------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:03pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2400 of 2421)
Jaewon shin: But we have never thought that it is good or bad ethically.
If it benefits humanity in the short-term as well as the long-term, then it's good.
Jaewon shin: We have the obilegation that we should live right and do the right thing,because we are human.
We have the choice to live our lives the way we see fit. If we are judged in the end, it is based on those choices, not on any dictatorial rules we had to follow.
Ben Evans: If I could clone my pancreas and have it transplanted, theoretically I could cure this disease,
Wouldn't the clone also have this disease? Or does the environment contribute to diseases like diabetes?
Ruby Pool: If any scientist disagrees, I would be happy to hear from the experts.
Scientists don't have a definition for "soul" or "spirit" 'cos they would rather not delve into topics that aren't amenable to their methods. OTOH, I think we're approaching a good definition of "life" in terms of complexity and self-organisation. If "soul," "spirit," and "life" are equivalent, then perhaps scientists are about to step into the realm of mystics.
Anne Macklin: Can anyone really be serious that cloning may be a good thing?
Just as there are people who think it's a bad thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:04pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2401 of 2421)
Anne Macklin: If whatever God you believe in had meant for you to live forever he would have given you eternal life.
Isn't this what Jesus promises ;)
Jill Tharp: We have no idea what we are messing with here.
Which is why we should move with caution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:04pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2402 of 2421)
Dawn Willis: Noel and Cliff: Are you familiar with the evolutionary theory of "punctuated equilibrium?"
Punctuated equilibrium is the term given to periodic steady states in evolution (ie why we don't see new species sprouting up all the time.) From John Koza's (computer genetic programming) experiments, it's a natural consequence when a very good trait takes hold in about 13% of the population (~1/e2)
For example, a population (in genetic programming possibly a bunch of sorting functions) functions about equally well for a long time. Because of a mutation (usually cross-over) one individual out-performs the others and will then have a greater chance of reproducing (ie have its traits passed onto the next generation.) The average performance of the population will still be about the same as before until the trait is adopted by a critical percentage of the population (~13%.) At this point, the average performance would steadily increase until the trait has spread throughout the entire population. The performance would then have hit a new steady plateau. This whole thing keeps repeating so long as the test cases keep changing (ie the environment keeps changing.)
When you plot average performance vs time, you get something like a step function. This is punctuated equilibrium -- equilibrium punctuated by quasi-periodic transition phases.
This is what The Encyclopedia of Evolution has to say:
"'Punk eek' views species populations as systems that display recurrent patterns of evolution. Rather than the smooth, gradual change imagined by Darwin -- now known as 'gradualism' -- Gould and Eldredge suggested species tend to remain stable, changing little over long periods of time. (The system is then in 'stasis' or 'equilibrium.') Eventually, that stability is 'punctuated' by an episode of rapid change."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:05pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2403 of 2421)
keeoon jang: such trama!!!
This is all part of transition phases. We can't prevent change (nor should we.) But we can do our best to ease their effects. For example, I went through some trauma growing up as a minority, wearing glasses, being smaller than other kids, ... It's all part of life -- my life. Looking back, it's part of what made me me. I wouldn't give it up for anything.
Ruby Pool: 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.
It's illogical to personify God (or any non-human system for that matter.)
Ruby Pool: Creation is life and growth, not stagnation and death.
Yes, and no. Death is part of life. One's death is the start of another's life.
Ruby Pool: If we limit ourselves aren't we limiting our Creator? What if the stoneage people didn't want to build a wheel.
I agree.
Stephen Argento: Our ability to develop new technology accelerates at a far greater pace than the pace of our social/mental development.
I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:05pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2404 of 2421)
Stephen Argento: Technology isn't a threat, its the misuse of technology that's threatening.
Again, I agree.
Stephen Argento: Fear is never a good reason to discount an opinion, issue, etc. However, its good reason to discuss the subject.
Third time's a charm :)
Keith Fosberg: At what point does a collection of cells become a person?
Or, more generally, at what point does life begin? To use Capra's definition, when the system is self-organising. Of course, now that I think about it, there doesn't seem to be a definitive line that marks when this begins -- life seems to develop gradually.
Keith Fosberg: 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.
I completely agree.
Nyi Nyi Htun & Zar Ye: This is improvement of sicence . Who can deny it!!!!!!! GO AHEAD
My that's a long name ;) It's only an improvement if it's an improvement. If we move too fast, we might lose a lot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:05pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2405 of 2421)
Keith Fosberg: 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.
In one of my earlier posts I had said that if we move too fast, society might not accept the technology and thereby prematurely end its introduction. Nonlinear systems are funny this way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Baker - 04:25pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2406 of 2421)
Keith Fosberg 1/16/98 3:27pm
I can't for the life of me figure out how Seed got on NPR, because he's a hoax. Technology to clone humans does not exist at this time.
There are regulatory requirements in any research, and I called the FDA the day after Seed's interview, and was told that he has not filed the appropriate documentation with the FDA for human research. I was also told the Chicago bureau (FDA) was on the lookout for him, and if he did conduct experiments, he would end up in court. Not because of any ethical implications, but because there are mundane administrative procedures that must be followed in all research.
Hence, I'm pretty sure Seed was pulling everyone's leg. Violating FDA procedure is a pretty serious situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 05:15pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2407 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Keith Fosberg 1/16/98 3:24pm you say "Glen, Did you forget your medicine again? :)"
It's GlenN dammit! :-)
Actually my medicine causes halucinations. I start to hear voices. I see burning bushes. Last time I wound up with these gold tablets with a series of truisms on them. Now what the hell will I do with them? I'm thinking of writing a book about it.
"Kind of sounds like a prediction of evolutionary theory!'
Kinda hard to predict something after it's already happened. I mean 3,000 years ago was some 12 billion years into it already. OK, predicting something AFTER it has happened is actually quite easy. Bible authors did it all the time.
"1.It would be 14o K, not 0 -- (but you knew that I imagine)"
Not without the BB it wouldn't
"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 :)"
At least to the ignorant savages of the bible I guess. It's all POV isn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 05:20pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2408 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Noel Yap 1/16/98 4:04pm you say "Isn't this what Jesus promises"
I don't know, there are a couple dozen in the local phone book, which should I call to find out?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:35pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2409 of 2421)
GlenN, I'm glad you lightened up some.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 05:37pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2410 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Noel Yap 1/16/98 5:35pm you say "GlenN, I'm glad you lightened up some"
Good food and regular exercise did it for me, 20 lbs now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:37pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2411 of 2421)
GlenN, I'm glad you lightened up some.
And according to one of the other message boards, you're going back into space ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:38pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2412 of 2421)
Aaagh, you caught me before I appended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 05:40pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2413 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Noel Yap 1/16/98 4:05pm you say "Or, more generally, at what point does life begin? To use Capra's definition, when the system is self-organising."
Water always seeks it's level. This would qualify it wouldn't it?
And if you ever saw my sock drawer ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 05:42pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2414 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Noel Yap 1/16/98 5:37pm you say "And according to one of the other message boards, you're going back into space ;)"
Ya, me and my brother John
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:43pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2415 of 2421)
Glenn Curry: Water always seeks it's level. This would qualify it wouldn't it?
No, once the water is hits it's level, everything is in static equilibrium. Life occurs far from static equilibrium. For example, if there were no life on Earth, there'd be no free oxygen 'cos all of it would've reacted with other elements by now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 05:44pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2416 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Noel Yap 1/16/98 5:38pm you say "Aaagh, you caught me before I appended."
ah ha, getting an append-echtamy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:46pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2417 of 2421)
Glenn, I guess you took you medication after all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 05:47pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2418 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Noel Yap 1/16/98 5:43pm you say "No, once the water is hits it's level, everything is in static equilibrium."
