------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 01:31pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1900 of 1986)
Sorry Jenn, I didn't mean to offend you by getting your name wrong.
Actually, the Wooly Mammoths were doing OK in certain places after the last Ice Age until they were finally wiped out by stone-age hunters. (The same thing happened later to the wild Aurtauch sp? , the fore-runner of todays cows.)
I think it would be better to bring back the Wooly Mammoth; cloning humans is fraught with peril.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Garringer - 01:37pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1901 of 1986)
Jason,
I definitly don't want to make to impression that mankind has not already taken some steps in the direction of breaking with nature.
I really don't see how one could reasonably assert that the ability that modern medicine gives us to survive otherwise fatal faults is not in some ways moving mankind outside the realm of nature. I further believe that, although previous methods of aid for infertile couples was circumventing nature in some ways, it was still sexual reproduction, at least in effect, and provides natural laws at least a limited say in the genotype of the child and its ofspring.
Cloning would freeze the genotype and would allow any unfavorable characteristcs to be propgated indefintly, which is distictly different from any previous means of artifical reproductiove assistance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian David - 01:37pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1902 of 1986)
Anyone, including Doctor Seed, who thinks that the ability to clone humans makes the cloner (or mankind in general) become God or like God is an arrogant FOOL. Anyone who thinks that the ability to clone humans or any other life form is evidence against the existence of God is also a FOOL. Let me give you an analogy: The ability to retrofit a human egg with the nucleus from another cell and cause it to multiply makes the cloner no more the creator of life (much less the inventor of it) than the ability to figure out how to retrofit a Ford truck with a Chevy engine makes one a car manufacturer (much less the inventor of the automobile). Those who suggest that the ability to clone is evidence against the existence of God would rather not acknowledge a few facts: 1. Man did not engineer or create the raw materials (DNA, nucleus, other cell structures and cell replication mechanisms) which he has just learned to manipulate. Those materials already exist, and intelligence can be seen in their design. 2. God gave man his intelligent mind to discover the workings of life. Though we now understand a lot about the mechanics of life, we are unable to build it (at least for now and a long time to come) from its most fundamental elements. What makes us think that life so intelligently designed could possibly have been produced by unintelligent chance? 3. Even if man advances technologically to the point that he can build even a single-celled organism from scratch, that feat will be accomplished only because he has spent many, many years studying the structure and function of life which already exists. The intelligent design of that life is, admittedly, of a source other than man. It would be impossible for man to learn to engineer life without ever having studied that life which already exists. If there were no life for man to study to learn to engineer, well...there would be no man either.
Though man may manipulate life and nature over which he has been given dominion,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 01:40pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1903 of 1986)
Jenn. I feel I must step up in defense of Mr. Madden's wooly mammoth clones. The idea is not to reintroduce them into the wild. The major value would be scientific and educational. Wouldn't you like to know what a wooley mammoth sounds like? How about how they smell? (through their trunks, hahaha). Ok, maybe we should be spared that one but who knows...they might make great pets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Garringer - 01:45pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1904 of 1986)
Jay,
That isn't really an argument aginst pursuing this technology. I do agree that science is still a long way from correting the human genotype, but at one point mankind was years away from antibiotics.
The point I was and am still trying to make is that mankind is attemping, at least in appearance, to live in two worlds, those of nature and technology, and I am uncertain as to whether or not this is possible.
I am afraid that the more medical technology that is developed the more man will attemp to free himself (or herself) from any sort of natural restrictions on how he will live and reproduce; the end result being a creature that is no longer part of the purely natural world. I think that this is an important, though not necissrily undesireable, movement.
I may not be saying anything everyone is not already considering, but it seem significant to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Coolidge - 01:46pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1905 of 1986)
ML and Mr. M-
You guys SLAY me with your interest in WM's. Oh okay, bring them back - let's have some fun! Can we also bring back the carrier pigeon too - I mean since we are reinventing species, y not?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Larsen - 01:48pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1906 of 1986)
Seriously though, this technique needs more study, but not on humans...yet. No one person (or group) should be permitted to experiment with the evolution process and control the knowledge to their own PERSONAL benefit. However, making it all illegal will cause others to continue; possibly with evil intentions. This is truly a worldly subject. Who should say we shouldn't learn how to better the human race. Maybe we could eliminate diseases, on a global scale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 01:50pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1907 of 1986)
Jenn. Good idea. I forgot about the carrier pigeon. That could be a cheap way to increase the bandwidth of my internet connection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Garringer - 01:51pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1908 of 1986)
Right on Brian.
