B. Larsen - 07:58pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2300 of 2306)
Terra, I've given cloning a lot of thought and voiced my own personal opinions and concerns. No, not for the purpose of reproduction; organs fine - no problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAY WELLS - 08:26pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2301 of 2306)
Bypassing the efficiency of mother nature's natural selection, will eventually lead to the end of man...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annelore Rasco - 08:51pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2302 of 2306)
I think human cloning is "playing G-d". This kind of cloning, and worse "inter-species" cloning was apparently also done in Noah's days for which reason G-d saw Himself compelled to drown absolutely everything that drew breath on the entire globe (see Genesis 6:11-13, 17; 7:21-23).
Jesus of Nazareth also made a rather interesting statement. He said: "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days!... For the days are surely coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed" (Lk 21:23; 23:29)
In view of the Nazis' record of experimenting, especially at Dachau, the words of Jesus announce days of yet greater horror to come: as history has shown, many great, outstanding discoveries and inventions meant to benefit mankind have been horribly abused and misused by evil men and governments.
If human cloning becomes possible I dare not imagine what an evil man would and could do with it. Without a doubt Jewish women would once again serve as guinea pigs, and to implant and "breed" clones in Jewish wombs to serve as organ donors for the "superior" races would be the order of the day. Perhaps devout Christian women would also be used for that purpose, since their and the Jews' religious "superstition" will probably be maligned as "hindering the progress of the 'brotherhood of nations' and 'global unity'."
In my view, human cloning spells the end of any moral standard, the breaking down of the last barrier, or tabu, of ultimate violation of inviolable laws of nature (see the consequences in Isaiah 24 because of verses 5 and 6). It spells the beginning of the reign and age of lawlessness, and the end of this world as we knew it.
A big, resounding "NO" to human cloning!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banjo Smith - 08:59pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2303 of 2306)
For some unknown reason I get an uneasy feeling when I realize the final decision on cloning will come from the beliefs of religious fanatics. But then, most of our laws are rooted in someones religious beliefs. If your interperetation of your religion says it's bad, get it into law. Sock it to'em in the name of the Lord.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ni Guang - 09:14pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2304 of 2306)
Glen Curry:
You have failed to mail me at [email protected] . Surely you realize that this is not the message board to carry out theological and metaphysical discussion? Quit polluting this board, mail me and we can discuss various issues that seem to make the bible "imperfect" to you. We'll see how well-versed you are in this area of discussion.
If you recall the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, these lead one to believe in the existence of an omnipotent creator. He does not have a temporal existence, and since he would have to create himself first to create the universe, and therefore the complexities in English arrive to describe his eternal existence, God called himself Yahweh which means " underived existence " and also the " I AM WHO I AM " . I can go on if you like. But this is not the board.
On the subject of cloning, I definitely agree with those who think that cloning should be expanded to help make inroads into the area of organ replacement.
I am firmly in support of Clinton's stance towards cloning. We must be a little cautious, since we haven't fully considered the possibilities of such a potentially dangerous and controversial experiment.
Someone mentioned that cloning would stifle natural selection. Agreed. Cloning should be used to help expand our knowledge of medicine, and to benefit those with medical disorders. Human cloning is unnecessary.
The natural way of reproduction provides for a continuance in nature's laws. It is the best way to ensure a new generation of a better breed of humans and we should stick to it.
If you were sincere and willing to present your opinions, you would not hesitate to email me, now would you? If you like, I will take the initiative to email you first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ni Guang - 09:24pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2305 of 2306)
Glenn: you are relying on empirical and forensic evidence to prove the existence of God. We know so little about the universe. We have no qualifications whatsoever to disprove the existence of God.
And as for your garbage interpretation of the bible, I suggest you take some verbal diaorrhea pills to suppress such hormonal needs. Until then... awaiting your email.
And you mentioned cloning a fully-grown human only to kill him and take away his organs? Nobody said anything close to that. We merely said that we could eventually learn how to synthesize vital organs in the body, for use in organ transplants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyndsey Dettmann - 09:31pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2306 of 2306)
To kill a human for it's organs just to save another is really stupid. This must be banned!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Belcastro - 10:31pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2307 of 2373)
It would appear that there are several misconceptions regarding 'cloning'.
It would be almost impossible to use a human clone for the purposes of organ harvest. If I ( a 40+ year old male) were to have myself cloned, when could I use the clone's heart, or liver or whatever? Not for years!
Of course, the very idea of creating a human being (from either the old fashioned (fun) way, or this new-fangled cloning way) and then at some point in its development, killing it for spare parts, is of course wildly immoral and unethical. The 'clone' is of course a human being, and subject the same laws and given the same rights as any other human.
Is a clone an exact copy? Genetically, yes. In all other aspects, I would probably say no. The diet, excercise, environment, upbringing, surroundings, etc. would all be immensely different from its progenitor.
I don't have a problem with clones: its a question of are they really neccessary? And wouldn't it still be more fun the old fashioned way?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:56pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2308 of 2373)
Better Read Than Said.....
Terra:
Thank you for pointing out my unclear posts. What I should have said: If Dr. Seed wanted to make a human cell from scratch, he couldn't do it. He has to use cells already in use from living humans. (I haven't heard of using dead human cells.)
If you've heard different, I am sure you will let me know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 11:32pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2309 of 2373)
Better Read Than Said.....
Glenn:
Your post was zipped away on the non-sense of 'day one creation.' The following process is my unqualified attempt to explain my understanding of 'in the beginning God': This is not an exact cloning of the words, but a short version.
Day 1: There was only water without form and void, darkness covered the water.(deep). Then light was produced and divided from the darkness. He called this day and night.
Day 2: Then a firmament was in the midst of the waters which divided the water from the water. It was called heaven
Day 3: Then the waters under the firmament were divided together in one place so that the dry land appeared. The water he called seas and the land he called earth. Then the earth brought forth, grass, herbs for seed and and fruit. (So on with creation....)
Regarding the flat earth...not bibical. If he took someone up and showed them the whole earth...up was above to the planets, called "lights" so the whole earth was seen.
Job 26: 5-7 reads, " All things are formed under the water (The water above the firmament,above the universe) and the inhabitants there. Hell is naked before him and destruction has no covering."
"He stretched out the north over the empty place (among the planets) and hung the earth upon nothing." Glenn: Flat earths wouldn't hang to well, but you may believe that they do.
Now that I have reproduced the short version of the beginning. I am through cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bart Wilson - 11:51pm Jan 13, 1998 ET (#2310 of 2373)
You can pass laws that prohibit human cloning, but do you really think it can be absolutel enforced?
I don't think so.
Worldwide, there are many scientists that work in secret. in the early eighties, Russian scientists developed a genetic weapon now known as "recombinant DNA." Fifteen years ago, when I was working military intelligence, I couldn't even say this phrase in public. This was a classified SECRET term just a decade ago.
