Chris Robb - 05:40pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2500 of 2507)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
Keith... I am all for advancing the technology to be able to clone human organs. That could be incredibly useful. Cloning Animals could be useful.
I feel that we are moving into the human cloning technology way to fast. And Keith, I don't think that its evil, I think that it could be used in corrupt ways. I never think that technology is evil, hell, I'm a technocrat. But I definately think that technology could be misused.
The simple fact that people keep mentioning What about Cloning (FIll in the blank) tells me that it could be horribly misused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:03pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2501 of 2507)
two more cents...
Chris Robb, nearly any technology can be used in corrupt ways--that alone is not an adequate reason to ban it. A pocket calculator can be used to make calculations in the construction of a nuclear bomb--should we ban them, too? A garden spade could be used to bludgeon someone, and so on...
There already exist time-tested, low-tech ways to produce human offspring:
1 Man + 1 Woman + 10 minutes.
The fruit of this method can be/has been used in corrupt ways: Babies sold in the adoption black market, babies sold for their organs. I am by NO means condoning any of this, just want to point out that corruption will exist w/ or w/o a new technology.
I think it is prudent to set some reasonable guidelines in the emergence of a new technology, but an out right ban does not make sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:07pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2502 of 2507)
two more cents...
Tom Yardly #2498: "One of the complications that exists within the debate is the question,who should be cloned ?"
I think that is the private decision of the prospective "parent" & his/her doctor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 06:18pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2503 of 2507)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
C.Dat... I've never said that we should ban it, just proceed a little slower.
Your mentioning of the selling babies or their organs is one of the things I've mentioned long ago on this board. With cloning people, whats to stop somebody from creating their own little Organ Farming operation.
I accept that the technology is here to stay. I just think that some care and caution needs to be taken as we move forward in this area.
I don't think that Dr.Seeds should be the one doing this. He seems to be going with the attitude that its mearly a lab experiment, and to prove it can be done. And he wants the money. This is medical technology, and any new medical application has to undergo tests. Seeds isn't willing to allow for due process. He says that he'll go to another country. His process needs to be examined by real medical doctors, genetics experts and cellular biology experts. At least to determine if what he's planning is even safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:25pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2504 of 2507)
two more cents...
Chris Robb,
"With cloning people, whats to stop somebody from creating their own little Organ Farming operation."
What's to stop them from doing it now w/ conventually conceived babies? Just a a plot in the jungle in Guatemala, and away you go...
I agree w/ you that Seed is a poor messenger for the technology--kinda like David Duke wanting to offer endorsements for Republican political candidates. Thanks, but NO thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 06:35pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2505 of 2507)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
C.Dat... Thats the whole problem with this issue. If Seeds doesn't get his money here, he could go to a South American country, set up his little operation with lesser funding, cheaper equipment and should something happen, be responsible to nobody.
Its going to happen, Cloning, there will be no stopping it. But we can at least make the attempt to keep it under control so that it won't be abused or misused.
Lets take for example couple that Seeds is planning to use as his labrats. What if the mother suffers complications during the procedure, because it wasn't properly tested. She can't complain to the AMA, Seeds isn't a medical doctor. She can sue, but he'll probably be in Timbucktu by then.
Cloning technology can be used in other areas without having to clone humans. Organs, tissues, things of that nature. I just see more bad with human cloning than I do with good from it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 06:59pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2506 of 2507)
Tom Anderson: What gave you the idea that nearsightedness and IQ were genetically linked? NOT TRUE (I am nearsighted). I agree (at least I hope) that the Supreme Court would find a human cloning ban unconstitutional. It would probably require a constitutional amendment; in the meantime, states would set up their own rules. However, once a few clones are born overseas and shown to be normal human beings, the attitude will change.
Benjamin Baker: If you find out you need spare parts at age 50, you probably won't have the 15 years or so to gestate and raise a clone for its heart or whatever. Besides, having raised someone so like you, how could you possibly think of killing him? Bill Gates and I would love our clones--especially if we could get rid of the myopic gene!
c. dat: I commented earlier on "my mother, the cow." Cow's gestation periods are longer than humans, but maybe something can be worked out. Udderly fantastic, isn't it? If you can't explain to a clone that they are a clone, how will you explain that a cow birthed them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 07:06pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2507 of 2507)
Tom Yardley: 2000 year old DNA isn't going to be intact enough for cloning. You still need to remove the DNA to be cloned from a living cell. Even if this is Jesus' foreskin, which is highly unlikely, it won't work. It probably isn't intact enough to do a good chromosomal analysis, which would be even more interesting since Jesus was supposed to be a clone of sorts. So the Christian God must approve of producing babies without sex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tanstaafl mvs - 09:22pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2508 of 2509)
Dawn Willis said:
Benjamin Baker: If you find out you need spare parts at age 50, you probably won't have the 15 years or so to gestate and raise a clone for its heart or whatever. Besides, having raised someone so like you, how could you possibly think of killing him?
As far as I know, and this all comes from a segment of 60 minutes some time ago, there are already medical labs where the cloning of skin is being advanced, and at the time of the show they were already producing skin for burn victims. These same labs have also been looking into the cloning of human organs, so I doubt that you will have to kill your clone in order to get any of his/her organs because we will already have a system where organs can be manufactured.
However, even if we are able to clone organs without fully cloning humans, as we are able to do with skin, I still don't see where the FDA gets off making federal regulations and banning human clone research.
Forward with science! I would hate to see religion and shortsighted sceptics stand in the way of progress... where would we be today if Galileo had been stopped by the church?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Wilhite - 10:42pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2509 of 2509)
tanstaafl:
Your right there, but there is a limit! I hate the government and it's restrictive noose on our freedoms, but, there must be a limit on these technologies. Certain sciences have no right to be in anybody's hands, be they private, public, or government.
I detest the idea of human cloning, but I am not sure whether it should be outlawed, considering only ethicality. But, we have to start . . . or stop . . . somewhere.
What if Joe Blow invented a time machine? Joe Blow flies back in time, and interacts with a young boy in Illinois during the 19th century. Suddenly, Lincoln's life is changed, and watches the civil war as a veternarian!
Some technologies can simply prove too dangerous for anybody to use. Heck, even nuclear weapons had their upside (the advent of nuclear power) but, nonetheless, if cloning proves to hang in the horizon as a possible dagger, waiting to drop, then I say onward with the legislation!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:58pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2508 of 2516)
Better Read Than Said.....
How does Dr. Seed's clone differ from the meaning of a clone in Webster's which is asexual from a somatic cell? (Minus the germ cell)'An individual grown from a single somatic cell that appears to be a copy of the original form.'
Has anyone heard if Dr. Seed's clone will be a single cell or two cells...a normal sexual person or an asexual person that cannot reproduce. If and when it is born.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:10pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2509 of 2516)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
I told myself I wouldn't do this, but it's too late, I'm already too deep... so here come my opinions full speed ahead, ready or not!
Joe Sumrall,
I say let nature take its course in the evolutionary process. Cloning only serves to take away our individuality
First of all, people do not evolve anymore (at least in this and other industrialized nations); nearly all of the population survives its entire reproductive years. Secondly, cloning does not in any way serve to take away individuality. Each person is still an entirely seperate personality, even if their physical features are similar (but style and age account for a lot even in physical features). Cloning does not mean that life will be a perpetual Doublemint Gum commercial... people will still look different, and still be different.
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.
If anything, more technology requires more brainwork and more thinking. To use a pocket calculator, you must first be familiar with mathematical concepts such as number systems and operations, and then you must also learn how to use the calculator... and of course you must learn whatever task you are using the calculator to aid you in. Just because people don't sit in grocery stores doing long division to find out their bill does not mean that they are stupid; if anything, it means that they are intelligent and efficient to be using a calculator. In addition, the fact that people keep inventing better calculators, et al, just goes to show that we are getting more innovative and more intelligent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:11pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2510 of 2516)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Mike Cascio,
Why on earth would we WANT to make MORE PEOPLE?? Aren't there enough already? Wouldn't you thinkthat more people would be the last thing our earth needs?
So tell people on welfare to stop having children in order to get more benefits. Cloning is a way that infertile couples can have children that they would otherwise have sexually, but cannot. It is in no way a threat to overpopulation.
Ruby Pool,
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--"
That is what I was referring to. If my religion, or lack thereof, enables me to employ cloning technology or research the genetics of cloning, there cannot be a law against it unless it in some way limits the rights of others, which it does not. Therefore, it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass any law banning cloning or its associated research. The Supreme Court would be forced to that conclusion as well, even if it could pass in the legislature.