I would like to further point out that there are forces at work in phisics and science that mankind cannot even develope models for let alone change. Anyone who has even taken the briefest look at what is involved in some of the fields that are attempting to probe the way in which the universe actualy functions, such as quantum mechanics, will quickly get the correct impression that there some things we may not ever even have the ability to measure let alone understand or change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 01:53pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1909 of 1986)
And don't forget the Dodo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 01:59pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1910 of 1986)
B Larson
Oh, Sure.
Talk about your specious arguments.
We know what your REAL plan is, don't we.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Coolidge - 01:59pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1911 of 1986)
Mr. M- you go boy! bring them ALL back - then we can have a pahty!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June B. Overton - 02:04pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1912 of 1986)
Our middle school youth group discussed this issue at church last night and here are a few of the comments:
You might make too many people with HIV. Kenneth Strunk
If you clone someone, they can go to school for you. Kenneth Strunk
If it goes wrong, it will be a freak show! Chris Day
This is how I feel about cloning.(One reason for cloning is that there are)people that are not able to have kids. I think it would be good for them to clone as long as they are 100% sure the kids would be okay. Nona Comley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 02:13pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1913 of 1986)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
James... I'm personally against human cloning, simply because of the implications that it causes. I'm all for the cloning of animals, to help feed our planets evergrowing population. I'm all for cloning human tissue and organs to aid in organ transplants and such. But to completely clone a human, nope, can't support that.
What would stop the military of any country from using Gene technology to genetically engineer the perfect soldier. Then just clone them, like a copy machine spitting out pages. Or a politian having a clone made to make the public appearences, in the event of possible assassination. I'm afraid that with the ability to clone humans, that people will consider a clone dispossible or expendible.
My personal opinion is that if it walks, talks, breaths, thinks for itself and can do all the other things that make us what we are, than it shouldn't be used as some kind of resource.
Could somebody answer a question about this couple that is having the cloning done. Will the women carry the baby naturally, or will it be created completely in a labratory type setting? I haven't found anything on this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 02:17pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1914 of 1986)
June:
HIV is a virus that is passed between living organisms by physical contact with blood or bodily fluids. A clone of an HIV infected individual will not be born with HIV unless the mother (or whoever carried the fetus) was infected.
You could clone someone to go to school for you. Unfortunately, they are going to be the one who gets an education.
About it being a freak show: You can't do that anymore anyway - it's politically incorrect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 02:20pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1915 of 1986)
JOEL
MY education is limited but let me try. The further man gets away from nature and toward technology the further he gets away from evolution. Without evolution man might find himself with the mastodon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nitzsche - 02:24pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1916 of 1986)
In general I favor intelligent research into human cloning.
However, I wonder whether a person whose nuclear genome is identical to another person who has already lived (or at least is older) would feel that some degree or freedom was absent from their life. With the exception of identical twins, each human has, until now, been a genetically unique creature. That provides a fundamental sense of freedom. A genetically unique individual knows that while some portion of their life may be controlled by their genes, the genes themselves are unknown and the pattern has never unfolded before. Each decision is uncharted territory. Each development a unique combination of factors (genetic and otherwise). This sense that our lives are unique and are ours to forge (even though we may have controlling genes) seems to me to be fundamental to the sense of one's individuality.
But if you live after your "clone", if you are in a real sense a repitition, might you then lack this sense of freedom, of a unique unfolding? Might your sense of your own freedomn, your own uniqueness, of the dramatic and mysterious unfolding of your human life diminish? Could this undermine one's life significantly? Does this change the fundamental nature of being human?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 02:25pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1917 of 1986)
Chris -
Until the development of the artificial womb, the woman will ,of course, carry the implanted clone to term.
Which brings up the question: should the development of the artificial uterus be allowed, which will make not just men but women ALSO obsolete.
(I say NO. Let's stop the development of artificial uteruses NOW!)
[What's the plural of uterus? Uterii ? is that a masculine noun?]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nitzsche - 02:28pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1918 of 1986)
Chris Robb:
The only known way to clone a mammal is to have imaplant and egg with the new DNA in the femal and allow the egg to develop normally into a fetus. The female gives birth and the new creaure lives its life normally. There is now no such thing as producing in a lab a clone of an animal, or of creating a clone that is at a certain age other than a fetal age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hal Bunch - 02:29pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1919 of 1986)
If my daughter was to die and I was to lose my ability to reproduce then I would want the chance to recreate a twin of my child. A twin is just what a clone is it's just born later and is as human as any other twin. Morals and ethics have nothing to do with if we should clone. They do have impact on what we do with clones but that issue is easy to resolve. Clones are people too......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Garringer - 02:34pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1920 of 1986)
Jay,
What you say is true in the absence of any kind of genitic engineering, however science has already made some significant strides towards achieving control over the human genome, and I am not alone in believing that it is only a matter of time before we can seccesfuly perform actions on the DNA of a human being that will at least equal the effectiveness of natural selection.