The Russians used "Recombinant DNA" in the Afghanistan conflict twenty years ago as a method to kill the freedom fighters that were buried deep in the mountains.
What is "recombinant DNA?" It is program-able for targeting and killing individuals with certain gene types. For example, take a room full of people that all carry the gene that gives them blue eyes, and place this group in a room with individuals with brown eyes. Each group of people have a specific gene that gives each individual "blue" or "brown" eyes.
Let's presume the air the group is breathing is contaminated with a biological agent that targets the gene that gives people "brown" eyes.
The brown-eyed people die a horrible death within hours, yet the individuals with "blue eyes," breath the same contaminated air completely unaffected.
This isn't science fiction, or the makings of another Clancy novel. It is fact.
Not to stray too far from the subject of cloning here, and I'm not implying that cloning has anything to do with "recombinant DNA," but cloning does have the ability to become a perverted weapon, just as "recombinant DNA" did some twenty years ago.
Here's the clencher; the Russians developed recombinant DNA not as a weapon, but as a new biomedical tool to hunt down and kill the genes that cause cancer and other diseases.
Somehow, it was perverted into a weapon and used agains the people in Afghanistan and the mountain people of Cambodia. (Remember the "Yellow Rain" stories?)
Imagine "genocide" on a global scale. If Hitler wer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Johnson - 12:11am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2311 of 2373)
"There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah...and the female looked liked the male and the male like the female...!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ni Guang - 01:02am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2312 of 2373)
Glenn Curry: you are relying on empirical and forensic evidence to prove the existence of God. We know so little about the universe. We have no qualifications whatsoever to disprove the existence of God.
And as for your garbage interpretation of the bible, I suggest you take some verbal diaorrhea pills to suppress such hormonal needs. Until then... awaiting your email.
And you mentioned cloning a fully-grown human only to kill him and take away his organs? Nobody said anything close to that. We merely said that we could eventually learn how to synthesize vital organs in the body, for use in organ transplants.
Don't forget to forward to me your theological questions via email [email protected] We'll see how much our friend really knows. Remember, its only an amicable discussion - no forcing opinions down other people's throat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ni Guang - 01:11am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2313 of 2373)
Well... when will organ synthesis start? Anyone have a clue to when that might start taking place?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Simpson - 01:33am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2314 of 2373)
Oh jeesh, pass more laws against cloning?
Lets see the ones enforced now?
Drugs...multi billion dollar endless war.
Smoking in calif.... Nice new goverment created there to enforce this ban...
Grow Grow Grow says our gov.
time to fire them all
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 01:41am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2315 of 2373)
One of the more interesting questions asked by the guys who cloned the sheep in Scotland, and still unanswered (to the best of my knowledge) is this: Does DNA age? And if the donor is 25 years old, will the age of his DNA result in any unforeseen problems in the clone created from it. Will the clone have a normal lifespan or will it be shortened by the biological clock of the donor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Pope - 05:56am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2316 of 2373)
Cloning? Well, so long as it doesn't get out of hand, and we end up going into MacDonald's one day, being served by a Mr. Seed, sitting next to a Mr. Seed, and talking with our best friend, Mr. Seed, the show must go on.
Surely death is just an outdated human concept that we cling to in the same way the religious zealots cling to the bible for security. If we must 'kill' human bodies for the specific purpose of using there organs for transplants then what is the real problem?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bentley - 10:02am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2317 of 2373)
Here's just quick, interesting thought. If two children, one the original, one a clone, the originating cell taken from the original in very basic zygote form or such, were brought up in scientifically established, exact environments, just -how- similiar would the two be? If humans are nothing but a bunch of explainable, pre-determined genetic strands with influence from outside stimuli, would these two grow -exactly- alike? Or is there indeed a 'soul' to each and every individual, which would indeed show up in differences in the children (talents, etc)?
Myself, I am strongly opposed to the cloning of complete humans, and even individual human 'components' is -really- on the edge. I'm stubborn in my ways, but that doesn't mean I can't -think-. See the above, it's a 'devil's advocate' argument against my own personal opinion. Call me old-fashioned, call me stubborn, call me ignorant in my ways, and it will mean -zilch- to me. I stick by my guns and am faithful to my own beliefs, and if that makes me 'wrong' somehow, live with it. :-) If I'm going to run off the cliff with the rest of the lemming horde of humanity, at least I'm going to wear my PFD... :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 10:41am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2318 of 2373)
Daniel Bentley, what are clones but IDENTICAL TWINS. Even naturally produced identical twins who are raised under similar envronments (i.e., same parents, same house, same school, same friends) are TOTALLY DIFFERENT people, w/ different personalities, different identities, different Social Security numbers, etc., even though they have identical DNA. I don't know this for a fact, but I'd guess that the Pope would regard naturally produced identical twins as haing their own individual souls.
I don't think there is going to be a huge demand for people wanting to produce offspring via cloning. BORING--you'll know exactly what baby will look like & having a needle stuck in you to extract cells hardly compares w/ the fun of making a baby the old fashioned way.
A person would have to have an ego big enough to eat Manhattan to want to clone him/herself, thinking his/her model is not needing of improvement. Fidel Castro?
What is all this talk about cloning little Hitlers and Stalins? Just who is going to do this, the Aryan Nation, HA!!! Assuming you could get live cell samples, the lab procedure will undoubtably be expensive, then there is the expense of raising children through college. A pretty far-fetched idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 10:46am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2319 of 2373)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Assuming you could produce identical environments, each child would still be unique. Even if no one else could tell them apart they [the children] could.
I really do not understand why there is a religious objection to cloning. Can someone stop and explain it?
There is a valid reason to stop Mr. Seed's venture; That being that I don't see how we [the empirical "we"] have enough knowledge to justify human experimentation at this time.
As far as cloning doing away with natural selection; Please! The effect is going to be absolutely trivial if it exist in any measurable way at all. I posted this [your] argument a long time ago and was forced to retract it based on the evidence of a world population exceeding five billion individuals! (i.e., People will breed in the face of any logic!)
I also, BTW, stand firmly against farming organs from viable individuals. When, and if, (won't happen without research) discreet organs can be grown then that [growing discreet organs] would be fine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Trabaudo - 11:04am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2320 of 2373)
One test is worth a thousand opinions.
Conner, your question on "does DNA age" hits the heart of the matter. The matter is not the question, which I too am curious about, but the questioning behind the matter - curiousity. There are so many unanswered questions about cloning that curiousity alone will drive this to the brink.
Seed et. al. are curiuos. So are we.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Yardly - 11:06am Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2321 of 2373)
Open Question:
The topic header at the top of the page refers to an "Atlantean Odyssey". Can anyone make sence of this reference; they seem to be saying that cloning has something to do with Atlantis? I don't get it.
(as someone said: hmmmmm?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 02:58pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2322 of 2373)
Glenn Curry: If you don't or can't know about it, then whether it exists or not is totally irrelvant.
