as much death and destruction without clones as we can with them...
So it is up to society to decide
Daniel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. C. Vail - 09:54am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1852 of 1986)
Paul Roszel 1/8/98 9:37am
I, too, am Catholic, and am against the cloning of whole human beings on moral grounds. However, remember the Creed, Paul. THe Lord is the giver of life. The scientist can set up the circumstances, but it is still up to God to bestow life upon the cloned cell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRED SHERWOOD - 09:56am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1853 of 1986)
DR. SEED???? I DON'T THINK SO. THIS GUY IS WAGGING THE DOG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken S. Nelson - 09:57am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1854 of 1986)
Micky Buck brings up an excellent point with his example of twins. I'd like to see restricted research continued in this area with the goal being future advances in the biomedical field. I foresee the countless thousands dying needlessly awaiting organ transplantation as reason enough to forge forward in this new field.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 09:57am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1855 of 1986)
jim miller 1/8/98 9:47am
Jim, I can see it now: Dr. Seed, talking on the phone to a repairman: "Yeah, the copy machine's down again... No, no the OTHER one."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Thompson - 10:01am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1856 of 1986)
Just think of the thousands of lives we could save. Understandably this detracts from the greatness of the individual but if it betters society as a whole, why not? Why not create another Martin Luther Ling or another Michael Jordan? I don't see that harming anyone except maybe the clone himself/herself perhaps and parents do that most of time anyway. Also, I know it may seem a little perverted right now, but what about the millions of guys that would like a wife that looks like Cindy Crawford. I know that's a long way off and at any rate, that clone would be as self-determined as the original or any other human being. What people don't understand is that a person's clone is just a DNA replica. The clone could be and in most cases would be a totally different person inside with different interests, attraction to different people, etc. My argument seems to be divided but I am for cloning human beings but I am also against people who don't really understand its obvious benefits. Everything in this world has side effects but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try it. No one is trying to replace GOD but life should be our primary concern. Every invention of man breeds a good side and a bad side. Man invented the car and now we have drunk drivers. Man invented the gun and now we have murderers. The dual nature of man will continue as long as man does but we can't just sit by and wonder what would have been.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yogendra Yadav - 10:09am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1857 of 1986)
Cloning is a technology and it will happen. It won't just stop at cloning of animals. So, lets not try to stop it from doing the right way. Because if we won't do it then someone else might do it and totally in a wrong way and misuse the technology.
I don't believe, by cloning we are creating another life form from scratch; we still depend on womb, and I believe it'll always be like that. What we have understood is 'what controls the attributes of a life form and how to manipulate it'.
A cloned human, however similar it may be to its original, is another life and has born with equal rights. So what if its cloned artificially, a similar baby could have borned naturally, can anybody deny that. So, in my opinion, lets forget about using cloning technology to create spare parts for their originals. Its immoral, unethical, inhuman and a crime. Putting it very grossely, imagine I liked the eyes of an individual. And I go from behind remove his eyes out with a sharp knife and take them to doctor and ask him to replace my eyes with them. What is the punishment for such an act in our society. Will you spare me because he was my clone. He was a human just like any of us with feelings, dreams etc etc etc, it was none of his fault if he was born as a clone.
So why clone humans, I don't see any good reason for this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 10:09am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1858 of 1986)
ROY # 1862 The nutcase could clone 50 Hitlers each one would be different depending on how they were raised. 1 could be a minister, another a mass murderer, etc. They would even look different as adults because of diet and where they were raised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Peterson - 10:11am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1859 of 1986)
jim miller 1/8/98 9:47am
Mike T Jones 1/8/98 9:57am
HA! LOL!
It's good to see some people can look at the lighter side of the issue, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Sokolov - 10:28am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1860 of 1986)
A lot of people keep talking that cloning is not a plan of God and is against his will. For crying out loud, how do you know what his plan is? Maybe this is his plan. It is silly to refer to Bible. There are at lest a hundred religions in the world. Christianity is just one of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Anders - 10:34am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1861 of 1986)
Welcome Brave New World! Let us shed the final frail bonds of superstition and happenstance. As always, we have molded the face of God into our own image. Let us do away with the artifice and take possession of the the throne without pretense. The human desire for control has always been our ruling God, telling us how to live, what to eat and who to hate. We have just crafted stories to help us in the dark nights of our lives.
Brave New World, I fear thee. Is the human race mature enough to assume the mantle of God? I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
victo24 - 10:54am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1862 of 1986)
Jay H....how do you propose they get hitlers DNA?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 10:55am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1863 of 1986)
Wake UP! Men, Save yourselves from annihilation before it is too late!
The proposed development of Human Cloning is obviously part of a continually developing futurist radical FEMINIST PLOT to make males OBSOLETE.