Now your adding conditions. Your first statement only addressed organization. not continuum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:49pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2419 of 2421)
Glenn Curry: Now your adding conditions. Your first statement only addressed organization. not continuum
Well, I didn't want to go into a long schpeel (sp?) about complex, open systems lying far from static equilibrium. I've gone into it a few weeks back. If you want to read more, try Fritjof Capra's book The Web of Life and any of his sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 06:16pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2420 of 2421)
Better Read Than Said.....
Glenn:
I posted a response, but forgot to copy before I posted and the whole post was zipped away as usual. Happens so much it's frustrating. I'll try again later or tomorrow, so much to read, so little time. Thanks and I'm glad you found the time. I will say this: In the beginnig God created heaven and earth..is the FORWARD.
NoeL: Good posting also...I did read all, but no time to respond today. Catch you later. Thanks for the points made on my errors of thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 06:20pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2421 of 2421)
No GODS, No Masters
Ruby Pool 1/16/98 6:16pm you say "I will say this: In the beginnig God created heaven and earth..is the FORWARD."
OOP's guess the King James version forgot to include that tag? In the KJV it starts the text BODY out that way, not a Forward. Mine didn't come with the Bible Code decoder ring either! SHUCKS!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 09:37pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2422 of 2427)
Better Read Than Said.....
Glenn:
I made copies of your post and re-read it, I realize we are never going to agree on the Genesis account. I understand the time frames my way and you have your own interpretation that doesn't make sense to me and I see I will never make sense to you. All we will accomplish is a couple of Buttheads going at it and learning nothing that we don't aleady know. Thanks for trying and posting, jump in anytime...if we agreed on cloning, I am sure yours would be an evolution and mine would be God's will. {;-}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:24pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2423 of 2427)
Keith Fosberg: Hi Noel! What the heck happened to "our" forum??!!
Noel Yap: 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, Keith, with regard to my attitude, I understand CNN's problem. It is clear that the board was out of control and they had to do something. It is their board and their responsibility. And it is a great forum. In my opinion, nothing else comes close. And I notice that last night, they only deleted one post which gives me encouragement for the future.
I guess the thing that upset me the most was that one of my deleted posts contained the following:
(previous post) 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. (end of previous post)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:26pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2424 of 2427)
It should also be understood that the above (prior) exchange was buried between what I considered to be a correction to one of Glenn's mistakes about the Bible and a challenge to Noble H. Turner, Ph.D. to "as a Ph.D... provide... proof of the existence of the soul," since he indicated in his post that clones were "soul-less," and went to the trouble of enforming everyone he was a Ph.D. And while I was on the subject, I also asked him how he knew a clone would have no soul? (Seemed a reasonable enough question to me.)
(I note also that the posts I quoted were deleted which means that CNN wasn't just picking on me. But I typically post in the evening which means that most people usually don't have a chance to read my posts until the next day. And when they disappear like that overnight, it is simply no fun at all.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:26pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2425 of 2427)
Better Read Than Said.....
Noel Yak:
"Ruby Pool: 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.
It's illogical to personify God (or any non-human system for that matter.)
Ruby Pool: "Creation is life and growth, not stagnation and death."
Noel says: Yes, and no. Death is part of life. One's death is the start of another's life."
Illogical to personify GOD? He personified Himself to his followers..."Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him, but you know him; for he dwells with you and shall be in you." God does not dwell in temples made with hands...we are his temples. That, to me, personifies Him. John 14:17
Noel says: "Death is a part of life."
Literally since Adam brought sin into the world. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of GOD is eternal life." Death is the result of sin...not necessarily life. Rom. 6:23
I do not believe cloning is either good nor bad, it is a technology from life. What we do with it is a life or death possibility.
Just my opinion based on my experiences. This is not to say you are wrong and I am right, just that we may have a disagreement in our opinions.
I agree with most of your opinions and really love reading them. Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tharp - 10:33pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2426 of 2427)
I have been away from this site for awhile and feel like I walked right back into the twilight zone. I'm sure this will get you all going- look at the disaster Dr Frankenstein ended up with...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ni Guang - 10:52pm Jan 16, 1998 ET (#2427 of 2427)
Glen Curry:
Rather, when I feel that we advance in science, particularly in Quantum Mechanics, more and more truths about the Bible will be shown.
You say that the prophets predicted events after they took place. The prophets predicted the birth of Jesus, 52 prophecies about the Messiah altogether. Jesus fulfilled all 52 prophecies. Jesus was a historical, divine figure with immense powers.
The scriptures predicted the fall of Israel several times, and even the exact and definite return of the Israeli's into Israel (Palestine).
You have failed to respond to any of my mails or requests to mail me. Are you afraid to discuss the bible?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:29am Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2417 of 2418)
Susan Baker: 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.
Keith Fosberg: 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.
If I read the reports correctly, that is not what is happening. True, they are going to try to shut Dr. Seed down, as well they should. But this apparently will not affect related genetic research. Perhaps the folks in Washington are more sophisticated than we give them credit for being.
Phillip D'Amato: There were dozens of mutant Dollies folks!
Noel Yap: And they all died.
Noel, I am not sure we know that they died as a result of the mutation or if they were killed when the problem was discovered. What we do know is that they are now all dead.
Obviously, if a sheep clone is malformed, due to mutation, or any other reason, whether still in the womb or after it is born, the thing to do is destroy it. However, it would not be so simple if a human clone was found to be deformed due to a harmful mutation, or due to an error in the cloning procedure. Killing a malformed human clone might be considered murder.
Noel Yap: Punctuated equilibrium is...
Good information. And it makes sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:32am Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2418 of 2418)
Glenn Curry: It's GlenN dammit! :-)
For someone whose name is sometimes spelled Beal and Beale, I know what you mean. Good laugh.
Ruby Pool (to Noel Yap): I agree with most of your opinions and really love reading them. Thanks!
So do I Ruby. But I have also enjoyed reading your posts and your opinions, as well as those of Glen(n)'s, although he tends to be more of an evangelist than I would prefer. I really don't think it hurts to believe the Bible.
Ni Guang (to Glenn Curry): You have failed to respond to any of my mails or requests to mail me. Are you afraid to discuss the bible?
Ni, you don't seem to understand. Glenn is not interested in a private dialogue to refine his thoughts and evaluate his evidence. He is already sure of his evidence and, as a consequence, is out to save the world from religion and needs a public forum. Actually, I agree with most of what he says, but harbor the hope that he will continue to take his medicine;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 03:13am Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2419 of 2420)
Keith Fosberg: 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?
I disagree that cloning has a similar ethical root as abortion. Cloning is about reproduction. Abortion is about destruction of human life. (You can argue whether a fetus is a person if you wish, but I hope you don't try to argue that a human fetus is not human.) I think human cloning has an ethical root similar to invitro fertilization. Indeed, I think all ethical questions about cloning exists in the same measure with respect to invitro fertilization. When we come to an ethical question with respect to cloning, we can use the invitro fertilization example
Keith Fosberg: 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.
Not in my opinion. In invitro fertilization, typically, as I understand it, a number of eggs are fertilized by sperm, and the one that appears to have the greatest viability is implanted. The rest are destroyed. Once cloning is perfected, a similar procedure should be used.
Keith Fosberg: 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.
I agree, for now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 03:17am Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2420 of 2420)
Keith Fosberg: There is no major ethical dilemma involved in destroying a couple hundred potential sheep in an experiment, but there is a very obvious ethical dilemma in destroying a couple hundred potential people in an experiment.