So trying to convince someone that it doesn't exist is just as bad as trying to convince them that it does exist.
Glenn Curry: Modern string theory operates in 10 dimensions.
A dimension in physics is just an attribute. What he's saying is that we don't account for all attributes (ie mystical ones) when doing physics. In a sense he is correct -- we don't account for any emergent behaviour. Physics doesn't explain what life is nor how it comes about from inanimate matter.
Glenn Curry: Are you suggest that humans should be cloned to allow harvesting of their organs?
It sounds like you have a habit of misinterpreting posts. Judging from his last posts, he probably means cloning just the organs, not the entire human being.
Glenn Curry: please provide passages in which the bible says the earth is round.
This is something I heard way back when. You'll have to go to an original Hebrew text for it. I don't know if any of the English translations get it right. Cliff, if you're around, do you know anything about this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 02:58pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2323 of 2373)
Glenn Curry: 2) If it was germs that caused it, why did the perfect word of your god mistakenly say it was because of the sticks?
Please don't say it's my god. My god is not perfect.
Glenn Curry: You just don't get it do you? Perfect is perfect. Either it is or it isn't. And the bible isn't.
No, you just don't get it. You act like the religious zealots that you seem to hate so much. You even pool in the "truly" religious into this hate group.
I'm not gonna waste my time trying to prove to you something that you obviously don't believe. My point all along is that beliefs cannot be dictated. They may change due to certain events, but a head on tactic like yours never works.
Tina Leung: <<Until everyone says yes to cloning, cloning of humans will always be a subject of discusion. >>
I don't think we all have to be for cloning. A portion of us (my guess is about 13%) must embrace it, though, if it is to be a major part of our society.
Terra: heliocentrisim had more of an impact on the religious beliefs of society.
Actually, I think it's geocentrism that's central to some religious beliefs. Besides, according to the Big Bang Theory, the Earth (along with everything else) is the center of the universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 02:58pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2324 of 2373)
JAY WELLS: Bypassing the efficiency of mother nature's natural selection, will eventually lead to the end of man...
Only if we don't provide for what nature gives us. IOW, the mess that we call the genetic code provide such flexibility so as to adapt to new situations (ie diseases and other environmental concerns.) If we take this flexibility out (ie get rid of the junk code -- introns) we'll become weaker in the long run.
Annelore Rasco: human cloning spells the end of any moral standard, the breaking down of the last barrier, or tabu, of ultimate violation of inviolable laws of nature (see the consequences in Isaiah 24 because of verses 5 and 6).
I can see "less moral" technologies such as using nanotechnology to create a human being from raw materials.
Lyndsey Dettmann: To kill a human for it's organs just to save another is really stupid. This must be banned!!!
It already is (in the US anyway.)
Paul Belcastro: Is a clone an exact copy? Genetically, yes.
This is questionable. Mutations can occur that would create a genetically different clone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 02:59pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2325 of 2373)
Conner McKaye: One of the more interesting questions asked by the guys who cloned the sheep in Scotland, and still unanswered (to the best of my knowledge) is this: Does DNA age?
Yes, do a search on telemeres.
James Pope: Surely death is just an outdated human concept that we cling to in the same way the religious zealots cling to the bible for security. If we must 'kill' human bodies for the specific purpose of using there organs for transplants then what is the real problem?
I've wondered this myself. It stems from our feelings of what is right and what is wrong. These feelings (to my knowledge) are completely subjective. IOW, why not place some criteria to judge who gets to live? The answer: it's not right. But why isn't it right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:07pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2326 of 2373)
Daniel Bentley: If two children, one the original, one a clone, the originating cell taken from the original in very basic zygote form or such, were brought up in scientifically established, exact environments, just -how- similiar would the two be?
What's the point? They wouldn't be in a natural environment. No knowledge would be gained about nature vs nurture.
Daniel Bentley: If humans are nothing but a bunch of explainable, pre-determined genetic strands with influence from outside stimuli, would these two grow -exactly- alike?
Humans are not predeterministic in that sense. Your genes have no knowledge that you'll lose your eyesight in a car accident at the age of eighteen for example. Such occurrences has profound influences on your personality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 03:07pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2327 of 2373)
Jeff Trabaudo 1/14/98 11:04am
There are so many unanswered questions about cloning that curiousity alone will drive this to the brink.
Jeff. I agree. I questioned why Seed called a press conference to announce his intentions at such an early stage, but after thinking it through it became apparent that someone somewhere will proceed with the experimentation and Seed simply wants to be known as the first. And it may already be too late.
No doubt, the debate over the morality of cloning a human will still be raging even as someone actually accomplishes it - and the debate may never end, but at least it will become more informed as we learn what the real possibilities are.
As for Seed, I think he or someone like him should be allowed to move ahead with this, and I think it would be best if their work was done in the light of day. It is important that the information gathered be available to others who may follow in order to avoid repeating the mistakes which will inevitably occur if the maps of those who traveled this road first are not made public.
Perhaps the issue of morality is lost on me. We have been keeping people alive by artificial means for years, so what's the big deal about experimenting with the conception process as well?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 03:28pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2328 of 2373)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
Earlier Keith Fosberg wrote :
I really do not understand why there is a religious objection to cloning. Can someone stop and explain it?
I think it boils down to the belief that "only god can create life". In essence religions are uncomfortable with the fact that cloning works in the first place, as it violates that principle. Getting around this contradictions produces all sorts of interesting responses.
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 03:35pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2329 of 2373)
Hmmm. Interesting theory Mark. But strictly speaking, cloning is more about DEFINING life than actually creating it. At this point all anyone is doing is attempting to bring the pre-existing raw materials together in a new way...
But I can see how people in some circles would have trouble understanding the distinction, and so your point is well taken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:39pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2330 of 2373)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
OK, but cloning is not "creating" life in the sense of "Special Creation" whereby complete living entities are formed from non-animate matter (from clay, I believe?)
Cloning is just a new, and potentialy very interesting, method of artificial conception.
I am actually more interested in the means than the results. Being able to "undiferentiate" an adult cell is at least the begining of a technology to manipulate the growth of cellular bodies with usefull precission. Technology springing from this could lead to extrordinary health care methodologies.
Just imagine being able to get a shot (probably a "carrier/messenger" virus) to cure a cancer!