Kurt Schoedel,
I'm certainly interested in the rejuvenation/regeneration technology aspects of cloning.
As you should be; the self-preserval instinct is very strong. Nothing wrong with that. Theoretically, to live forever is to know everything... to be a god, and that idea is perhaps even stronger. People who claim to be against this idea are only fooling themselves, or trying to fool their conception of a current god.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:12pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2511 of 2516)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Edward Doris,
Some children have a hard time dealing with being adopted. But how do you explain to a child that he/she is cloned.
The same way you explain to a child that he/she is gamete fused. Unless you know the ins and outs of reproduction, and the child is extraordinarily curious, you probably don't.
If I gained some weight, cut my hair, shaved, and dressed differently, I would look almost exactly like my father... but right now, people can't even tell we're related. Style accounts for a lot. A cloned child will look only relatively like the parent... and don't forget that the child will be about twenty to fourty years younger, and that accounts for an incredible amount. Don't worry, parent and child clone will look almost nothing alike, so the subject of how he/she was conceived will probably never have to be raised.
Russell Reynolds,
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?
Well, the first thing to do is to lose that silly notion of a soul. People are made of matter that is arranged in a very complex way. We can create this complex infrastructure recursively, as nature does, by letting each cell do its part, as is done naturally. "Ontology recaputulates phylogeny".
Chris Robb,
Cloning is not the magical Fountain of Youth. If your clone yourself, it will not nessessarily be you.
Well, it certainly won't be you... unless we can figure out a way to transfer the brain, or at lease perhaps the memories.
However, cloning may still be the Fountain of Youth; you see, once we know how to trick cells into becoming an embryo again, it is elementary to start tricking all cells to be young again. Or, if that is impractical, at least we could clone individual organs for perpetual organ replacement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:13pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2512 of 2516)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Tom Yardly,
Jesus' foreskin... wouldn't it be funny if he turned out to be Chinese or something. Or even worse, what if he were a NORMAL human being with no special powers!?!? Just some conman playing the people for fools using the "magic" of the orient and some salesman tactics...
Chris Robb,
The simple fact that people keep mentioning What about Cloning (FIll in the blank) tells me that it could be horribly misused.
The fact that every (blank) is a totally unfounded fear tells me that people are far too ignorant to have such strong opinions. To paraphrase Socrates, either know what you are talking about, or keep your mouth shut. That is advice that many people should take, including the United States government.
When thinking "what about cloning (blank)", one should first consider whether (blank) can be done without cloning technology, and what keeps it from being done now if it can. Examples of these (blanks) include evil armies, organ farms, and supermodel harems.
People should also stop assuming that clones would be somehow subhuman... it just isn't so. No matter how a person is conceived, he is still equally protected by the law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:13pm Jan 20, 1998 ET (#2513 of 2516)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Dawn Willis,
Tom Anderson: What gave you the idea that nearsightedness and IQ were genetically linked?
Huh? My fingers never typed anything of the sort! (I'm nearsighted too... maybe an eye-cloning business would be fruitful)
So the Christian God must approve of producing babies without sex.
So it appears... unless little Miss Mary was lying about being a virgin because of tight social traditions; maybe the Christian God actually raped her as the Greek gods used to do!
Rodney Wilhite,
if cloning proves to hang in the horizon as a possible dagger, waiting to drop, then I say onward with the legislation!
It is attitudes like that which have gotten us as entangled as we already are... there are no dangers, so stop saying "what if there are"! Learn first, speak later; not the other way around. Would you have been opposed to the invention of the automobile just because your face might fall off if you go faster than thirty miles per hour? That's what people ignorantly believed despite having no evidence that it be true. Until you have a legitimate objection to the technology, don't be a naysayer.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:07am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2514 of 2516)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Tom Anderson: 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.
You are right, Tom. But ethics are based on the prevailing moral standards of society. Whether the moral standards are based on religion is beside the point. If the prevailing attitude of society is that fraud is immoral, governments representing the society will pass laws against it. The same applies to human cloning. To act as if this attitude is of no consequence, because you think it should have no consequence, is tantamount to hiding your head in the sand.
Tom Anderson: The fact remains that cloning is not an ethical issue, and as such, it cannot be a political issue in the United States.
Sorry to disillusion you, Tom, but it is an ethical issue. If it wasn't before, it is now. And it is also a political issue. If it wasn't before, it is now. I think the main reason it has become a political issue is the disastrous PR by proponents such as Dr. Seed. In contrast to the masterful handling of the issue by Dr. Wilmut, Dr. Seed has been a total disaster.
c. dat: I don't have enthical problem w/ cloning, provided some reasonable guidelines are observed. I think an outright ban is not feasible.
This is clear thinking. Under the circumstances, I see no alternative to at least rudimentary guidelines in view of the present climate. I think animal cloning to develop increased supplies of useful medicines, and human cloning at the embryonic stage only, should be continued. The implantation, and actual growing of a human clone should await better, more successful techniques, and a change in the climate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:17am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2515 of 2516)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Ruby Pool: 'Separation of Church and State' is not Constitutional but rather was passed through the courts by the ACLU.
Ruby, you are right. Separation of church and state is a doctrine, not a specific requirement of the constitution. But this doctrine is grounded firmly in the constitution. The language: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," requires the separation in the sense that there can be no "state religion." If no religion can receive a favored position with respect to other religions, the result is a very real separation of church and state.
Ruby Pool: Government cannot interfere with religion, but religious people have the same rights as anyone else in protesting or being outraged with government proceedings.
Ruby, you are absolutely right here. I think it is probably a good thing that Tom does not intend to stick around. You would probably tear him to pieces. (Hear that Tom?)
Note: Tom, I wrote the above before I saw your new posts. I was just kidding of course-maybe. Welcome back.
c. dat: 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.
c., you have a wonderful sense of putting things into perspective. I am beginning to really look forward to your posts. They make sense.
c. dat: Who knows, maybe clone-of-Bill will be a Mac user.
Another example of your incisive wit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:23am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2516 of 2516)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Keith Fosberg: 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.
Keith, sometimes you say things perfectly. This is an example.
Keith Fosberg: 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.
More perfection.
c. dat: I agree w/ you that Seed is a poor messenger for the technology--kinda like David Duke wanting to offer endorsements for Republican political candidates. Thanks, but NO thanks!
c., you and Keith are on a roll. (Sometimes I wonder if Dr. Seed was set up as a strawman by the opponents of cloning. He can't possibly be the dunce he appears to be.)
Dawn Willis (to Tom Anderson): What gave you the idea that nearsightedness and IQ were genetically linked?
Dawn, Tim Ramsey, not Tom, made the unfortunate reference to a "nearsighted moron." I think this was the comment to which you objected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 08:28am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2517 of 2535)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Ruby,
The simplest answere to your question is that it is not an issue (the asexual reference.) The definition is not refering to the cloned organism as asexual, but rather the method of procreation being asexual.
Unless something is done to modify the development of the new organism then it will be of the same gender as the donor organism.
I don't want to attempt to dwelve to deeply into what can and can not be done to alter the development of the cloned organism as Dawn will correct me harshly and make me feel the fool! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 09:33am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2518 of 2535)
two more cents...
Here's an interesting scenario: what if it were possible to engineer the fusion of complementary DNA from non-gametic cells of the infertile mother & father to produce a child. The resulting offspring would be a 50:50 genetic fusion of both parents, just like a conventionally conceived child. No Xerox copy of 1 parent, only.
Would the human cloning nay-sayers have a problem w/ that? I am trying to comprehend the root of the objection to the technology. Is it the manipulation of human genetic material that is the problem (we already practive in-vitro fertilization)? Or is it the idea that the offspring is a physical copy of the original?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 10:31am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2519 of 2535)
c. dat 1/21/98 9:33am:
"Would the human cloning nay-sayers have a problem w/ that?"
Many would simply because of the "man playing God" argument. But the process would lose the knee-jerk anti-cloning reaction many people have, so I think society as a whole might find it more acceptable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:40am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2520 of 2535)
Better Read Than Said.....
Well Tom, Cliff and Keith, you sure cleared up the confusion on my part. Thanks....what would the world do without men...we would have to take out a rib and clone one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Yardly - 11:03am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2521 of 2535)
It's interesting that cloning could explain the Virgin Birth -- "Lo, a child will be born unto a virgin." -- and maybe,
if the lab was clean enough, even the Immaculate Conception.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 11:12am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2522 of 2535)
two more cents...
Tom Yardly #2521, if Jesus was cloned from Mary, then where did the Y-chromosome come from? Does God have DNA?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 11:16am Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2523 of 2535)
two more cents...
