clone2200

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 11:30pm Jan 11, 1998 ET (#2196 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Ruby Pool 1/11/98 9:12pm says "Hitler wanted to create a superior race. He was finally stopped after millions died whom he believed were inferior."

Yes, and he based his efforts on Xianity as he himself WROTE "By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," Hitler declared in Mein Kampf.

Now we have the religious wRong trying once more to prevent simple medical advances.

Will we never learn from history?

Get rid of ignorance and superstition. This is the 20th century, about to be the 21st. And the masses are stuck in a book that's 1600 years old.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Misty Hatcher - 11:31pm Jan 11, 1998 ET (#2197 of 2255)

In response to Terra's post....it's easy to see how cloning could possibly destroy...and I felt I made that point earlier...if human cloning became successful, that would create people, right? Well, this Earth can't take many more humans, the natural way or otherwise. It's as simple as that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Bauman - 11:33pm Jan 11, 1998 ET (#2198 of 2255)

Center For Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine

Terra Wonderful job in replying and it saves me alot of typing! I've noticed that people seem to use Evolution almost as much as they do religion. I posted this before but it may need to be restated. Humans do not evolve all that well. We have a tremendous gene pool but it isn't being directed to any real extent. There are three ways for a gene pool to change; 1. a new mutation, this happens all the time, and in fact it can happen even more in cloning since cells that do not produce sperm or eggs tend to be under looser control for mutations and have gone through more cell devisions during which the DNA may be mutated. 2. Many people with a particular trait have viable offspring at higher rate. People have this wishful belief that humans are getting smarter through evolution, for this to be true the smarter would have to reproduce more, this is not the case. The people who are the most succesful reproduce no more than the poor and often times less since their careers take up too much of their time. Also just think of what countries have the highest birth rates, central Africa, this has nothing to do with intelligence or success, it has to do with cultures that believe in large families. 3. More people with a particular trait die before having viable offspring. Technology and modern medicine has stopped that in all but the extreme cases. Genetic Engineering is the way that humans will evolve in the future or we will just continue to be the same as we are now and as George Carlin says "Think about how stupid the average person is, and just think, half of everyone are even stupider."

As far as diseases go, there will be no more diseases because of cloning, it just doesn't work that way. Chances are clones will be born healthier than a normally conceived child since the cells used could be screened for any diseases as well as the mother or surrogate mother. Cloning wont reduce the genetic diversity since, unless some government gets very ve

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 11:42pm Jan 11, 1998 ET (#2199 of 2255)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ban human cloning? Well lets see now. Someone decides to repoduce by cloning and the government tries to place him/her under arrest. They resist and are killed.

THAT! is what "ban cloning" means.

I say that each person has an inalienable right to reproduce themselves any way they want. Its a part of "life liberty and the pursuit of happyness".

Peproductive choices (at least for people that are not severely retarded) are the sole domain of the individual. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court more times than I can recall.

The religious right, or whoever is if favor of a banning law, will force a constitutional crisis if such a law is passed.

It will also give every other country in the world that dosent have such a law a chance to get ahead of the U.S. in reproductive technology.

In the U.S. the primary function of the government is the protection of it's citizens rights, not regulating how or who to reproduce with.

Of cource you can go to china and talk to people who have had their wife forceably aborted and then punished by sterilization for violating the "one child policy".

Ask them about reproductive rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tina Leung - 11:56pm Jan 11, 1998 ET (#2200 of 2255)

We (humans) are not morally ready for any major changes in reproductions of humans, nor are we ready for the problems we might face in the future. There's just too much concern on the subject of cloning humans to begin serious research. Until everyone says yes to cloning, cloning of humans will always be a subject of discusion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:02am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2201 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Tina Leung 1/11/98 11:56pm says "Until everyone says yes to cloning, cloning of humans will always be a subject of discusion."

At exactly what point did medical research become the responsiblity of majority rule?

Cloning is nothing but another natural step in medical research and development. Only the same antiquated superstition that tried to stop most other medical advancements, Xianity, stands in the way

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Larsen - 12:06am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2202 of 2255)

Terra, The posts you've made reference to were in no way directed at you, however to answer your response to them, (refer to #2162) it gives the URL and I WOULD suggest you do explore what we are dealing with here.

To.."temporarily ward of some diseases" is exactly why we shouldn't. At what point will the diseases return, and at what cost to the human race?

"not harming anyone else any more than someone having a child the old-fashioned way"...but this has yet to be proven and it is NOT the same but other avenues are currently available for them now.

"Different ways are not always equal ways"...what are you saying? They DO have an opportunity, I'm not denying them of reproducing but feel that cloning is nothing more than an excuse by SEED; thereby being discrimatory to those who might want (don't know why) to clone even if they weren't infertile. Not only that, but "equal", it is not equal in any sense of the word because it favors BETTER for them, not us.

I never said YOU said it would stop the worlds ills, and by you saying that "engineering DNA goes hand-in-hand with cloning"...it is NOT suppose to do that (at this point in time), because that is even more complex and dangerous as not all DNA is currently known.

Less than perfect was intended to suggest that they WOULD BE BETTER than us, having had their DNA engineered for illness and diseases, and YES...they would be better, or do you not think so?

No, I think not. If a strain is developed because the DNA was engineered, NO...it would NOT have already been present in the original but added (or subtracted).

Your reasoning for "family's decision" and "respect for privacy" are not acceptable enough (to me).

"These" people referring to clones. And if it's gonna be a private, secretative decision - even more reason to say NO thanks!

RNA x 2 = DNA (The egg donor would be stripped of it's RNA and only one DNA inserted, that of the would-be clone but yes, it did have 2 RNA).

Yes, as Pat

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Larsen - 12:28am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2203 of 2255)

Joe, I'm always open for comments and like a woman, change of mind (smile). I did see your posting and wanted to question #3, said something to the effect that people with a certain gene die before they're able to have viable offspring. Could you elaborate on that? (and your posting was also cut off)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Larsen - 12:38am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2204 of 2255)

(continued)...yes, it should be debated, until the world knows what the plan is, for our future generations (including our childrens' children). If cloning were to become available, how can we be sure it won't be used for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong people? (I know there was more but don't remember what at this time.)

I'm not directing this at Terra or anyone else (only my opinion).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 12:39am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2205 of 2255)

Better Read Than Said.....

Hitler was satanic in his religious attempt to control the world. He was not a centralized force in my view.

There are religious people who try to better the world by improving themselves and helping the down trodden. There are a majority of people of all nations and beliefs who try to better the world by improving where they live.

Cloning cannot become a perfect example of a human anymore than anyone else, just another person born of science instead of parents. The human cell has not changed and cannot be rebuilt...it is what it is as the Creator designed.

If cloning has a purpose...it hasn't been revealed as yet. Whether a person is born or cloned, life is of value and not to be given over to fiends to use for body parts as the only purpose for their life. We already have body parts given at death. Though the supply is ever wanting...creating people for salvage is inhuman and intolerable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 12:39am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2205 of 2255)

Better Read Than Said.....

Hitler was satanic in his religious attempt to control the world. He was not a centralized force in my view.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Larsen - 01:02am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2206 of 2255)

Look at where the new diet pill has left people now. Guess they HAVE reason to WANT cloning and I'm all for cloning organs, etc. Not new human beings. What I'm sure more than me and a few others are wondering however, is HOW LONG AGO did the government know cloning could be achieved?

Ok, I can see the argument of science research being separate from government (which ironically, funded some of their experiments) and also opposite from religion. But there's much more to it than just that. Astrology is not any closer to religion but leans more towards science.

I guess (thinking to what Joe said), if diseases could be removed from the DNA...wouldn't the theory of (for every normal there is abnormal and that is normal) work also for a trait/gene that is recessed? Couldn't the combination of a clone and non-clone also promote the possibility of the disease resurfacing but then somehow being stronger or even dormant for another generation?? Or would the normal thing to do in the future be to be tested BEFORE trying to conceive? ...AND, given the fact that not all who have sex want kids but have "accidents" it could happen, couldn't it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Larsen - 01:27am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2207 of 2255)

Bill, Although some would like to say that religion has nothing to do with science; and has no place being here - I'm glad there are another perspectives. I don't necessarily have to believe what I read, but to close my eyes and pretend it doesn't exist is not keeping an open mind. Learning can only benefit those who wish to broaden their view.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cindy Hayle - 04:24am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2208 of 2255)

As a non practicing Catholic, I don't consider myself a profoundly religious person. However, I do believe in God, as I believe that God gave us our intelligence and free will and throughout our lives, or history we are given a choice of paths to follow. And we are responsible for the path we choose, not God.

I have read quite a few of the postings, and agree with some and disagree with others. Thankfully we still have the right to our opinions in this country.

Judging by our history, I know human cloning is inevitable. It will happen, although I don't believe we will ever be ready for the responsibility. Here we are on the cusp of the 21st Century and yet looking back on our history we repeat the same mistakes over and over, never seeming to learn from them.

I sympathize with those who have lost a loved one because a donor organ was not available, but I also feel due to mans greed that cloning for the purpose of harvesting organs will still be out of reach for all but the wealthy.

I also empathize with the infertile couples longing for children of their own. I was blessed with three beautiful, healthy children. I know the tug of maternal longing, I still get the twinge when I see a newborn.

I think the debates are pointless. There is no easy answer to this. Science will proceed regardless. It will have to be an individual choice. As for me, I opt against it.

Each person will have to look deep within themselves for their own answer and have the strength to standup for what they believe in.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 10:36am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2209 of 2255)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn:

A catholic follows the tenets of the Catholic church. A Christian lives by the principles of Jesus Christ. A religion is not Christianity regardless of what it's members claim...you cannot follow two masters and be a Christian. Jesus condemned religious leaders. Any religion may teach the principles of Jesus, but unless the tenets of the church are clearly Christ's principles, the church is just another religion.

I am sure you know this, but somehow you keep lumping Christians into the religious masses.

Some religions may be against cloning experimentations, but as a Christian, I do not want to be lumped together as against or for anything. All wisdom, in my opinion, comes from the Creator. If cloning is not wise and has no useful purpose...time will tell.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Bauman - 11:35am Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2210 of 2255)

Center For Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine

B. Larson Sorry but I went to sleep before you posted the reply. As to #3 if someone has viable (able to reproduce) offspring before dying than that persons genes are passed on, even if some of them are deleterious. If someone is genetically blind but still manages to have children than the genes or lack there of for that persons genes for sight will passed along. Modern technology and medicine has greatly increased the likely hood of these deletierious genes being passed by giving those otherwise destined to die in childhood the chance to live into adulthood. Not saying that they shouldn't be aloud to reproduce, but it is part of the reason why humans cannot evolve the old fashion way anymore. Now with cloning, in its present state, humans that are gentically infertile may be able to have children, these children will not be able to reproduce except through cloning as well. Now, not all infertile couples are infertile genetically and there cloned children may be able to reproduce the old fashioned way.