Hi Noel! What the heck happened to "our" forum??!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Glaser - 04:07pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2331 of 2373)
I'm all for cloning. Apparently everyone doesn't see the immediate benefits of cloning. You could clone yourself and raise your clone to be the "bread winner" while you then have the time to relax. If you're clone gets tired of working you could switch for a while. Have to be in two places at the same time, no problem!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 04:12pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2332 of 2373)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Is that a "troll" argument Tom? Sounds like a new version of child slavery to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Bauman - 04:27pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2333 of 2373)
Center For Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine
Tom, I'm going to have to agree with Keith on that one. Everyone repeat after me COMPLETE HUMAN CLONE = person, Person = Person with RIGHTS. To a different post. You can't kill someone to harvest their organs. You know why by cause killing someone is murder. I'm reasonably sure thats already illegal. As far as organ harvesting goes. When it comes around, it will not be necessary to clone a complete human being to do so. Researchers a few months ago made cloned frogs without heads, same type of thing here. Although I would expect that transgenic clonings will probably be what will happen. Essential they engineer human DNA into sheep DNA and have the sheep grow with certain human organs. It may be possible to have sheep with specific people's DNA (you better believe this will only be for the rich for a long time). I'm sure that when technology gets to the point when organ harvesting does not involve growing anything with a human nervous system, most people will see the lack of ethical argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 04:49pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2334 of 2373)
Better Read Than Said.....
Unless cloning a man has already happened, aren't we talking about 18 or 20 years away? In the meantime should infertile couples be permitted to raise a cloned child? Homosexuals as well?
Harvesting infants is the reality. We still have many children that need parents to adopt them. should these infants be cloned for the marketplace? What if no one wants a cloned child? A cloned orphanage?
A lot of questions and we are still back to what we have now. Who should raise a child without real parents?
Harvesting body parts I am not ready to accept unless it doesn't involve cloning the whole person to get them. The thought is outrageous...and what about black markets? AAArrrrrrrrggggggggg!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Anderson - 04:56pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2335 of 2373)
The question of cloning of human beings is complicated enough without trying to determine what is in agreement with the divine. That is a matter of interpretation and there is nothing in the bible about clonning.
So we are left to determine if it is beneficial to humanity. I think that the benefits will far out weigh the adverse affects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 04:58pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2336 of 2373)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
Conner McKaye 1/14/98 3:35pm and Keith Fosberg 1/14/98 3:39pm Just to clarify here, in my previous post (Mark McGann 1/14/98 3:28pm) I was just describing the basic reasons I think religion tends to object to cloning. I certainly don't agree with the religious viewpoint; I think it's like objecting to airplanes because you don't want to believe man can fly.
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 05:13pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2337 of 2373)
You never know, "Thy shalt not clone thyself" may be included in 47 Commandments of the New Modern Revised Bible. Right between "Thy shalt not scan thy neighbor's cell phone calls" and "Thy shalt not make unauthorized copies of Microsoft products..."
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hensley - 05:14pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2338 of 2373)
Ruby, what are you talking about? The babies will not be cloned to fill up the marketplace for potential adopters, they will be cloned for couples that are infertile (who have the big bucks to pay for it). The baby's parents will be the mother and father that it is born to.
I find cloning babies for infertile couples very fascinating. It'll be very interesting to see just how much environment differs the cloned baby's personality from the person cloned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 05:17pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2339 of 2373)
Mark McGann 1/14/98 4:58pm
It's cool. I understood what you were saying and why.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 05:31pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2340 of 2373)
Better Read Than Said.....
Jon Hensley:
I'm talking about America where people kidnap children and sell them on the underground market and we never hear of them or find them... how much more valuable is a cloned child. I'm thinking of the illegal black marketing of children. Some women are mothers, some are out to sell themselves for any reason. Are you in the real world?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 05:46pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2341 of 2373)
Ruby Pool 1/14/98 5:31pm
Oh, I get it. Like Drew Barrymore. She was such a cute kid. If they were selling clones of her, everybody would want one. Kind of a status symbol thing. My daughter, Drew Barrymore no. 8654971...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hensley - 05:53pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2342 of 2373)
Ruby,
I don't think a cloned child would be any more expensive than a non-cloned child in the black market. They're just another baby to potential buyers. And anyway, the amount of press that a kidnapped cloned baby would get (especially in the first few years of cloning babies) would deter anyone from buying him/her and would probably result in the kidnapper being apprehended quicker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 05:57pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2343 of 2373)
And what about guys who want their kids to be star athletes? I have a friend who was an all-state football star in his day. To his dismay, his sons who he pushed very hard to be athletes, never really won the Heisman Trophy or anything.
Once he commented, "if I'd been thinking I would have married a 6 foot 5 black woman."
Imagine what people like him would pay to raise a Michael Jordan clone as their son. "Yep, that's MY boy!!" The bragging rights would be incredible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 06:06pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2344 of 2373)
I see a big new area of business here!! Celebrity clones. 25 years ago actors were insisting that royalties for video tape distribution and cable syndication be included in their contracts. Imagine the royalties they could derive from the sale of clones...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hensley - 06:15pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2345 of 2373)
Conner,
You're assuming that MJ would freely give up his cells and would agree to have a clone of himself walking (or dribbling) around. Also, environment would play a very large role in the athletic development of the cloned athlete. You would have to emulate the conditions that Michael grew up in (training, role models, inspiration, etc.) and you still may not get the results you're looking for. Once the kid found out what he was made for he may rebel against it and do something totally different with his life so he could prove his own individuality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 06:22pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2346 of 2373)
Better Read Than Said.....
Jon:
I'm just offering 'what ifs' for debate. Cloning can be for good or evil and it's very possible we could get saddled with both extremes.
Conner: You've got the picture and I like your quick to catch on style. How many more what ifs can we come up with? We may have all the potentials on file before they happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:39pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2347 of 2373)
Ruby Pool, in your hypothetical blackmarket baby-mill scenario, you are forgetting that people can already make babies for the blackmarket, created the old fashion way--and if it's economics you're considering, doing it the old fashion way (1 man-1 woman) is free vs. doing it in a petri dish at a high-priced lab.
Anyway, to produce a cloned baby, you STILL need a womb. It's not like you can spread the embryos on a cookie sheet and pop them in an oven, Pilsbury cookie style.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:43pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2348 of 2373)
Conner McKaye, celebrities (and non-celebrities) can already donate sperm. Can they license their sperm? I doubt it. Cloning is the logical progression of technology after sperm donation, in-vitro fertilization, and surrogate pregnancy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip D'Amato - 08:11pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2349 of 2373)
We are mortals not Gods.Human beings should not be undergoing cloning at this time.We need to step back and have a cooling off period.A hypothetical question for the board is presented now.What if the CLONES become mutated somehow?Murphy's Law is always in affect boys and girls.They could go on a rampage and star a sperate mutant race?Blade runner revisted?The point is we are not met to tamper with the work of the Gods.As The Titanic was UNSINKABE in its day ,and the USA thinks cloning is perfect?There were dozens of mutant Dollies folks!Think about that before we go down the path.A old teacher of mind once stated:Boys and Girls THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH THE GOOD INTENTIONS OF MEN AND WHAT PASSES AS THEIR LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 09:33pm Jan 14, 1998 ET (#2350 of 2373)
Better Read Than Said.....