Hey, what does the FDA have to do w/ HUMAN cloning, anyway? Are clones food? Are they drugs? Are California scientists planning to clone smokers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Yardly - 12:06pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2524 of 2535)
C -- Are you kidding? Obviously the DNA was created by the Holy Spirit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFF SHEFFIELD - 12:16pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2525 of 2535)
THE FEARS OF CLONING COMES FROM THE SAME PLACE ALL FEARS COME FROM THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN MAN WASNT MENT TO CROSS THE OCEANS FLY OR GO INTO SPACE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill B - 12:41pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2526 of 2535)
As long as clones are not made from the nay sayers on this page, I am all for cloning! Besides, it will happen despite the fear mongers. Since it is going to happen, I would prefer that it occurs in the USA rather than somewhere else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madden - 12:42pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2527 of 2535)
CNN MODERATOR:
Cloning Link From NEWS
(http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9801/19/cloning.ap/)
is Not Working. Given as
WebX%3F13@84_wDqF4mMn%[email protected]
and not same as shown on "Community" page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 01:06pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2528 of 2535)
two more cents...
Tom Yardly #2524, I am out of my league debating on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 01:27pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2529 of 2535)
Better Read Than Said.....
Do any of you clones happen to have a clone of the latest Clinton tapes? Maybe we can use them to get him to remove the ban on cloning. I'm getting clong-tied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 04:09pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2530 of 2535)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
Being a Nay-Sayer of Human Cloning, let me make one thing very clear.
I DO NOT FEAR THIS TECHNOLOGY, I FEAR THE MULTITUDE OF ABUSES THAT CAN SPRING FROM IT.
I also have a really big problem with a doctor of physics rather than a medical doctor leading the crusade on this technology.
I think we should slow down a little, do the proper testing to make sure its safe. And take a little caution.
Dr. Seeds is planning to go forward, hell or highwater. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing that the American Medical Asst. can do should he screw up, as he's not a medical doctor.
I think a little more thought needs to put into where this technology is leading us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 04:42pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2531 of 2535)
Tom A: I apologize. I thought you were the one who said "only a nearsighted moron could object to cloning." Glad to learn it wasn't you!
Ruby Pool: Keith is right. It is the process of creating the clone that is asexual. The clone him/her self would probably be capable of sexual reproduction, even if the DNA donor was infertile. Infertility can be caused by a number of environmental factors, like mumps.
Chris Robb: The fact that Seed isn't an MD isn't what makes him the wrong person for this experiment. MDs rarely have any research training and usually pair up with PhDs when they want to pursue a medical research problem. Seed's brother is a gynecologist, and he said he had several MDs lined up to do whatever human body contact was required. The problem with Seed is that he is more interested in being first than being right.
I read in the Jan.19 "The Scientist" (a newspaper for life science professionals)that Israel was not going to sign the human cloning ban, but did intend to regulate the process. I also learned that, according to both Jewish and Islamic law, life does not begin until 40 days after conception. So in vitro human embryo experimentation is not forbidden in those cultures. So let the USA and Europe ban human cloning. The Israelis will do it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 04:58pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2532 of 2535)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
Dawn... Dr. Seeds is also in this for the money that he thinks will come from it.
True, a Medical Doctor rarely has time for research. But then thats what Cellular Biologist is for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 05:54pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2533 of 2535)
So what if Seeds is in it for the money? That's the nature of a capitalist system. Everyone is in it for the money.
I've been suspicious of Seed's motivations, however. In my view, his announcement has pushed all the right buttons in those opposed to human cloning. Although I admit there are plenty of people who are defiantly arrogant anyway, and Seed could be one of them, it seems to me that this might have been calculated to provoke a regulatory response; a deliberate effort to sabotage research by provoking public hostility.
Of course, he could just be tactless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha'zeus Christos - 06:02pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2534 of 2535)
All this talk about "souls" is very interesting, but I think the word usually translated as "soul" or "spirit" in the Old Testament is actually the Hebrew word for "liver." It seems that these ancient Hebrews thought that the personality resides in the liver, as they thought that emotions reside in the heart, etc.
So as long as we clone humans WITH livers, it seems they will be going to heaven after all.
Let me go through my "Young's Literal Translation of the Bible" one more time and see if we can come up with some more useful and logical reasons not to clone...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Nutbetter - 07:26pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2535 of 2535)
I think the word usually translated as "soul" or "spirit" in the Old Testament is actually the Hebrew word for "liver."
You da man. I retch at any talk about souls. I watched farmers and other hillbillies defend these boys who broke into an animal shelter and clubbed cats to death with bats, saying "they're good boys," and "it ain't a crime, cats don't have souls." No but murderous boys do?
Souls my ass. A person is exactly an animal, a group of ever-dividing cells. Personality is the sum total of chemical balance and electrocephalic activity. No mysticism here. Clone away. The only bad part of cloning as I see it, is we don't need another way to reproduce people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KENT ERIKSSON - 09:02pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2536 of 2540)
I hope we get to see the cloning research continue to the level where we can "gro" spare parts for our sefs incase of an accident for example
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 11:39pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2537 of 2540)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
c.dat #2518: Good idea. It is an alternative to mulit cell clones. But how about taking one chromazone form 36 people. That child would get a lot of birthday presents.
Dawn Willis #2531: I,m thrilled that "LIFE" does not begin until 40 days after conception. Since clones are not conceived that means that under the old law they are not even alive let alone human beings.
They dont even have the rights of a dog. Lets face it the conventional religions ar not going to work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:39pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2538 of 2540)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Tom Anderson: That is what I was referring to. If my religion, or lack thereof, enables me to employ cloning technology or research the genetics of cloning, there cannot be a law against it unless it in some way limits the rights of others, which it does not. Therefore, it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass any law banning cloning or its associated research.
Tom, you are wrong. If your religion, or lack thereof permits you to experiment with drugs, does that make laws against the use of pot unconstitutional? Pot does not limit the rights of others, but laws regulating the use of Pot are constitutional. Stop looking for a political loophole. It does not exist.
Tom Anderson: Well, the first thing to do is to lose that silly notion of a soul.
The notion of a soul is not silly. Furthermore, if your purpose is to persuade, you do not do it with insults. However, It is interesting that the concept of the immortal soul, separate from the perishable body, appears to have been argued first in The Wisdom of Solomon, written, probably, about 50 BCE. This book appears to have had a significant effect on NT thought. As a corollary, it appears that the concept of the resurrection of the physical body is somewhat older, but also post-exilic at the earliest. Neither the resurrection of the body nor of the soul appear in the OT.
Tom Anderson: It is attitudes like that which have gotten us as entangled as we already are... there are no dangers, so stop saying "what if there are"! Learn first, speak later; not the other way around.
Such certainty! How can you be so certain there will be no side effects or adverse effects from the procedure. I think we need to learn more from animal studies before pronouncing human cloning to be without danger. Like you said: "Learn first, speak later."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:42pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2539 of 2540)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Keith Fosberg: I don't want to attempt to dwelve to deeply into what can and can not be done to alter the development of the cloned organism as Dawn will correct me harshly and make me feel the fool!
Very funny--but true. I know the feeling. At the same time, it is nice to have someone around that is truly knowledgeable about this complex subject.
c. dat: I am trying to comprehend the root of the objection to the technology. Is it the manipulation of human genetic material that is the problem (we already practive in-vitro fertilization)? Or is it the idea that the offspring is a physical copy of the original?
I think it is mainly misunderstanding, bad press and poor PR. The main problem recently has been the obvious arrogance of Dr. Seed. Instead of developing a comprehensive plan and articulating the safeguards he planned, he acted as if it was nobody's business what he did. Wrong!
c. dat: Hey, what does the FDA have to do w/ HUMAN cloning, anyway? Are clones food? Are they drugs? Are California scientists planning to clone smokers?
Like it or not, the FDA has a great deal to do with it in this country.
Ruby Pool: Do any of you clones happen to have a clone of the latest Clinton tapes? Maybe we can use them to get him to remove the ban on cloning. I'm getting clong-tied.
What?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:45pm Jan 21, 1998 ET (#2540 of 2540)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Chris Robb: I also have a really big problem with a doctor of physics rather than a medical doctor leading the crusade on this technology.
I think I would have more confidence in a microbiologist handling the details.
Chris Robb: I think we should slow down a little, do the proper testing to make sure its safe. And take a little caution.
I agree with the part about doing the proper testing to make sure it is safe. My understanding is that the FDA is allowing embryonic research. I support this research and I support animal cloning. I do not support human cloning at this time since I do not believe it has been shown to be safe.