Although I don't believe in the idea of a 'superman', I do believe that technology may perfect the biology of the human race. I do feel that the question of man's spiritual destiny will still remain, but at least we will have one fewer thing to worry about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 02:36pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1921 of 1986)
Let's clear up some confusion here.
First of all, I'm sure you people mean passenger pigeons, not carrier pigeons.
What would stop the military of any country from using Gene technology to genetically engineer the perfect soldier. Chris Robb 1/8/98 2:13pm
That's science fiction. Cloning and genetic alteration are two different things.
Then just clone them, like a copy machine spitting out pages. Or a politian having a clone made to make the public appearences, in the event of possible assassination. Chris Robb 1/8/98 2:13pm
Will the women carry the baby naturally, or will it be created completely in a labratory type setting? Chris Robb 1/8/98 2:13pm
None of this could happen. You can't just spit out clones like a Xerox machine. (Makin' copieeeeees.... <grin> I love it!) Here's how cloning works:
You take the DNA from an adult cell. You use it to replace the partial DNA in a woman's egg cell. You "fool" the adult DNA to think that it's a newly fertilized egg. You implant the egg into a woman's uterus. The woman is then pregnant and has the baby like normal. The "clone" grows up a normal child in every respect except it was conceived in a very unusual manner. So you can't just spit out soldiers. A politician couldn't just "grow" a stand-in, because it would take 40 years to grow up, and they wouldn't look alike because the clone would be 40 and the original 80!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Garringer - 02:37pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1922 of 1986)
Also if we follow the advice of some of our compartiots we may find ourselves with the Mastodon anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 02:47pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1923 of 1986)
JAY -
I don't know about the mastodon, but I do think we should clone the Frozen Siberian Wooly Mammoth, in order to bring them back.
(This would not take us away from evolution.)
Clones are people, too --That is a great slogan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Cassidy D'Aoust - 02:49pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1924 of 1986)
Lance Cassidy D'Aoust
Cloning is the greatest thing to ever be developed! Now we have the potential to solve the endangered species problem! We can solve wild animal fertility problems!
Wait a second... We're humans, not moral creatures... We have things like greed and money to think about. Why should we care about the planet and all it's beauty? Saving some wild animals from complete extinction might make me feel good, but how would that look in my bank balance?
Why in the world would you consider cloning humans of all species?! We need it the least! Humans are the only ones who don't have a mating season and look what that's done to our population! We are in the billions! So what if some couples are infertile! How many abondoned children are there? As if there weren't any alternatives to adoption...
What about the MIGHTY U.S. government? Do you honestly think that they are going to us this cloning technology for your benifit, of the wild kingdom? No ______ way! Thing world domination via "familyless" troops... Expendable soldiers.... Yeah, that's within the realm of reasonable activity for your U.S. govnt.
If you do or do not like what I think you can tell me so at [email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 02:52pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1925 of 1986)
If that Siberian Wooly Mammoth is a meat eater, we all better evolve into faster runners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevis Shane - 02:52pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1926 of 1986)
Brave new world, here we come. If I had faith that we humans could act responsibly, I would have no problem with cloning. On the other hand, we already had people who produce a child in order to provide bone marrow to another critical child. Now what will happen if we mass produced clones? Slavery perhaps.
No doubt cloning may provide some scientific insight into what we are all about, but there are still to many clowns around who would want to see how far they can push.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 02:55pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1927 of 1986)
Thing world domination via "familyless" troops... Expendable soldiers Lance Cassidy D'Aoust 1/8/98 2:49pm
Lance, read my post Mike T Jones 1/8/98 2:36pm and you'll see why your statement is silly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nitzsche - 02:57pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1928 of 1986)
Nevis:
The couple that had a baby and used some of its bone marrow SAVED THE LIFE of another child. Now, they have two children they love. Instead of one dead child. They did this without cloning, knowing they had a one-in-four chance of giving birth to a child that match. If you believe they don't love their new child, you are entitled to but I think you are reading your fears into it. and doing them an unjustice. With cloning, they could have the new child and KNOW it would match. Deny them this right and you KILL the sick child.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 03:00pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1929 of 1986)
Kyle. It amazes me the extent that many people think we are determined by our genes. Sure, the raw materials we start out with, including not only our physical attributes, but much of our emotional and psychological make-up derive largely from our genes. But the psychological attributes are related to our genes more in the sense of predispostions than strict determinism. Of course, this is the hotly debated nature vs nurture issue, but I think everybody agrees that we are a product of both; the only debate is the degree of each. The latest findings seem to indicate anywhere from 3/4 of one to 1/4 of the other either way, which seems like common sense to me. I think that's only suprising to people with extreme views on the matter. But the point here is that your individuality is going to depend on your exact circumstances and that is not likely to be sufficiently determined by your genes to eliminate that, any more than for a pair of identical twins and we don't think of that as depriving one of them of freedom or individuality. Just think of how much our external physical features depend on independent contingencies (scars, limps, etc.). But how about psychological traits such as habits? Wanta tell me that early man evolved a jones for drug addiction, per se? There are a billion variables in the development of a human individual and they are all sensitive to the inummerable contingencies that make up a human life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 03:00pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1930 of 1986)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
Mike... I know that currently what I was suggesting isn't possible. But 5 years ago, neither was what is currently possible. And just remember that science fiction can often become science fact.