2 x RNA = DNA, No they do not. The basic subunit of DNA contains two -OH groups (Deoxy), basic subunit of RNA conatin one -OH group. If RNA becomes DNA then your in a lot of trouble since it means that you have a retrovirus infection (ie HIV). Actually I work with some researchers studying RNA->DNA. Normally only DNA begets DNA. RNA serves several purposes in the cell, the most widely known one is messenger RNA, mRNA transfers the genetic information from DNA to the protein making machinery of the cell (also RNA). Now 2 DNA strands = 1 DNA double helix (the form noormally found in cells). But in cloning, two copies of each chromosome are transferred from the cloned person to the donor egg. Under normal reproduction 1 of each chromosome comes from the father, and one of each chromosome comes from the mother. Hope this clears up some terminology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Madden - 12:42pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2211 of 2255)

Those who say, for example,

Is cloning ethical in principle? Sure! What are identical twins but natural clones...

are missing the point.

The major problem with the ethicality of cloning is not the issue of some sort of "guilt" or "lack of humanity" of the cloned cell itself, but the question of what person is doing the cloning. The difference is that in the old-fashioned twining process nobody decides, "Hey, let's pass on these genes."

There is no one responsible for making the selection preocess for that particular twin. In fact, the gene selection prcocess for (both) the twins was a completely random act based on the chromosomes of the parents.

By comparison, the proposed human cloning process does call for active decision-making on the part of the Master Cloner. Who is doing the deciding and on what basis are they deciding to select these particular genes for taking forward? It is in this area of the decision-making that the potential for abuses is apparent. And it is not hard to come up with ways the technology will be abused. If you can't think of your own, just read over the board. ( some of them are actually pretty creative! ).

You may be able to say that the two processes produce the same result biologically, but they are in no way Equivalent; since between the two, the aspect and existance of Intention is completely different .

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill B - 01:02pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2212 of 2255)

It is going to happen - of that there is no doubt. I doubt it will amount to much since it is but a small step in the world of genetic engineering research.

I cannot see too many people getting involved with it. It will be expensive and more trouble than the traditional method usually employed. Even when it comes to organ replacement, cloning an entire person for a liver transplant is like building a car for a tire replacement.

But since it is going to be done and people want to keep an eye on it, monitor what is happening and try to minimize divergences, there is no place that I want it to occur than here in the good old US of A by American scientists.

I hope the Bill The Pres doesn't send this event to a foreign country where we have no control or even a say in what is going on!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

E Blaine - 01:21pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2213 of 2255)

If this madman's attempt is successful: GOD help us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yen Moi - 01:35pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2214 of 2255)

Without people like Dr. Seed, we would still be living in trees.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark McGann - 01:39pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2215 of 2255)

Graduate Student, Tulane University

Cloning is the first step toward genetic engineering. Genetic engineering has the potential to make people healthier, live longer, smarter, etc etc.. I simply fail to see this as a bad thing.

What I do see, unfortunately, is ignorance and paranoia. I can't count how many times I've heard someone, on this board and in conversation, say "What if someone clones Hitler?". As if plopping a clone of Hitler into Germany would somehow resurrect the third reich, talk about a non-problem.

Discussions about cloning are cluttered with these types of spurious objections. Perhaps with genetically engineered intelligence someday in the future the human race will be less susceptible to such ignorance and paranoia.

-Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James G. Blaine - 02:01pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2216 of 2255)

Some good points, Mark. People really have no idea what cloning is, what it can do and how far away it probably is. All we get are knee-jerk reactions against it. Is it a good thing? Is it possible even? It's too early to say, but does it do us any good to ban it without knowing anything about it? I read Clinton is now asking congress to pass laws banning what Seed wants to do. Why is everyone afraid of science? Yeah, I know it can be put to bad uses by bad people but so can fire. Hate to live without that one. As Ayn Rand said (paraphrased) "The man who invented fire was probably burned at the stake for it"

These politicans make me sick. Vote Libertarian!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill B - 02:13pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2217 of 2255)

I forget all the phases of change. They go something like denial, resignation, acceptance, enthusiam. The nay sayers are those in the denial stage. They are decended from those who opposed vacinations, automobiles, airplanes, etc. I don't know why people cannot learn - even from recent history. Remember the arguments against invitro fertilization and the devils work called cyrogenic suspension. These people live in comfortable holes and only look out through little peep holes they make looking in directions that do not frighten them. And as in this instance, they constantly try to cover up any holes of which they are afraid with opinions (it's not moral), fear (a race of Hitlers) ad inuendo (it's only a money making ploy).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 03:27pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2218 of 2255)

Better Read Than Said.....

It is more likely for a Hitler type to be born than to be cloned. There is probably a hitler born every minute, but never gets the opportunity to materialize his nightmare because no one is listening.

To my knowledge he left no offspring to pass on his genes. Anyway, only a trait comes from genes, egos are cultured it would seem.

There must have been a moment when those who split the nuclei and released atomic energy must have been concerned about the dangers, but the discovery was so overwhelming, forward was the only choice, since anyone in the field of energy masses could do the same and the result was no choice but to continue on. The result was the cold war instead of the atomic war.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 03:58pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2219 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Hi Ruby Pool 1/12/98 10:36am you say "A catholic follows the tenets of the Catholic church. A Christian lives by the principles of Jesus Christ."

I always get a kick out of these selfrighteous proclaimations that "I'm a REAL xian and your not a real one, Na Na Na Na Na!!!!" When Xians are trying to claim that theirs is the true belief because the majority of US pop is, they allow all the various Xian cults to be counted, then when you get into the nitty gritty, it's "NO that cult isn't!" Well Ruby, if you pull the Catholics out, you lose half the pop! So that makes XIANITY a MINORITY belief. So EXACTLY which of the various Xian cults ARE actually Xians? Lutherns? Baptists? Methodists? ...? And EXACTLY how can you verify which are and which aren't?

And regardless of what YOU choose, the others are all in the weeds yelling "But YOUR not really a Xian!" What a laugh!

You add "All wisdom, in my opinion, comes from the Creator."

But evidently not the wisdom to tell EVERYONE exactly who is and who isn't a Xian. Yep that's some real abolute knowledge there!

So what EXACTLY did your god tell you is the ABSOLUTE correct stance on cloning? I mean besides Genesis 30:37-41 where the bible says that an offsprings genetics can be changed by palcing spotted sticks in front of the mother? (What a HOOT! "Wisdom ... from the Creator."! What a laugh!)

NOEL SAYS IT IS OKAY

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:11pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2220 of 2255)

It looks like the noise has gone down considerably (and that we have some new "regulars".) This is a reply to a message posted about a week ago:

Cliff, I take it back, we are not part of Vega just like our livers are not part of our hearts. They and we are part of a larger (possibly living or non-living) system, though.

Kurt Schoedel: This is what makes the improper use of antibiotics such a public health hazzard.

Actually, now that we're learning more about this, we might be able to do something about it so we get the best of both worlds.

Kurt Schoedel: The only way for humans to stay one-step ahead of the micro-organisms is through increased host resistance. That is, to always enhance and strengthen our immune systems by what ever means possible.

I agree, but we mustn't be blind to any possible long-term or global (ie social, economic, ...) effects.

John Drezen: What is wrong with you people? Can't you see the dangers in this process. Cloning? Contrary to nature in every respect.

This has been said before:

We've been cloning other living things for many decades now.

Breeding animals is contrary to nature.

In vitro fertilisation is contrary to nature.

Pretty much all of our technologies can be considered to be contrary to nature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:11pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2221 of 2255)

John Drezen: The first thing that is going to happen is the Goverment is going to look at this for Military Superiority.

The government would have to give no rights to clones, give birth to them, and raise them from infanthood. I doubt this'll happen in the US. I can't say the same for other countries although I would guess that it would be too expensive for them to do this.

John Drezen: Sort out all the inferior genes, keep all superior ones, and create a medical abortion, that has all the attributes the Military can use.

Genetic code is so sloppy I don't think we'll be close to doing this for at least another fifty years (if at all.) IOW, by stripping out all "inferior" genes and keeping all the "superior" ones, we could create an extremely strong human that's so psychotic they can't be controlled. Or, that has an extremely shortened lifetime. Or, that's highly susceptible to viruses. Or, ...

John Drezen: Man is once again playing GOD, or mother nature, which ever you prefer.

We've been doing this since we started planting crops.

John Drezen: The end of humanity, as we know it today!

Every day is not the same. The world is a lot different today (due to computers and other technologies) than it was fifty years ago. Humanity has adapted to these changes. This doesn't mean that humanity can thrive in any conditions, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:11pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2222 of 2255)

John Drezen: Mankind is the only genetic defect on this planet!

We only see it that way 'cos we're (probably) the only species who are able to make moral judgements. We have a concept of right and wrong and of justice and injustice while nature doesn't. Things would be hunky-dorey (sp?) if we didn't have this and lived like the rest of the planet (ie accepting death and suffering as an everyday part of life.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:17pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2223 of 2255)

Cliff Beall: I think that any mutation, of any type has the potential to help drive evolution.

Yes, but realistically, some forms of mutation preserve information than other forms (ie cross-over vs point.)

Cliff Beall: In natural selection, desirable characteristics are selected in and undesirable characteristics are selected out (lost). In this case, desirable and undesirable are relative terms that depend on the availability of a niche.

Not only this, but gene sequences may produce both desirable and undesirable traits. The selection process is more complicated than just a linear model (ie it depends (to an extent) on luck, too.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 04:30pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2224 of 2255)

Glenn Curry - 03:58pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2219 of 2223) No GODS, No Masters

RE: Hi Ruby Pool 1/12/98 10:36am

I think this is just your misunderstanding of the terminology here. Pool is refering to the Christian (ie . Fundamentalist) Religion --or Sect if you will-- of which he is a member. This is no different than a Texan while in France objecting to being lumped in with "other Yankees" on the grounds that he isn't from Maine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 04:38pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2225 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Tom Yardly 1/12/98 4:30pm you say "I think this is just your misunderstanding of the terminology here. Pool is refering to the Christian (ie . Fundamentalist) Religion --or Sect if you will"

OK, so I ask again (from Glenn Curry 1/12/98 3:58pm Quoting myself) "So EXACTLY which of the various Xian cults ARE actually Xians? Lutherns? Baptists? Methodists? ...? And EXACTLY how can you verify which are and which aren't?"

Or is it just more obfuscation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 04:41pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2226 of 2255)

Noel Yap - 04:11pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2222 of 2224)

...we're (probably) the only species who are able to make moral judgements. We have a concept of right and wrong and of justice and injustice...

Judging from a lot of the posts here, I'd say that we're rapidly losing this,

so you may just get your hunky-dory wish!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 04:56pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2227 of 2255)

Who EXACTLY are Yankees?

- Americans?

- Notherners?

- New Englanders?

- Mainers?

- People who eat cheese with their apple pie?

It depends on what you mean by the terminology, not on your convictions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 04:57pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2228 of 2255)

Better Read Than Said.....