Dawn Willis: I also learned that, according to both Jewish and Islamic law, life does not begin until 40 days after conception. So in vitro human embryo experimentation is not forbidden in those cultures. So let the USA and Europe ban human cloning. The Israelis will do it!
Dawn, as I mentioned to Chris, it is my understanding that human embryonic research is continuing in the USA. Is my understanding incorrect?
Ha'zeus Christos: All this talk about "souls" is very interesting, but I think the word usually translated as "soul" or "spirit" in the Old Testament is actually the Hebrew word for "liver."
Ha'zeus, this is interesting stuff. I had not heard that. Do you have a source for further information. (A source on the net would be ideal.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 02:06am Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2541 of 2561)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cliff,
Whether the moral standards are based on religion is beside the point. If the prevailing attitude of society is that fraud is immoral, governments representing the society will pass laws against it.
Not the government of the United States. It is strictly illegal for Congress to pass a law based solely on religious reasons. It is their job to separate the justice from the prevailing attitude.
Sorry to disillusion you, Tom, but it is an ethical issue.
No, it is not. To be an ethical issue, the act of cloning would have to in some way infringe on people's rights -- it does not. Since it is not an ethical issue, but a moral (religious) one, the U.S. government cannot legally interfere in either the research or the action.
c.dat,
Here's an interesting scenario: what if it were possible to engineer the fusion of complementary DNA from non-gametic cells of the infertile mother & father to produce a child.
You would have to cause the somatic cells to undergo meiosis in order to halve the number of chromosomes. And I don't know how you could cause them to fuse without first undergoing gametogenesis and actually becoming gametes, but perhaps simply mixing the haploid nuclei would be enough. Artificially inducing meiosis would be the biggist hurdle though.
Also, allowing meiosis to occur, you bypass one of the advantages of cloning -- prevention of non-disjunction which is the cause of Down's Syndrome, Criminal Tallness, Turners Syndrome, and others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 02:06am Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2542 of 2561)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Chris Robb,
I DO NOT FEAR THIS TECHNOLOGY, I FEAR THE MULTITUDE OF ABUSES THAT CAN SPRING FROM IT.
Please justify your fear; I have yet to hear a legitimate possibility of abuse. And stop yelling.
I also have a really big problem with a doctor of physics rather than a medical doctor leading the crusade on this technology.
Just because a person holds a degree in one field does not mean he is restricted to having knowledge and interest solely in that field. It does not really take that much to understand cloning and employ some experts in the field to help do it.
I think we should slow down a little, do the proper testing to make sure its safe.
That's what researchers are trying to do... but keep getting objections from all sides. Testing involves trying to do it and taking note of what happens; if all is planned well, nothing should go wrong, but there is risk in everything. There is already lots of data from successful cloning of animals to act as guidelines. The difference between a cell of a sheep and a cell of a human is comparable to the difference between the motherboard of a Dell and the motherboard of a Compaq.
To the best of my knowledge there is nothing that the American Medical Asst. can do should he screw up, as he's not a medical doctor.
What do you mean, screw up? It's not like testing nuclear weapons! The worst that can happen is that the embryo does not survive; who cares? Thousands of them die every day in women's wombs, and they don't even know the difference.
Pete,
A person is exactly an animal, a group of ever-dividing cells. Personality is the sum total of chemical balance and electrocephalic activity. No mysticism here. Clone away.
Right.
The only bad part of cloning as I see it, is we don't need another way to reproduce people.
That's not true... infertility is a common problem, and people want genetic offspring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 02:08am Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2543 of 2561)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cliff,
If your religion, or lack thereof permits you to experiment with drugs, does that make laws against the use of pot unconstitutional? Pot does not limit the rights of others, but laws regulating the use of Pot are constitutional.
That's not true, pot does limit the rights of others. Pot, like many drugs, destroy a person's ability to operate equipment such as a car, which results in unjust deaths. There does not need to be a political "loophole", the law is straight forward.
The notion of a soul is not silly... It is interesting that the concept of the immortal soul, separate from the perishable body, appears to have been argued first...
The idea of the soul appears in many primitive religions, usually as a spirit, or a "little person" inside of something which makes it work. People could not fathom that something could work by a physical or chemical process, but that there must be some "little person" inside. This was reinforced by such phenomena as shadows, reflections, and breath. Breath is a particularly strong element in the evolution of this train of thought in the history of religion; it is with us while alive, but leaves at death. Also, since the breath is exhaled throught the mouth, it is relatively easy to see the correlation to the idea of the soul leaving the body and rising upward at death. This is also related to the idea of the heart as holding the soul since it is the foremost sign of life (even today, we check the pulse as a primary vital sign), since it beats while alive, but does not when dead.
<cont...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 02:09am Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2544 of 2561)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
<...cont>
Sleep was seen as a reprise from life at which time the soul could leave temporarily and explore (dreams) and then return (waking up). Sleep was the temporary, while death of course was the permanent. Animism, the association of trees and rocks and wind and soforth as having this same property (the spirit) was the next step of this idea, so people would worship these spirits in an attempt to gain their will (such as making it rain or causing crops to grow or providing game to hunt). These spirits were eventually given names and histories were invented -- polytheism became the result. The next step in the evolution of religion was naturally the combining of these separate spirits into one overall controlling force called God which could be worshipped all at once for everything. The point of this little tangent of mine is to illustrate the way in which this silly notion came about and just why it is so silly -- for we know the truth, we know how things really work now, and do not need to invent such silly ideas to explain the world. People are simply a large collection of matter, so arranged as to produce life. Consciousness is the result of a functioning brain; at death, the brain stops functioning, and so does consciousness. Sorry, but you don't escape through the mouth to live on... you are dead, the end. Clones don't have souls any more than anyone else does. The fact that people still believe in such things as a soul and God seem absolutely ridiculous to me because they are so plainly the result of primitive ignorance and obviously unnecessary to explain our world. I don't mean to be insulting, but use your head and figure it out yourself.
<cont...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 02:09am Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2545 of 2561)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
<...cont>
Such certainty! How can you be so certain there will be no side effects or adverse effects from the procedure.
Because I understand the procedure, and I understand the set of all outcomes. There are a finite number of things that can happen, none of which is devastating. Possible bad things -- the embryo dies, the embryo is malformed and aborted and dies, the embryo was never viable. The only bad thing that can happen is that we lose a bunch of worthless cells. Nothing else bad can result. Possible good things -- the embryo is healthy and is allowed to grow into a person -- great! Basically the same risks as sex, except you can't get AIDS by cloning yourself.
Instead of developing a comprehensive plan and articulating the safeguards he planned, he acted as if it was nobody's business what he did.
It isn't anyone else's business; and if he just kept it quiet, no one would know until a perfectly healthy baby was produced. Nobody heard about Dolly until she was born.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
zia ur rahman - 06:55am Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2546 of 2561)
I think cloning may cause serious injury to human nature and culture. it is wise to study more on it before cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Wilson - 08:47am Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2547 of 2561)
I JUST WANT TO POSE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT CLONING.
WHAT IF DURING THE PROCESS OF CLONING A DISEASE WAS CLONED AND MUTATED INTO SOMETHING WE COULD NOT CONTROL? IS THIS A POSSIBILITY?
ALSO COULD THIS HAPPEN IN CLONING A HUMAN. COULD WE CLONE SOMEHTING WE REALLY DON'T WANT AND CANNOT CONTROL?
THE ONLY WAY TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IS TO TRY CLONING. OR IS THERE ANOTHER WAY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 10:52am Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2548 of 2561)
two more cents...
Ricky Wilson #2547, "WHAT IF DURING THE PROCESS OF CLONING A DISEASE WAS CLONED AND MUTATED INTO SOMETHING WE COULD NOT CONTROL?"
This could happen now anyway w/o cloning. An analogy to your argument would be:
What if a cloned human is abused as a child, grows up emotionally mal-adjusted, gets a job at the U.S. Post Service, goes beserk one day, and guns down all his co-workers. Goodness--we should ban cloning!
Much of the opposition to human cloning follows this line of reasoning. Nightmare scenarios are suggested that could occur ANYWAY w/o cloning:
harvesting organs from the living, women being paid to be surrogate wombs, babies being sold, people made into sex slaves, ego-maniac celebs wanting to license their likeness, scientists wanting to cash in on technology, Bill Gates wanting to leave the money to his genetic offspring, etc...
P.S. Please don't SHOUT! all the time. It is difficult to read the text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 12:25pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2549 of 2561)
Better Read Than Said.....