There is no dilemma in the destruction of the human embryo. Genetic research currently being performed with government funding does that. The problem arises only after the embryo is implanted, and particularly after the child is born. The real difference is that there is no moral dilemma with destroying a couple of hundred sheep after they are born, if they are found to contain harmful mutations. An animal such as a sheep can be put out if its misery. But we have laws to protect people against putting them out of their misery, and we need to be careful for that reason, if for no other.
Keith Fosberg: 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.
I agree totally with that.
Ruby Pool: 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.
Ruby, it depends on what you call a "soul." My understanding of what is meant by the soul is based on what I was taught in my youth. Per that understanding, the soul is the immortal part of the spirit, composed of body and soul. When the body dies, the soul, being immortal, continues to live, either in the clouds in bliss, or in agony in a fiery pit, depending, basically, on one's ability to have faith. I tend not to believe in the soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 11:40am Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2421 of 2422)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Well Cliff,
You picked apart a few of my supporting arguments, but it seems as though we ended up at the same street corner in the end :)
Ruby,
If you frequently loose postings imeadiatly after submitting them (not having them dissappear later after their "red letter" period) then I have two sugestions that might elp:
1.Make sure you click the OK, not the cancel button (I have done this one myself)2.CNN uses a "censor-bot" that automatically scans messages for naughty words. The censor-bot does not seem to be a great respector of white space so you sometimes need to check your messages for word-ends and word-beginnings that combine in unfortunat ways!
One last thing, Cliff,
I agree with you about the distinction between cloning and abortion. The point I was trying to make is that since the viability of cloned individuals is so unproven at this time we would be taking far too great of a chance on effectively planning to abort possibly hundreds of potential children, some of whom very well could have been born to normall lives had a more proven method (invitro, etc.) been used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted......T. Simpson - 11:55am Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2422 of 2422)
Since we have stopped abortions...now who is gonna care for all these whacked out crack babies...
Sad situation...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:17pm Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2423 of 2423)
Keith, I agree with you that it is unwise to jump into human clone production at this time. The chances for error are simply too great, and if an error is born, we would be unable to put the error out of it's misery. Where I disagree has to do with any possible ethical dilemma with respect to the destruction of embryos outside the womb. I see no ethical difference between one and a thousand, and it seems to me that the issue has been settled with respect to invitro fertilization. I think I would probably identify the point of ethical consideration considerably earlier in the life of a fetus than most people, but I do not think it is before the embryo is implanted in the womb.
T., I was not aware that abortions have been stopped. The last I heard, the Republicans in Congress were trying to get together enough votes to override a threatened Presidential veto and ban partial-birth abortions. If they can't get the votes to ban abortions that are performed within minutes of natural birth, how are they going to get the votes to stop all abortions? Also, my understanding is that the dire predictions about crack babies turned out to be in error.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 02:06pm Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2424 of 2425)
Better Read Than Said.....
Cliff Beall:
Thanks for the comforting words. You are one of my most respected posters. If you say I'm wrong...I am wrong.
You reminded me of the teachings on the 'soul' when I was younger. (Matt:10:28) I kept the living soul part and forgot the after death part. My mistake. I do believe in life after...it gives more purpose to living. But also because I believe in the Spirit, our Comforter. Have you ever written something you believed was important and later realized you had used a word that you didn't even know the meaning of, but when you checked it out, it was the perfect word for your usage? Sure you probably read it somewhere in the proper form and meaning...but who put it in your mind at that precise time, just memory? My memory isn't that good. To each his own.
Keith Fosberg: We were using Netscape and having too many crashes, we would get in the middle of a discussion and for no reason an 'illegal operation' would pop-up and we would have to shut down. The Internet Explorer server works better. Thanks for your suggestions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted.....T. Simpson - 02:52pm Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2425 of 2425)
cliff says...
Also, my understanding is that the dire predictions about crack babies turned out to be in error.
====
Well I saw a special on 48 hours or something where a LOT of the adoptive parents are finding out after 3 years their kid is still as stupid as a stump. They are now finding out they got a crack babie....and that is only the surface......
clone em and sterilize them druggies who dont care about noone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 08:55pm Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2426 of 2426)
Ruby, in re-reading my post, I see that I misspoke myself. It happens from time to time, unfortunately. I should have used the word "person" instead of "spirit:" I should have said the soul is the immortal part of the "person." In regards to your question: no I don't think I ever have "accidentally" used an unknown word properly. When I screw it up, it is a real and honest screwup.
Incidentally, I was not saying you were wrong, just that I understood it differently. To me, the questions are: what is a person, what is life, and what is it about the human life that is different from other animal life? The first question is fairly easy if we assume a person to be a human being. The second one is a difficult one that philosophers have struggled with for eons. Noel is fond of Fritjof Capra who says that life exists when a system is self-organizing. This is probably as good a definition as I have heard. With respect to the third question, as far as I know, there is no scientific evidence that there is any qualitative or quantitative difference. Therefore, it would appear to me that the existence of the soul in humans only is something that one must take on faith. I tend to insist on hard evidence before I believe in something.
T., I am going to back off on the crack thing. I too remember watching a TV news show (or portion, thereof), but in the one I saw, a successful young career woman described herself as a "crack baby," and described her accomplishments nevertheless. And, subsequently, the dire predictions of twenty-some years ago were compared with present day reality. This is what my statement was based on. However, I am backing off because I do not recommend any such thing. It may not be as bad as they said it was going to be, but it can't be good. I concede.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:27pm Jan 17, 1998 ET (#2425 of 2427)
Better Read Than Said.....
Cliff:
I believe faith is the only way one can accept God, creation and the whole picture of the Universe. It is just too magnificent to believe science and the big bang theory as an intelligent creator.
I recall animals and people being called souls in the bible. Glenn might like that, it would sort of lump us with the animals anyway. Not that I mind...my cat and dog communicate pretty well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tharp - 01:47am Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2426 of 2427)
Ruby: My understanding has always been that every living thing has a soul - this would include trees, animals etc. I agree that there are some things that require faith alone. If we knew all things for certainty - we would be Gods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Simpson - 04:33am Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2427 of 2427)
YOu know, I am getting sick what the world thinks....
CNN says...
Representatives from 19 members of the Council of Europe signed a protocol that would commit their countries to ban by law "any intervention seeking to create human beings genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead.
-0---
Well, hieeediii Ho! You smell like flowers! Same group that is telling usa we need to let growing countries pollute now, and we should shift our wealth after fighting 2 world wars (saved frances butt twice, butt they don't remember). Sorry, get a clue.
Now the WORLD says...blah
Tell ya, I am getting sick of this one world concept!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:11am Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2428 of 2435)
T., right now, I think it is dangerous to introduce human cloning. I don't have an ethical problem with it, just a concern that the process has not been perfected to the point that it can be trusted, and the side effects, if any, have not been investigated and identified. More animal research is needed to identify problems and perfect the process.
Regarding your dirge against the Council of Europe, I think it is reasonable for nations, with the consent of the citizens, to regulate the behavior of its citizens. This protocol you refer to is in response to a real threat. Why don't you rail against the ones making the threat?
Jill, what you say sounds good. But how does it work. Do all living things have eternal life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Clarke - 12:48pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2429 of 2435)
I don't understand what the big deal is with cloning, I think if people actually sat down and thought about it they would realise that it is not really as friekish as many initially feel. A cloned human would not be a 'copy' of the person they were cloned from, their personality would be very different (just how different is a matter for the nature/nurture debate) and I really don't think governments have any right to interfere with this area. Personally I think people should stop griping about cloning, and maybe look again at truely beastly practices such as abortion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 12:49pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2430 of 2435)
Noel Yap, Cliff Beall: Although there are about 10,000 mutations (by which I mean a nucleotide base change in the DNA) each day in each of us, most do get corrected by our very efficient DNA repair systems. And, in a code that is 3 billion bases long, 90% of which is "junk" or non-coding, the odds of any adult cell having mutations in critical areas is small. Unless it comes from something like skin, which is exposed to lots of mutagenic UV rays. More worrisome is the process of cloning itself, which has not been perfected if there were 277 false starts. There were no doubt many gross chromosomal rearrangements, etc. in the lethal clones. I don't think Dr. Seed has the expertise to carry this out, but I hope that we won't stop animal experimentation to work out the "bugs." Eventually, when science can do it with a reasonable hope of success in animals, that is the time to discuss cloning of humans..an idea I find rather interesting. I wouldn't mind raising my clone, but I don't think I would want to BE her!