If human cloning is allowed to exist, females can then reproduce without any participation of men since only an egg and a "parent" cell nucleous is needed. Eventually,of course,there will be no need for males to exist, as all reproduction will carried-out by females who can merely clone themselves. The final result is the extinction of the male gender. Anyone in favor of human cloning must be the worst sort of sexist who is in favor of the elimination of ALL men.
We must not permit this kind of genocide to happen!
(or is it genetics-cide?)
On the other hand, if we are going to clone something, lets clone Frozen Siberian Wooly Mammoths!
Bring Back the Wooly Mammoth!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
victo24 - 11:04am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1864 of 1986)
looking at the last few statements is exactly the reason why we shouldn't clone...freaky...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McCubbin - 11:07am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1865 of 1986)
In case you people haven't been reading the news of late, this planet is going to cease to exist in a few billion years. I don't think the poeple of that era are going to want to sit around and watch the show: it would be their last. What's the logical conclusion? Get out of town!
That's what our fore-fathers did, when they left Europe and Asia a few hundred years ago. And as we will when we leave this planet, they left from different ports with different destinations in mind. They took as much livestock as they could to feed and cloth themselves in the new world. We'll do the same. We won't put all of our "eggs" in one basket. That is why learning and mastering this technology is so important now. We have to start sometime: why wait until the last minute?
And we'll build artifical wombs and feeding systems in the future, too. Can't imagine taking real whales or elephants with us on what will surely be a crowed space vehicle. All we will need are the seeds of new life and the devices necessary to "re-build" them when we get to our final destination - wherever that is.
Probes heading to the moon and Mars are sure examples of our desire to go somewhere else. Take in all of the current news stories and one starts to see the BIG picture.
As to the "God" aspect of this, maybe God has decided to "reveal" this technology to us at this time for our survival. We have learned to handle all of the other "tools" with which He has entrusted us. Why not this one?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
victo24 - 11:08am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1866 of 1986)
james madden.. if anything this will give men more power...just think about it...all men will look just like arnold...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 11:10am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1867 of 1986)
VICTO24
Damned if I know. That was an answer to a question from Roy. He used that name. Any other name would do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
victo24 - 11:12am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1868 of 1986)
john mcCubbin...do you realy think we will still be here billions of years from now?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
victo24 - 11:15am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1869 of 1986)
typical...a society that holds on to abortion rights and at the same time human cloning....makes a lot of sence to me...Question does anyone know how the over populated china feels about this issue?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
victo24 - 11:16am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1870 of 1986)
hello??? anyone here or are you all getting yourselves cloned? am i the last original here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 11:19am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1871 of 1986)
JOHN McCUBBIN # 1867
I wonder if life on earth might have started that way, Something to think about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
victo24 - 11:19am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1872 of 1986)
jay you still here? i thought everyone left...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 11:19am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1873 of 1986)
I like James Madden's idea. Let's bring back the Wooly Mammoth! (Is that spelled right? I'm assuming he spelled it right.) In addition, I think we should bring back the Dodo bird too, maybe start some kind of petting zoo for extinct species (not Jurassic Park though - there probably isn't any usable dino DNA anyway). Seriously, there would probably be some biological usefulness in bringing back recently extinct species for study in a suitably isolated environement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 11:25am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1874 of 1986)
VIC
This may be true, as long as the technology can be kept out of the hands of those pesky women. Otherwise men will have NO power and the women may just keep alot of Arnolds around for their own amusment.
We probably won't have this problem with the Wooly Mammoths.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jim miller - 11:30am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1875 of 1986)
This whole situation has a million jokes built right into it...
What would Rob Schneider say if he worked in Dr. Seed's Clone Clinic?
"Makin' Copieeeeeeeessss..."
BWAHAHAHA!!!!
Sorry.
;-)
Wouldn't it be great if Xerox or Canon invested in this new technology? "Canon's new full-color full-body copiers are the most reliable in the business."
Anyone notice how appropriate this doctor's name is?