Tom Anderson:
You remind me of a relative who just popped in for a visit and then stayed and stayed and took over the house until finally we all packed up and went on a vacation.
What is all this jibberish about the soul.? Are you related to GlenN Curry by any chance?
The 'soul' is us...the thoughts, ideological make-up and feelings that we know, but do not see. Not all this baloney you've posted. The breath goes out, just like it was breathed in at birth when the doctor spanked our little bottom. Before that, our mother breathed for us and gave us life. You can call it anything you want...but for me it is the 'soul.'
Now excuse me, I'm going to take a vacation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Robb - 12:50pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2550 of 2561)
Dark, Devious, Demented & Friendly
Tom Anderson... The abuses for human cloning are numerous and varied.
1)Cloning Humans to use as scientific test subjects. 2)Cloning Humans to provide a supply of parts. 3)Cloning Humans to create the perfect person, by manipulating the Genetic structure. (Thats just a few)
Yes, we should slow down on this. This is a very new technology. Its not like trying to produce a faster comupter chip.
What do I mean about SCREWING UP!? Dr. Seeds implants his cloned cells into the women. But the procedure doesn't work, for whatever reason. Who is responsible for making sure that it doesn't happen again.
Dr. Seeds has already admitted that if one of his cloned embryos doesn't meet his standards he'll destroy it.
There is just a lot of grey area in this that needs to have some more questions asked.
Oh, and Tom. While I understand that its rude to shout, its my right if I want to. I don't do it very often.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 01:34pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2551 of 2561)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Chris,
What is wrong with a little genetic manipulation? As has been pointed out before, humans do not evolve anymore. Due to our relatively long lives (actually due to the rate at which we turn over generations), and the rapid (and rapidly increasing) changes to our society and environment natural selection is defeated. The environmental preasures change faster (on several orders of magnitude) than the time scale at which natural selection operates.
If we are going to involve it will be through proactive, planned modifications of our offspring. Granted, this needs deep and carefull consideration, but it is almost certainly our future.
You can not "farm" body parts or "farm out" entire persons for research without their consent. This entire argument, though recurrant, is a complete non-sequiter to any issues of cloning. To fear this you may want to ask yourself (I am not asking you and don't need an answere) if you see cloned individuals as less than human.
The only danger I can see in cloning, at this time, is that the possibility exists that the process being used to transfer and implant DNA may have long term negative effects on the cloned organism, i.e., "old" DNA. These issues need to be researched so that any negative effects on the cloned organism can be eliminated.
Here is the one I really don't understand: " ... Dr. Seeds implants his cloned cells into the women. But the procedure doesn't work, for whatever reason. Who is responsible for making sure that it doesn't happen again. ... " So? Why should anyone be responsible. A perfect analogy: Your father made love to your mother but the fertalised ova did not implant. Who is responsible for making sure that it doesn't happen again? These two [your quote and the blue text] are statements that are identical in their ethical weight!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 03:16pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2552 of 2561)
Cliff Beall, Keith Fosberg: Do I really sound like a know-it-all? That's what my kids say, too! But Tom seems to know a lot of biology as well, and I don't know anything about theoretical physics. A propos of nothing, whatever happened in the Supreme Court case regarding the use of hallucinogens in American Indian religious ceremonies? Cliff, there is currently a ban on the use of federal funds forhuman embryo research, but private in vitro fertilization clinics are doing it. There is also a ban on funding for experiments using material from aborted fetuses except for transplantation research...and a strong lobby to ban funds even for this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 03:36pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2553 of 2561)
Tom Anderson, I really do enjoy readings your opinions, probably because I agree with most of them. Cloning isn't that difficult or even that expensive, but there is some discomfort for the egg donors and surrogate moms. A fertility clinic in GA has recently reported that they can now freeze human eggs, and this is a real step forward--but each Pergonal treatment only results in the harvest of so many--5-10, I think. The surrogates have to be primed with hormones to be receptive to the embryos. I don't think it is something she would want to go through too many times.
I think c dat"s hypothetical question about fusing two somatic cells was just that--hypothetical, to see if the masses would object if that were possible. Which, as you so eloquently described, it is not. I did have a corollary to that thought, though--"what if" it were possible to use the DNA from the sperm of two male homosexuals or the eggs of two lesbians as the DNA donors for the enucleated egg? Right now the DNA donor cells have to be manipulated by starvation to put them in the right state, but maybe what I am suggesting is "conceivable?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:59pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2554 of 2561)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
OW! Oy, the puns!
But can you actually stimulate the mitosis in the donor cells, and have any resonable expectation that you will end up with one complete "set" of chromozones in the end?
BTW: It occurs to me that men will finally have the upper hand in procreation in this scenario since they would be able to produce both female and male offspring this way whilst females could only produce more females.
(At least no more ignorant men will be blaming their wives for not "giving" them boys!)
P.s. I should mention; This subject [cloning] really freaked my wife out when she heard about it. After I explained what it actually is she relaxed and has since decided to ignore it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murph - 04:55pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2555 of 2561)
The Masses are Asses
The whole cloning idea is sick! It was created by people trying to make a utopian society. Nobody knows the extent to wich it will be abused. It is an insult to nature and god. What's next?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debasish Mukhopadhyay - 05:21pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2556 of 2561)
We can not stop human cloning no matter how much we try. Sooner or later the underworld will take interest in it. I can foresee Mafia's, Autocrats and all other interesting elements in the world will clone themselves to maintain their legacy. Fundamentalists will encourage mass cloning to increase their population.
God save us !!!
- Debasish Mukhopadhyay, MI, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Wilson - 05:22pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2557 of 2561)
Nightmare scenarios! You are correct. When this happens even in nature they are nightmares, to state a fact.
And they do happen! But are the chances increased substantially and how much. Are we willing to take the chance of creating or is it creating or manipulating?
I wonder if a cloned human being would be treated as a real human or as as object. Would it be a real human?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 06:06pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2558 of 2561)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Tom Anderson - 02:09am Jan 22, 1998 ET
"Because I understand the procedure, and I understand the set of all outcomes. There are a finite number of things that can happen, none of which is devastating."
Tom, isn't this just a tad arrogant? Until the more long term effects on the cloned organism, regarding the potential of DNA aging and unknowns, etc. are better known there are some possibilities for danger to the fullt developed cloned organism. I do not object to research or the process in general, but do think that human research is premature as a sheep doesn't care if it lives four years instead of six, but a person will care if they are geriactic at 35.
Rick Wilson,
The answere is no, but I will leave the technical details to those more qualified to explain why.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:13pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2559 of 2561)
two more cents...
Ricky Wilson #2557,
"I wonder if a cloned human being would be treated as a real human"
Yes it would. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has the complete DNA of a duck, then it's a duck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 06:41pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2560 of 2561)
two more cents...
Debasish Mukhopadhyay #2558
I can foresee Mafia's, Autocrats and all other interesting elements in the world will clone themselves to maintain their legacy.
So what? They do this already with their conventionally conceived sons & daughters.
Fundamentalists will encourage mass cloning to increase their population.
Again, they can already increase their population the old fashioned way. Are you aware of some mass procreation movement in Syria or Iran? You are forgetting that you still need to a womb & a 9 month gestation per clone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Walk - 08:35pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2561 of 2561)
CLoning animals is one thing; it could even be helpful.But what good can come from cloning humans?By cloning animals we can help the starving but creating more humans is just the same as making more people hungry.Everybody say's the good thing is it will give non-fertile couples a chance at a family, to make more kids.But what happened to the millions of orphaned kids waiting to be adopted?Do they just lose at the game of life because of technology that will "better" the human race? Is what I am mainly trying to say is why do we need more humans then we can make ,the way they were intended, when we cant' even take care of the billions we already have?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. dat - 11:28pm Jan 22, 1998 ET (#2562 of 2565)
two more cents...
Brandon Walk #2561:
"why do we need more humans then we can make ,the way they were intended, when we cant' even take care of the billions we already have?"
Since when do infertile couples suddenly have the weight of the world on their shoulders? Are they responsible for the welfare of the "billions".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:55am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2563 of 2565)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Tom Anderson: Not the government of the United States. It is strictly illegal for Congress to pass a law based solely on religious reasons. It is their job to separate the justice from the prevailing attitude.
True, but beside the point. Who says objections to cloning is based strictly on religion? Look, if you can't differentiate between morals and religion, I'll change the word: If the prevailing attitude of society is that fraud is UNETHICAL, governments representing the society will pass laws against it. The same is true for human cloning. And I can assure you that laws regulating human cloning will be held to be constitutional. I notice that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has proposed legislation that would ban the cloning of humans without restricting medical research. They don't think it is unconstitutional.