c.dat:
Have you ever heard of wombs for hire? There are greedy women who will do anything for the money. Money has replaced morals in our society, with the right offer, there are people who will find a way. Did the atomic bomb stay in the hands that produced it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Abrashoff - 01:06am Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2351 of 2373)
There seems to be a terrible misunderstanding of exactly what cloning is. In natural pregnancy, an egg cell, which has 1/2 of the females' genetic code, is fertalized by a sperm cell, which has 1/2 of the fathers' genetic code. These two halves form one whole and a human being develops. In cloning, the whole is simply made up of two halves from the same code, thus creating a copy of that code. Other than that, the entire birth and life of the clone is similar to anybody elses life. All this talk about mutant clones and master races is just silly. With the further development of genetic engineering, genetic traits could be determined before birth, but not with cloning. Cloning simply duplicates what is already there PHYSICALLY. Clones could no more be used for spare parts than any person, nor or they evil, soulless beings. If you met a cloned person at a party, they would seem as normal to you as anyone else you could meet and indeed they would be. The comparison of clones to twins is right on the money because that is exactly what a clone is, not a freak, not a monster, and not a superior being, just another Joe off the street.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaewon shin - 01:10am Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2352 of 2373)
we have been thinking that 21c'dream was cloning. But we have never thought that it is good or bad ethically. Now, I want to say that we are enough to wise to think sothing is right or not. It is the time that we should estimate our concept which is far from our real idea that we have been thinking it is right. We have the obilegation that we should live right and do the right thing,because we are human. I hope that you had better look back on your life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
john neuman - 05:24am Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2353 of 2373)
Cloning would require a willing recipient. If one has the fear of someone developing a master race, then there would have to be many wombs available for the embryo to grow. I think then, that one need not fear the theoretical master race of years past. I do fear clones made of an individual so he/she could use parts to prolonge their own existence. Say a failing heart that could be replaced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 05:56am Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2354 of 2373)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
To the old guard:
Not bad. We have the uasual freeks that go with a CNN story, but I think we will get a few serious contributers to this group from the latest new crop.
I look foreward to a lull in the news stories so we can find out who really cares.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A O'Neal - 05:57am Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2355 of 2373)
Well my spelling sucks but the idea is right.
WE ARE NOT TO PLAY WITH GODS WORK.
The Beast that "WAS" & now is "NOT" Yet will be "AGAIN" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
that which stands in the way holding him back? could it techknowlagey?
If god created man giving him a new spirit at conception and he die's and we clone him will god give the clone a new spirit or will he alow him the to have the old one????????????
Wizz!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 11:39am Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2356 of 2373)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
New person, new soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Evans - 11:43am Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2357 of 2373)
Carl (#2354):
I read a story somewhere about a month ago about some scientists that had cloned parts of frogs. Just a circulatory system, lungs, and enough of a nervous system to keep it all running. I don't think that these creations can be considered sentient, since they have no brain, but they could be used to clone an individual's organs. Being diabetic, I see a great benefit to this. If I could clone my pancreas and have it transplanted, theoretically I could cure this disease, which, is a real pain in the butt. I think that ideas like this are what could make cloning a very powerful and useful technology in the future. The ethical questions surrounding this are sticky, and I don't feel qualified enough to debate them. Ah well. Just my 2 cents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 11:52am Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2358 of 2373)
I see a big new area of business here!! Celebrity clones. 25 years ago actors were insisting that royalties for video tape distribution and cable syndication be included in their contracts. Imagine the royalties they could derive from the sale of clones...
It kind of puts the old expression "no skin off my ass" in a different light doesn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 01:02pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2359 of 2373)
Conner McKaye, #2358--celebrities selling their DNA? So what? They can already sell their sperm or eggs if they want to. To my knowledge, there's no big market now for celebrity sperm/eggs.
Ruby Pool, I already addressed the issue of "wombs for hire". Woman are already capable of renting their wombs for the baby black market by gestating a conventionally fetrilized embryo.
If it's money these women are after (you described them as "greedy"), why on earth would they go thru the trouble of gestating a clone? It's got to be more expensive to produce a clone embryo in a lab than to spend 10 in a motel room w/ a male stud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 01:06pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2360 of 2373)
john neuman, a cloned human being is a HUMAN BEING--there are already laws prohiting the sale of organs. Likewise, there are already laws prohiting the involuntary captivity/torture of people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 01:59pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2361 of 2373)
Why all the talk about producing a master race/selective breeding? Last time I checked, 99.9999% of the people on this planet selectively breed--they choose their own mates or their family chooses for them.
Non-selective breeding exists only in the lurid pages of men's magazines where readers share their stories of how hot! hot! hot! beautiful women spontaneously jump their bones in some unlikely puplic place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha'zeus Christos - 02:44pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2362 of 2373)
I am YHWH, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I am the one who brought you out of Egypt. I breathed the breath of life into man. It is only I who can create life. THUS SAITH THE LORD:
I hereby grant my creation the right to clone themselves at will, provided you don't do anything evil like kill clones or "the fertilized" unless they are braindead. Anyone who preaches against my holy word will be cast into the Lake of Fire. ALSO, stop taking my name in vain to elect fat-cat Republican politicians, see the Lake of Fire provision above.
Sincerely,
Yahweh Elohim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Brunner - 03:40pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2363 of 2373)
Like all things, Cloning can be good or bad. Is it too soon to decide? I think Yes. We may be able to clone the average Joe. But we have not yet been able to manipulate all the nessesary genes to make the "perfect" human. What is the perfect human? There can't be one. Everyone has their own idea of what is perfection. That's almost 6 billion different versions of the perfect human. Hitler's dream to have a perfect human race was ok. Killing millions of people was not. Besides if there is one version of a human they would all develop hemophilia or something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 04:16pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2364 of 2373)
Better Read Than Said.....
To the questions, does a clone have a soul? A live clone is a soul, just as a live human is a soul. The breath of life made mankind a living soul. God created a living soul which produced souls. Man has not created a living soul, but will use the life cell to reproduce the soul when and if clones are produced. Does mankind have a spirit? The breath is the spirit, without breath there would be no spirit.
Will a clone have the Holy Spirit? That will between the creator of the life cell and the clone.
If any scientist disagrees, I would be happy to hear from the experts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Macklin - 05:54pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2365 of 2373)
Can anyone really be serious that cloning may be a good thing? Come on lets have some serious thought here. Its not only the ethical and moral grounds we have to consider. Is it really necessary? Many falsely believe that cloning can put an end to disease such as cancer and degenerative conditions such as Huntingdons, but would you be able, let alone willing, to see another human being, which is what a human clone would be, cut up, dissected and distributed to all and sundry simply to save other human lives? What of the life of the clone, or will they be created with no brain therefore no ability to feel or comprehend the horror that another human being is about to subject it to. Would you be the person to administer the first cut? Technology has already gone too far. Cloning humans and animals should never be allowed to happen for any reason. If whatever God you believe in had meant for you to live forever he would have given you eternal life. Leave the cloning and be content with what you have. You are your experiences, enjoy the ones you were fated to have. Annie (UK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tharp - 06:00pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2366 of 2373)
We have no idea what we are messing with here. We are not God and should not pretend to be.There are some things better left undone. Is nothing sacred?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 06:11pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2367 of 2373)
Anna Sylvia Villegas: My Spanish is not good, but I believe you were asking about the procedure of cloning and who the clone's parents are. The procedure is to take DNA from a man or woman, and insert it in the egg of a woman (who could be the same woman as the DNA donor). The DNA of the egg, which is only half of the woman's allotment, would be removed. By scientific tricks, the egg will think it has been fertilized by a sperm, it will divide, and the embryo be placed in the woman's womb to develop for nine months and be born by the normal route. This womb could be supplied by the DNA donor, the egg donor, or be a third person. One woman could be the source of all three.