I believe that within the next 20 years that Gene technology will advance to such a level that mankind will be able to "Photocopy" a clone into multiple copies.
With regard to the mother carrying the clone'd embryo to term. Has anybody discussed the possiblities that while its developing in the womb that the fetal DNA could be altered to some degree before birth. Therefore not producing a true clone. Could the doctor be medically liable for this. The way I understand cloning is that it replicates the DNA cells. So theoritically, a Clone should develop exactly like the original. We all know that things can happen during pregnancy. The mother could drink heavily or smoke a lot, an cause possible problems. Some undetected flaw in her own DNA could be passed onto the fetus. Or is the Doctor claiming that he has locked the clone DNA so that it will not be influenced by outside factors?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nitzsche - 03:05pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1931 of 1986)
ML Rogers, Thanks for your response!
Take my exmple further, suppose there were hypothetically 100 clones. As a scientific experiment, their lives were studied, whether they become alcoholics was noted, whether they became athletes, when they died and how they died and etc. Just as identical twins who never meet often end up leading very similar lives, it is possible that there would be discernable patterns in the lives of these clones. Then, eventually, after they have all died you make the 101st clone. You also provides this person with the statistcial studies of the previous clones. This person may well now have a pretty could idea of their own predispositions. I wonder whether this person would feel as if the uniqueness of their own life was lessened, perhaps they might feel fated to live in a certain way. They might feel the value of their own life was lessened. They might feel less responsible for their own actions. No?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 03:05pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1932 of 1986)
I believe that within the next 20 years that Gene technology will advance to such a level that mankind will be able to "Photocopy" a clone into multiple copies.
What's the basis for this belief?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 03:09pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1933 of 1986)
Chris Robb 1/8/98 3:00pm
...Therefore not producing a true clone. Could the doctor be medically liable for this...
A new specialty for even more lawyers! Cool! Gene lawyers!
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:14pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1934 of 1986)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Actually no two adult organisms will ever be exact copies. Possibly very similar :)
I am amazed at how this board took off over the last week!
Amazing as cloning is, it really isn't that great of a leap. We have been dwelving into the mysteries of genetic construction for some time now. There is no way that we could suppress knowledge even if we wanted to, so it is much more productive to ponder how we believe we should apply new knowledge.
Millions of soldier, unit 1A - serial 0034? Not likely! Although this will undoubtably be possible at some time in the future, why would someone do it? It is far more economically feasible to round up all of the adolesents in your country and arm them with a gun and a fear of the "enemy." (I don't support this, but this is what history has shown us.)
We have already been making consience decisions regarding our evolution. Genetic technologies will enhance our capability to do this. What will be critical in this direction will be the way in which we make decisions. If we all want blue eyed boys we will probably miss out on the next Ms. Currie. (Expand that as you like.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 03:17pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1935 of 1986)
MIke -
Yet another agrument in favor of No Human Cloning --
More Lawyers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 03:19pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1936 of 1986)
Ok, Kyle. You're right that discernable patterns would almost certainly show up. I agree that this very well could make many people conscious of the effects of their genes and this might make them feel less free. So your point is well taken. However, even this response would depend upon the individual perhaps, ironically, by virtue of genetic predisposition. Some poeple might be predisposed to feel free, no matter what! How's that for an ironic twist. I'd like to take credit for it but now I'm not so sure I can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian David - 03:20pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1937 of 1986)
My previous message at 1:37pm was cut short. Here's the rest. Please go back and read.
Though man may manipulate life and nature over which he has been given dominion, he must remember to humbly give credit to God, that intelligence beyond our own, for life's and, more generally, nature's awesome design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nitzsche - 03:26pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1938 of 1986)
ML:
There are serious scientists who have put forward the hypothesis that a wide array of social characteristics not previously ascribed to genes are in fact genetically determined, for instnace, E.O. Wilson. One example of such a characteristic might be the tendancy to do scientific research into biological subjects that could lead one to discover cloning and then actually perform cloning! Genetically predisposed to cone!
If such a seizure of control of human reproduction has the dire effects feared by some, this could lead to the end of evolution and possibly the destruction of the of the human race! If so, we would hve been genetically predisposed to engineer our own self destruction!