Tom Anderson: The idea of the soul appears in many primitive religions, usually as a spirit, or a "little person" inside of something which makes it work.
I thought you might mention that the concept of the "immortal soul" actually originated with Plato. (That Jewish thought was influenced by the Greeks should not surprise; the Greeks ruled the world.) I also expected somebody, probably not you, but somebody, to notice that if the soul is deemed to be immortal, there is no need for a resurrection. (I am giving up on intentional lapses in logic. Nobody notices.)
Tom Anderson: The point of this little tangent of mine is to illustrate the way in which this silly notion came about and just why it is so silly...
Plato didn't think it was silly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:57am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2564 of 2565)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Ruby Pool (to Tom Anderson): You remind me of a relative who just popped in for a visit and then stayed and stayed and took over the house until finally we all packed up and went on a vacation.
Very funny, Ruby. But I suggest you stay on your toes. Tom has a sharp tongue too.
Chris Robb: Dr. Seeds has already admitted that if one of his cloned embryos doesn't meet his standards he'll destroy it.
Well, that is all well and good, as far as I am concerned, except it may not be that simple. At what point will he know he has made a mistake? If it is after the child is born, he might run into a problem with the gas chamber in trying to keep that promise.
The point is this: I support the concept of human cloning in principle, but it is very important that the first cloned child be healthy and that people love it. That is what happened with the first invitro child. Invitro was controversial until people saw that little girl on TV, saw how beautiful she was, and decided there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with the way she came into being. But if Dr. Seed--or someone like him--were to produce a monstrosity, human cloning may very well be banned for a generation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:59am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2565 of 2565)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Keith Fosberg: The only danger I can see in cloning, at this time, is that the possibility exists that the process being used to transfer and implant DNA may have long term negative effects on the cloned organism, i.e., "old" DNA. These issues need to be researched so that any negative effects on the cloned organism can be eliminated.
I think there might also be short term adverse effects if the scientists performing the procedure do not really know what they are doing. Tom's assurances that the Seed team has the answers is not very reassuring to me.
Dawn Willis: Do I really sound like a know-it-all? That's what my kids say, too!
Dawn, I have never observed you opening your mouth without first engaging your brain. I think you know this subject matter in some significant depth and will not claim to know more that you really do. That is important because you could snow us if you wanted to. Also, I have never observed you tilting the facts to support an argument. As near as I can tell, your arguments are based strictly on the facts. Personally, I think your kids are lucky, and I'll bet they agree.
Keith Fosberg: Tom, isn't this just a tad arrogant? Until the more long term effects on the cloned organism, regarding the potential of DNA aging and unknowns, etc. are better known there are some possibilities for danger to the fullt developed cloned organism. I do not object to research or the process in general, but do think that human research is premature as a sheep doesn't care if it lives four years instead of six, but a person will care if they are geriactic at 35.
Amen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:40am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2565 of 2584)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Ricky,
WHAT IF DURING THE PROCESS OF CLONING A DISEASE WAS CLONED AND MUTATED INTO SOMETHING WE COULD NOT CONTROL? IS THIS A POSSIBILITY?
Only a genetic disease could be reproduced while cloning a human (or other animal). Contageous diseases such as bacteria or viruses cannot be reproduced in the process because only one cell is being cloned, and it is human. Since no contageons can be produced, nothing uncontrollable can come from it. Also, a genetic disease will only be produced if it already existed in the parent; that is one of the big advantages of cloning.
PS, please stop yelling.
Ruby,
You remind me of a relative who just popped in for a visit and then stayed and stayed and took over the house until finally we all packed up and went on a vacation.
Sorry you feel that way. When I said I was only staying shortly, I was sincere; however, once I write a post, I am compelled to read the responses. Often, the respondants don't quite understand what I've said, so I am compelled to explain further. Or, the respondants disagree with what I've said, and then I am compelled to defend my position. I'll get out of this some day; I have to, for I have far too much work to do -- but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be real soon. I guess I'll just have to wait until I get bored with it, like I did last time I left, a couple of months ago.
What is all this jibberish about the soul.?
I was attempting to show the historical evolution of this idea, and why it makes no sense to believe in it anymore. The intangible elements of humanity are easily described entirely by the brain and its associated chemicals -- a supernatural entity is neither necessary nor reasonable.
Now excuse me, I'm going to take a vacation.
Bye; it wouldn't be my desire to run away from an intellectual confrontation, but you may do as you please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:42am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2566 of 2584)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Chris,
1)Cloning Humans to use as scientific test subjects.
Not an issue... as c.dat said above, this is one of those things that people could do without cloning. Why do you think people are not used as scientific test subjects right now; you don't need cloning to do experiments on people.
2)Cloning Humans to provide a supply of parts.
Again, not restricted to cloning.
3)Cloning Humans to create the perfect person, by manipulating the Genetic structure.
This is not cloning at all. Cloning is the exact genetic duplication of an organism. What you are talking about has nothing to do with cloning, and could be done just as easily without cloning.
I am still waiting for justification of your fears.
Dr. Seeds implants his cloned cells into the women. But the procedure doesn't work, for whatever reason. Who is responsible for making sure that it doesn't happen again.
Ok, it doesn't work; well, so what? The mother is not at risk, and the embryo is just a bunch of cells. Thousands of embryos die everyday. What's the problem here?
Dr. Seeds has already admitted that if one of his cloned embryos doesn't meet his standards he'll destroy it.
As rightly he should.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:43am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2567 of 2584)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Dawn,
The surrogates have to be primed with hormones to be receptive to the embryos. I don't think it is something she would want to go through too many times.
I think she would if she really has a desire for a genetic offspring; infertile couples are willing to go very far to have a child of their own.
"what if" it were possible to use the DNA from the sperm of two male homosexuals or the eggs of two lesbians as the DNA donors for the enucleated egg?
That is a great idea! I don't see why the nucleus couldn't be taken from a sperm and implanted into an egg, or vice versa. There may be some specialization between the two, though... I don't know for sure. That's one way to rally some support for cloning; get the homosexual population behind it.
Keith,
This subject [cloning] really freaked my wife out when she heard about it. After I explained what it actually is she relaxed and has since decided to ignore it.
Like most people, her reaction was probably the result of years of conditioning through Science Fiction to think that cloning is a bad thing. This might be a good study for a social psychologist.
Murph (The Masses are Asses),
The whole cloning idea is sick! It was created by people trying to make a utopian society. Nobody knows the extent to wich it will be abused. It is an insult to nature and god. What's next?
Please justify a single word you just said. I think your tagline refers to yourself.
Ricky,
I wonder if a cloned human being would be treated as a real human or as as object. Would it be a real human?
How does the method of reproduction change a person's species status? Do you condone slavery?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:45am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2568 of 2584)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Keith,
Tom, isn't this just a tad arrogant? Until the more long term effects on the cloned organism, regarding the potential of DNA aging and unknowns, etc. are better known there are some possibilities for danger to the fullt developed cloned organism.
No, not really; when trying to determine the probability of something (say, that problems can occur during cloning), you must first determine the set of all possible outcomes. In this case, the things that can happen are: the embryo survives or it does not. Since no problem cases exist in this set, the probability of problems occuring is zero. That things may occur later in life is highly unlikely; the organism is formed entirely from the original cell, so if there are abnormalities, they will likely be noticed within the first few stages of gestation. Besides, the risk of a life-shortening disease is even more likely through sexual reproduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:45am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2569 of 2584)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cliff,
If the prevailing attitude of society is that fraud is UNETHICAL, governments representing the society will pass laws against it.
Still untrue; if the government finds that fraud is unethical, then it will pass laws against it, no matter what the prevailing attitude is. Justice comes first, or else we have progressed nowhere from the Salem Witch Trials... guess what, we have. Why do you think slavery was abolished, why do you think criminals are released on technicalities, why do you think racial integration was forced, et cetera? It is the job of our Supreme Court to seperate justice from the prevailing attitude.
And I can assure you that laws regulating human cloning will be held to be constitutional.
I can assure you that they will not. It could not be any more clear that cloning does not impede the rights of others. Objections are raised only by a fear which is produced from ignorance and religion. When faced with litigation from freedom-fighters and biotech companies, the Supreme Court will have to make a ruling, and the only ruling that is congruent with the Constitution is that cloning must be kept legal.
I thought you might mention that the concept of the "immortal soul" actually originated with Plato.