The biological mother and father are the parents of the DNA donor. The birth mother is the one who gives birth. The egg donor does contribute her mitochondrial DNA, but that doesn't code for any of the factors that might incluence personality, so I'd guess she hasn't any role at all. The legal parents are the ones who adopt and raise the child, probably the ones who "ordered" the clone.
Connor McKaye, Noel Yap: Today we learn that scientists can reinsert the telomerase gene and rejunenate old cells. Another possibility is to use DNA from germ cells (oogonia and spermatogonia) before the meiotic or reduction division has taken place. Although these cells are more difficult to collect than blood, they would be the best source for cloning, since the telomeres are the original size. If the infertile parents (and only one member of an infertile couple is usually infertile) doesn't have such cells, I believe that bone marrow stem cells also have long telomeres.
Noel and Cliff: Are you familiar with the evolutionary theory of "punctuated equilibrium?" It has been around for 20 years, but I have been out of grad school for 30, so I didn't study it. I am trying to read up on it and understand it now.
c. dat: People who would like to clone themselves don't always think they are pe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:19pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2368 of 2373)
Jill Tharp, "We have no idea what we are messing with here." True. But people had similar concerns at the advent of in-vitro fertilization technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:23pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2369 of 2373)
Anne Macklin, "Cloning humans and animals should never be allowed to happen for any reason."
How about cloning endangered species?
"would you be able, let alone willing, to see another human being, which is what a human clone would be, cut up, dissected and distributed to all and sundry simply to save other human lives?"
It's already against the law to do this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Rachmuth - 06:23pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2370 of 2373)
The way our reproductive system is set up is to mix chromosomes from both the mother and the father to create a new person. The way our bodies are created is not in the macro sense but in the micro sense. the genes that are on these chromosomes code for proteins not organs, and so new ways of making these proteins are essential to confuse various viruses and bacteria which attack them. Cloning bypasses this mixing property and allows the bacteria way more time than it needs to break the code and destroy our bodies. In short, a cloned person, especially in the vacinity of the person cloned, will not last. The whole notion is useless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:25pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2371 of 2373)
Guy Rachmuth, agreed that there is a high failure rate assoc w/ producing a cloned mammal. But it IS possible. Dolly is the proof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tharp - 06:59pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2372 of 2373)
c.dat - I realize that we have the scientific knowledge to accomplish these things. My point is that this is only one small part of the equation. Do we not have a moral obligation to say yes we can do this but SHOULD we be doing this"? Just because we can does not mean we should. I remember well a line from the original Jurassic Park - the mathmetician who was hired to go with the original group to the island said - We were so busy figuring out if we could do it that we forgot to ask if we should be doing it?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
keeoon jang - 09:19pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2373 of 2373)
Okay parents can't have children, and they decide to clone themselves, and when the kid is old enough to know that he is a clone of his or her parents, i mean the kid is goign to freak!! I mean i would freak, i'd kill myself!! such trama!!!on the child ..
(only one deleted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
keeoon jang - 09:19pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2372 of 2421)
Okay parents can't have children, and they decide to clone themselves, and when the kid is old enough to know that he is a clone of his or her parents, i mean the kid is goign to freak!! I mean i would freak, i'd kill myself!! such trama!!!on the child ..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Driver - 10:53pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2373 of 2421)
Jill Tharp: That is the question. Should we clone? Let's stop to think. God made one of us. If it were God's will to have two of us, He would have made two. Does that mean he's opposed to cloning? I don't really think it matters if we clone or not. Armageddon will be here soon anyway, so I submit that man can do whatever evil thing he wishes. It will be no good for him in the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:57pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2374 of 2421)
Better Read Than Said.....
It seems to me that the Creator of the universe would be amused and pleased that his creations would want to create and build on what he has done. Isn't this part of life...from the pyramids to the spaceshuttles. From heart valves to cloning. Creation is life and growth, not stagnation and death.
Being creative is what we are about...it is what brought us to this age of electronics and beyond. If we think about it, it is mind boggling. There is a spirit within those who dare to create the unthinkable...from skydiving to the ocean floor.
If we limit ourselves aren't we limiting our Creator? What if the stoneage people didn't want to build a wheel.
I'm soaring on air...shouldn't have ate that donut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kelly driver - 11:10pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2375 of 2421)
'beatlchic' writes:
Well then...!
I would certainly like to put in an order for (3)three of My Very Own Paul McCartney clones.. thank you very much.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 11:19pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2376 of 2421)
Life is just a handy way for DNA to reproduce itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MollieO - 11:47pm Jan 15, 1998 ET (#2377 of 2421)
Maybe the question should be WHY. What possible good could come out of cloning a human?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 12:12am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2378 of 2421)
Better Read Than Said.....
MollieO:
WHY? Why when we are soaring over the thought of a new idea in science, does someone have to ask a common-sense question and pop our hot air balloon?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A O'Neal - 02:13am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2379 of 2421)
If we alow the cloning of a living person who's to say we wont clone the dead! Or better yet how about a MUMMY an ancient KING!
The "ONE" who was and "NOW IS NOT" yet will "BE AGAIN"
IT'S TIME WE RETHINK THIS MATTER!
With Love, Wizz!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A O'Neal - 02:32am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2380 of 2421)
Oh how The mighty nation founded on God turns in the gate
She wounders throuw the earth seaching for gold She kills the poor people of old She takes off her robes ecsposing her filth Only if she know just where she unrobes
"She takes hold of her demise as thow it's the cure" She forsakes the vary word which founded her base
Oh ye mighty nation founded on my word, put back the stone put back the stone for your strangth is all gone your understanding lays waste your enimys all conspier aginst your ruled place. Your doors were all open and your enimy has come in. Blinded by greed you'v rotted your seed you'v sold your land as if you had need I gave you all and stood you up tall I nerished your land with the love of my hand Ya you tuned from me as if to flee You thow off my hand as it were from your land You split in my face as thow you had a place
Now your time has come.
Put back the stone. Put back the stone.