Noel: Thanks for the explanation of "punk=eek." As I understand it, changes in species only seem to occur if the species are isolated from each other. If the new species--e.g. Cro-Magnon, has selective advantage, he may obliterate similar species, e.g., Neanderthal. If this therory is correct, there won't be any more natural evolution of the human species because there aren't any isolated pockets of humans, even along the Amazon. There will be mutations at the level of the individual, but because those individuals are out-breeding with a large population, the mutant characteristics won't become established in enough people. Since we are steadily becoming a population of naturally "unfit" individuals, thanks to modern medicine, maybe cloning and subsequent engineering to eliminate detrimental traits will be the new evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 12:57pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2431 of 2435)
Ruby Pool: It has always been a mystery to me why the belief in an afterlife gives meaning to this life. (Well, not always--but since about age 15). It seems to me that believing that this life is all there is would make you appreciate it all the more and want to get the most out of it. I sort of understand that the obvious injustice in the world might make one wish that it will all come out right in the end, but rather than wait for God to mete out justice, why not work to create a more just Society here on earth?
I don't know (and I certainly doubt) if "the soul" exists separate from the body, but if anyone has a soul, then clones will have one too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Simpson - 01:23pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2432 of 2435)
Cliff says
Regarding your dirge against the Council of Europe, I think it is reasonable for nations, with the consent of the citizens, to regulate the behavior of its citizens.
=====
Yes, your right cliff, HOWEVER there has been a RAMPANT barrage of OUR gov. here doing WHAT THEY want and OVERRIDING THE PEOPLE's VOTE!!!! That is local. You look at what this world tried to tell our stupid representives over in japan...now your talking global!
I NEVER VOTED on this summit, I NEVER VOTED against cloning. I am SURE europe's didnt VOTE either. These are individuals who are doing WHAT they want.
Look at willy and repeast this. Accountablity....
A term wiped from the American Dictionary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tharp - 01:39pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2433 of 2435)
Cliff: I do happen to believe in a higher power that created all spiritual life (ie: souls). And yes - I do believe that all living things have eternal life. My problem with cloning is thus this - if a soul is created by someone other than human beings - these 'cloned beings will be like robots made only of flesh and blood - not having a soul which is what, in my opinion, makes the being alive. I'm sure I will get a lot of slack for expressing my opinion but after all this is a free country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 02:45pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2434 of 2435)
Better Read Than Said.....
Jill Tharp and Dawn Willis:
Jill, all I know about the soul is what is written in the bible. I have never read where every living thing has a soul...but rather we are souls and animals were included, but it would stand to reason that if life is soul then your understanding is correct.
Dawn: I have done all I could to make my corner of the world better for my family and causes I believe in. That is beside the point...we seem to have good and bad competing for control of the world. Our life can be good and the next day wiped out by a drunk driver, or a maniac.
I believe the universe proves an intelligent Creator...so believing there is life after death is to me evident in creation. That doesn't mean I'm living an incomplete life here...it just means life here is just a little step to life beyond. Just my interpretation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 03:01pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2435 of 2435)
Better Read Than Said.....
Cloning is just another way of passing along existing life. A step above invitro-fertilization. A clone has all of the elements that any person has including defects and family traits.
At this point I see no purpose for it, but the future could prove it to be a beneficial development just with a new strain of AIDS or other infertilizing diseases yet unheard of.
The research does not seem a threat to society at this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tanstaafl mvs - 07:27pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2436 of 2443)
Jill Tharp said:
My problem with cloning is thus this - if a soul is created by someone other than human beings - these 'cloned beings will be like robots made only of flesh and blood - not having a soul which is what, in my opinion, makes the being alive.
If you believe in creation, as explained in Genesis, then humans were created out of dirt and then given the "breath of life." I tend to think of this "breath of life" as the soul. Since it never mentions that God gave animals this, then perhaps animals do not have souls... personally I would like to think that they do... but that is an aside to the focus of this message.
With that in mind, that "breath of life" is the birthright of all humans, whether cloned or made the old fashioned way... By this logic, as faulty as it may be, then clones would also have a soul. If on the other hand, you were talking not about cloning, but about something created from scratch, a machine perhaps, that does not breath, then you might have what you termed as a robot... but read some of Robert Heinlein's novels before you try to tell me that a machine cannot have a soul... :o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tharp - 07:38pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2437 of 2443)
tan...thanks so much for your opinion. I also agree that man's body was made from the earth and that God gave him the "breath of life" ie- his spirit. God then gave Adam and Eve the ability to procreate and he would then provide the spiritual being to the human body. When a person dies - the spirit leaves the body much like a hand leaving a glove. How can you say the "breath of life" is the birthwright of all beings? Who decides this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 08:34pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2438 of 2443)
Better Read Than Said.....
tsnstaafl:
The bible does mentions animal souls: NUMBERS: 31:28 "And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses and of the sheep."
This is more confusing because 'man became a living soul after God breathed the breath of life into him. Now 'one soul of 500' men and animals. We are a soul but if all grouped together (maybe for one purpose) the group is a 'soul.' Websters defines 'soul' in part 2 as the 'spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or 'the universe.' Part 3: 'A person's spiritual self.' 4-a: an active or emotional nature. b: the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment.' c:'spiritual and moral sense.'
Any thoughts on this - all of you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Simpson - 09:13pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2439 of 2443)
maybe cloning will stop these couples who have 15 mentally chalenged kids...in a attept of having one normal one.....
(was i politically correct on this one?) would be nice!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tanstaafl mvs - 09:27pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2440 of 2443)
Jill - i said that it was the birthright of all humans, because we produce like offspring. so if you belive in creation, and even more so original sin, and the idea of things passing down from adam and eve, then we must also have the "breath of life" simply because we are human, and like original sin... again if you go for that sort of thing... was passed down by procreation. unless you want to argue that a soul is received by some other manner between conception and birth, then it must belong to all humans simply because we are human, as would be any human clones.
ruby pool- interesting thought... so do you think there is a "soul" pool, much like we talk about gene pools in genetics?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 09:44pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2441 of 2443)
Dawn, I was sweating blood about half way into your first sentence, but then it turned out that, as near as I can tell, I was not too far off. I missed the point that most DNA is non-coding and is therefore inconsequential if mutations occur in these areas, but other than that...
But now that I have your attention, I have a question. How long does it take the body to repair damaged or mutated cells? I have imagined the possibility that it may take a day or two in which case mutated cells might be collected before the repair mechanism would have a chance to effect the correction to the DNA. Does that make any sense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 09:49pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2442 of 2443)
Incidentally, Dawn, I don't agree that "changes in species only seem to occur if the species are isolated from each other." It may be that members of a population developing a new trait tend not to split off and become a new species except in cases of isolation. But the new trait may be absorbed into the total of the population. An example of this would be the gradual development of the horse's hoof over a period of about 60 million years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 09:54pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2443 of 2443)
Better Read Than Said.....
tanstaafl:
I believe the soul is us...separate from the physical. The breath of life...the emotions, thoughts and senses. The part of us that does not deteriorate at death but leaves the body like breath going out.