Tom Yardley:

Not hardly...I am NOT religious...I do housework religiously. I do not belong to a church where people do things religiously. These religious people may be living a very christian life. But following the principles of Christ, not the tenets of religion, i.e. kissing the popes ring, praying to Mary, and so on are not the principles of Christ, but the tenets or practices of a religion.

The people on this board who are refering to religions against cloning are lumping anyone who believes in God together. I am simply saying don't add me to the lump, I am not religious and neither is the one I put my faith in. Matt. 23:1-10)

Glenn:

I do not have to be told that the Creator of the Universe is Wisdom. It is all around us. I do not have to be told that some people are ignorant...it is all around us. You may think you have no master, but your words of hate against anyone who mentions a Creator of this magnificent planet show exactly who your master is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 05:07pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2229 of 2255)

Better Read Than Said.....

Tom Yardley:

Just to say thanks for the comments of defense. By the way, how do you feel about cloning?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 05:07pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2230 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Ruby Pool 1/12/98 4:57pm you say " following the principles of Christ, not the tenets of religion,"

So how many un-believers have you killed lately? That IS what the bible says your Jesus stated. Or how many Witches/ Wiccans have you killed? Do you hate your family and yourself as your Jesus says in the bible? Just which set of the mythical Christ's tenets have you decided to follow and which do you reject and disclaim?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 05:22pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2231 of 2255)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn:

Give me the exact text and maybe I can answer, I don't recall being told to kill anyone in the scriptures. You are so good at twisting everything to your mold and rearranging the words. I can't make a judgement on what you say.

You are so special, have you thought about cloning yourself? Two of you would just make my day. {:-}

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BARRY J. DAVIS - 05:24pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2232 of 2255)

CLONING RESEARCH FOR MEDICAL REASONS SUCH AS SPINAL CORD REGENERATION, ETC, SHOULD BE OK. BUT NOT FOR THE CREATION OF HUMAN LIFE. NOT THAT ONE EXPERIMENT COULD HAVE ANY DEVASTATING EFFECTS, BUT, WHAT THEN? DO YOU START CLONING HUMANS FOR "PARTS"?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:32pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2233 of 2255)

Tom Yardly: Judging from a lot of the posts here, I'd say that we're rapidly losing this,

People's opinions may differ, but the one constant is that they do have a concept of right and wrong (excluding, of course, the psychopaths.)

Ruby Pool: following the principles of Christ, not the tenets of religion, i.e. kissing the popes ring, praying to Mary, and so on are not the principles of Christ, but the tenets or practices of a religion.

People who follow the teachings of Christ are religious. Whether or not you follow the other acts (ie kissing the Pope's ring, ...) has no bearing on this fact.

Ruby Pool: You may think you have no master, but your words of hate against anyone who mentions a Creator of this magnificent planet show exactly who your master is.

Well said.

Glenn Curry: So how many un-believers have you killed lately? That IS what the bible says your Jesus stated.

From what I know, Jesus preached love, understanding, and anti-authoritarianism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:33pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2234 of 2255)

Glenn Curry: Just which set of the mythical Christ's tenets have you decided to follow and which do you reject and disclaim?

This is the real point, isn't it? If people believe in doing good, then what does it matter how they come to believe in that? Why continue practices that were around during the Inquisition (ie proselytizing)? People will believe or not believe no matter how much you try to convince them?

BARRY J. DAVIS: CLONING RESEARCH FOR MEDICAL REASONS SUCH AS SPINAL CORD REGENERATION, ETC, SHOULD BE OK. BUT NOT FOR THE CREATION OF HUMAN LIFE.

We won't learn how to clone just the parts without learning how to clone the whole.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 05:35pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2235 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Ruby Pool 1/12/98 5:22pm you say "Give me the exact text and maybe I can answer, I don't recall being told to kill anyone in the scriptures"

Here we go again. Ruby, you know I have posted these many times in the past and being a typical Xian, you always feign surprise when they are brought up again. That is exactly why I DIDN'T post them. To give you a chance to step in it again. Selective ignorance, what an excuse.

OK, Ruby baby here are some of them again. Cause I'm sure in all of your reading of the bible, you never ran across "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". And next you will pull out the old "well that is Old Testament!" spin doctoring. And I'll pull out the old "not one jot" quote from the Christ guy. Like we have never done this before.

Or maybe your alzhiemer is acting up?

"But for these very enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence" Luke 19:27

Now let me guess. "But that was a parable!" OH NO! You mean Jesus used PARABLES to teach? What a concept, who would have thought?

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, and wife and children, and and brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" Luke 14:26

"Do not think that I have come to send peace upon the earth; I have come to bring the sword, not peace"... "I have come to set man at variance with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter in-law with her mother in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household" Matt 10:34-36

And what will it be here? "But he only meant HATE relative to how much you have to LOVE him!"

Give me a break. Try coming up with something that makes sense this time OK?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 05:38pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2236 of 2255)

Pool,

OK fine for you; but still my point stands (not directed at you) that different people here use the same term differently, so it's not a question which can be used to ask who EXACTLY is and who isn't.

for (further) example:

The following all participate in the democratic process in the U.S. and believe in democracy :

1) The Republican Party

2) The Democratic Party

3) The Independant Party

4) The Libertarian Party

It's just a misunderstanding of the terminology (and a stupid question)to demand to know, "who is really DEMOCRATIC ?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 05:40pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2237 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Noel Yap 1/12/98 5:32pm you say "From what I know, Jesus preached love, understanding, and anti-authoritarianism."

Try reading the actual bible and then your knowledge won't be so limited. To make it easier I have already posted some biblical quotes in response to a Ruby request. Start with those. As one addition, maybe you've heard. "surrender unto Ceasar..."? Hardly "anti-authoritarianism."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:40pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2238 of 2255)

Glenn Curry: Give me a break. Try coming up with something that makes sense this time OK?

How about judging a person, not by what they believe, but by how they act towards others?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 05:41pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2239 of 2255)

Better Read Than Said.....

Barry J. Davis:

I am not against the cloning research. But you are right it is what they do with it. for all we know body parts may have already been cloned and people too for that matter. We the taxpayers are always the last to know.

As far as the research, it is good to know... other scientist in other countries can have the research and it's better we know about it and the what the use of it can do. When they can create the human cell...then they have done the impossible and I will eat my words.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:43pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2240 of 2255)

Glenn Curry: "surrender unto Ceasar..."

Wasn't that about taxes? Jesus wasn't about materialism. He was about spiritualism. He preached freedom of the spirit from authorities like such as the rabies. It's too bad the Church has moved away from those teachings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:46pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2241 of 2255)

Ruby Pool: I am not against the cloning research.

For the record. I am not against cloning research, either. I am, however, against the introduction of any technology to any society that's not ready for it. How would I define "not ready?" I'm not sure, yet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 05:49pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2242 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Noel Yap 1/12/98 5:33pm You quote me saying "Glenn Curry: Just which set of the mythical Christ's tenets have you decided to follow and which do you reject and disclaim?" you then comment This is the real point, isn't it? If people believe in doing good, then what does it matter how they come to believe in that?"

Quite right. As I have often tried to get people to understand, we are all Secular Humanists. We all take all of the various sets of tenets we hear from a variety of sources and then as you agree, choose from them and "what does it matter how they come to believe in that?"

That is exactly what Secular Humanism is about. "people believe(ing) in doing good" regardless of "how they come to believe in that?".

We doin't need to pretend we got the instructions from some obsolete, ignorant, superstitous book. We can just proudly state that we want to do right, It's the right thing to do

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Scott Alexander - 05:49pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2243 of 2255)

There is no reason for this much controversy into new scientific endeavors. Cloning,like most technological advances, can be used for good or evil. Would society ban nuclear research because of its intrinsic dangers? Doubtedly so. Cloning should be seen in the same light of a fresh technology that can benefit millions of human beings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 05:56pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2244 of 2255)

No GODS, No Masters

Noel Yap 1/12/98 5:40pm it wouold seem obvious that "how they act towards others" would be based on "what they believe,"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 06:00pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2245 of 2256)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn:

You are right, Christ was using parables and you are hypothesizing. I always take the bate and Yardley is right. Whether it's Christianity or Democracy...we are all individuals with different views of both. There are basics that we all agree with and there are parts we agree to disagree with and who is right. We are all right in politics or religion. But I am not religious and Glenn Curry is a hypothesizing genius.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Moore - 06:05pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2246 of 2256)

I don't know what's the big deal.

Obviously it would be immoral to consider any person to be no more than a collection of human parts, whether conceived sexually or through cloning. As Dr. Seuss said: "A person's a person, no matter...."

I think all this hooraw about cloning will be over soon, unless the Congress, in its (lack of) wisdom, tries to buy a few votes with a futile gesture like the temporary ban.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 06:05pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2247 of 2256)

Better Read Than Said.....

Noel Yap:

"Not ready for cloning yet."

I think you have the same concerns as many of us have. We will know when it arrives and for sure it will arrive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 06:08pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2248 of 2256)

No GODS, No Masters

Ruby Pool 1/12/98 6:00pm you say "You are right, Christ was using parables and you are hypothesizing."

Only the first one was a parable and what does "hypothesizing." have to do with it? You stated in Ruby Pool 1/12/98 5:22pm that "Give me the exact text and maybe I can answer, I don't recall being told to kill anyone in the scriptures."

So OK, I gave exact text. And I showed both OT and NT telling you to kill. Now quit trying to wiggle out of it.

In Ruby Pool 1/12/98 4:57pm you said you were " following the principles of Christ, not the tenets of religion," Well, these ARE the tenets of the biblical Christ. Do you or do you NOT follow them?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 06:29pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2249 of 2256)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn:

Jesus also said, "love your neighbor as yourself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A parable is a parable. It means reject those who reject me (Christ.) No one but a crackpot would put more into the parables than what was intended. I have told you, I do not accept all the bible, because I do not understand all, such as Revelations. So you say I pick and choose. No, I believe in the principles, I do not take every word He said as an order to go out and perform, but in the context He intended and with my limited understanding.

I know this won't satisfy your hunger, but I'm happy with it.

I am not a clone of anyone else...this is the real me you read here. I still do not know the real Glenn Curry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 06:39pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2250 of 2256)

No GODS, No Masters

Ruby Pool 1/12/98 6:29pm you say (in re to the biblical tenets stating you should kill and hate others) ?Jesus also said, "love your neighbor as yourself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "

Thank you for point out the contradictory nature of the bible. Makes it useless as a source of ANY much less moral absolutes. I'm glad it was YOU that pointed this out. Thanks again.

You add "It means reject those who rejec me (Christ.)"

It SAYS to KILL those that reject him. Please provide the source that proves it only means "reject" rather than kill as it actually says.

You add "No one but a crackpot would put more into the parables than what was intended."

And no one but a hypocrit would claim to follow something they reject.