Personally, I agree with you and generally side against the "sociobiologists."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Larsen - 03:32pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1939 of 1986)
Chris, I've been thinking along the sames lines (effects of the embryo in the womb). Stress and illness can not be prevented. What then?
James, Glad you liked my "real" plan. *smile* And when would the fabricated womb be created, it would also become a reality so neither male or female would be necessary, except for their valuable DNA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 03:32pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1940 of 1986)
Wow -- I didn't realize that cloning is actually Calvinist Predestination. This brings religion into the discussion at an interesting angle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 03:32pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1941 of 1986)
It seems to me that in order to get an identical clone, it would have to be grown in a sterile setting. That would mean outside the womb as a womans living habits could change the fetus (drinking, smoking,etc) before birth. I,m against cloning because no one has said what will be done with the mistakes, They are human so they can't go in the dumpster.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nitzsche - 03:33pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1942 of 1986)
Brian,
If you want to believe that human's "have been given dominion" over "life and nature" that's fine. But that seems like a pretty self serving world view. Just think what that view has allowed this race in good conscience to do to other creatures and to this earth. It seems far more likely to me that this view was adopted historically PRECISELY because it is self serving and provides an "ethical" rationale for treating the rest of this planet and its inhabitants with a judgemental disregard so intense that it gellfully relegates them to TOTAL SUBORDINATION. I am not an animal right activist, just someone who thinks other creatures have a value in and of themselves and totally apart from humans and their religions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 03:38pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1943 of 1986)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
Mike... Why do I believe that within 20 years mankind will be able to carbon copy clones.
Because gene technology is advancing in leaps and bounds. Combining advances in medical science with the strides that genetics are making. Simple logic tells me that it should happen.
In the near future it may be possible for couples that can't have a child normally to go to the local shopping mall and custom make a baby using their genetic materials. Would sorta be like buying a new car, what options do you want on that baby. Perfect teeth, good vision, no chance of some disease, a lengthened lifespan.
Right now that sounds like science fiction, but just remember that within this century people would never have thought that Heart Transplants could be possible. Or the reattaching of a severed limb. Just 10 years ago, most people would have thought that we could clone a sheep.
So what I'm thinking is not that wild. (I also happen to be an avid science fiction reader and wanna-be Sci-Fi writer.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 03:41pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1944 of 1986)
James. I just had to respond to that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevis Shane - 03:41pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1945 of 1986)
Kyle: It was not my intent to negate the loving nature of the parents who had a child to save another child. I meant that this type of situation can be abused.
Then again, they thought the same thing with test-tube babies.
Nature vs nurture has always been debated. Of course,things can go wrong with the pregnancy, diet and smoking can effect the baby and environment. But it is not a leap of the imagination to imagine abuses, since, especially now, nature AND nurture can be manipulated depending on who wants a clone and why.
The book "Boys from Brazil" is a good example of this, although not real scientific, it's a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nitzsche - 03:45pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1946 of 1986)
Nevis:
Point taken, sorry if I incorrectly put words in your mouth. I just think it is important to recognize that human cloning already offers life saving medical treatment. Bans on research, while ethical on some ground, are arguably unethical on the grounds that they condemn people to die who might otherwise live.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:50pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1947 of 1986)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
I have to agree with you Kyle.
We need to be very thoughtfull in how we apply what we learn, but trying to be intentionally ignorant is not the most sage path to take.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevis Shane - 03:51pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1948 of 1986)
Of course, cloning offers a wealth of information and I for one don't have a problem with it. I think of it as an exciting scientific advancement with amazing possibilites.
Who would have thought that we would walk on the moon, 29 years ago!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Larsen - 03:57pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1949 of 1986)
Another thought to consider - what about the couples? Are they healthy - mentally and physically (aside from being infertile?). We've been told absolutely nothing about them. Have they been specially selected or just because they want to? Of all the infertile people in the world wanting to conceive a child; are these couples the BEST candidates for such an important "gift of life"? At what cost to the couple; Government; taxpayer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Williams - 04:03pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1950 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.
Specifically about cloning, I am against it because of personal beliefs but I also recognize that we will not stop it from continuing. It is mankind's nature to do as it pleases whether it offends others or not.
May we as humans have the intelligence to use it wisely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike T Jones - 04:04pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1951 of 1986)
Chris Robb 1/8/98 3:38pm
Rein it in there, Chris. Sure, technology has been moving at leaps and bounds, but that doesn't mean that anything you imagine is right around the corner. That is faulty logic.
In sci-fi movies they have superluminal spacecraft (Faster Than Light). 100 years ago people weren't even flying, but since then we've been to the moon and landed a little toy car on Mars. That does NOT mean that in 20 years we'll be flying around at Warp 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Nitzsche - 04:11pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1952 of 1986)
Joshua:
Even though I am not a member of any established church (because I don't find any of them to be "true"), you are correct that religion has a place in this discussion. The very fact the religious believe it does makes it so.