I believe if cloning is successful, the life cell will contain all of the components for life, spiritual and physical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:11pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2444 of 2445)
Better Read Than Said.....
tanstaafl:
A soul pool? When someone can tell us where thoughts come from...maybe we will know the answer to that question. Or yet, crack the human cell...and find the spiritual component. This is above me...literally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:21pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2445 of 2445)
Since we're talking about soul pools and such, the thought occurs that we may also need to consider the possibility of soul mutations. (That could be my problem, perhaps.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Aua - 10:44pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2446 of 2450)
The concept of cloning is nothing really new with our modern era. References to cloning can be found in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. I submit that cloning has a religious/spiritual aspect to it. It would be too bad if cloning is banned in the U.S. It seems that this country has once again gone through its typical knee jerk reaction with something new. Rather than taking an objective stance, the world can't get away from the moral judgements it insists placing on everything.
What spiritual significance can cloning possibly have? I'll let this page answer the question:
http://www.summum.org/mummification/sumsosho.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:52pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2447 of 2450)
Better Read Than Said.....
Cliff:
I am seriously looking for certainty. Can you be more specific? Somehow I think cloning is too limited for mutations. I believe head injuries can cause biochemical changes...is that a mutation? Science isn't one my studies...as you can see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tharp - 10:53pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2448 of 2450)
What if there were an infinite number of souls/spirits? If God is the creator of our spirits what if he disagrees with all of this cloning business and decides not to creat a "spirit" for the clones. I believe that God works by the laws of nature the way HE INTENDED procreation to occur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 11:26pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2449 of 2450)
Better Read Than Said.....
Jill:
If cloning is using the human cells placed in a womb, I do not see the difference between cloning and what has been successfully done with invitro-fertilization. If God did not want this experience to happen...would he have allowed the knowledge to succeed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:36pm Jan 18, 1998 ET (#2450 of 2450)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Ruby, you should not look to me for certainty. I am an agnostic. My belief system consists mainly of "I don't know." I generally don't trust certainty. My opinion is that most of the time, it ain't.
I have concern that mutations may affect cloning results. I do not know if this concern if warranted, but as long as I have that concern, I will urge caution. As I understand it, mutation of cells in an individual do occur at a rate of approximately 10,000 per day (most are repaired). Imagine a scientist collecting cells from an individual, for the purpose of cloning that individual, and just happens to collect one of those mutated cells. There might be a problem. On the other hand, if the mutation is one that has the potential of raising the clone's IQ by 100 points, it may or may not be a problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tanstaafl mvs - 12:00am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2451 of 2452)
Jill said -
If God is the creator of our spirits what if he disagrees with all of this cloning business and decides not to creat a "spirit" for the clones.
Jill, you should go back and read my first entry on this subject... I really can't remember what number it is, but the basic gyst was this... if God doesn't want us to do something, He has what should be an infinite number of ways to prevent it... like the tower of Babylon was it, when our language was mixed up... so why worry about it? if we aren't supposed to know, then we won't. for anyone who truly believes in God, I don't see why this cloning thing would be an issue... besides, does anyone really know that traditional procreation is the ONLY way HE INTENDED? Perhaps that was all we could handle at the time... I mean after all, you get kicked out of the garden, you have to fend for yourself and family... I'm sure he didn't think too highly of humanity at that particular point...
anyway, from what I have read of the old testament, I don't think that God cares whether we can/can't clone successfully... to me, it seems He would only get really mad if the motivation behind our actions was pride... trying to best God in other words... but that was the old testament God, and I don't really know what the Trinity would have to say about it either way... maybe they would be split on the issue... just kidding...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:02am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2452 of 2452)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Ruby, regarding head injuries that cause biochemical changes, I don't know if that is possible, but I understand that bacteria can cause mutations. It may be possible that a severe head injury could cause a baterial infection that might result in mutation of cells. But I don't know this for a fact. I am not a biologist, and never wanted to be one--until recently, and now it is too late.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 12:32am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2453 of 2468)
Better Read Than Said.....
Cliff:
A psychologist recently told me a head injury at the back of the head near the neckline...I would guess, but I don't know for sure...that it would be near the pituatary area...could cause the same symptoms as a manic-depressive disorder which is a change in the bio-chemical, such a dopamine.
Your 'I don't know' agnosticism seems to work very well...less guess work maybe. {;-}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 12:39am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2454 of 2468)
Better Read Than Said.....
Bernie Aua:
I am not ignoring your post, just not good at locating information with URLs. I've tried...need more practice. I am always doing several things at once...if you could give me a hint...on the non-spiritual significance as related to cloning, I would appreciate the information. Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner McKaye - 02:22am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2455 of 2468)
The ultimate test of truth is survival.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A O'Neal - 04:43am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2456 of 2468)
tanstaafl mvs - 12:00am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2451 of 2455) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if God doesn't want us to do something, He has what should be an infinite number of ways to prevent it... like the tower of Babylon was it, when our language was mixed up... so why worry about it? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh How easyly you forget. FREEDOM OF CHOSE
Why Then Did GOD Not Hide THE TREE OF KNOWLAGE??? And LOOK What it did to us! he is a GOD of the willing NOT the UNWILLING! So if you chouse to open the gates of HELL in the land of the living do so at your own risk.
Wizz!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Baker - 08:32am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2457 of 2468)
The esoteric topics presented here really have no place in a discussion of cloning. That would be like introduing God into a discussion on antibiotics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tanstaafl mvs - 10:48am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2458 of 2468)
Richard A O'Neal said:
Why Then Did GOD Not Hide THE TREE OF KNOWLAGE??? And LOOK What it did to us! he is a GOD of the willing NOT the UNWILLING! So if you chouse to open the gates of HELL in the land of the living do so at your own risk.
Richard, if the choice is ours to make, then why do I hear so much fuss about cloning? If it is freedom of choice, then don't choose to do it. Just because Eve ate the fruit didn't mean that Adam had to... but he also had no right to prevent her from doing so. He could have said, "Hey Eve, you know we aren't supposed to touch that stuff..." and then declined her offer. If God is, as you say, a God of the "willing", then we are all responsible for our own actions... and there need not be any ban or legislation on cloning. Those who wish to open the gates of Hell, if you really believe that it has anything to do with cloning, may. Those who do not want to, can keep clear. It seems a simple solution.
And by the way, I think original sin is one of the silliest concepts I have ever heard. But, to each his/her own...
Susan Baker, I agree with you. This is not where I intended the discussion to go... my apologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 11:40am Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2459 of 2468)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
Noel Yap 1/16/98 4:01pm Your playing a word game here (in response to my comment). The exact definition is irrelevant, the point of my post (Mark McGann 1/14/98 3:28pm) was that cloning violates many relgious peoples perceptions of how the world works, and they oppose it because they don't want that perception violated.
Ian Clarke 1/18/98 12:48pm I agree (except for the abortion comment), cloning just isn't a big deal. If cloning is unrestricted I suspect it will have basically zero impact on society.
Jill Tharp 1/16/98 10:33pm This is the second time you've brought up a fictional story in support of your opposition to cloning. You'd 'get people going' (as you suggest) a lot better if you suggested non-fictional support for your position.
Dawn Willis 1/18/98 12:57pm I've had this very same thought process myself.
Jill Tharp 1/18/98 1:39pm This really goes back to my previous post about religion and cloning (Mark McGann 1/14/98 3:28pm). I'm very curious to see how you will react if cloned human aren't 'robots' as you suggest they will be. Will you give up your belief in a soul? To be fair, I for one will re-evaluate my belief that there is no soul if cloned humans turn out to be robots as you describe.