And you also say "I have told you, I do not accept all the bible"

And just exactly what OUTSIDE sopurce do you use to determine WHICH parts to accept and WHICH parts to reject?

As I say, Secular Humanism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark McGann - 07:05pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2251 of 2256)

Graduate Student, Tulane University

James G. Blaine 1/12/98 2:01pm I do vote Libertarian :)

Glenn Curry 1/12/98 3:58pm I'm no supporter of religion and I might even agree with you basic viewpoint, but your posts are rude and filled with personal inuendo. You do a disservice to the point of view you claim to support.

Noel Yap 1/12/98 5:46pm Historically can you think of a scientific field whose exploration we should have delayed for the benifit of society? I can't, but of course I've only been thinking about it for 5 minuites :)

-Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sandy Connizzo - 07:20pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2252 of 2256)

I think cloning would serve a much better purpose if it was used to restock the world with the endangered species rather than the one (human) that is overcrowding the planet!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 07:35pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2253 of 2256)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn:

Luke 14:27 which you say is an order from Jesus to kill. Is the last paragraph of the parable. Then he got on the donkey and rode off after he finished the parable. What I concur from the parable was that he was saying reject those who reject me...since parables were used to teach his principles. Do I know for sure what he meant? No. For the sake of argument, I told you my opinion of what you asked.

Let's see, I said, 'don't lump me in with your term "religions" Knowing you, you may have said, wacko religions. Now we are on this never ending debate and never solved debate about religion instead of cloning.

Back to square one...Now that cloning of a human being is possible...we may as well go ahead and do the experiment (it probably has been done already) because someone else will do the job, if we don't and it may be misused. At least we will know the process and understand how it works. Once the horse is out of the barn, is there a purpose? I do not know, but like the bomb, you can't put the horse back in the barn and say it didn't come out...so let's see the results and make a judgement if it has a good purpose or an evil purpose.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ross Taplett - 07:40pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2254 of 2256)

Mankind can not be trusted to clone humans. There are far too many people with motives that will not be good for humanity and the world generally. It is a science that should be left to develope food sources, natural rehabilitation of the enviroment and preservation of wildlife. Humanity does not need to develope an elitist species...we already have too many that contribute to their own well being.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

lon penman - 08:01pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2255 of 2256)

hahaha, even the cloning issues bring out the bible thumpers..RMAO

------------------------------------------------------------------------

lloyd billotte - 08:36pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2256 of 2256)

Since the dawn of man's evolution, he has used technology to better his life. All along, he has been (on the whole) in control of this technology, and it has evolved naturally (although at an ever increasing pace) at a pace that he can handle. While a strong case can be made that since the computer revolution he is now going around corners on two wheels, now dawns the technology of cloning, which is nowhere near fully understood, and thusly has given mankind the possible potential of going off the edge of the cliff, as he almost did with nuclear technology.

It seems that this is what Pres. Clinton had in mind when he banned cloning of humans for five years. Five years--not necessarily forever. Allow some time to fully understand the ramifications. Going from sheep cloning to human cloning is a huge step. Humans have much more complex psychological makeup--including that all-important motivator--emotions. We have no idea of how a clone would be in terms of personality, intelligence, emotions, and behavior relative to the original. Many behaviors have their origin physiologically. Would the clone be physiologically and/or psychologically close to the original? If so, Imagine the dangers of 1000 copies of Charles Manson. The possibilities for abuse would be there. What if the clones wound up as vegetables? What if they missed some key chemical component in their brain and wound up as psychopaths, whose behavior is frequently subtle and hard to detect until it is too late.

There is definitely the possibility of significant impact on population growth, which has skyrocketed without cloning since WWII. Many problems that have surfaced over the last 40 years were directly or indirectly caused by an increase in population. Per Capita crime increased dramatically in the 60's--when the baby boom population was coming of age. In the early 70's, when many of them graduated, they found increased competition in the workplace and inflation in the marketplace.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randall Justin Boerema - 09:00pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2257 of 2266)

What an intersesting twist we have put on cloning. Cloning itself is the exact reproduction of a living creature, how this creature (person in our discussion) turns out when they are an adult would go a long way to answering nature or nurture wouldn't it? And that answer would go a long way in helping humans in determining the right(?) way to raise our children, however they were birthed. The discussion has become about creating a super race and that is not cloning that is genetic engineering and we are allowed to do that already! So please let us quit screaming the sky is falling because the ground shakes. Cloning is soon to be a viable option like it or not. It will make no difference to a society or a child if the DNA is identical to anothers or not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 09:00pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2258 of 2266)

Better Read Than Said.....

lloyd billotte:

" What if they missed some key chemical component in their brain and wound up as psychopaths, whose behavior is frequently subtle and hard to detect until it is too late.

What you are suggesting is a common human disorder already. It stands to reason that cloning cells from humans would create humans with all their ailments, traits and personalities. If we found a cure for such problems then we would have a real discovery.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Bauman - 09:15pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2259 of 2266)

Center For Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine

Lloyde,

Human cloning will not in the foreseeable future cause a baby boom. There just aren't that many infertile couples. As for everybody else, most people will continue to want to have babies the old fashioned way. There is a tendancy for people to think that we'll have all these extra people running around. What will have a babies that will need to be cared for. Someone cloning thousands of Charles Mansons will have to take care of them for 18 years. People who want children will have them naturally or through cloning, but they are not going to have any more than they otherwise would. The exception is of course the currently infertile, but how many couples is that. Does anyone here know?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anna Sylvia Villegas - 10:31pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2260 of 2266)

Estoy consciente de lo que es la clonación. Pero, ¿hay alguien que me pueda decir, en español, cuál es el procedimiento? ¿Se toma una ínfima parte de un ser, se clona, se pone en una probeta y después se insemina en la madre para que el clon nazca por la vía natural? ¿Es así? ¿Cómo nace un hombre clonado? ¿Cómo nace una mujer clonada? Yo soy mujer y, suponiendo que quisiera un clon de mí misma, ¿cómo re-nacería? ¿Quién sería mi madre? Agradeceré sus respuestas.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Stein - 10:45pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2261 of 2266)

A good start would be to see if a human liver can be cloned. There are many people ( about 250,000 worldwide who need them to survive ) who are atheists, christians, jews, bhuddistsm, muslim, islamics etc... who would very much appreciate the fruits of science courtesy of the intelligence given by our creator in the form of cloning.

Someone will eventually try it..and if they succeed will be more of a hero, yes even to the religious zealots who seem to do alot of judging even though it's not acceptable to judge.

The Lord works in mysterious ways...could this be one ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anna Sylvia Villegas - 10:58pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2262 of 2266)

Dear people: If you read my message and understood my Spanish, but cannot answer in this language, write in English. I can read it perfectly well. Not the same when I write in English. Thank you!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

tanstaafl - 11:14pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2263 of 2266)

You get what you pay for...

I've seen many posts in support of Clinton's 5 year ban, stating that society should wait until everyone says yes... excuse me, but I don't see that happening ever. So let's get on with it already. Cloning can provide some great insights into the way that our bodies work, grow, and genentics... all valuable information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted.......Cliff Beall - 11:36pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2264 of 2266)

Glenn Curry (#2237 of 2255) As one addition, maybe you've heard. "surrender unto Ceasar..."? Hardly "anti-authoritarianism."

Noel Yap: Wasn't that about taxes? Jesus wasn't about materialism. He was about spiritualism.

Noel, you are absolutely right. Jesus was about spiritualism. But the funny part is that you didn't catch Glenn's error. Neither Mark 12:17 nor Luke 20:25 says anything about "surrendering" anything to Caesar. The quote according to Mark is: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." Luke has slightly different wording but the same meaning.

Noel Yap: It looks like the noise has gone down considerably (and that we have some new "regulars".) This is a reply to a message posted about a week ago:

It is still pretty fast. The days of one or two post per day seem to be gone forever. (Thanks for the e-mail saying it is now safe, but it is still a bit overwhelming for an old country boy like me.

Noel Yap: Cliff, I take it back, we are not part of Vega just like our livers are not part of our hearts. They and we are part of a larger (possibly living or non-living) system, though.

I can agree with that. In a sense, it is similar to human evolution. We did not evolve from the apes. Instead, we and they have a common ancestry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:39pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2265 of 2266)

Noel Yap: Yes, but realistically, some forms of mutation preserve information than other forms (ie cross-over vs point.)

I think you are probably right. I would assume the body resists some types of mutations more than others. But I think mutation (of whatever form) must be a necessary component of evolution. Natural selection will not do it alone since natural selection tends to reduce the variability of the gene pool, but must at the same time rely on a rich variability from which to select.

The mechanics of cloning, and the effects of using (possibly mutated) cells from adult bodies is a possible problem. As Dawn once pointed out, there are 10,000 mutations of cells in our bodies daily. These mutations (potentially, uncorrected) might theoretically present a severe problem for cloned individuals. We need to know more about the hazards of using possibly mutated cells for cloning before human cloning (based on adult cells) is performed. It could be dangerous, and we simply do not know if it is or not. Better to do more animal cloning first: at least see if Dolly's offspring is healthy.

Noel Yap: Not only this, but gene sequences may produce both desirable and undesirable traits. The selection process is more complicated than just a linear model (ie it depends (to an extent) on luck, too.)

Right.

Noel Yap: How about judging a person, not by what they believe, but by how they act towards others?

Well said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted....Cliff Beall - 11:40pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2266 of 2266)

Glenn Curry: We doin't need to pretend we got the instructions from some obsolete, ignorant, superstitous book. We can just proudly state that we want to do right, It's the right thing to do

In general, I agree with your premise. But, Glenn, the Bible is in no way obsolete, ignorant or superstitious. It is great poetry. The Book of Ruth is one of the great literary masterpieces of all time. The same can be said for Job. Are the stories they tell really "true"? Of course not. They didn't really happen. But there is great truth in the stories they tell. You might as well say the works of Shakespeare or Faulkner are obsolete, ignorant and superstitious.

Glenn Curry: Thank you for point out the contradictory nature of the bible. Makes it useless as a source of ANY much less moral absolutes. I'm glad it was YOU that pointed this out. Thanks again.

Sure the Bible is contradictory, Glenn. I assume we all knew that.

Sandy Connizzo: I think cloning would serve a much better purpose if it was used to restock the world with the endangered species rather than the one (human) that is overcrowding the planet!

One of the major problems with endangered species is the lack of a varied gene pool. Cloning does not solve that problem. You just have more individuals that you can not mate successfully. But, what you can do, perhaps, is keep a few members of the endangered species alive, as Noel once pointed out, until the technology exists that can provide a varied gene pool.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Jones - 11:42pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2267 of 2269)

I'm all for scientific advances. But not cloning. Technically speaking I could live forever, without my DNA changing. That would throw a monkey wrench in the genetic pool. Which means countless abnormalities,and diseases. If I had controll had would ban cloning forever.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted.....Glenn Curry - 11:55pm Jan 12, 1998 ET (#2268 of 2269)

No GODS, No Masters

Ruby Pool 1/12/98 7:35pm you say "Luke 14:27 which you say is an order from Jesus to kill. Is the last paragraph of the parable. Then he got on the donkey and rode off after he finished the parable."