With Love, Wizz!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Argento - 09:46am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2381 of 2421)
Wow, what an emotional topic. All this talk about God and morality, yadda, yadda, yadda. When a family refuses medical treatment for a child based on their "religious beliefs", the courts order the child treated. If the child dies, the parents/guardians are tried for neglegence/abuse/involuntary manslaughter. Why, because they reject medical technology/ knowledge? Our ability to develop new technology accelerates at a far greater pace than the pace of our social/mental development. To overcome our fear of the unknown. Cloning is scary, but let's not burn the advocates at the stake. Throughout history there have always been a percentage of people too scared to change. Preaching doom and gloom. Let's not hear any, "If God intended human's to become the creator.." Well, why did God give us the knowledge we have? Technology isn't a threat, its the misuse of technology that's threatening. And that points right back at the frailty of man. Man's insecurity and fear drives his quest for power and control. Fear drives man to feel the need to protect not only himself, but others from themselves. So we create laws we that meet our own value systems, not necessarily effective laws. And we force others to comply. When its politically unsafe to challenge those laws, those disagreeing go underground. Some of us get frustrated and use other means to force our "righteous" opinions on others. See "Unabomber". Fear is never a good reason to discount an opinion, issue, etc. However, its good reason to discuss the subject. A rational decision is possible, and just maybe a possible side benefit would be the realization of human fear as a motivator. Some individuals may evolve into rational, thinking humans who balance out their emotion with intelect. Its obvious from reading these boards to identify those who "react emotionally" and those who pause and proactively think objectively before adding their opinion. Much more discussion is required before we come to a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
humphrey hans - 09:55am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2382 of 2421)
I am not a scientist. I hear human cloning but to be frank I don't understand what is it. Can you please explain briefly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 10:04am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2383 of 2421)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
This board has really heated up since Seed's anouncement! I do think there is a very serious ethical problem here, but would not define it as "playing God."
This [ethics of Cloning for reproduction] has a similar ethical root issue as does abortion; to wit., At what point does a collection of cells become a person?
We all draw a line somewhere on this and there is no absolute authority on where that line goes. In the absense of intent (accidental pregnancy) the "line" is generally (although not exclusively) drawn with respect to the viability of the fetus.
In cloning to reproduce we have intent. In this case I think that every egg must be considered to have the potential to become a person. Therefore unwarrented risk of that potential is un-ethical.
I don't conclude that this rules out cloning by deffinition, but in the case where far more proven and dependable methodologies exist to assist procreation in otherwise barren parents I think the use of an unproven , experimental methodology [cloning] is completely unwarrented.
There is no major ethical dilema involved in destroying a couple hundred potential sheep in an experiment, but there is a very obvious ethical dilema in destroying a couple hundred potential people in an experiment.
In summation, the science of cloning is simply to new and unproven to advance to human experimentation at this time. Seed should sit down, shut up and let those with some actual ethics do their work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nyi Nyi Htun & Zar Ye - 10:14am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2384 of 2421)
This is improvement of sicence . Who can deny it!!!!!!! GO AHEAD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill B - 10:44am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2385 of 2421)
God created Eve when he made a clone from Adams rib and modified the DNA to ensure that she would be a she. He didn't take a whole rib - probably just a cell.
Jesus was born of a virgin. Probably cloning or bottom-to-top genetic engineering. The latter we haven't begun to approach technologically.
God has set us a task from the beginning of Mankind and again from the beginning of Christianity. He has shown the way through His example. It has taken us until now to perceive his concealed purpose. We have been told to go forth and multiply. We have been shown, by His example, how to achieve this. Do not challenge Gods Will - Let the cloning begin!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 11:14am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2386 of 2421)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Don't get me wrong, I am all for research involving cloning, I just think that human experimentation is premature at this time. Seed's anouncement is little more than an egotistical publicity stunt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 11:15am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2387 of 2421)
Better Read Than Said.....
Stephen Argento: "Technology isn't a threat, it's the missuse of technology that is threatening."
Keith Fosberg: " In this case, I think every egg must be considered to have the potential to become a person."
Bill B. "He (God) has shone the way through His example."
Good words of wisdom for consideration gentlemen!
The technology to create a person is here...a lump of cells is already what it is going to be...we have been given the example...and God saw that it was good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 11:57am Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2388 of 2421)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
Guy Rachmuth 1/15/98 6:23pm A flaw is this rational is that cloning will become the predominate form of reproduction. I don't know about everyone else, but I'd prefer to reproduce the old fashion way.
Jill Tharp 1/15/98 6:59pm You realise your citing a fictional movie as a reason not to clone people.
humphrey hans 1/16/98 9:55am Take a fertalized human egg, before it splits, and replace the original DNA with the DNA from another person. After that it's exactly like having an identical twin of the person cloned, except for the age difference.
Richard A O'Neal 1/16/98 2:13am Presuming its possible to clone the dead, what's the big deal? So someone clones a long dead pharo, what would he possibly get out of it and why would we possibly care?
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 01:52pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2389 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
I don't get back here often enough to stay current, but here goes. Ruby Pool 1/13/98 11:32pm you say "Glenn:
Your post was zipped away on the non-sense of 'day one creation"
I'm not sure which post, you don't specify, but:
"Day 1: There was only water without form and void, darkness covered the water.(deep)..."
WRONG: Actual passage Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
So we start with BOTH heaven and EARTH this would HAVE to be land and water. Maybe on your FLAT EARTH there is mainly water. But on the REAL EARTH it is mainly rock, most of which is molten. I don't know why I should bother going on if you can't even get the first passage from your idiot book correct.
"... Then light was produced and divided from the darkness. He called this day and night."
Since he didn't make the sun and moon and stars till Gen 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. ...19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
So where did this light come from? And minus a sun, what determined the length of the day? And ....
"Day 3: ... Then the earth brought forth, grass, herbs for seed and and fruit. (So on with creation....)"
Well, let's see. No sun for an entire day... Zero degrees Kalvin, some -400f Just how did the grass, herbs, fruit ... survive in a -400f environment?
"Regarding the flat earth...not bibical. If he took someone up and showed them the whole earth...up was above to the planets, called "lights" so the whole earth was seen."
You just really don't care what the bible actually says at all do you?
Matt 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Where was it? was it "above t
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 01:53pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2390 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Matt 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Where was it? was it "above to the planets"? NO, it was "an exceeding high mountain. Where? a mountain. Got that? a mountain. Facts kinda get in your way often?
Even if we allow for your lack of biblical knowedge and accept some interplanetary travel (that's a new one on me BTW!). OOPS wait a minute ... in reading BOTH contradictory versions of creation (Gen 1 and Gen 2) I fail to see ANY planets being created! You see, just like the ignorant concept of the moon GENERATING light, it merely REFLECTS light. NOT a SOURCE of light. So "lights" doesn't cut it for planets either. Oh well, so much for going to a planet eh? Guess in YOUR flat world there are no planets eh? But wait. let's ignore even that FACT and prtend that in Gen oh maybe 500? your god created planets and the printer of the bible just ran out of paper. So they go to this planet. gives them a view of the ENTIRE earth? Try this simple experiment. take a small ball. Mark a "1" on one spot. On exactly the opposite side (or reasonably close) mark a "2". Now hold it at arms length. Face the "1" centered towards you. Now how well do you see the "2"? Or are your balls flat too?