After all, if you believe any of the following, religion is clearly relevant to human cloning:
--human's were put here for a purpose
--each human has a unique soul
--human sexuality is important to god
--humans were made in god's image
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rune Boersjoe - 04:27pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1953 of 1986)
Eva Liu - 08:32pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1775 of 1775)
At this rate, I'm wondering if I should even HAVE any children. Why would anyone want a clone of themselves if not for egotistical reasons?
You seem to have misunderstood the entire concept of cloning. It is not to create an EXACT duplicate of yourself. Heck, nature does that all too good on it's own. Septuplets anyone?
The purpouse of cloning would first and fore-most be to "clone" cells such as a man's semen and insert it into an eggcell. The difficulty ofcourse, comes to making the choice of which cell to take.
Here is my favourite word: Evolution makes it so that the strongest and healthiest cell reaches the egg first. So what's the problem here? Strongest cell the traditional way/strongest cell by cloning... it's still the strongest.
The purpouse of cloning is not to create a million Pamela Lees' or Schwartzneggers. That very thought is inconceivable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 04:30pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1954 of 1986)
Oh, good point Mr. Madden! I hadn't considered that one. Do want a bunch of infertile clones running around? Then they will only be able reproduce by more cloning, kind of a "send in the clones" scenario. :) I doubt that the act of sex, per se, would go out of fashion, but it could be relegated to being a strictly recreational activity. Although I can't argue with (responsible) recreational sex, sexual reproduction probably will always make more biological sense than cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 04:30pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1955 of 1986)
And anyway, what use is it for cloning to perpetuate the existance of people who are geneticly infertile, unless you are trying ultimately to make sexual reproduction obsolete.
(It looks like pretty soon all that will be left are the machines and the Wooly Mammoths)
I happen to be in favor of sexual reproduction. (Just call me "Mel")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 04:42pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1956 of 1985)
Infertility has many causes; not all of them are genetic and likely to be passed on to clones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 04:45pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1957 of 1985)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
Mike... Point taken. But I don't think that what I've been talking about is all that far off.
And don't think I like the ideas I'm talking about either. Fact is it scares me out of my wits. The uses for genetic manipulation and cloning while having possible helpful uses. I see a lot of area for horrible misuse.
Genetic Imprinting and stuff like that. I mean here at the Univ. of Arizona, researchers have begun genetic imprinting mice with cells from a parent, that has successfully run their maze. So they occassionally get a new born mouse that can run the maze the first time.
(I'm about to go really extreme here) Now imagine a clone of a 16 year old kid, genetically imprinted to make the perfect BigMac, everytime, all the time.
(you may laugh, but it could happen.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dgeorge - 04:48pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1958 of 1985)
I think this is a cool idea if it works
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dgeorge - 04:50pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1959 of 1985)
Does this mean that if I want to have a professional hockey player to be my so, it could happen??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 04:52pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1960 of 1985)
dg-
I can't argue with that. I'd say it ranks at least 8.7 on the "cool" meter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dgeorge - 04:55pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1961 of 1985)
I'm totally amazed by this.... the possible things that could happen is endless. What is going to happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Simpson - 04:58pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1962 of 1985)
They have been doing "mental" transfers for a few years with mice...so much a movie was made from idea.
Forget the name though
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nettie - 05:20pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1963 of 1985)
There is no shortage of babies in the world...until all the orphan babies and children in the world have a home, I am against it. If something happens that causes most people to be infertile, or we suffer from a shortage of people we could consider it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Hayward - 05:22pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1964 of 1985)
Since many presume to know the will of GOD when formulating clone arguments and Joshua Williams said it's ok to waste everybody's time/bandwidth with their own spiritual beliefs as they relate to the human cloning issue, I have my own spiritual story to relate to the readers of this news group.
Last night, while I was sleeping, I shimmering figure of a bearded old man floated into my room and spoke to me, he said "TAYLOR"
At once I knew it must be an omniscient entity because I got a strange burning sensation in my genital region.
I replied "Yes GOD"
"Taylor, this debate about whether cloning humans is immoral concerns me. I want people to know that I want them to clone as many hot chicks as possible. I've never forgiven myself for the unacceptable lack of hot snacks. So go and tell the world that god said more tasty babes."
And then he left.
I'm not sure what this all means but I'm pretty sure we should do what GOD has said or face the fiery furnace of HELL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ML Rogers - 05:42pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1965 of 1985)
M.A.Daluca: I don't think Madden and I were being entirely serious about that but your point is well taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay H - 05:56pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1966 of 1985)
Just heard on the news that Ohio is going to fine anyone trying to clone a human 1 million dollars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 06:09pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1967 of 1985)
ML -
I will put your name down on the list under "Sexual Reproduction" and pass it on to Ms. Larsen.