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 12:00pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2460 of 2468)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
Susan Baker 1/19/98 8:32am
Unfortunatly cloning is one of those topic where many people bring up religion in defense of thier position on cloning. There real is no way to avoid the more metaphysical discussions once that happens.
Personally I support cloning from a Libertarian viewpoint. I.e, if your opposed to it don't do it and leave everyone else alone.
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 12:21pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2461 of 2468)
I read in the paper this morning that researchers have produced viable embryos using enucleated eggs from cows and adult cells from different species, including primates (although all resulted in miscarriage). That's a new thought for us--my mother the cow! Or more likely the sheep. The public is really going to go bananas over this.
Cliff, DNA mutations usually, but not always, occur during cell division. Repair is fairly prompt, within an hour or two. Cell division is also the time when telomeres are shortened. I don't see mutations in older cells being a serious problem in cloning, and there are mammalian cell types (e.g. bone marrow stem cells) that don't divide much, have long telomeres, and would be better DNA sources for clones than say, skin cells. I'm not sure what you mean about bacteria causing mutations. The normal gut bacteria produce toxins that are mutagenic in tissue culture, presumably one of the causes of colon cancer. An abcess might do the same, but since abcesses are acute rather than chronic infection is not considered a major cause of mutation in humans.
I'm still struggling with puncuated equilibrium. Gould and Eldredge came up with this theory to explain the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record, but I suppose there are examples of transitional phases in the hooves? And I realize there are a few inbred human species, too. The Amish, and Jews until recently. Of course that inbreeding more often resulted in deleterious genes than the reverse. What I am trying to come to grips with is how a mutation in one individual results in changes in a large outbred population. If Joe inherits a mutation that makes him more likely to survive in polluted air, and the air becomes more polluted, only about half of Joe's direct descendants will survive. But if Joe were Amish, and cousins married cousins, etc., you might have lots of people who could survive pollution. And, as the rest of us died off, Joe's descendents would be
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 12:30pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2462 of 2468)
Ruby: Blows to the head do NOT cause changes in DNA. Trauma can result in the death or severe damage to the cells that make hormones or neurotransmitters, and this is probably what causes the observed mental illnesses. What then happens to the soul of the new schizophrenic or manic-depressive?
For those who don't like fooling with the natural order of things--it is too late to put that apple back on the tree. Besides, if we lived as nature, or God, intended, most would die in childbirth or infancy, and the adults would be dead by 30. No one will be cloned who doesn't want to be. We do own the rights to our DNA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 12:41pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2463 of 2468)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Now I will be naughty and reference a fictional story. In a series I read recently, special people (genious, etc.) didn't own the rights to their DNA. They were considered national treasures. No precedent I realise, but an interesting thought!
Can we get off of the souls now? Souls either are, or they are not, either way, nothing we do is going to change that.
I read that artical also Dawn, sounds very interesting. Of course the fur is going to fly (pun intended) on that one soon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 02:20pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2464 of 2468)
Better Read Than Said.....
Dawn Willis:
"Ruby: Blows to the head do NOT cause changes in DNA. Trauma can result in the death or severe damage to the cells that make hormones or neurotransmitters, and this is probably what causes the observed mental illnesses. What then happens to the soul of the new schizophrenic or manic-depressive? "
"-damage to the cells that make hormones or neurotransmitters" did cause manic-depressive symptoms in my family member. The soul is intact...in fact, during relapses mentally ill patients often become religious, even if they were not before, and the interest is more intense though confused with unstable thought patterns. If the soul is the non-physical life as I have said prior...injury does not destroy the soul, rather effects the reason and judgment or memory and thought processes as in some diseases. But in manic-depressive patients the disorder retreats with treatment and the thought processes become almost normal.
Keith: You don't have to read the posts you don't like. I use my freedom of choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:15pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2465 of 2468)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Ruby,
I have no problem with the concept of having a soul. I am not so much offended, as annoyed by people who pop in and say "You'll burn for this" as if they had some authority in the matter.
The idea that the Lord would allow a child to be born soulless in a pique of anger just doesn't fit with anything I know or have heard of in any church I have ever visited.
Either we beleivers are deluding ourselves, in wich case the soul question is meaningless, or we are the children of a loving God whom I can scarce concieve of punishing children out of pridefull vengence.
I guess that is why I hammer at it. Sorry, I suppose I shouldn't get so annoyed by other people's conception of the Lord.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre T - 03:53pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2466 of 2468)
At least I live in America, so the Free Society that I live in will be sure to defend the right to clone IF YOU WANT TO!!
This is like all those people yelling abortion is murder. If you think it is murder, then dont do it. How tough is that?
Oh..for those folks yelling about souls and God and whatever, Where in the Bible does it say Thou shalt not clone ?
I must have missed that chapter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Aua - 04:05pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2467 of 2468)
GOD - all encompassing, the supreme. Nothing exists except by virtue of God. Good and bad are both God's creations. Anything that exists outside of God suggests it is superior to God. But then there is nothing superior to God or else God would not be God. All the possibilities are within God. The most savage of acts is made possible by God. The most selfless love is made possible by God.
Cloning is a possibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 05:06pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2468 of 2468)
Better Read Than Said.....
Kieth:
No apology necessary to me...I misunderstood your statement.
I know the best response to intolerance is no answer or a tolerant answer. But I don't always say what I know is best.
This cloning board brings out the gamut like all other boards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 09:34pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2468 of 2471)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
Ref Dawn Willis #2462
In regard to owning our dna, it is not at all sure that we do. My research of over 35 years suggests that we can only own a part of our body that can be legally seperated. It is only recently possable to own whole blood. Before the practical seperation of blood into it's parts (plasma etc) you sold the servive of contributing blood and bought the service of receiving blood.
The patent office has specificly prohibited the patienting of human cells. The law has recognised at least one humans right to benefit from the sale of his cells but there is no heavy law on the subject.
For instance under the common law of abandonment if someone had a small cut and didnt clean up all the blood I could recover it and obtain dna from the white cells.
Lets say that you could own your dna. If I am an identical twin I have the same dna as my twin. Could I then prohibit my twin from cloning?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tanstaafl mvs - 09:51pm Jan 19, 1998 ET (#2469 of 2471)
Andre T said:
At least I live in America, so the Free Society that I live in will be sure to defend the right to clone IF YOU WANT TO!!
A nice thought Andre, but wishful thinking if you ask me. Even though Amercians are supposed to have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... it doesn't always work that way.
There are always those who fight to prevent others from doing what they think is wrong, i.e. the abortion issue, and those who will try everything to pass legislation to prevent YOU from doing anything they think you should not be doing... an unfortunate side-effect of too much government. Of course they do this with the best intentions, which makes it so much harder to fight...
If indeed every American has the "unalienable" right to life, and cloning is used to assist in the pursuit of such, how can any Amercian, religious or not, argue against it without first arguing to limit our constitutional rights.
You see Andre, many folk out there want to pass legislation because it is the right thing to do or to make sure that everyone lives the right way... when the only laws that should be passed are those that will benefit society as a whole and not just one faction... unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:07am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2470 of 2471)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Dawn, with respect to "bacteria causing mutations," that idea came from Noel originally per following references:
Noel Yap - 08:10am Jan 2, 1998 ET:Most (if not all) good evolution comes from the sharing of DNA among different cells -- this is shown in Genetic Programming experiments as well. This type of mutation is facilitated by viruses and bacteria.
Noel Yap - 03:10pm Jan 6, 1998 ET: Bacteria and viruses (as written in this month's Scientific American) can swap genes. They can also insert/delete DNA sequences into/from a host.
In addition, due to Noel's interest in Fritjof Capra and Capra's major source, Lynn Margulis's books, I found a web site: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC34/Margulis.htm which I took as supporting the idea. When I mentioned this, Noel responded with:
Noel Yap - 03:26pm Jan 5, 1998 ET: Viruses have already been shown to insert DNA sequences into host cells...