Ya can't win. The bible is WRONG. You can ignore this and all other REALITY as long as you like. It doesn't cover the ignorant mistakes of the bible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 02:05pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2391 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Bill B 1/16/98 10:44am you say "God created Eve when he made a clone from Adams rib and modified the DNA to ensure that she would be a she. He didn't take a whole rib - probably just a cell."
I love the way you Christers make this stuff up as you go. As science learns more, and the stupidity of the bible is increasingly shown, you try SOOO desparately to come up with explainations. the bible says Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs,...
Er how much of his rib was that? Try actually reading the stupid bible before you pretend to speak for it. Or try counting how many ribs a man and a woman have each. Guess what? If there was ANY truth behind the bible, the PEOPLE that wrote it were at least able to count that high. You should try it.
"We have been told to go forth and multiply. We have been shown, by His example, how to achieve this."
Let's see, Mary was a married virgin. So by "HIS" example, we should go out and rape married virgins? Clever! And I can claim it was based on my Xian beleifs, therefore protected by the !st Amendment! Looks like Friday Night is going to be more fun than usual!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill B - 02:28pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2392 of 2421)
Glen, don't get too excited. There are quite a few posts using biblical interpretions to oppose cloning. But as you implied, interpretions can be made up as necessary. I thought it would be fun to make up and interject an inane, but perfectly defensible, interpretion (defensible by some people anyway) countering the other interpretions - sorta' adding a +1 to a -1 to zero them out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Baker - 03:18pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2393 of 2421)
The travesty in the cloning hysteria is it blinds the public to the vast potential of genetic engineering, of which cloning is just a small portion. Genetic engineering, or recombinant DNA technology, is poised to revolutionize the practice of medicine. Current research indicates we will find improved treatments and possible cures for cancers, heart disease and AIDS using genetic engineering techniques. The primary application of cloning is in the breeding of animals which will provide materials used in the manufacture of pharmaceutics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:24pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2394 of 2421)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Glen,
Did you forget your medicine again? :)
You won't change any minds by whacking them with hammers. Personally I find this interesting:
... Then the earth brought forth, grass, herbs for seed and and fruit. ...
Kind of sounds like a prediction of evolutionary theory!
Two other things of note:
1.It would be 14o K, not 0 -- (but you knew that I imagine) 2.On Matt 4:8, you don't need a flat Earth if all of the kingdoms are in the middle east at the time :)
Anyway, as Bill said he was just trying to show that cloning is not evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:27pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2395 of 2421)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
That is so true Susan!
One of my primary disagreements with Seed's anouncement that he is going to open a "cloning clinic" is that the hysteria and fear will (in fact already has) cause a "knee jerk" reaction from government(s) that will hamper ligitimate research for years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:01pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2396 of 2421)
Conner McKaye: It is important that the information gathered be available to others who may follow in order to avoid repeating the mistakes which will inevitably occur if the maps of those who traveled this road first are not made public.
It is not the mistakes I'm worried about. It is the unforeseen consequences to society. I say, "Proceed with caution."
Conner McKaye: Perhaps the issue of morality is lost on me.
Morality is not an issue for me. People can use or not use the technology as they see fit.
Mark McGann: In essence religions are uncomfortable with the fact that cloning works in the first place, as it violates that principle.
We don't even have a good definition for "life." How can anyone say we are creating it?
Conner McKaye: cloning is more about DEFINING life than actually creating it.
How so?
Keith Fosberg: Hi Noel! What the heck happened to "our" forum??!!
Cliff just email'd me. He's laying low 'cos the CNN fascists won't allow completely free discussions on cloning and its tangeants (ie religion.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:01pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2397 of 2421)
Tom Glaser: I'm all for cloning. Apparently everyone doesn't see the immediate benefits of cloning. You could clone yourself and raise your clone to be the "bread winner" while you then have the time to relax. If you're clone gets tired of working you could switch for a while. Have to be in two places at the same time, no problem!
I hope this was a joke. But, assuming it's not:
0. All technology is supposed to alleviate work and eventually put us on permanent vacations.
1. There are laws against slavery in the US, anyway. You do bring a good point regarding other countries, tho ugh.
2. You'd now have two mouths to feed on one income.
Joe Bauman: I'm sure that when technology gets to the point when organ harvesting does not involve growing anything with a human nervous system, most people will see the lack of ethical argument.
Not the animal rights groups.
Gordon Anderson: So we are left to determine if it is beneficial to humanity. I think that the benefits will far out weigh the adverse affects.
Only if we proceed at a pace that society can handle. If we move too fast, we may disrupt any remaining balance we have.
Conner McKaye: Right between "Thy shalt not scan thy neighbor's cell phone calls" and "Thy shalt not make unauthorized copies of Microsoft products..."
That's covered by, "Thou shalt not steal."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:02pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2398 of 2421)
Ruby Pool: I'm talking about America where people kidnap children and sell them on the underground market and we never hear of them or find them
It's much easier to kidnap a child than to clone one.
Ruby Pool: ... how much more valuable is a cloned child.
I don't know. If you consider art, though, the original is worth much, much more.
Jon Hensley: You're assuming that MJ would freely give up his cells and would agree to have a clone of himself walking (or dribbling) around.
The black market is known to operate in illegal ways ;)
Ruby Pool: I'm just offering 'what ifs' for debate. Cloning can be for good or evil and it's very possible we could get saddled with both extremes.
Yes, this is very true.
Ruby Pool: How many more what ifs can we come up with? We may have all the potentials on file before they happen.
This is extremely important in avoiding dire consequences of this technology.
Phillip D'Amato: What if the CLONES become mutated somehow?
That's all a part of evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:02pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2399 of 2421)
Phillip D'Amato: They could go on a rampage and star a sperate mutant race?
I wonder where morals would lead us then? Then again, these mutants would probably be so indistinguishable from homosapiens that we wouldn't be able to tell.
Phillip D'Amato: Blade runner revisted?
Try, Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress.
Phillip D'Amato: the USA thinks cloning is perfect?
I don't think there are many that think it's perfect.
Phillip D'Amato: There were dozens of mutant Dollies folks!
And they all died.
Ruby Pool: Did the atomic bomb stay in the hands that produced it?
No, thank God it got in the right hands, too ;)
Nathan Abrashoff: All this talk about mutant clones and master races is just silly.
Although you got the generalities correct, the details leave some opening for mutant clones, etc. For example, a microbiologist (please correct me if I'm wrong, Dawn) had previously posted that about 10,000 of our cells mutate each day. One of these mutated cells could be used to produce the clone. Or, a mutation could occur just after fertilisation (if it's still called that.) For all we know, the lab conditions may promote mutations. So, considering our lack of understanding, I would label no idea as silly.