There may be hope yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 06:14pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1968 of 1985)
No GODS, No Masters
Cloning is just another process for development of an implantable zygote/ What is the problem? There is nothing in our even near term cazpabilities that would allow for an entire duplication of an existing person that includes the same physical age and knowledge. All we would do is develop a zygote that has the idnetical genetics to an existing person, that person's eventual identity would be a result of all of the environmental factors it interacted with along the way. As it would not be possible to exactly duplicate the source's environment, there will be no exact copies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 06:17pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1969 of 1985)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
A quick note. I don't think we should talk about cloning Hitler, to the best of my knowledge there is no known samples of his Genetic material. (Damn good thing, too.)
But you could clone Charles Manson, or Jeffrey Dohmer. Maybe we could clone Jessie Helms (Please god, no.) Clone Ronald Regan, perhaps that one will have a better memory. The Chicago Bulls could clone Michael Jordan, several times. Have a whole team of Jordans. Clone Jennifer Flowers, one for every state governor.
Now, on a more serious note. What about parents that want to exume the remains of a deceased child, to get genetic material, to clone them the child again. (Would it work, would the child be the same)
Or as was mentioned by T.Simpson about Mental transfers. I make a clone of myself and have a mental transfer done to the clone. (Is this the key to immortality or raving insanity?) T.Simpson, I know that you refered to Mice, I was using your statement, not impling that it could be done on humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 06:24pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1970 of 1985)
No GODS, No Masters
T. Simpson 1/8/98 4:58pm you state "They have been doing "mental" transfers for a few years with mice"
Please provide reference sources for this. I refuse to beleive it is currently possible to "transfer" a complete life experience even at the mouse level. I am aware of some experiments in which the transplant of certain brain cells brought along some predetermination of response. But it was not even close to a "mental transfer".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Larsen - 06:28pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1971 of 1985)
James, Oh hahahaha, I got it..."Mel".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 06:29pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1972 of 1985)
BL -
I thought you might want to have a "trial period" before you finally decide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 06:41pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1973 of 1985)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
After Dolly was cloned, President Clinton set up an advisory group which recommended last year that Congress pass a law making human cloning illegal.
Woohoo, Blackmarket Clones.
Dr. Seeds isn't a Medical Doctor, he's a Physicist. Hmmmm, sounds more like an experiment than a medical procedure.
Come to Chicago, the Windy City. Famous for our Sears Tower, Weather and now Clones.
Oh, and one last thought on Clone Clinics. Everybody remember that Sperm doctor that used his "Seed" to fertilize women, rather than the proper sperm. Whats to stop some doctor from using his DNA to blend with a women's egg. Nobody will notice until the child starts to develop.
As I read more about this, it just spawns whole new areas of thought. Many of them absurd and silly, but oddly not entirely unrealistic.
Remember Star Wars. "General Kenobi, you fought with my father in the Clone Wars." Hmmmmm, maybe the cloned soldier idea wasn't that far off after all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Byrnes - 06:48pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1974 of 1985)
This BS I heard on "Politically Incorrect" by one of the guests that Fathers will want to mate with the clones of wives (their new daughters) because "they are the same person" is a load of bull. First off - physically the same does not mean the same-person. Many daughters already look their mothers, and we're not receiving that reaction now. People know their limits;they're not idiots.
Cloning is an outstanding step in worldwide science. I think cloning humans is a great idea, for those of us who want to be cloned. I do not think it should be limited to infertile people - what about a couple where one of which has the possibility of passing on bad genes resulting in something scycle-cell-anemia. It should be left up to the individuals, not their neighbor that may be shouting that GOD doesn't want it to be done--how would they know? That excuse ticks me off. Religion and government dont mix - keep it at home. Power to the Scientists... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Simpson - 06:53pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1975 of 1985)
Glenn,
Source of the mental transfers...
I can not quote the exact date...it was the tulsa tribune from tulsa okla. I read it AFTER I saw the movie.
The movie's plot was how a guys wife was murdered, and the case was unsolved. So he injected her brain juice into his, with a special formula..and was able to remember the murder! (movies, keep that in mind)
Then two weeks later, I read in the paper where they have been doing this with mice...and mice remember the maze, with out running it.
I also saw it on discovery....not on mtv. Very interesting.
But sorry, I cant point you the right direction to find out more info...but hopefully someone here has also heard this.
If I wanted to spend a week or two, I am sure I could find the article if a court case depended on it....but for a cnn board, look it up if your interested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Simpson - 06:57pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1976 of 1985)
Nattie says......