Certainly athletes, celebrities, and other attractive people will make a few bucks selling their DNA. Will there be TV commercials? "Crazy Richard's Clone Clinic! You name it, we got it! I can give you Denzel Washington for $99.95! Steffi Graf for $109.95! Sean Connery for $89.95! A deluxe Nicole Kidman model for only $139.95! Ahnold for only $199.95! Nobel Prize winners for $74.95 each! Prices so low, they're INSANE!!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rey Gaskin - 11:35am Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1876 of 1986)
Mr. Seed seems to relish being as powerful as God. Which God is he talking about? The God I know made it so random DNA combinations through ordinary sexual unions ensured the survival of the human race. Does he really believe that asexual reproduction is the best solution for the 4 infertile couples he is looking to "help"? His arrogant statements about being "like God" expose his ultimate goal: making cash at the expense of an unethical procedure. These 4 infertile couples would be better off adopting one of the 4,000 children who are aborted each day in our "enlightened" country. Remember "surrogate mother" Mary Beth Whitehead? Nothing strange about the technology. Sure, she made a contract for carrying someone else's child. But the world and our laws have declared such contracts unacceptable. I suggest Mr. Seed apply his entrepreneural skills in another field.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johannes S. - 12:03pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1877 of 1986)
To CNN : You have do reconsider the enter mechanism of your "Take our poll" page. Obviously, somebody is running software that enters "Yes" in a locked loop!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Coolidge - 12:06pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1878 of 1986)
In watching CNN's report on this - I was stunned to learn that over 240 unsuccessful attempts had been made prior to Dolly making her appearance. I'm numbed to with the reality that a society such ours would be will to sacrifice human lives (babies) (as well as subject them to unimaginable suffering) all the while looking for that "magic combination" just boggles the mind. Call me old fashioned or conservative, but I don't believe we were meant to become that "ONE" with God, there are some things that should never be attempted and this is one of them. -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Welsh - 12:10pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1879 of 1986)
And I thought being named "Jr." came with great expectations. I won't envy a clone. What about disease? Cloning can't replace normal reproduction without seriously weakening the gene pool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 12:23pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1880 of 1986)
JENN.
I can remember when people said if God wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings. We went on to fly and have accomplished many other unbelieveable things by using the brain God gave us. Who is to say this is not the path he wants us to take, after all he gave us the means to do them. Right or wrong, cloning is going to happen because of the power we were given.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johannes S. - 12:25pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1881 of 1986)
To the so called "scientists" : ONE with God? Don't be fools. We have a long way to go before that happens. Let's first make a real effort to understand ourselfs. It's an old story that humans have a tendency to try out everything that is within their capabilities. In truth it's no big deal to split atoms or clone humans. The real challenge is to take an honest look at ourselfs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. MACKEY - 12:27pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1882 of 1986)
As long as we do not clone the Clintons, its fine with me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Soder - 12:34pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1883 of 1986)
I am opposed to the cloning of humans. My worries lie with the future and well-being of these potentially cloned children. Will the parent donor and or both parents expect their child to grow up with the same ideals, intelligence, morals, careers, etc. as the parent cloner? If they do not live up to their expectations, will these children be loved just the same? or will there be dissapointment and frustration leaving the child to feel as if he/she is a dissapointment and unloved? Do they really want to look exactly like their parent? How will that effect them? What ridicule will there be from their peers?
There is just too much to be concerned about considering the well-being of cloned children. We are not God-like people in any sense of the word and anyone who thinks he is, is someone to be feared. Dr. Seeds priorities and thinking here are not in line with the concern for the future of these children and the emotional turmoil they may live through their entire lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 12:40pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1884 of 1986)
Mike
Cloning will not weaken the gene pool since there is no "inbreeding" involved (ie.the expression of recessive genes). The clone is geneticly no better or worse than the original from which it is "copied"; hence, there is no net difference in the overall strength of the gene pool.
Cloning does, however, create a shallow-end for the gene pool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Coolidge - 12:49pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1885 of 1986)
Jay H.
While I appreciate you train of thought, who is to say that God (meaning he or SHE) has placed significant obstacles in the path of these so called "scientists" - remember Mr. Seed is NOT a licensed or schooled physician - as a sign to deter us from this madness. Yes there are many instances in the history of mankind which would support your theory of "if we can think - God must want us to do it", but isn't that what Dr. Frankenstein believed too - and look what happened to him!
Rather than focus on cloning human beings, let's examine the possibilities of solving world hunger, diseases and plagues - then when all of those maladies have been resolved should we even consider something as pompous and self-fulfilling as cloning humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
innovative thought - 12:49pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1886 of 1986)
Life evolved in the form of single cells. Today we see ourselves as humans. Tommorrow we are bound to evolve into other forms, maybe a different species altogether in about a billion years or so. To preserve our "state" of DNA as human species,why not we clone ourselves, embark on a space mission to another favorable planet ( and which may be thousands of light years away ). The method of "survival" during the course of journey, is to clone,i.e to keep producing copies of the present "state". This is just another idea. Produce clones. But let us send them to another planet. This will keep the ethical issues away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 12:56pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1887 of 1986)
Jean
What did happen to Dr. Frankenstein? It seems like he kept coming back.
(By the way, it's "Dr." Seed -- he's a phyicist )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Garringer - 12:56pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1888 of 1986)
I believe that mankind will have to chose at some point to either make a complete break with nature. It appears that whether we like it or not, or are even cognizant of it, the cloning issue is pushing us a major step closer to this decision.
Generaly, if a couple is incapable of reproducing naturaly, either there is some sort of genetic infirmity or some sort of vulnurability to the environment which they are living and working in. If we as a socity chose to provide a means for people to reporduce no matter what, we are in a fairly major way chosing to disregard the way in which nature functions.