So first he told everyone to go out and kill, then he found himself out on his ass? Hey I couldn't resist.

But I already acknowledge that

A) the bible shows it's Jesus using parables to teeach his tenets

B) This was a parable about killing those that don't agree to accept him.

Therfore:

C) This passage is a parable teaching Xians to kill those that will not accept their Jesus as god.

D) If you are a Xian, you have no choice but to follow your god's tenets, start killing us Atheists or you will burn in hell!

Now that that is over, back to the topic.

Oh, one last thing. You say "Knowing you, you may have said, wacko religions."

That would be redundant.

"Back to square one...Now that cloning of a human being is possible...we may as well go ahead and do the experiment"

That is an interesting response. As I have attempted to present on other losely related topics, there is a flow or continuation of events. The development of a zygote via cloning is just a marker along the way. It is only slightly different from other natural interventions we might interject. The only arguement I see against it is one based on the unsupportable contention that there is something more to humans than our physical presence. And we know where that contention comes from.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted.....Glenn Curry - 12:07am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2269 of 2269)

No GODS, No Masters

Cliff Beall 1/12/98 11:36pm you say "you didn't catch Glenn's error. Neither Mark 12:17 nor Luke 20:25 says anything about "surrendering" anything to Caesar. The quote according to Mark is:"

It depends on which translation/ version you use. You might be using the KJV or the NIV? I use the New Anglican, Royal dutch, Leather bound, gold crusted, Good News, authoritive study guide version. It includes a complete Bible code decoder ring.

What it comes down to is that it is all Yada Yada nonsense. The fact that one version says "render", which in this context would be so EXTREMELY different from the meaning "surrender" would denote, is of no difference to the discussion.

"I can agree with that. In a sense, it is similar to human evolution. We did not evolve from the apes. Instead, we and they have a common ancestry."

Well said!

And a natural part of our evolution is our ability to intervene in the process. (If determinism is accepted, which I do not give blanket acceptance to) And therefore cloning is a natural step and I don't understand the fuss (on a intelectual basis).

Deleted......Glenn Curry - 12:07am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2269 of 2269)

No GODS, No Masters

Cliff Beall 1/12/98 11:36pm you say "you didn't catch Glenn's error. Neither Mark 12:17 nor Luke 20:25 says anything about "surrendering" anything to Caesar. The quote according to Mark is:"

"I can agree with that. In a sense, it is similar to human evolution. We did not evolve from the apes. Instead, we and they have a common ancestry."

Well said!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted.....Ni Guang - 01:17am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2270 of 2275)

Glen:

Who cares if you have a god or not? You don't have to advertise your personal beliefs on this board, neither do you have to fill your posts with personal innuendos and unbacked suppositions. You are not a theological expert, and having a "bible guide" does not give you any legitimacy to blaspheme.

1) A thorough reading of the scriptures would provide us with the insight that Jesus cared not for materialism - hence the phrase "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Jesus was only concerned with us "storing up treasures in heaven", not on earth. Those who placed material preoccupations above reverence of Yahweh (I AM WHO I AM), had no place in heaven.

2) Jesus disliked violence, and never advocated anything other than compassion and love. Also, the arbitrary use of the Hebrew word "hate" in Luke 14:25-27, does not actually refer to "hate" as we know it in the English context. Please consider the various connotations of the word "hate" when reading the bible.

3) Hebrew makes a clear distinction between the words "Reject" and "Kill". There is a clear line between the two. Those who reject the Father, will be rejected by the Father also.

I think that religious procastinations about cloning are perfectly natural - given that most of us believe that the task of creation is reserved only for God.

I think the use of cloning, for the production of organs for use in transplants, is perfectly agreeable with God. We are after all, saving lives.

And Glen, given that you are an atheist, what do you feel about the Exodus? The Prophets? Christ? Given that all are recorded historical events, that have held the Jews and Christians so closely together for the last two millenia?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted.....Noble H. Turner, Ph.D. - 01:19am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2271 of 2275)

Oh, Mr. Glenn Curry: There is one "triune" God and master. Only foolish, blind people are still unaware of this known truth.....Cloning of soul-less babies will surely unleash God's wrath on a people who've gone mad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted........Ni Guang - 01:34am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2272 of 2275)

Glen:

" The only arguement I see against it is one based on the unsupportable contention that there is something more to humans than our physical presence. And we know where that contention comes from. "

After your ludicrous interpretations of the bible you can afford to offer this statement, representative of your intellectual depth?

Why is the contention unsupportable? You have failed to elaborate. Stay quiet until you can back such pathethic statements. Science disproves naught the glory of the Almighty.

Neither can you attempt to fool us with your far-fetched interpretations of the parables. If you like, you can take your interpretations to the Oxford Bible Study Companion. You will see how well they receive such views.

Finally, on the witch-burning... Did it have anything to do with Christianity or the Bible? Or was witch-burning a scourge caused by the foolish notions and unfounded conclusions (superstitions), that still exist among people today (ie. Glen Curry?)

Cloning is inadequate ground to disprove the existence of God. History shows for sure that God existed, and that he fathered us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted.....Ni Guang - 01:37am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2273 of 2275)

Noble, I disagree that babies are "soul-less".

What is the definition of a soul?

I think that any sentient being can and will be touched by Him, so that His grace flows forth from them like a surging river.

Cloned babies included. As long as they can accept Christ, they will be saved. As long as their actions are deemed acceptable by God, they will be saved.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted.......Ni Guang - 01:40am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2274 of 2275)

Cliff:

Matter is made up of energy vibrating at a certain frequency. Could this be the soul we are talking about?

What enables us to think? Merely cells? Or the movements of atomic particles that actually lead us to believe that we can actually think, while we are actually non-sentient beings?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deleted........Cliff Beall - 01:41am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2275 of 2275)

Glenn Curry: The fact that one version says "render", which in this context would be so EXTREMELY different from the meaning "surrender" would denote, is of no difference to the discussion.

Of course, it means essentially the same. I was just having fun, and your response was very funny. Thanks for the laugh. At the same time, I must note that your point is wrong. By use of this verse, you implied that Jesus was not anti-authoritarian. I think a fair reading of this verse, in context, gives the opposite sense; its obvious intent was to show how clever Jesus was when challenged by the authorities.

Regarding the version I was using, I was, of course, using the KJV since you also used the word "unto" in that context, and it sounded to me as if you were trying to quote the KJV. The other version of the Bible I have use different wording.

Glenn Curry: And therefore cloning is a natural step and I don't understand the fuss (on a intelectual basis).

Glen, I understand what you are saying, but do you understand the theoretical danger of using potentially mutated cells in cloning. According to biologist, there are about 10,000 mutations of cells in our body daily. Of course, the body has billions of cells, and the body has means of reversing most harmful mutations, but it seems possible that the chances of introducing harmful mutation via the cloning process may be considerably greater than in sexual reproduction. The point is we do not know the potential additional danger, if any. I think we need to wait until animal studies give a more comprehensive estimate of the risks. What if Dolly's offspring are not healthy? If so, it might give us an idea of what might be in store for a human clone.

Noble H. Turner, Ph.D.: Cloning of soul-less babies will surely unleash God's wrath on a people who've gone mad.

Doc, as a Ph.D., can you provide me with proof of the existence of the soul? Furthermore, how do you know a clone would have no soul?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rande Bores - 01:47am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2243 of 2304)

I'll start this post with a sigh. *sigh* All this religious mumbo-jumbo has no place in the cloning debates. Even if there IS a God, which I highly doubt, He probably doesn't care whether we clone or not. If he cared, he wouldn't have given us cancer and infertility, and all the other hundreds of reasons why we might have a need to clone. I agree with Clinton 100% that we should wait a few years to begin cloning for infertile couples, or at all, because if we rush into this, it will probably cause more problems for infertile couples than if we never stumbled upon the cloning solution to begin with. But in the meantime, the research should go full speed ahead! When I hear of people speaking out against DNA research, and tissue cloning, I am ashamed to be a human being. Would these people really force a genetically curable health problem such as heart disease or diabetes on someone, just to preserve their sense of security, their idea that they know what is going on in the world, and don't dare tell them any different? I know I wouldn't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pavel Deryabin - 06:01am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2244 of 2306)

People. I think that ALL OF US is interested in results of cloning. If we do so anyway someone of us makes any steps and WILL DO SO. I think we already permit someone start cloning, that means that no law can prohibit this situation, this way of evolution of Ill human civilizayion. When we created atom weapon-we didn't know about the the danger from it. But all was intersted in it. Now we have the same situation. Good luck, people

------------------------------------------------------------------------

William Herkelrath - 07:56am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2245 of 2306)

It's not fair to ask people to keep religion out of the discussion, because to discuss people's views on issues asks people to question their values and community goals, etc. Obviously religion exists for 95% of the human population as a factor in their lives....

Anyhow, I don't understand why people on this board are confusing organ research, etc. with human cloning. The thing that Europe and America will hopefully ban is the creation of a total human life-form with the exact same genetic characteristics as its host living or dead. That's a good law, because there is no plausible societal need for such things.

However, the law says nothing about growing livers and hearts and kidneys that could function in already conceived human beings. Few would argue against it, and I certainly back it. We would all like to think that organ banks were full.

So, just becuase we have the technolgy to do something even greater (though I doubt we do yet) doesn't mean we should. We certainly have the technology to feed large portions of the world on American wheat sources alone, but we choose not to. We certainly have the technolgy to run our entire country on nuclear power, but because of side-effects we choose not to. So let's also choose to stay out of the business of cloning whole human beings and focus on the plausible things the folks on this board have said, such as simple organs, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

glenn (net surfer) - 08:11am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2246 of 2306)

The sooner the better. Let science run its course and lets evolve (or dissolve) to the next level. Human beings are so limited in their capabilities. Wouldn't it be nice to better understand just how we work so that we could eventually eliminate disease, violence, etc... Remember people have always sacrificed to advance our scientific knowledge. The good of the many out weigh the need of the few. It seems to support a ban on the inevitable is a way of saying "I don't want to deal this during my term - let the next guy handle it". As in the past science advancement will not be held back and when it temporarily has in the past it has hurt the human race more than helping it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike T Jones - 08:22am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2247 of 2306)

Roving Libertarian

Anthony Jones 1/12/98 11:42pm

Technically speaking I could live forever, without my DNA changing.

No, you wouldn't. Your consciuosness would not shift to your clone. Your clone would be just another person, who happens to have DNA identical to you, and nothing more than that. It is not "another you".