There is no shortage of babies in the world...until all the orphan babies and children in the world have a home, I am against it. If something happens that causes most people to be infertile, or we suffer from a shortage of people we could consider it.
WELL NATTIE, line UP for your CRACK BABY! Gaurenteed to bring u a life of misery. (it is not their fault, the poor baby, but the mother should be beat to an inch of her life...or charged with murder or SOMETHING besides just dumping this kid off on the tax payers, or some unsupeting couple)
Nattie,
If I could not have children, and I might not be able to, and i am the last simpson male alive with my name. I think I would opt to have a clone of my wife and I, than take a chance on what I get in the baby market.
There are still families out there that the name means pride (oh i am setting my self up for this one...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 07:02pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1977 of 1985)
TS - I saw something simialar to this also, but it involved feeding or injecting the mice with a sort of a trained-brain slurpee, nothing to do with genetics and a far cry from a "mental transfer"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 07:23pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1978 of 1985)
I think this whole episode is totally hilarious! I'm trying to get my business going in Asia, having bills and taxes to pay, financial planning for financial independance, and hanging on until the life-extension breakthroughs make me forever young so my financial planning is worth it. So Dr. Seed wants to clone people. Do you think I give a sh*t about it? I don't! And I think its particularly funny how all of the religious memoids are coming out of the closet to rant and rave about it. As though they don't have businesses to run and a live to live!
I have no plans to have kids anyway. So, the issue of human cloning doesn't mean squat to me. To all of the religious memoids who are ranting and raving about it, GET A LIFE!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 07:27pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1979 of 1985)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
W.R. Sample... Theres a whole topic to itself. Man an Wife use their genetic material to clone a baby. But during the pregnancy testing reveals that the baby may have defects. So they opt for an abortion, but want to use some of the fetal genetic material, combined with their own to try again.
Would it be possible, using the cloning method, to clone a pair of identical twins?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Waggoner - 07:28pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1980 of 1985)
Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind
"God intends for mankind to achieve the same level of knowledge and power as God"
THAT'S WHAT MR SEED SAID. HE IS THINKING EXACTLY LIKE THE DEVIL. HE IS TRULY AN EVIL MAN. AND CONTRARY TO WHAT THIS HYPOCRITE SAYS, A DEVIL-WORSHIPER.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorin G - 07:49pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1981 of 1985)
Mr. Richard, If we had people like you when the Atomic Bomb was invented, then there was nothing to be cloned right now, well, maybe dust, but 'dust' isn't that easy to be cloned, isn't it?
"... becoming one with God"??? I don't think that even Satan will look at you! You see, the HUMAN is something that God loves and Satan hates, and you're trying to play with it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Larsen - 07:49pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1982 of 1985)
T. Simpson Yes, adoption does have uncertainties including drawbacks however so does a full term "normal" pregnancy. A child born to parents that are drug abusers is a very tragic thing to have happen but should it be aborted? Here again, the point is NOT ALL babies are a product of a drug abusing society. Even when birth control is used in a sensible manner, hey - accidents can happen but that doesn't mean abortion is the answer. Many of these mothers are children themselves. Common sense and the law aren't priorities when an abuser is trying to find the next dose; or next drink for that matter. Get the drugs off the street? Not a chance! Why? Because the government is making far more $$$$ than if it became a legal substance (speaking of only marijuana here). But for those who sell the "pot", hell - what's the difference, they've got contacts to bigger and better. Let the killers, brutal rapiest and big time drug dealers (cocaine, heroin etc.) spend time behind bars. The system must be changed for the benefit of the whole medical community. (And I step down from the soap box.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richie R. Suraci - 07:50pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1983 of 1985)
When you allow any group of repressives or persecutionists, religionists, politicians, etc., with limited scientific knowledge, understanding and emotional immaturity who have views and deductions formalized from outdated philosophies, tunnel vision and the ability to consistently misunderstand science and life by creating a hornets nest of unscientific fact and belief that thwarts the advancement of responsible research, you are treading on allowing stupidity to rule over responsible, statistical, intelligent inquiry and scientific advancement.
Today you never say anything is impossible......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael DeVitt - 07:51pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1984 of 1985)
Is the Clone Poll flawed.....? I went to it and voted twice by accident and saw the counter advance 2 times. Someone can skew the results very easily...To bias the results they may have a sore clicking digit but.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Burton - 07:56pm Jan 8, 1998 ET (#1985 of 1985)
A friend of mine said today, "I want them to clone an army of me, but I dont think I would like me very much." I can understand cloning if it were to benefit the medical world. However, what is Dr. Seed, the physicist, doing except getting alot of attention. If he only has a couple of hundred thousand, he has a long way to go before he can get started. Just because he has the title of doctor, does not give him the necessity to go where he wants to go.