Plato was far from the first to conceptualize an immortal soul... it is prehistory, probably pre-homo-sapian.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polpins Vanhausen - 06:02am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2570 of 2584)
Everybody seems to be overlooking the most obvious point to me, that immortality may be within our grasp. If we develop the technology to transplant a human brain (yeah, pretty SF, i know), then it would be possible to transplant the brain of a person into a younger, cloned version or themselves. I realize that the brain ages as well, and there are a number of diseases affecting older brains (Parkinsons, Alzheimers, ect.), but the possibility seems not too distant to me. There are already great strides being made in spinal cord injury repair, a full brain transplant is just really an extension of this currently dawning technology. Think of it: an 80 year old brain in a 16 year old body. We need to develop methods for keeping the brain young and nimble, and immortality shall be ours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 06:46am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2571 of 2584)
Polpins,
And what happens to the brain of the younger, cloned version of themselves? This gets back to the idea of using clones as organ banks, which I have no problem with as long as the clone has no brain of its own. (To be fair, I'd still prefer a technology which clones individual organs instead of whole individuals for this application.)
Further, anencaphalic babies have misshapen heads which can't accomodate a normal brain; surgery to reshape the head would be required (no big deal, if you're going to be transplanting a BRAIN anyway...) And you probably won't want to transplant into the body of an infant or toddler either, so you'd want to give the body some time to mature, and this involves support and therapy to keep the muscles in tone for say ten years.
It's an interesting idea, but it requires too much effort, so if it even happens at all, I can't imagine it happening very often.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Pierson - 09:22am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2572 of 2584)
Tom Anderson writes:
It could not be any more clear that cloning does not impede the rights of others.
True perhaps. A more efficient line of argument could be constructed by claiming that a limitation of cloning would be a limitation of reproductive rights, and that appears to be a clear infringement of a constitutional right. The constitution has undeniably been reinterpreted in many unpleasant ways before (selective drug prohibition and limitations of arms bearing being only two of the many points of contention), but should cloning be deemed unconstitutional, a most unfortunate precedent would be set with regard to reproductive rights.
Then again, a little population control could do our great nation some good, couldn't it. Or so I've heard.
Jay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 09:53am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2573 of 2584)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
The subject of "farming for parts" and "growing parts" comes up from time to time in here. I would like to revive a very old discussion from this board in reference to these ideas.
The principal "discovery" that led to this new wave of cloning was the development of a technique that allows you to "reset" the DNA of a mature cell. If this technology can be developed in greater detail then instead of contemplating the growth of "transplantable" organs we might well be able to develop techniques to "instruct" existing organs to repair themselves.
Cloning, as an "end in itself," will probably only be usefull as a "last ditch" reproductive aid. The knowledge and technologies developed through research that involves cloning cells and organisms could dramatically improve virtuall all aspects of clinical medicine.
Tom Anderson,
If a reasonable prediction of the development of the adult organism can be made at early embrionic stages then I fully understand you possition. The one concern I have does not impact embrionic research. It could impact the use of cloning as a reproductive aid. This concern is the suggestion, advance by some, that DNA itself ages. If this is the case then you could be dooming a person to a shortened lifespan.
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't research cloning, even in humans, but I do think that any plans to clone an embreo, and then provide for its birth, should wait until we can be reasonably certain that this process does produce viable adult organisms.
Dawn,
I wasn't calling you a "know it all!" I was actually throwing a compliment back over my shoulder at you. Meaning, I didn't want to over-step my knowledge. Tom, you can have one also!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Gilmer - 09:57am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2574 of 2584)
I've spent 55 years+ finding and correcting the imperfections in myself. Why would I want to wish that on anyone else. I see my children having the same process and that is difficult enough when they have some of their sperm-donor's genes. I sure would not want to sentence someone else to the painful process I have been through. (Not all painful, but there were moments....) Anyway, let them (the future generations) come by chance and let them eat the fruit of their own individual makeup. My opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Pruitt - 10:08am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2575 of 2584)
I've never met anyone I wish there were two of..... Including me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 11:37am Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2576 of 2584)
Better Read Than Said.....
Tom and Cliff:
Short vacation...went to the abortion board where souls (life) are considered less than human. Clones are at least in need of those human cells...so unimportant to the abortionist.
Tom, it doesn't matter what you call it...our thoughts, beliefs and breath are the major parts of this skeleton we call physical body. It does exist, it is the spirit, ghost or life of the body...soul.
Cliff...you are right about Tom. I'm sure he appreciates the compliment. No more cloning around for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Elrey E. Parreno DVM - 01:40pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2577 of 2584)
All persons are gifted with "freewill". We can choose what to believe and even do anything we think what is necessary. But let us also consider the extent these "freewills" may be applied.
Humans do not live alone, no culture ever evolved from a single person! The quality of our existence is the result of our doing.
Cloning is a procedure, and anybody with such expertise and required equipment can do it. It is not bad or good. Its morality will only depend on the reason why a ceertain person is doing it and the reason why a person wants to have it done.
Fertility is a matter of the nature of one's body, and making use of it while its still "fruitful". Sometimes people tend to dismiss this idea, and go unto life pursuing other priorities. Until they get to a point of somehow looking back and say, "Hey, I forgot to tick my LIFE's Checklist, that by now I should have a child , but...I'm not fertile anymore.What the heck...there's cloning anyway!!!"
Cloning animals is relatively not a big (moral)issue as compared to the possibility of cloning humans. It is easy to dismiss the reason of fertility as a justification for human cloning. These people pushing for cloning as a "treatment" for infertility are up for grabs for the following:
• (1) "glory" of having succesfully cloned a human and who made it first and
• (2) the possible economic gains from the practice.
The person who wants it done should also realize that cloning would only replicate his/her own imperfections on the clone. Nothing is permanent in this life...even DNA's...they age. Then how else would a person want to have a replicate of a more imperfect (another) " me " !
This procedure is presumed to be very costly and success rates are low in animal cloning. What more could one expect when it comes to humans!
Taking pride of altering the way nature works to satisfy ones needs is very remote for me to accept. For me its not worth it sporting a newly cloned, more imperfect, another "me".
I a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 02:53pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2578 of 2584)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
Tom Anderson #2569: I couldnt agree with you more. Not only does cloning not violate the rights of others but laws which limit an individuals reproductive rights are clearly in violation of the constitution and indeed strike at the very heart of the declaration of independence.
The states are now falling all over themselves to pass bonkers legislation against cloning human cells and human beings. It's easy to see a Randy Weaver situation developing here.
Remember that the doctors in the U.S. did take a wait and see attitude on heart transplants. As a result the first one was done in South Africa. Many people died because the procedure was delayed several years.
Any restrictions on genetic research, including cloning, is killing people who could be helped. The situation remindes me of what happened a number of years ago when the state of Texas was considering a law which would prevent those "godless psychitrists" from treating any pacient in a way that would alter his religion or his belief in god. One doctor said "I have no problem with a persons religion. My job is to produce mental health. But under your law how do I treat a person who says he IS God?'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Owen Scott - 04:29pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2579 of 2584)
Anyone know where I can volunteer myself for cloning? I'll be first in line, if possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
StormCloud - 05:46pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2580 of 2584)
Would a Clone have Rights!!! If not, why do you have Rights?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Rausch - 06:09pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2581 of 2584)
Clones are people too...is it right for us to bar their existance? Unless all medical progress is stopped, cloning will happen, humans will be cloned, there can be no doubt about that. The only valid question that remains is: "what are YOU gonna do about it?" Will you discriminate against clones? Will you make them attend seperate schools and use seperate restrooms? Perhaps you may decide to herd them into camps and cook them in ovens? Or are you afraid a clone may move in next door or marry one of your children?
Why is there this fear of clones? Is it because clones go "against God?" Well...just a notch in time ago it used to be "against God" to be black, Jewish, or anything remotely 'different' from the status quo. If you fear "clones as a weapon" you seem to be forgetting that a clone would make just as good a weapon as any other human, and there's always eugenics.
Being human is a wonderful thing. Any simulations or elaborations of that inner beauty are likewise, whether they be electrical, chemical, or mechanical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wall - 06:16pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2582 of 2584)
It turns out that cloning is pretty simple. Cow ova seem to be able to generate viable embryos from the nuclear material from any mamalian species. Once formed into an embryo, it can be implanted in a uterous, even a human uterous and brought to full term. There is enough data available that a well educated person could literally get some cow ovaries from a slaughter house, buy a very good (expensive) microscope and tools, take a cell from his body, replace the cow nucleus with his own, grow it and implant it in a female volunteer or probably even into a cow, and grow a clone of himself. I suspect this will happen whether we want it to or not. M. Wall, MD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Jones - 06:55pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2583 of 2584)
I heard a rumor that certain people in russia are interested in trying to clone Lenin from some of his tissue. This is very disturbing news to me indeed and I hope that such technology is not available in the near future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 07:10pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2584 of 2584)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
The most basic question to ask anyone in favor of this is, "Why?"