One does not have to look very far in nature to learn that Mother Nature at least does not consider every individual member of a species fit for reproduction. This is the single most important 'law' of nature, if we chose to deny this we are making a nearly final decision to break from nature. After some number of generations of such reproductive habits there is little reason to expect that very much of humanity will even be capable of living or reproducing at all without the aid of science. We will have changed from a creature of nature to a product of technology.
It is possible that in the long run this is better for mankind, but who can really say. I just think that it is something that we should all take the time to consider.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Coolidge - 01:02pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1889 of 1986)
Mr. Madden, pardon the error in title, but the fact remains, "Dr." Seed (interesting name given the topic of conversations, don't you think?) has NO BUSINESS participating in this endeavor, nor does anyone else.
As for Dr. Frankenstein, to the best of my recollective abilities has yet to return from the grave. You may recall he didn't outlive his expectations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 01:07pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1890 of 1986)
JENN
I saw this Mr. Seed On tv and agree he seems to be out for the money. He did say he needed 2 million to continue his work. His qualifications for this type of work is 10 years of reading up on the subject. A self taught expert. Personally I'm against cloning because of the suffering it's bound to cause, but it is going to happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 01:12pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1891 of 1986)
Jean
Since there has been so much discussion of him in this forum, I feel confortable in dropping all formality and just calling him "Dick Seed".
I would prefer that he limited his cloning endeavors to bringing back Frozen Siberian Wooly Mammoths, for reasons you make obvious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 01:14pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1892 of 1986)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
ARE CLONES HUMAN? That will be the big legal debate of the next century.
Somebody kills a clone, is it murder. A person has a clone of themselves, so that they have spare body parts in case of emergency. Is this allowable.
Will a clone have the right to vote? After all, the clone is the genetic copy of the original. And a person can't vote twice in an election.
Will clones be given the same rights are Pro-Created persons?
These are all questions that will have to be answered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Coolidge - 01:15pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1893 of 1986)
Jay H
You know I got the same impression - to me he's out for a headline and $$ more than anything else. It also mentioned that there are four couples willing to submit themselves to this procedure in the hopes of having a child - why not ADOPT - there are many needy children out there - personally, if I couldn't have children, I would rather adopt one, save the $$ it would have cost to put myself and significant other through this traumatic process and maybe donate the $$ to a worthy cause, such as cancer research or CF research - food for thought. I'm surprised it took this long for someone like Dr. Seed to surface, aren't you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Garringer - 01:16pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1894 of 1986)
Sorry about the formating on that last messge. I evidently have no idea how to manipulate the formating characters.
Jay H,
• I am uncertain that cloning is bound to cause more suffering than the technology it represents and advances could potentialy alleviate. Imagine a world free from birth defects and congenital diseases. I think that in the short run it could cause some suffering, but think of all of the people 'leeched' to death in the early stages of medicine, but I doubt that many of people would seriously argue that medicine has more than made up for itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Coolidge - 01:16pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1895 of 1986)
Mr. Madden
My name's Jenn not Jean (no offense taken) and wooly mammouths wouldn't be able to survive in our world today, there is a reason that they became extinct - they couldn't adapt to their environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Larsen - 01:18pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1896 of 1986)
I'm still laughing at the "feminist plot" (but hey, that's a GREAT idea!) Maybe there IS a way to achieve peace on earth - get rid of the men who start wars. No offense to Arnold, but I'd prefer Mel Gibson...where can I sign up all my female friends? hahahaha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 01:19pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1897 of 1986)
Chris:
1)Yes.
2)Yes.
3)Yes.
4)Yes.
5)Yes.
The better question is should it be allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Rinn - 01:28pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1898 of 1986)
Dr. Frankenstein is one of the most successful fictional characters of all time, and is in no way a failure. However, the lesson of the original story is not so clear. By far the most dangerous invention of our time is the automobile, but no one here seems opposed to it.
As far as Diane's concerns, it's no worse than women who are artificially impregnated with sperm selected because of high IQ or physique of the donor. In both cases, unrealistic expectations can lead to problems.
Finally, I have to totally disagree with Joel's assertion that allowing infertile parents to reproduce is any more "breaking with nature" than other medicine. I know many people who would have died as infants without modern health care, in fact it's possible I'm one of them. They all have genes that are "not fit for reproduction" according to nature, in a way more so than an infertile parent.
So far, it seems to me, all of the objects to cloning, are equally true of previous technologies. Until someone has an objection that is unique to cloning itself, I have to come down in favor of allowing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 01:30pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1899 of 1986)
JOEL
Until they track down every gene in the human body, cloning will not make a perfect human. They are years away from finding the bad genes and making the changes that are needed. Maybe Dr. Seed should put his time into curing mankind of it's ills before he copies it.