I am against cloning on moral grounds but the hysteria that some people exhibit about it is largely unfounded.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dee Schindler - 09:16am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2248 of 2306)

Mr. William Herkelrath: well said! Thank you for putting into words what I have felt from my first hearing about cloning. I hate the thought of some crazy person getting the idea of creating the perfect race (Hitler) but to think that there could be a path of science that would give humanity access to assist, cure, etc. all the suffering children on this earth is worth exploring. I belive in God and I believe that he gave us the ability to use such gifts to help one another rather than for the use of power.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 09:30am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2249 of 2306)

No GODS, No Masters

Ni Guang 1/13/98 4:59am you say "If you fail to understand the merits and the truth behind the Bible, that's fine."

I fail to "understand the merits and the truth behind the Bible,"? Because there is little "truth" to the bible, it has no "value" other than as a historical curiousity like the Iliad or Grimm's Fairy Tales.

"Truths" like : The earth being flat, the moon generating light, water from the earth being OVER the sun, pi=3.0, (specifically related to this issue) spotted sticks changing the genetics of offsprings, the mustard seed being the smallest .... There are an entire collection of items in which the bible is just flat WRONG. So where is this "truth" of which you speak?

You also state "But since you have no legitimacy (the background, the education) to comment on such a sensitive issue (religion), I suggest you refrain from such. You don't want to expose your lack of knowledge, concerning the Bible, do you?"

What do you know of my background or education on this issue? MY lack of biblical knowledge? So tell me,

1) When and by whom were the 4 Gospels written?

2) Why are there specifically 4 Gospels anyway? (There is a historically verifiable reason)

3) How many original copies of the Xian (OT and NT) are there in existence today?

4) Name 3 contemporary writers that provide supporting writings of the existence of the biblical Jesus.

There are a lot of other questions I could ask you. I have the answers. Let's see if you have the right to question MY knowledge of the subject.

I will make it easy for you, just try and answer #2

You finish with "Some people think that cloned humans wouldn't have souls.

Since no one has a soul, neither would cloned people. There have been billions of medical exams and millions of autopsies over how many years now? Not a single one has shown ANY evidenc

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ni Guang - 10:11am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2250 of 2306)

The earth being flat, the moon generating light, water from the earth being OVER the sun, pi=3.0, specifically related to this issue) spotted sticks changing the genetics of offsprings, the mustard seed being the smallest .... There are an entire collection of items in which the bible is just flat WRONG. So where is this "truth" of which you speak? "

Most of the above were never mentioned by the bible. The rest are open to personal interpretation of hidden meanings. Since discussing such would be off-topic, I would prefer if you would take the initiative to email me at [email protected] .

I am also able to answer all the rhetorical questions you posed, but this channel is an inappropriate medium for such. Don't hesitate to forward those questions to me via email. Thank you.

On your 2nd question, since it is on topic:

" Since no one has a soul, neither would cloned people. There have been billions of medical exams and millions of autopsies over how many years now? Not a single one has shown ANY evidence. "

We don't even have a proper definition of a soul, or knowledge of what it is. Don't expect us to be able to test for such. Cloned humans, given that they would be sentient and able to worship the Lord, would have souls.

Since the soul is a non-physical entity, it, in all probability, cannot be proven by our primitive science that currently explores within the frame of 4 dimensions.

I hope cloning will be used for noble purposes and aid those who are in need of organs, throughout the world. I hope that cloning will be the scientific discovery

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lee Long - 10:12am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2251 of 2306)

I am in favor of cloning human organs and tissue for replacement but not entire human beings. I can envision all kinds of nightmare situations like deformed creatures...limitations and mutations we may not be aware of and for crying out loud would a cloned human have a soul? I would like to think God would be generous to it and give it one but he is also a jealous God and might not want us to medle where he has ruled since the beginning of time. As I said earlier...this is fine to use to save lives but not to create them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ni Guang - 10:16am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2252 of 2306)

Lee Long:

hmm... Did you get that name from the Soul Edge , the Playstation game?

I have exactly the same notions about cloning, as you. Cloning can be used for good. But the discovery came too soon. We were not prepared for it. I think if it came 10 years from now, we would have been more prepared for it.

P.S. Glen, before continuing to post anymore of your garbage, email me first. Or provide me your email. I tire of your stance of hatred and denial towards Christians and religious people alike. Your lack of knowledge shows...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 10:28am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2253 of 2306)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

We had such a nice little discussion going for months here, and now everybody's shouting!

On souls;

If souls are real (I think so); Why is it an issue? A "clone" is not some "Frankenstein's Monster" made up of bits and drabs from the attick floor. A "clone" is a normal embreo that has simply had its nucleus chosen. (It is more complex than that, but this makes the point.) A "clone" will (or won't) have a soul with no more or less preference than any other human.

On monsters;

The same think applies here as above. Suceptability to malformation is no greater (and possibly less) for a cloned embreo than one arrived at in the traditional manner.

There are some interesting legal issues involving genetically identical people, but none of the B-grade horror I have seen in some of these messages.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

mary Jaber - 10:36am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2254 of 2306)

Mr Seed is trying to play God and his soul will burn in Hell forever unless he wakes up and realizes he's playing with something much bigger then he is... He's really messing with creation and only GOD has the right to do that...What a stupid idiot to think otherwise....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BC Taylor - 10:47am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2255 of 2306)

Arthus C. Clarke, has said (to the effect) that new scientific/technological ideas have three stages of reaction - first, "It conflicts with the Bible and it won't work." Second, "It's possible, but it's not worth doing." And finally, "I said it was a good idea all along."

BC Taylor

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 10:48am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2256 of 2306)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

mary Jaber,

Why? It's true that it may very well be too soon to begin human experimentation with cloning (not enough answeres to all of the questions yet) but what makes it "evil?"

I don't recall seeing "Thou shalt not clone" in my bible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Moore - 11:19am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2257 of 2306)

For goodness sake, why do you think cloning is "creating life?"

Cloning doesn't create anything that's not already there. Genetic material taken from an already-existing human transplanted into a cell of another already-existing human.

I accept that there is a legitimate cause for discussion here, though my position is that cloning is "morally" no big deal.

But to oppose it because it is somehow "creating life" and thus "playing God," is (in my opinion) just silly. It's just another logical step in the progression of biological science.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carrie Bird - 11:21am Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2258 of 2306)

Nice philosophical chit chat from many people. but, cloning will serve the medical community with invaluable information as far as providing transplants, creating safe sources of tranfuseable blood, and a myriad of other areas or research into cancer cells and the ever mysterious virus. No one imagines that creating identical human forms to march off and die in war, or to provide a few with specialized services, is a good idea. But the techniques are of magnificent proportion. Like it or not, it will occur. Disasters will also occur. (There is yet another quasi best seller out there on the topic.) You simply cannot imagine that someone, somewhere won't continue this research! Let go of the horror stories for now. Look for the value.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Chambers - 12:20pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2259 of 2306)

Richard Seed is nothing more than a charlatan who is using the present cloning excitement to turn the spotlight to himself. If he is able to genertate the money he is seeking, the funds will be put to waste. Seed does not have the ability to conduct the research he is talking about and I am willing to wager he knows little about cloning.

I assure the reader that human cloning research is already being conducted somewhere in the world. It is being done by competant scientists who understand that it is not proper to make bold Seed-like statements until a modicum of substantial data has been generated. For instance, the world did not learn of Dolly until after she was created.

I think this is a very exciting time and I fully support human cloning. I would join the race myself if I had the funding and time. People must recognize that Seed is a filthy confidence man who is flaunting technology of which he knows nothing. I wish he would make the effort to pick up a molecular biology book sometime.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark McGann - 12:22pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2260 of 2306)

Graduate Student, Tulane University

Noel Yap 1/12/98 5:46pm and Ruby Pool 1/12/98 6:05pm You both suggest that cloning should be put on hold until society is ready for it. Historically can either of you cite of a field a scientific research, the exploration of which should have been delayed until society was ready for it?

-Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sachie Sakurai - 12:33pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2261 of 2306)

I've been reading some of the posts here and I have yet to see an immediately practical reason to clone a human being. Most of the posts deal with as of yet undiscovered technologies such as cloning organs, cloning brainless bodies for brain transplants, etc. Dr. Seed says he wants to help infertile couples. Well, there are other PROVEN SUCCESSFUL techniques currently available. They involve injecting DNA directly into the egg to fertilize it, but don't have anything to do with cloning.

Of course in order to make full use of scientific advances you need to continue research on the technique, but that can be done just as easily with other mammals.

I see a lot of good uses for animal cloning, especially in livestock and other such animals that humans have for ages manipulated genetically (the old fashioned way, though selective bredding). The Scottish scientist envisioned cloning genetically engineered sheep able to produce specific pharmaceutical compounds, which sounds pretty practical and useful to me.

I see no practical application to human cloning at all. The only thing it might be useful for is for studies on nuture vs. nature. (Thirty ideantical clones raised separately and at different times! Discover the eerie similarities!! Subtle differences!!) That idea kinda creeps me out though. Humans shouldn't be produced ONLY to satisfy scientific curiosity.

Can anybody out there think of a compelling reason to specifically clone humans at this point in time?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Madden - 12:38pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2262 of 2306)

Jim -

Buy ONE Infertile Clone, Get a SECOND Infertile Clone FREE !!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diana Prior - 12:44pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2263 of 2306)

What's the point of attempting to ban cloning? How enforcible would it be? Abortion has been around since time began; legal or not and no one has been able to eradicate it. The money making potential for the medical profession and pharmeceutical companies is so astronomical it's probably already in the underground planning stages as we chat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. dat - 12:45pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2264 of 2306)

How is cloning human beings any different than producing an identical twin, test tube baby that is time separated?

Ethicists were screaming bloody murder at the advent of test tube baby technology. Now that issue hardly elicits a yawn.

Sachie, yes I can think of practical applications for human cloning. Producing a twin to donate bone marrow (a RENEWABLE tissue) for a very ill person. Parents ALREADY aer conceiving children the old fashion way in hopes of producing offspring that are a tissue match for a dying older sibling.

No one is suggesting that cloned humans are going to become organ mills, like in the movie 'Coma'. A cloned human is a HUMAN. There are already laws banning the sale of body parts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark McGann - 12:45pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2265 of 2306)

Graduate Student, Tulane University

Ruby Pool 1/13/98 11:11am I agree that the religion debate should be allowed on this board, for the simple reason that so many who are opposed to cloning oppose it due to religious reasons.

BC Taylor 1/13/98 10:47am Very insightful of Aurther :) I think religious objections to new technologies arise when people percieve the new technology as doing something the bible says isn't possible. In essence they think "if this actually works the bible is wrong", which makes them uncomfortable. They therefore object to the technology until they can restructure thier interpretation of the bible to allow for the existance of the technology.

-Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark McGann - 12:47pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2266 of 2306)

Graduate Student, Tulane University

Sachie Sakurai 1/13/98 12:33pm Can you think of a specific reason not to clone a human being?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 01:01pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2267 of 2306)

Mark McGann - 12:22pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2263 of 2270)-

How about Human Selective Breeding a la Mengele;

it's done wonders for cows !