In reviewing the above noted site, I find now that it does not say exactly what I thought it did. I did not investigate the Scientific American reference Noel cited.
As for the example of the horse's hoof, my source was an old Time-Life book that traced the evolution from Edhippus, 60 Million, Mesohippus, 40 million, Merychippus, 25 million, Pliocene, 10 million and Equus, 2 million years ago. According to the drawings accompanying the descriptions, the hoof was essentially fully evolved in Pliocene about 10 million years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:10am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2471 of 2471)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Keith Fosberg: Souls either are, or they are not, either way, nothing we do is going to change that.
You are right Keith. But it is an important aspect of human cloning in the minds of a lot of people, including some on this board. We need to work through it as best we can.
Keith Fosberg: I have no problem with the concept of having a soul. I am not so much offended, as annoyed by people who pop in and say "You'll burn for this" as if they had some authority in the matter.
Right again. But remember that sometimes bravado is used as a cover for unease. Just because you are capable of putting it all into perspective in a reasonable way doesn't mean that everybody can.
Ruby Pool: I know the best response to intolerance is no answer or a tolerant answer. But I don't always say what I know is best.
You and me both, Ruby. But when I don't, I am always sorry I didn't later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Condra - 01:06am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2472 of 2507)
Cloning is one more thing the federal government has NO RIGHT TO CONTROL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Rank - 01:26am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2473 of 2507)
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but, some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our own frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." Those words by H.P.Lovecraft in 'The Call of Cthulhu' express my anxiety about cloning and its latest offspring the mixing of DNA with other species which was reported on this evening's television news program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Duffy - 02:15am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2474 of 2507)
Give me a break! God save us from the FDA! As if the scientific community, overt and otherwise, is going to be swayed by their latest absurd pronouncement! The fact is that Human genome cloning has been going on for quite some time now and the mass of robot citizens are programed into thinking that it's something 'on the edge of possibility'. What an absolute load of crap!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Donaldson - 02:16am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2475 of 2507)
Who says cloning isn't our next evolutionary step? And what if God want's us to do it? Then nay-sayers would be the sinners for sure. It's scary. It opens the door to deviants. It is, however, no more revolutionary an idea, than realizing the Earth is NOT the center of the Universe.
People don't like change - even me. But nothing - absolutely nothing will STOP the cloning of humans. And anyone who thinks they can, is kidding themselves big-time.
I hate the idea of abortion, yet believe in the absolute right of a parent. So I surrender to the techology, hoping - praying, that we can instill pride and carefullness in those who will pull us forward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ramsey - 02:28am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2476 of 2507)
All this debate over cloning baffles me. Only a nearsighted moron could be against it. Not once in all of these discussions have I encounter a single rational reason not to explore and research cloning posthaste. But then again who said most people were rational? Where is this nonsense going to end? Once again the FDA is exceeding its powers in order deny US citizens vital potential medical treatments. As a scientist this anti-cloning backlash has me extremely troubled. It is incomprehensible that at this critical juncture of scientific development the US government and the US business world have not made Human cloning the single most important research effort in the nation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 03:24am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2477 of 2507)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
I decided to take a quick peek at the discussion (I don't intend to carry on, but I'll give my two cents). It's nice to see the same friendly faces (or virtual counterparts thereof). It seems that the same things are being discussed that were already discussed two months ago. I've said this before, and I'll say it again...
Ethics are a way of making civilization work. What makes an act right or wrong is not something divinely ordained but how it effects the way society functions. Is cloning of humans ethical? How could it possibly have a negative impact on society? The act of reproduction through cloning does not influence the way people behave at all; if there are any repercussions of it, they are due to other faults in people and should be corrected at the source of the problems, not at the specific irritants of the source. The problem people are having with cloning is not whether it is ethical, but whether it agrees with their religion. Unfortunately, the two are mistakenly correlated much too often.
The fact remains that cloning is not an ethical issue, and as such, it cannot be a political issue in the United States. We have that nice Constitutional clause referred to as the separation of Church and State. Moral objections (those reasons people have against cloning due to a conflict with their religion) cannot be entertained by our legislature -- it is illegal to have a law which is based solely on any religion. If Congress were to pass such a law, it would be the responsibility of the Supreme Court to strike it down, possibly through a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union or a biotech company or anyone else whose interest it is to employ cloning technology or protect American freedoms.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Sumrall - 08:02am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2478 of 2507)
I may be a nearsighted moron, but I don't think it's our place to play "God" with the world. I say let nature take its course in the evolutionary process. Cloning only serves to take away our individuality, as if the government isn't trying to already. Technology has its pros and cons in my mind. The biggest pro: It has helped us in more ways than one can imagine. Automobiles, telephones, computers. The biggest con: it requires less thinking, less brainwork of us. Anyone wishing to debate this little idea with me, I have two words for you. POCKET CALCULATOR. Technology may ultimately kill us all. Anyone ever see "The Terminator" ??
Just the opinion of a nearsighted moron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Cascio - 09:59am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2479 of 2507)
I am just wondering one thing-- Why on earth would we WANT to make MORE PEOPLE?? Aren't there enough already? Wouldn't you think that more people would be the last thing our earth needs? What, there aren't enough useless morons trudging around already? Clone cows, clone hamsters, clone fish... but if there's the possibility to make an army of Janet Renos, well, *shudder* :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 10:23am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2480 of 2507)
two more cents...
Joe Sumrall, I disagree w/ you #2478, that technology has resulted in requiring less thinking, less brainwork. If anything, technology has taken care of doing the gruntwork & enabled us to make a quantum leap in scientific creativity/thinking/brainwork. I am in no way advocating that school kids releinquish the age-old drudgery of memorizinging the multiplication tables.
As far as playing "God" is concerned, you could argue that man is playing God by creating the airplane, because if man was intended to fly, God would have given him wings already attached to the shoulder.
I don't have enthical problem w/ cloning, provided some reasonable guidelines are observed. I think an outright ban is not feasible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 10:39am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2481 of 2507)
two more cents...
Mike Cascio, I seriously doubt cloning technology will be used to create hordes of people--not unless you figure out how to gestate fetuses w/o a human womb.
Cloning a human being will be an extremely costly process.
Find donor, extract DNA--Cha Ching!!!$$$
Create clone embryos in lab--Cha ching!!!$$$
Hire surrogate wombs--Cha ching!!!$$$
Deliver clone babies--Cha Ching!!!$$$
Raise clone babies--Cha Ching!!!$$$
Hear that cash register ringing...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:53am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2482 of 2507)
Better Read Than Said.....
Tom Anderson:
". We have that nice Constitutional clause referred to as the separation of Church and State"
'Separation of Church and State' is not Constitutional but rather was passed through the courts by the ACLU.
What is Constitutional is Article One of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof--"
Government cannot interfere with religion, but religious people have the same rights as anyone else in protesting or being outraged with government proceedings. We may agree to disagree with religions, but we cannot take away their rights to worship as they choose or use religious references in their free speech.
I am not religious in my beliefs, but I feel my beliefs are certainly a major part of who I am, where I am coming from in my expressions or actions. I see nothing wrong with cloning, if it is what has been reported.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 10:58am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2483 of 2507)
The idea that human consciousness (soul) does not require a physical substrate in order to function is a very appealing one. It would me that we are already immortal, but that only a short part of our lives are spent in a biological construct. This means that life in physical form would be analigous to that of a high school student. When I was in high school, I had great time, but I still looked forward to graduation, because I was excited about all of the dreams and goals I had for adult life. Also, adult life is much bigger that teanage life such that, if you attended a public school, you regarded your high school life as a holding tank for adult life.