What would be the purpose of cloning humans? To show that we can?
Our planet is entirely overpopulated as it is. Things like cloning, fertility drugs, youth genes only serve to make matters worse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 07:35pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2585 of 2588)
Better Read Than Said.....
Carl Nicolai:
" My job is to produce mental health. But under your law how do I treat a person who says he IS God?'"
With proper medications until he gets better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Clarke - 11:05pm Jan 23, 1998 ET (#2586 of 2588)
Those who wish to pass laws against human cloning should, as primitive cultures did, pass laws against the birth of identical twins as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:29am Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2587 of 2588)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Tom Anderson: Still untrue; if the government finds that fraud is unethical, then it will pass laws against it, no matter what the prevailing attitude is.
Such idealism. Do you really have that much faith in the government?
I think congress is going to pass a law banning full term human cloning. Hopefully, it will be for a specified period of time, as suggested by the President, and, hopefully, it will be modeled after the proposed legislation by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).
Tom Anderson: Why do you think slavery was abolished...?
Well, I probably ought to point out that slavery was not abolished because the Supreme Court made a decision to that effect. The Supreme Court failed miserably in the Dred Scott case. Slavery was abolished because political pressure, based on the moral outrage of a significant portion of the population, due, in some measure, to the Dred Scott decision, was brought to bear on the subject.
Also, I might add that the 1954 Supreme Court decision overturning the 1898 Supreme Court ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson, was successful because it had the support of a large and growing portion of the population during a particularly enlighten period of our history. This period is generally referred to as the fifties, although it did not actually begin until sometime in the fall of 1954 and lasted until November of 1963. It is my opinion that the period we are currently in is not nearly as enlightened.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:33am Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2588 of 2588)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Jay Pierson: True perhaps. A more efficient line of argument could be constructed by claiming that a limitation of cloning would be a limitation of reproductive rights, and that appears to be a clear infringement of a constitutional right.
Interesting, Jay. Specifically which article of the constitution are you referring.
Keith Fosberg: If this technology can be developed in greater detail then instead of contemplating the growth of "transplantable" organs we might well be able to develop techniques to "instruct" existing organs to repair themselves.
This is the dream. This is the big banana. Compared to this, the cloning of a human is small potatoes.
Carl Nicolai: Tom Anderson #2569: I couldnt agree with you more. Not only does cloning not violate the rights of others but laws which limit an individuals reproductive rights are clearly in violation of the constitution and indeed strike at the very heart of the declaration of independence.
Carl, where does it say in the constitution that government shall not limit reproductive rights? And I thought the Declaration of Independence was about taxation without representation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Kirk - 06:59am Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2589 of 2595)
I am in favor of cloning as an option for infertile couples. "Making an exact copy of yourself" and "having a baby" are not that far apart. The issues which arise from the clone being an exact copy of one of the parents, instead of a chance combination of the genes from both, seem small compared to the issues of remaining childless.
I don't understand the questions of a clone's humanity; the "Is it human?" and "Would it have the same rights as a human?" sort of issues. These questions have not been raised for identical twins or for children who are almost identical to one of their parents, so why would these questions occur for clones who are essentially twins of their donor parents?
Though cloning for infertile couples is not genetic engineering, cloning seems to have raised some genetic engineering concerns. I disagree with the people concerned about the genetic engineering aspects:
1. Natural selection is our usual mode of genetic engineering, and the genes our children inherit are not purely chance today. (Though, the girls DO get better looking at closing time.) 2. I don't think artificial genetic selection is possible yet. 3. (This is for the serious "X Files" watchers) I am pretty sure "the government" (CIA, Army etc. pick your favorite bogey man here) won't be bound and deterred by any proposed research ban anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
francisco alzaga - 12:00pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2590 of 2595)
por una parte estoy a favor de la investigaciones y la considero muy importante para encontrar siempre nuevos caminos ademas de que tenemos que buscar la manera de no seguir matandonos ni matar a la naturaleza, pero mientras en cuba esta permitido el aborto en otros paises se busca la manera de como tener hijos, en mexico se habla de mucho de los niños que son robados en camboya siguen las mujeres trayendo niños sin poder darles una sobrevivencia es donde yo en lo personal diria dios mio que es lo que queremos escribanme a [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rideout - 12:34pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2591 of 2595)
I, personally, am for cloning for infertile couples. But, possibly it could be taken too far. People could clone "super-babies"-children that make us inferior. They could be perfect and when they grow older they could do a ton of weird stuff. Also certain companies could get into this. Offering better children than other companies perhaps. It would be incredibly scary if, in a few decades, we could see Calvin Klein brand babies and Dow Chemicle babies as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted: SAT - 12:39pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2592 of 2595)
HELLO PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted: SAT - 12:41pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2593 of 2595)
SO WHO WANTS TO TALK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted: SAT - 12:47pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2594 of 2595)
I THINK THAT CLONING IS WRONG IT IS NOT RIGHT TO ABLE TO CLONE PEOPLE IF GOD WANTED US TO HAVE TWO OF US,HE WOULD OF MADE A TWIN OF EVERY ONE OF US.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry van Mourik - 02:53pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2595 of 2595)
Cloning is great as long as only good people get cloned. Jerry van Mourik, United Nations, Mongolia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charly Makray-Rice - 03:14pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2596 of 2608)
The only person human cloning would serve would be the grandmother. It's the perfect solution for the "When you grow up I hope you have a child just like yourself, then you will know just how miserable you've treated me!"
In fact, most of us are so insecure about ourselves, how would we treat a second version of ourselves, with the same contempt? God forbid, I should have to watch myself grow up a second time! Levity aside, I think the idea is morally, socially, and scientifically reprehensible. It would eliminate the variables in the human species that make life so interesting and exciting.
Charly Makray-Rice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Pierson - 03:36pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2597 of 2608)
Cliff Beall writes:
Specifically which article of the constitution are you referring. ... where does it say in the constitution that government shall not limit reproductive rights?
The Supreme Court has, in the past thirty years or so, consistently interpreted the constitutional "right of privacy" (derived from an interpretation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments) to extend to reproductive rights. Indeed, government interference in the matter was condemned in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird and, most dramatically, in Roe v. Wade.
Jay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:07pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2598 of 2608)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Keith,
This concern is the suggestion, advance by some, that DNA itself ages.
This is a most questionable line of thinking: DNA replicates itself in the same manner whether it comes from a somatic cell or a germ cell. There are strands of DNA in your body millions of years old... it never dies, it just keeps replicating. It's not as if the molecules spontaneously fission or anything.
Barbara,
I've spent 55 years+ finding and correcting the imperfections in myself. Why would I want to wish that on anyone else.
First of all, if you don't want to clone yourself, don't. Secondly, if you did, your cloned child wouldn't have your personality, and may not ever find any reason to look for imperfections. Finally, by cloning yourself, you would know that your offspring has the potential to do more than yourself... you know, what you might have been if you hadn't done this or you had done that.
Jack,
I've never met anyone I wish there were two of..... Including me.
People enjoy their individuality, which is why it's a good thing cloning does not reproduce a personality. You could clone the same person a million times over, and you would never end up with two the same.
Ruby,
Tom, it doesn't matter what you call it...our thoughts, beliefs and breath are the major parts of this skeleton we call physical body. It does exist, it is the spirit, ghost or life of the body...soul.
No, actually, our thoughts, beliefs, etc. are the result of the associative nature of our brains. They are the body; entirely inseperable. There is nothing magical about it... just cells and chemicals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:08pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2599 of 2608)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Carl,
Not only does cloning not violate the rights of others but laws which limit an individuals reproductive rights are clearly in violation of the constitution and indeed strike at the very heart of the declaration of independence.
Well said.
Troy,
I heard a rumor that certain people in russia are interested in trying to clone Lenin from some of his tissue.
So what? We'll have a baby Lenin... and he'll probably end up a bum because he is not motivated toward anything since people worship him or hate him as if he were his father. Cloning does not reproduce a person's memories or personality, likes or desires, interests or fears, or anything else except the genetic and phenotypical traits as described by his genome. The clone of anyone famous for something will meet dissappointment when unable to reproduce what people loved about him. Everyone is an individual, perhaps especially clones.