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 01:02pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2268 of 2306)

Better Read Than Said.....

Mark McGann:

I think if you've been reading my post I have not said cloning should be put on hold. I have been for going ahead. I see no harm in creating life from life, it has already been evident with invitro fertilization, that cloning is possible. How useful it will be to society, only time will tell. It is my understanding that science has already cloned body parts to some degree.

What is strange is that President Clinton has already banned the research as untested and immoral. Some in Europe have done the same. Why...if it is not creating a separate and foreign human being would it be banned?

My position is that they have not recreated the human cell, so cloning is only another step up from invitro fertilization which is legal.

It is my faith in a Creator that leads me to believe that nothing we create can be more astounding than what has already been created, more dangerous if misused, and more magnificent if it adds value to human life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark McGann - 01:39pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2269 of 2306)

Graduate Student, Tulane University

Tom Yardly 1/13/98 1:01pm I hate to break it to you but humans have been selectively breeding since the begining of time, we do choose our mates after all. Your objecting to the specific case of Mengle because he was a Nazi and because you don't like what he was selectively breeding for, not because you don't like selective breeding (I assume you don't object to the concept of choosing ones own mate).

-Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 02:01pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2270 of 2306)

No, I'm objecting because I didn't get a good enough selection.

Seriously, I object precisely because someone else is doing the selection. The control of the the decision (Who and on what basis) could be a problem in either Human Scientific Selective Breeding or in Cloning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ML Rogers - 02:13pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2271 of 2306)

I think I just found a bigger problem to worry about. Check out this news release:

http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/extendhum-cell.html

This could potentially lead to a fountain of youth which should be at least as controversial as cloning. But then again, given a chance, I'm signing up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Bauman - 02:19pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2272 of 2306)

Center For Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine

Tom,

Until artificial wombs are created, the women carrying the clone to term will be the one who selects. If not, there will be some front page law suits, " I asked for a clone of my husband, but my baby looks just like the Doctor!" I would not expect too many celebrities making their DNA available, but I guess will see.

So the women will have the ability to select (the same way as women have always had) the genetics of her child, just more so with cloning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Fredrickson - 02:43pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2273 of 2306)

Don't Panic

Don't be a one-timer. Support human cloning!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark McGann - 02:51pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2274 of 2306)

Graduate Student, Tulane University

Tom Yardly 1/13/98 2:01pm Your missing the point. What your objecting to is an abuse of scientific knowledge not the field itself. Just like there is nothing wrong with a screwdriver, but there definately is something wrong with sticking it in someones heart. Mengle's crime wasn't the science (genetics) it was the way he went about it (killing those children who didn't make the grade).

My point is that when one looks back on history one sees a long list of benificial scientific achievments, even though a very large number of them were vigorously opposed at the time.

-Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------

michael barringer - 03:10pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2275 of 2306)

14 year old student

one reason not to clone is what if a father commits a crime and his son is blamed how can they disprove it?hmmm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sachie Sakurai - 03:11pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2276 of 2306)

In response to c.dat:

That's a immediately practical application I hadn't considered. But since the clone is exactly identical, what about the dangers of the cloned child ALSO having the same disease?

Someone also mentioned clones of famous people. I wonder if you could protect your own DNA. I mean, if Cindy Crawford didn't want 15yr old copies of her running around when she was in her 40's and 50's, could she patent her own DNA? What would happen if someone got cloned without the original's permission? If it were unborn, it could be destroyed legally, but if it was already born?

To Mark McGann:

I cannot think of a logical reason not to clone. But an attitude of "Hey we can do it, so why not?" bothers me. All my objections seem to be coming from an emotional angle. We see ourselves as individuals and unique, but at the same time most of us know that to a certain extent what we consider our own individuality is a product of our genetic makeup. We fear that our humanity may be somehow diminished if we allow clones to be created. Its an illogical emotional response, but its what I feel. I think a lot of people will object to the idea of cloning on a gut level until they are able to readjust their concept of humanity and indivudiality so that the idea of cloning is no longer threatening to them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Grundon (Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life) - 03:22pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2277 of 2306)

http://www.asenseoflife.com

If cloning is not outlawed by Clinton et al, I hope that it remains in private hands.

It is the government abuse of science, such as making things like the atomic bomb, that have caused so many people to question the benefits of science. I can understand the fear of people who worry that the government might misuse science yet again. That fear is not driven by mistrust of science, as much as mistrust of government.

However, I do not understand people who would shut down a customer-driven business that creates life-enhancing scientific products.

Only by freeing themselves from the shackles of government can scientists realize their true potential.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike T Jones - 03:29pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2278 of 2306)

Roving Libertarian

Cloning cannot be constitutionally outlawed by the federal government. The 10th amendment requires that that be left to the states.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 03:36pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2279 of 2306)

Mike -

So if one could just get the judiciary to uphold the Constitution, we would have no problem with cloning, or other issues.

Good Luck

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ilya Taytslin - 03:45pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2280 of 2306)

Michael Barringer:

"one reason not to clone is what if a father commits a crime and his son is blamed how can they disprove it?hmmm"

Same way as it is done when one of two identical twins commits a crime. Determining the perpetrator in such cases is harder than usual (identical fingerprints, possibly confused witnesses), but not impossible.

Since a cloned child would be much younger than the parent, solving the crime would be easier than in the case of identical twins.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Yardly - 03:51pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2281 of 2306)

Open Question:

The header topic at the top of the page refers to an "Atlantean Odyssey".

Can someone tell me what does cloning have to do with Atlantis?

(as someone said: hmmmmm?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike T Jones - 04:03pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2282 of 2306)

Roving Libertarian

identical fingerprints

I thought even identical twins had different fingerprints.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:52pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2283 of 2306)

Robert Scott Alexander: Cloning should be seen in the same light of a fresh technology that can benefit millions of human beings.

Cloning will benefit humanity only if we know how to use it properly. Like any new technologies, it's easier to misuse than to use.

Patrick Moore: I think all this hooraw about cloning will be over soon, unless the Congress, in its (lack of) wisdom, tries to buy a few votes with a futile gesture like the temporary ban.

Although Congress may lack knowledge, I think it's wisdom that they know this and want to move cautiously.

Ross Taplett: Mankind can not be trusted to clone humans.

There will undoubtedly be a transition phase when humanity get used to this new technology. All we can do is try to make this phase as smooth as possible.

Ross Taplett: There are far too many people with motives that will not be good for humanity and the world generally.

These people are balanced by the altruistic ones. Looking at the big picture, they don't count for much (ie although Hitler affected countless lives, his way of doing things were stopped.) If this bias towards goodness didn't exist, we wouldn't have the society we have today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:52pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2284 of 2306)

lloyd billotte: Humans have much more complex psychological makeup--including that all-important motivator--emotions.

I fully agree.

lloyd billotte: We have no idea of how a clone would be in terms of personality, intelligence, emotions, and behavior relative to the original.

Well, I was thinking more from a societal POV. Society changes much slower than technology. Something will give sooner or later.

Randall Justin Boerema: It will make no difference to a society or a child if the DNA is identical to anothers or not.

It will make no difference to me. I can't, however, speak for society.

Joe Bauman: As for everybody else, most people will continue to want to have babies the old fashioned way.

Except the egomaniacs :)

tanstaafl: I've seen many posts in support of Clinton's 5 year ban, stating that society should wait until everyone says yes

Society won't be "waiting" during this time. It will be getting psychologically prepared and forming ideas about ethics and legalities (kind of what we're doing now.) If the technology is not met well ('cos of fear of the unknown) it will retard the introduction longer than a five-year ban.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:53pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2285 of 2306)

Cliff Beall: But I think mutation (of whatever form) must be a necessary component of evolution.

I have to agree with this. Our prior disagreement was brought about by differing definitions for "mutation."

Cliff Beall: These mutations (potentially, uncorrected) might theoretically present a severe problem for cloned individuals.

This might explain the high rate of failure experienced by the scientists who made Dolly, Polly, and Molly.

Cliff Beall: We need to know more about the hazards of using possibly mutated cells for cloning before human cloning (based on adult cells) is performed.

This is a good technological reason to postpone human cloning experiments.

Anthony Jones: Technically speaking I could live forever, without my DNA changing.

Although there is some support for thinking that the shrinking (growing ?) of telemeres causes aging, we still don't know if this is the only cause for aging.

Ni Guang: Cliff: Matter is made up of energy vibrating at a certain frequency. Could this be the soul we are talking about?

I tend to think the soul is the personification of the emergent behaviour brought about by our complexity (everyone got that ;) From this POV, a clone would have a soul.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:53pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2286 of 2306)

Pavel Deryabin: When we created atom weapon-we didn't know about the the danger from it.

Some knew of the dangers, but didn't notify the public.

William Herkelrath: It's not fair to ask people to keep religion out of the discussion, because to discuss people's views on issues asks people to question their values and community goals, etc.

I agree.

William Herkelrath: That's a good law, because there is no plausible societal need for such things.

Just 'cos there's no need doesn't mean it should be illegal. As an example, there's really no need to drink alcohol at social events or during meals. Should alcohol use then be limited to medical practices only?

William Herkelrath: So, just becuase we have the technolgy to do something even greater (though I doubt we do yet) doesn't mean we should.

I would guess that it's easier to clone an entire human than just parts. This being the case, we might need to go through a phase of experimental human cloning to learn how to clone just the parts.

glenn: As in the past science advancement will not be held back and when it temporarily has in the past it has hurt the human race more than helping it.

This is questionable. Postponing vaccinations and other "advances" that decrease mortality rates in the third world would help them with their population problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:54pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2287 of 2306)

Glenn Curry: "Truths" like : The earth being flat,

Although the Medieval Church said the Earth was flat, the Bible never did. In fact, in the original words, it said it was round. Moreover, the word for round and spherical are the same. I don't know what other misinterpretations you have 'cos I'm not a Bible scholar.

Glenn Curry: spotted sticks changing the genetics of offsprings,

We now know that viruses and bacteria can change the genetics of other animals. How do you know the spotted stick didn't have such beings?

Glenn Curry: There are an entire collection of items in which the bible is just flat WRONG. So where is this "truth" of which you speak?

Just 'cos there are fallacies doesn't mean everything is not true.

Ni Guang: We were not prepared for it.

And hence, we should delay experimentation and implementation (on humans, anyway.)

mary Jaber: Mr Seed is trying to play God and his soul will burn in Hell forever unless he wakes up and realizes he's playing with something much bigger then he is...

God gave us the freedom to choose our own paths.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:54pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2288 of 2306)

mary Jaber: He's really messing with creation and only GOD has the right to do that...What a stupid idiot to think otherwise....

Only God has the right to judge.

BC Taylor: Arthus C. Clarke...

Where does, "Let's proceed with caution," fit in.

Ruby Pool: The religion debate should be allowed on every board, because it is the heart and soul of everything that effects us and how we deal with it.

I agree.