So, if we believe in an afterlife, then adult life in relationship to it should be much like high school life is in relation to adult life. You should also hear people saying thing like "this ageing stuff's a bitch, but I've got all these exciting things I look forward to once I get free of my body". But I don't know anyone who believes in religion who thinks this way, and furthermore, the organized religions don't encourage this way of thinking or life planning. So, I've decided that all of the religious beliefs and life-after-death belief systems are a bunch of bunk.
Hence, my interest in biotechnology, life-extension, and cryonics. Also my interest in cloning technology in pursuit of these aims. I don't give a rip about reproductive cloning, but I'm certainly interested in the rejuvenation/regeneration technology aspects of cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 11:00am Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2484 of 2507)
two more cents...
Here's an intriguing development: University of Wisconsin scientists reported that they had successfully cloned five species-including primates-using cows' eggs as "incubators"; all resulted in miscarriages...If you can clone monkeys from a cow's eggs-which are far more readily available than human ova-why not human being? --WALL STREET JOURNAL, 1/20/98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Baker - 12:02pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2485 of 2507)
What is all this talk about cloning being somehow related to abotion? They seem pretty different to me. Abortion is sex without babies, cloning is babies without sex. Either way, it's a copout. It's the radicals out there that make this complicated. As far as I'm concerned, the question comes down to what kind of rights the clones are going to have, and whether we as a nation can condone giving birth to a human child knowing full well that it will be killed and used for spare parts. Because it will happen. Also, what kind of controls will be put into place to stop some twisted billionaire from having his own harem full of Cindy Crawfords? Because it WILL happen. These are the questions we've been dancing around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Doris - 12:13pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2486 of 2507)
I think one issue that is not raised enough with regards to human cloning is of the child. Some children have a hard time dealing with being adopted. But how do you explain to a child that he/she is cloned. Do you tell the child or keep it a secret? I beleive one would have to tell the child when it is the proper time, but what effect would this have on the child to find out that he/she is merely a model of somebody else? I've heard opinions from scientists and religious and political figures, but what do the child psychologists feel? Any one out there one to input some ideas?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 12:14pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2487 of 2507)
two more cents...
Benjamin Baker, a cloned human is a HUMAN. W/ the same rights as any other human.
As for talk of producing cloned humans as body-part mills, this is not new. The horrible crime already occurs (if you believe the U.S. State Dept's travel advisories) in 3rd world countries where babies are sold or adults are poached for their organs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Reynolds - 12:16pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2488 of 2507)
If a temple begins to fall apart, and you know how to fix it, by all means, do so. If you wish to build a new temple and know of all the components required to do so, by all means, do so. But if you don't know how to construct the infrastructure or foundation (human soul) that supports the walls, how long will the temple stand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 12:18pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2489 of 2507)
two more cents...
Edward Doris #2486, by the same token, a hypothetical son of Hitler or Charles Manson would have some heavy-duty emotional baggage, too.
Just because 2 people have identical DNA, does not mean they will have identical temperments--consider the personalities/likes/dislikes of naturally occuring twins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 12:22pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2490 of 2507)
two more cents...
In all the furor over producing hordes of Cindy Crawford sex slaves or Hitler tyrants, people are forgeting that you need a womb! You can't just roll the embryos out on a cookie sheet, Pillsbury style, and pop them in an oven for 30 minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Baker - 12:23pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2491 of 2507)
I don't believe cost is going to stop illegal cloning, it may even make it easier. There are plenty of people out there with more money than they have time left to count. What's a few hundred million to clone up a deceased loved one, or youself? Unrestricted cloning could bring up all sorts of property issues. If, for instance, Bill Gates decides that he wants to live forever, he COULD raise himself up from birth and leave everything to himself. Of course, this wouldn't be the original BG in every respect, but it could be close enough to be interesting, and scarey. This may seem a bit far fetched, but wait a few years....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Baker - 12:28pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2492 of 2507)
Of course I agree that they should have all the rights of any other human, but that's not on paper yet. I also realize that clones can't be cooked like popcorn, but I think you aren't giving enough thought to the suggestive power of money. How many women would you have to ask before you'd find one who would birth a child for say, 100K?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 12:50pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2493 of 2507)
two more cents...
Benjamin Baker,
How many women would you have to ask before you'd find one who would birth a child for say, 100K?
Women already do this, and it no longer makes the 6:00 news.
If, for instance, Bill Gates decides that he wants to live forever, he COULD raise himself up from birth and leave everything to himself.
Good for Bill. It's his money. Why shouldn't he be able to leave it to any one he wants. Unfortunately, the IRS will end up getting as much as his hypothetical clone will. Anyway, his clone would look like him, but it won't be him. Who knows, maybe clone-of-Bill will be a Mac user.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 12:51pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2494 of 2507)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Benjamin,
It is on paper. You don't find a specific "Bill of Cloned Person's Rights" for the same reason you don't find a "Bill of Invitro Person's Rights." They are not needed. For cloned persons to be treated differently (by law) than other persons legislation specifically limiting their rights would need to be passed.
Obviously, given money (and a more developed science of cloning) a person could "order up a clone" and very probably be guilty of slavery. No new legislation is needed to deal with this.
Russell Reynolds - 12:16pm Jan 20, 1998 ET,
That was very poetic, really -- I honestly enjoyed it, but -- Cloning does not involve "building" a person. It differs from a "test-tube baby" only in that the genetic material in the zygote is implanted from a mature cell. This is nothing more than a rather unconventional method of providing fertalization. The resulting child will be endowed with a soul by the same (unknown) process that a child concieved via the normal method of conception is endowed with a soul.
I know that cloning sounds scary, mostly due to third rate science fiction, but it really isn't (scary that is.) It is new, "not ready for prime time," and very interesting, but it isn't a human xerox machine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 01:00pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2495 of 2507)
two more cents...
Keith Fosberg, reading some people's "third rate science fiction" scenarios regarding human cloning is more entertaining than reading the comic strips.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 02:26pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2496 of 2507)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
Cloning is not the magical Fountain of Youth. If your clone yourself, it will not nessessarily be you. Your clone could go on to be the worlds most dangerous criminal. And it won't have your memories either.
Cloning is just not a good idea, at least regarding Human cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:30pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2497 of 2507)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Chris,
You always seemed like a reasonable person to me. Why do you keep decrying the evils of cloning whilst offoring no evidence nor insight towards those supposed evils?
A clone will be no more nor any less than any other person. No more nor less prone to greatness or imfamy. Just like everyone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Yardly - 04:11pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2498 of 2507)
One of the complications that exists within the debate is the question,who should be cloned ?
Much discussion has attached to the religious implications of cloning and some have made religious arguments opposed to cloning but I would like to make a proposal that may change their minds.
Many people do not know that Jesus' foreskin is kept in a reliquary within a church in Europe.
For more information see Below:
Click Here for Jesus' Foreskin
It would be simple matter to extract the DNA material from Jesus' Foreskin and insert it into a donor egg and to grow it. Thus, with this technique it is possible to produce another Jesus!
I think that few would agrue that He would not be a most worthy candidate or that this procedure would not hold great implications.
(The only problems I can forsee would involve the rather bothersome accompanying trumpet noises.)
So if you accept science, you can see that it is obvious that if Jesus was HOLY when he was cicumcised as a child, then The Sacred Foreskin would also maintain a HOLY state even to this day.
Thus, if we use SCIENCE effectively (particularly superior science) it will be a simple matter to produce the Second Coming of Christ.
I think you will agree that this would be a momentous event.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.K. DeLong - 04:36pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2499 of 2507)
In regards to the two calves cloned by University of Massachusetts researchers announced today -- you can find more information as well as pictures of the researchers and calves here.