Mark McGann: Historically can either of you cite of a field a scientific research, the exploration of which should have been delayed until society was ready for it?

Nuclear energy for reasons we see today (ie the DOE is now being forced to dispose of nuclear waste this year but they have nowhere to put it (or, at least, noone wants it in their backyard.))

The introduction of vaccinations and medical science in the third world. Their unreadiness is the cause of their population problems today.

I can't seem to think of any others, but this is probably due to the increased pace at which we are developing technology. In the past society was able to keep up (sociologically and psychologically.) This is getting harder and harder every day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:54pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2289 of 2306)

Ruby Pool: What is strange is that President Clinton has already banned the research as untested and immoral. Some in Europe have done the same. Why...if it is not creating a separate and foreign human being would it be banned?

We're not ready for it. When we are, we'll make it legal. Please don't respond with, "I'm ready for it and want it now." I'm talking about societies, not individuals.

Joe Bauman: Until artificial wombs are created,

Back in the way early days of this board, someone had mentioned that research is being done for this.

Sachie Sakurai: could she patent her own DNA?

She would have to copy right it, not patent it.

Sachie Sakurai: a lot of people will object to the idea of cloning on a gut level until they are able to readjust their concept of humanity and indivudiality so that the idea of cloning is no longer threatening to them.

Yes, perhaps this is the societal "readiness" I've been trying to define.

Tony Grundon: That fear is not driven by mistrust of science, as much as mistrust of government.

Hmmm. I never thought of it this way before.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 04:55pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2290 of 2306)

Mike T Jones: Cloning cannot be constitutionally outlawed by the federal government.

They can, however ban federal funding of such research.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anne Moxin - 05:13pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2291 of 2306)

Cloning: technology with amazing potential. Nuclear fusion: technology with amazing potential. Human nature: amazing potential,... A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 05:58pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2292 of 2306)

No GODS, No Masters

In response to my listing a number of areas in which the bible is just flat WRONG Ni Guang 1/13/98 10:11am you say "Most of the above were never mentioned by the bible. The rest are open to personal interpretation of hidden meanings. Since discussing such would be off-topic, I would prefer if you would take the initiative to email me at..."

First yes they are all mentioned in the bible either directly or alluded to very specifically. Second these errors have been documented for centuries and theologians have never been able to overcome the blantant errors, you will not be any more succesful than any other attempt (unless you are privey to some unique scientific knowledge which has illuded everyone else), I do not care to start another such discussion off list.

You say "We don't even have a proper definition of a soul, or knowledge of what it is."

Then it's stupid to claim it exists. "Ya we all have this magical thing that know one knows anything about, that's why we have it..." Ya right. If you don't or can't know about it, then whether it exists or not is totally irrelvant.

You also say "Since the soul is a non-physical entity, it, in all probability, cannot be proven by our primitive science that currently explores within the frame of 4 dimensions."

OK, so you are stuck in primitive science. Too bad you don't keep up. Modern string theory operates in 10 dimensions. Try reading on a subject before making assertions about it.

And finally "I hope cloning will be used for noble purposes and aid those who are in need of organs, throughout the world. I hope that cloning will be the scientific discovery"

Are you suggest that humans should be cloned to allow harvesting of their organs? I find this attrocious. To develop an entire human being only to allow them to be killed to harvest a few organs for the original dna donor. If you are talking about the potential for organ gro

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 06:10pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2293 of 2306)

No GODS, No Masters

Noel Yap 1/13/98 4:54pm you say "Although the Medieval Church said the Earth was flat, the Bible never did. In fact, in the original words, it said it was round."

please provide passages in which the bible says the earth is round. OTOH there are numerous passages that would describe only a flat earth, such as where the devil took Jesus up to the highest point so they could see the entire earth, this would ONLY work on a flat plane. Genesis describes the firmament (means "bowl" or bowl shaped) bisecting the erth, again this can only happen on a flat plain. This is only two of many examples.

"We now know that viruses and bacteria can change the genetics of other animals. How do you know the spotted stick didn't have such beings?"

1) Viruses and bacteria will not change genetics to change a solid color offspring to a spotted one.

2) If it was germs that caused it, why did the perfect word of your god mistakenly say it was because of the sticks?

Ya can't have it both ways.

You add "Just 'cos there are fallacies doesn't mean everything is not true."

OK, please supply the external refernce which documents exactly which parts of the bible ARE correct and which AREN'T. And then explain why your all powerful god has these mistakes in his perfect word and where this outside refernce came from which was even MORE perfect than your perfect god?

You just don't get it do you? Perfect is perfect. Either it is or it isn't. And the bible isn't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 06:13pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2294 of 2306)

Better Read Than Said.....

Noel Yap:

I can't believe I read the whole thing. I like the way you summerize and thanks for agreeing with some of my posts.

If I've written anything worth remembering the following is one I feel is quotable.

"It is my faith in a Creator that leads me to believe that nothing we create can be more astounding than what has already been created, more dangerous if misused, and more magnificent if it adds value to human life."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Robb - 07:19pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2295 of 2306)

Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly

Glen Curry... I am against Human Cloning, but I am for extending the technology into the area where we can clone the human heart, liver, kidney, etc. without having to clone the whole human.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terra - 07:23pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2296 of 2306)

The Guardian of the Sea

• Misty: <<.it's easy to see how cloning could possibly destroy...and I felt I made that point earlier...if human cloning became successful, that would create people, right? Well, this Earth can't take many more humans, the natural way or otherwise.>>

I don't doubt that. Maybe I pointed this out earlier and assumed I put it in my post to you, but it's very possible I could use that post to condone forced abortion (pro-choice does mean choice), or things far worse like genocide.

• Joe: <<Terra Wonderful job in replying and it saves me alot of typing!>>

Thanks! Unfortunately, my work is going to be a nightmare this month, so I'll have to stick to weekends and normally posts that I can quickly see my name in :(

• Tina Leung: <<Until everyone says yes to cloning, cloning of humans will always be a subject of discusion. >>

Think of where we would be if we said that with Copernicus. Yes, while one has more of a direct impact on our biology, heliocentrisim had more of an impact on the religious beliefs of society.

• B. Larsen: <<At what point will the diseases return, and at what cost to the human race? >>

And do you realize how much easier that logic works with antibiotics?

• B. Larsen: <<...but this has yet to be proven and it is NOT the same but other avenues are currently available for them now.>>

Who could it possibly harm? The developing fetus? That's pretty much what they found with the Dolly experiments. If that's the case, then it would seem to fall under the same legal reasoning we use with abortion. IOW, it would be on a case by case basis -- the very same one I'm supporting.

• B. Larsen: <<..what are you saying?>>

What I mean is that even though there are similar routes to the same goal, the routes taken often affect the goal in details that can become extremely important later on. Let's take the case of my friend's sister. She had to have both of her ovaries removed five years ago, so now she cannot have childr

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terra - 07:25pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2297 of 2306)

The Guardian of the Sea

children of her own. For some reason, flesh-and-blood kids are often very important to people, and to me that's a perfectly reasonable emotion. (After all, the theory of evolution kind of supports that idea.) Now, if she wanted to have a flesh-and-blood child, at this point in time cloning would be her only option.

Besides, what does it matter to you if someone wants a clone of his/herself? As long as they don't go around cloning people who don't want to be cloned, I'm perfectly fine.

• B. Larsen: <<...it is NOT suppose to do that (at this point in time), because that is even more complex and dangerous as not all DNA is currently known.>>

Cloning will help genetic engineering regardless of the scientists' intentions. Besides, if your theory was realistic, the FDA wouldn't have allowed genetic engineering experiments to begin.

• B. Larsen: <<Less than perfect was intended to suggest that they WOULD BE BETTER than us, having had their DNA engineered for illness and diseases, and YES...they would be better, or do you not think so? >>

I know exactly what you meant. I'm just pointing out that there are a whole lot of people in America and the world -- myself included -- that are considered to be "less than perfect" by most people. If anything, cloning and genetic engineering would at least give parents some control over if their kids are harassed or not.

• B. Larsen: <<If a strain is developed because the DNA was engineered>>

Here's the logical problems with that. Changing a person's DNA would make them weaker to certain diseases, but the only way they could pass that on would be if they passed it on to their kids. (I'm looking in my Biology Cliff's Notes but I'm not seeing anything on bacterial reproduction. Viral reproduction doesn't seem to confirm your theory.)

• B. Larsen: <<Your reasoning for "family's decision" and "respect for privacy" are not acceptable enough (to me). >>

So, in the words of some person who happene

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terra - 07:26pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2298 of 2306)

The Guardian of the Sea

d to be eating lunch around me today, "The Constitution is bull"? (I am not making this up.) Yes, I totally agree with you that if someone knows they have a disease and puts someone else at risk, they should be thrown in jail and punished severely.

But you forget that most of these people want to live the rest of their lives in a manner that lets them get the most out of what little time they have and, as a result, feel like they have to hide it. ::shrug:: I support those people 100% because they're doing the best they can to correct their mistakes and trying to support themselves during the final stages of their lives.

• B. Larsen: <<And if it's gonna be a private, secretative decision - even more reason to say NO thanks! >>

So you're saying that I should tell you about my reproductive decisions? I'm not trying to let it affect you in any way. The right to privacy is instrumental in the rights to property, life and liberty. Granted, the Bill of Rights isn't technically a law, our country was still founded on Locke's principles and that's still the goal we strive for.

• B. Larsen: <<If cloning were to become available, how can we be sure it won't be used for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong people?>>

We can't, but then again everything in science has its down fall -- including a lack of advancement. However, cloning would probably be less harmful than computers. Why? Because biology requires a team effort and years of schooling, something that people who are out for "immoral power" detest. (Actually, that's why I don't support Seed even if I do support the general idea after animal testing -- he's not a doctor, and from what I've heard, he's not a geneticist either.)

Ah, but I hear the common idea now: "What about making the ultimate soldier?" Think about it: wars are focusing more and more on technology and not troops. The only real application in war time would be that governments could engineer DNA to pre

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terra - 07:28pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2299 of 2306)

The Guardian of the Sea

vent people from feeling the harmful effects of gases (and possibly in the far future, radiation).

• Ruby: <<The human cell has not changed and cannot be rebuilt...it is what it is as the Creator designed. >>

If the Creator didn't design it to change, then we'd all be identical. Even then his identical twins, triplets, etc. show that sometimes it is meant to stay the same. Only now he's letting us have that option for ourselves.

• Ruby: <<life is of value and not to be given over to fiends to use for body parts as the only purpose for their life.>>

Given time, we can evolve out of the Shadowrun version of cloning.

• Ruby: <<We already have body parts given at death...creating people for salvage is inhuman and intolerable.>>

Also keep in mind that even if you do get an organ, your body can reject it.

• B. Larsen: <<Guess they HAVE reason to WANT cloning and I'm all for cloning organs, etc. Not new human beings. >>

You can't have one without the other because one is the predecessor to the other.

~Terra

-------{@

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws