------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:09pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2600 of 2608)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Jeremy,
The most basic question to ask anyone in favor of this is, "Why?" What would be the purpose of cloning humans?
• Research into the causes of aging and possible halt and reversal of aging process.
• Cure Cancer & a plethora of other diseases.
• Turn death into a variable rather than a constant.
• Provide for the easy production of replacement organs and tissues.
• Give infertile and sexually incompatible (homosexual) couples a chance at genetic offspring.
• Revolutionize medical knowledge about human development and psychology.
• Provide a controlled method of reproduction that removes the chance of malformations such as Turner's syndrome, Kleinfelter's syndrome, Criminal Tallness, hemophilia, albinism, Tay Sacks, Phenylketonuria, Down's syndrome, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
• Infinitely many more reasons.
The question is, why would anyone be against this?
Our planet is entirely overpopulated as it is.
No more people will exist with cloning than without. It is just another option.
Cliff,
Such idealism. Do you really have that much faith in the government?
I have faith in our judicial system... it has worked so far. Slavery abolished, seperatism deemed unconstitutional, free speech on the internet, etc.
I think congress is going to pass a law banning full term human cloning.
I think the Supreme Court will overturn it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:23pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2601 of 2608)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cliff,
where does it say in the constitution that government shall not limit reproductive rights?
Amendment V "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment XIV "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Article I, Section 8 Describes the duties and powers of Congress, none of which involve the power to outlaw procreation.
Some of the liberties and rights that the Constitution refers to are as follows:
US CODE, TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY, CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY, SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS, Sec. 1101. Definitions (involving threats of involuntary sterilization)
US CODE, TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE, CHAPTER 32--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SALES, Part I--Declaration of Policy Sec. 2304. Human rights and security assistance (involving involuntary sterilization)
US CODE, TITLE 42--PUBLIC HEALTH, CHAPTER I--PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, PART 50--POLICIES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY--Table of Contents Subpart B--Sterilization of Persons in Federally Assisted Family Planning Projects
US CODE, TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 6A--PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, SUBCHAPTER VIII--POPULATION RESEARCH AND VOLUNTARY FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS, Sec. 300a-7. Sterilization or abortion
There are more, but I will spare you; In all cases, it is illegal to render a person incapable of reproduction without consent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:26pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2602 of 2608)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Charles,
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.
They arise because bad science-fiction is the only knowledge about cloning some people have.
Francisco,
Good point. I think most people don't consider the way people live in places such as Mexico; this discussion has been mostly considered in the context of the dominant culture of the United States.
Andrew,
It would be incredibly scary if, in a few decades, we could see Calvin Klein brand babies and Dow Chemicle babies as well.
Yes, that would take some getting used to, but genetic engineering has nothing to do with cloning.
Jerry,
Cloning is great as long as only good people get cloned.
Good is a relative term. What is good for one person may not be for another. Whether a person is good or not depends entirely on his personality, which is formed by the environment in which he is raised and the events that effect his life. This is not something that can be cloned. Most people consider Hitler to be bad, but a clone of him may be a philanthropist if that is how he is raised.
Charly,
It would eliminate the variables in the human species that make life so interesting and exciting.
How so?
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Kost - 05:23pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2603 of 2608)
Personally, I have a not so simple question: "Why does everyone seem to fear the thought of human cloning?"
Yes, we have various rights and privelages entitled to us, both as human beings and citizens of the Unites States. Yes, all we have to reference to the future is what we've read in the past. However, it is the fact that we FEAR this step that humanity has taken. Do we fear starting a breed of second class humans, if not in the US, then somewhere, sometime on our Earth? Do we fear that eventually we could see whole "batches" of 'sibcos' or 'sibkos' (sibling communities) that are born and raised completely in-vitro simultaneously - bred exclusively for war/defense, production, or labor?
However, I do not intend to raise more fears of this, but only ask to think about this for a time. Why do we fear this so much? It is the fear that makes us chose to deny or defy what may eventually happen. It is the fear of what our future may turn into that we justify our fears with legalities or moralities.
Personally, I think that everyone has always known that one day someone would undertake the task of human cloning, just now that it actually is actively sought and studied that we have decided to reconsider our doubts and beliefs.
My last comment: I applaud the scientific endeavor, but am concerned that sometime distant in the future that this procedure, if ever "perfected" (just the thought of the term "perfected human cloning" raises the hairs on the back of my neck) could be twisted and perverted to the whims of someone that should never of had access to such procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cary kelley - 06:08pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2604 of 2608)
after reading several of the postings, i have some things to input on this subject.
first, the constitution really shouldnt come into play insofar as reproductive rights are concerned. cloning isn't about reproduction, it's about replication, or the regrowing of an already existing organism.
second, what kind of rights do you give someone who is cloned? the same as anyone, if we are the country we say we are, right? so what happens when someone is involuntarily cloned, perhaps even against his or her will? theres a clone there, it isn't his or her child, it IS them in every bilogical sense. so now you get into rights concerning what happens to the clone till its old enough to make descisions for itself. this opens up a whole new can of worms in custody courts alone.
third, and perhaps the scariest of all, is a second class citizen scenario. say cloning becomes common. we lofty americans can't even treat "natural birth" people of different color than our own with the respect and dignity that all people should be born with! so what makes anyone think clones wouldn't be looked down on as some sort of second class people, something less than human because they are a copy? we do it to minorities every day, so why not clones as well?
fourth, this kinda puts a whole new spin on DNA evidence in courtrooms, doesn't it? can you say for sure his clone didn't commit the crime? not through DNA testing you can't.
fifth, and in my opinion the most important reason for banning cloning of humans. death is a fact of life. it happens, its tragic, but also very neccessary. in one post you answer the question of overpopulation by saying it would have no effect, yet you mention in another one that cloning is a good thing for reasearch on reversing the aging process, and making death a "variable not the inevitable". well i submit to you that death is part of life, as much as is breathing or any other function. nature has a balance, and anyone, no matter your religion, mus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cary kelley - 06:18pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2605 of 2608)
nature has a balance, and anyone, no matter your religion, must bow to that wisdom. she weeds out faulty and useless genes in favor of the newly needed traits to fit the environment we live in. if we humans are so bold to think we can do a better job, then perhaps we harbor too many of those faulty genes already. nature knows what shes doing. make better housing. make better cars. reforrest. regulate polution. these things we can and should do. but messing with the very strands of life in order to make it better conform to our own ideas of what is perfect and right? we presume too much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zac Heyer - 06:45pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2606 of 2608)
I think we should make one or two clones and ask them what we should do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 07:34pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2607 of 2608)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cary,
first, the constitution really shouldnt come into play insofar as reproductive rights are concerned. cloning isn't about reproduction, it's about replication, or the regrowing of an already existing organism.
No, you are wrong. It is about reproduction. A completely new organism.
second, what kind of rights do you give someone who is [conceived]? the same as anyone, if we are the country we say we are, right? so what happens when someone is involuntarily [conceived], perhaps even against his or her will? theres a [child] there... so now you get into rights concerning what happens to the [child] till its old enough to make descisions for itself.
You see, by simply exchanging a few equal words, you have the same situation that exists right now without cloning.
what makes anyone think clones wouldn't be looked down on as some sort of second class people
What makes anyone think that they would be?
can you say for sure his clone didn't commit the crime? not through DNA testing you can't.
DNA evidence alone won't prove a case, but in conjunction with other evidence, perhaps even circumstantial, it will lock a verdict.
death is a fact of life
It needn't be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 07:34pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2608 of 2608)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cary,
you answer the question of overpopulation by saying it would have no effect, yet you mention in another one that cloning is a good thing for reasearch on reversing the aging process, and making death a "variable not the inevitable".
As it stands now, people still die, so cloning as an alternate method of reproduction will do nothing to the current growth rate. However, medical research will progress either way, and people will continue to live longer (hopefully indefinitely, eventually), so population will need to be controlled in some way, but not as a result of cloning alone. Also, as we are on this medical frontier, we are also on the frontier of colonizing our solar system; you won't ever hear about overpopulation again once people start moving to Mars. We will have the potential to increase our population a hundred-fold or more.
nature... weeds out faulty and useless genes in favor of the newly needed traits to fit the environment we live in... messing with the very strands of life in order to make it better conform to our own ideas of what is perfect and right? we presume too much.
Hardly! Nature does not have an intelligence. We do not evolve anymore. The only way we will ever change is through genetic engineering, but this is the wrong topic -- we are talking about cloning, which is the opposite of genetic engineering. But, eventually, that will be the discussion, and I will submit to you right now that if we don't do it, it won't get done, and who better to improve ourselves than ourselves?
Tom
P.S. In 1946, primarily Catholic nations, such as Spain, Portugal, and Italy, banned the bikini because it was immoral. In another fifty years, banning cloning will seem equally as ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:16pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2606 of 2608)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Charles Kirk: 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.
It isn't an exact copy of yourself. Twins are not exact duplicates. Their fingerprints are different, for example. I agree with the sentiment, however.
Charles Kirk: 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?
I have wondered about that myself. It can't be bad science fiction, as has been alleged, since these questions seem to be coming from people who are unlikely to read science fiction. If you investigated the question, I think you would find that science fiction readers typically support cloning. It is a puzzle to me.
Charles Kirk: 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:
You may have hit upon the basic cause, and the problem. The name, Hitler, is raised from time to time in odd contexts by people opposed to cloning. Since cloning is generally associated with genetic engineering, it may be that many of the people opposed to cloning somehow associate current genetic research, and by extension, cloning, with Hitler, his genetic experiments and his "master race" propaganda.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:22pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2607 of 2608)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Andrew Rideout: 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.
Andrew, it is obvious that you are joking. But I have heard similar things from people who appear to be serious. Tell me, what do you think? Has the historical existence of the Nazis influenced this concept, and do you think that current genetic research and cloning are associated, in the minds of many people, with the Nazis and their grisly genetic experiments?
Jerry van Mourik: Cloning is great as long as only good people get cloned.
Jerry, I hope you are joking. Either way, could you give me your thoughts on whether current genetic research and cloning are associated, in the minds of many people, with the Nazis and their grisly genetic experiments?
Charly Makray-Rice: 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!"...Levity aside, I think the idea is morally, socially, and scientifically reprehensible.
Charly, also you. Do you think current genetic research and cloning are associated, in the minds of many people, with the Nazis and their grisly genetic experiments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:27pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2608 of 2608)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Jay Pierson: 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.
Roe v. Wade was 25 years ago. Show me a recent case--in the past ten years or so--that stretches the fabric of the constitution in this fashion. Okay, Griswold and Eisenstadt--at least from my point of view--is just common sense, and I can see the problems that precipitated Roe v. Wade. I may not like it, but I can see the problems. I see neither legal justification nor a compelling reason for the court to rule against restrictions on cloning laws.
Tom Anderson: There are strands of DNA in your body millions of years old... it never dies, it just keeps replicating.
What? Dawn, I want a second opinion on this.
Tom Anderson: I have faith in our judicial system... it has worked so far. Slavery abolished, seperatism deemed unconstitutional, free speech on the internet, etc.
And I have already pointed out that our judicial system did not end slavery. Instead it was the moral indignation of the people that ended slavery. Also, our government governs with the consent of the people. Regarding freedom of speech, in whatever the medium, the constitution is crystal clear on that point. No stretching is needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Koskela - 11:31pm Jan 24, 1998 ET (#2609 of 2616)
I'm in favor of cloning humans for infertile couples.
Should the FDA regulate human cloning? Why would the Food and Drug Administration have anything to do with the regulation of a couple's reproductive choice? Do we currently need FDA approval to have a baby? What would the FDA do if they discover an "illegal" clone? Kill it?
I think the medical facilities that offer cloning as an option to infertile couples will do a perfectly fine job of screening applicants to weed out the wackos.
The cloning of humans will happen sooner or later, no matter how much we hem and haw and twist our little fingers around.
Science -- it's a wonderful thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Sergio De Marchi - 12:09am Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2610 of 2616)
Afraid of bad people clones? Does anybody know if Hitler had children? Cause if he had, odds are that half of his genes are around. And how about Hitler having a baby with a similar woman? Nice child would be born! Cloning is replicating someone's genes 100%. Natural babies carry 50% of each parent's genes. We should think about not leting 'bad' people have children as 50% of his 'bad' genes would be replicated (or 50% cloned). We should not let 'bad' people be 100% replicated but we think that 50% is ok right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaqueline F. - 01:19am Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2611 of 2616)
My points about cloning:
1)The world is too overpopulated as it is.
2)There is death for a reason (and that reason IS overpopulation)
3) It is true, the constitution does say that no person shall be deprived of life. But if a person is dying because of old age, he/she has already lived their life. And if we were cloning someone who wasn't old, but was dying for a reason (disease, cancer, etc.), last year he/she would not have lived, so it should be the same.
I don't know the exact figure, but approximately ten babies a day (in the US) die from either a miscarrage, or some other factor. If those babies lived, there would be an even larger surge in the population, and there wouldn't be enough FOOD or LAND for all of us. All those beautiful farm acres would be turned from acres of beautiful pastures and sloping hills to acres of thousands of condos to support the growing masses. In just about one year, there would be approximately 3,650 more CHILDREN in the in the US alone. In five year period, approximately 18,250 more CHILDREN would be living on the earth than natural. And if aging was stopped, that's another several thousand (old people) that die around the world in a year.
My point is: the earth couldn't possibly support the people that die every day. They die for a reason: so we can live. I know that sounds a little selfish and cold-hearted, but it IS true. If they didn't die, there wouldn't be enough resources for us to live.
Signed,
Jaqueline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 01:48am Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2612 of 2616)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
I dont understand why people are talking about cloning Hitler all the time.
How about the estate of Princess Diana sells some of her cells to some of the tens of thousands of her fans and uses the billions of dollars thus raised to study how to clone missing limbs of the mine victims.
The social dislocation produced by that plan would be much greater that cloning some bad guy.
We are witnessing the shredding of the world wide social fabric about humanity.
What sort of has me thinking is that Bill Gates has invested 500 million in genetic engineering. He could sell off some of Microsoft and put in billions. And he is a dude that knows marketing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cary kelley - 01:51am Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2613 of 2616)
you know, it's refreshing how idealistic and blind scientists can be when they find a new toy to play with that could radically change the way we live. DNA research is a wonderful thing that could do a great good for many fields. but cloning is something we may never really be ready for.
you asked what makes anyone think clones could be looked down on as second class citizens. as i mentioned before, there is the little thing we have now known as discrimination, for any number of small factors, such as sex, skin color, and religion. so why not genetic descrimination? if one person can hate another because he has different skin, what prevents him from hating a clone, simply for not being born naturally?
as to the inteligence of nature, i disagree. there may be no overt mind controlling nature, but nature has a way of doing business. i also disagree with your statement that we have stopped evolving. i have read several studies done recently that indicate humans continue to evolve. they have become steadily weaker on the average due to, some theorize, the increase in modern machines. several generations have also shown a shortening in average height, as well as growing less hair. it is our nature to evolve, and it is our destiny to die. science for all its wonderful achievements, should let well enough alone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory L. Fickling - 03:26am Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2614 of 2616)
I believe that we have, long ago, removed ourselves from the basic evolutionary systems of Darwin. Perhaps we are the pinnacle of Earth's evolutionary chain, perhaps not. But, we can only follow the "genetic bent" of our species. This leads us to cloning, genetic engineering, etc. I do not understand why so many people are so frightened of this step in our new "homo-evolution." I have seen references to the Nazi's "ubermensch" and even David Bowie's "homosuperior." When were many of the children of the previous generation not more advanced (or adaptable to rapidly changing circumstances) than their parents? Did the human race not once wish this for all its children? If cloning leads to superior human "creations" (as is not clear), so much the better. I hope this technology will advance the human race. If not, we have made mistakes in the past. We are only human.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen D. Evans - 03:35am Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2615 of 2616)
I believe in the United States (I specifically mention the States because I am a US citizen and will not presume to speak for other nations' citizens) we must allow and regulate cloning. If we do not regulate cloning, the industry will go to other nations; either poor nations with weak regulatory bodies or wealthy nations, e.g., Germany, Switzerland, Japan, where the capability to do these things exists and cloning will be regulated and profitable. If we exclude ourselves from the process of cloning, we can not help steer the direction of its progress or implementation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Janitor - 05:15am Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2616 of 2616)
My thoughts on cloning:
Cloning is relatively pointless. It does not add biodiversity and, all in all, is a minor genetic trick.
But, it shouldn't be banned. It may have limited uses. And I wouldn't mind seeing an Einstein clone. Of course, genetics only gets you so far... and Einstein clone may or may not end up turning out like him. But that's another issue.
I don't think it should be used for infertility though. If you're infertile, don't use technology, keep out of the gene pool! We don't need your weak genes!
Don't you love how the only people to want to ban cloning are technophobic religious followers who sew their eyes shut to progress and knowledge and corrupt politicians who have extramarital oral sex with interns three years older than their daughter, and then try to talk to ME about morality?
If you can put an unborn human to death, you should certainly be able to clone one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rose clark - 12:21pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2617 of 2620)
Aren't there enough people in the world without cloning? We have people in poor countries dying of starvation and diseases that could be cured if food and medical services were better provided for them. It's not because we the people in the affluent world do not care enough. So what does the scientist want to do? Clone people so there will be another population to provide for. And who will provide for these new people? The scientist? In this country alone there are people out of work. Will these cloned people be in the unemployment line also, or will they replace the already working people and put the naturally born people in the unemployment line. As someone once said, Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Whetten - 12:59pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2618 of 2620)
What I think is that if a person is cloned they wouldn't have a soul. tHere is one soul per person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:48pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2619 of 2620)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Craig Koskela: Why would the Food and Drug Administration have anything to do with the regulation of a couple's reproductive choice? Do we currently need FDA approval to have a baby?
Interesting question. As I understand it, the FDA has jurisdiction over medical research and medical procedures, and in this case is "filling a vacuum." It is all a matter of interpretation of existing laws. And there are enough of them to draw from.
Craig Koskela: What would the FDA do if they discover an "illegal" clone? Kill it?
Don't be silly, Craig. Of course they wouldn't kill it. Murder is illegal. But depending on the relative health of the clone, the individuals responsible for the "creation" of the clone may face significant legal consequences for exceeding FDA guidelines. FDA guidelines are based on laws passed by congress which have penalties. If the baby is healthy, the penalty may be relatively slight: a fine, for example. But if the baby is not healthy, there are probably enough laws that could be interpreted as applying to put the perpetrators of this "horrible crime" away for life.
Mario, sometimes "good" people have "bad" children. Hitler's parents were ordinary "good" people. And sometimes "bad" people have "good" children. The descendants of Pretty Boy Floyd and Jesse James appear to be upstanding citizens. Also, identical twins sometimes go in opposite directions.
Jaqueline, there is a thing called birth control. Sooner, or later, with or without cloning, and with or without extended life spans, we will have to start exercising it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:58pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2620 of 2620)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
cary kelley: i have read several studies done recently that indicate humans continue to evolve...it is our nature to evolve, and it is our destiny to die. science for all its wonderful achievements, should let well enough alone.
I agree we are continuing to evolve. I see no reason why our evolution should have stopped. Mutation of our cells continue to occur. But I disagree that science should "let well enough alone." I suspect we may be evolving in an unfavorable direction, and that is a good reason NOT to "let well enough alone." (Incidentally, my understanding is that the average height has actually increased, but that it is due to improved nutrition, not genes.)
Bob Janitor: If you can put an unborn human to death, you should certainly be able to clone one.
Bob, this logic escapes me. The analogy of abortion and cloning keeps popping up and I just don't understand it. Cloning is about reproduction. Abortion is about destruction of human life. (You can argue whether a fetus is a person if you wish, but I hope you don't try to argue that a human fetus is not human.) In my opinion, there is no comparison at all. They are totally different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene V. Williams - 03:23pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2621 of 2627)
I am bothered by the fact that cloning is being called "good or bad". Cloning is a process that is neither. It has the potential to be put to good or bad uses. We should not be arguing about banning it or not, but about how are we going to insure that it is put to uses that help and not hurt our society. I find the religious arguments put forward without merit. The United States has seperation of church and state for good reason. People have the right to thier opinions no matter what the basis but laws governing cloning should be based on due process as provided for in the Constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 04:02pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2622 of 2627)
Better Read Than Said.....
A lot of guess work going on here:
Carlos: 'Only one soul per person, clones won't have a soul.' Wrong. A clone WILL be a soul. It will have the same components as a person.
Cary and Cliff: Humans continue to evolve? Knowledge evolves, humans multiply. For a taller human...move to Texas.
The President and the FDA have already banned cloning in the US. We will read about it in the news happening in another country.
Some religions may be against experimenting with cloning, but I doubt that a Christian would see cloning as a threat to other life or the world. 'Wisdom and money are useful for living, but the excellency of knowledge is that it teaches us it is wisdom, not money that preserves life.' All wisdom comes from God. If this science is wise...time will tell its usefulness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:08pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2623 of 2627)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cliff,
Do you think current genetic research and cloning are associated, in the minds of many people, with the Nazis and their grisly genetic experiments?
It is very possible. People associate countless things subconsciously which have a huge impact on their opinions regarding something almost entirely unrelated. Nazis, Sci-Fi, Religion, etc. all have some bearing on what people think about cloning, even though it is untrue. But even if a person can logically see that the fears are unjustified, there is often left an ill feeling about it solely because of the emotions the subconscious stirs.
I see neither legal justification nor a compelling reason for the court to rule against restrictions on cloning laws.
I quoted for you both the Constitution and the United States Code. Banning cloning is just as illegal as sterilizing a person without consent.
What? [strands of DNA millions of years old?] Dawn, I want a second opinion on this.
There is a strong probability of this. There are fourty-six chromosomes worth of DNA that go into your body which are older than you are. This DNA will become spread throughout your body as DNA replicates (each half of the strand being the template for a new strand) and as cells divide. Some cells will die, and the DNA in them will be lost, but there will always be some cells which contain some of the original DNA (certainly brain cells). It is as if you put a drop of food coloring in a large bucket... you can add drop upon drop of water to dilute it and empty drop upon drop, but the water in the bucket will never be purely without food coloring. Statistically, most of the DNA from millions of years ago will have been lost, but there will always be some of it in the population. The graph of DNA from any specific date against the population would be a decaying curve which is asymptotic to zero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:09pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2624 of 2627)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cliff,
Regarding freedom of speech, in whatever the medium, the constitution is crystal clear on that point. No stretching is needed.
Nor is there any stretching required on the subject of reproduction; it is an inalienable right.
Jaqueline,
The world is too overpopulated as it is.
Please, listen to me... cloning does not cause over population. Cloning is a form of reproduction, but if you want to control population, you have to reduce the number of people conceiving children through sex.
There is death for a reason
No, not really. Personally, I would prefer to live as long as I please. Resources are far from stretched. Twenty years ago, people were saying that the world's resources would have been gone by the nineties. They were wrong, and the world can still support many more people. Besides that, we are on the verge of leaving our planet to settle others. But, if we did need to limit population, we would limit the number of children people can have, NOT HOW THEY CAN HAVE THEM!
Cary,
there is the little thing we have now known as discrimination
Which is ignoarant and illegal and has no bearing on whether cloning should be legal. Are you going to outlaw the reproduction of minorities because they may be discriminated against?
what prevents him from hating a clone, simply for not being born naturally?
Clones are born naturally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:11pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2625 of 2627)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Cary,
i disagree. there may be no overt mind controlling nature, but nature has a way of doing business
It may seem that way to you because you don't understand how it works.
i also disagree with your statement that we have stopped evolving.
Well, you would be wrong then. Evolution deals with the number of genes passed on to the next generations. A single population does not evolve unless there is introduced a selecting factor. Such factors could be preditors, disease, or sexual attraction. But in a single population in which there is no selecting factor, in which the entire population survives its entire reproductive years, the species does not evolve. It cannot evolve.
they have become steadily weaker on the average due to, some theorize, the increase in modern machines
This sounds like your own theorizing to me, because no respectable scientist would ever say such a thing. People don't just "become steadily weaker" through evolution unless there were some factor which were to select for weaker people. If the population has, on average, less physical strength it is because people do less physically demanding things and work their muscles less, not because their genes limit them.
several generations have also shown a shortening in average height
Completely wrong... people have been increasing in average height. For instance, almost any house over a hundred years old has doors whose height is only about six feet because nobody but freaks were that tall. This is not because of evolution though, it is because of better medicine and better nutrition.
as well as growing less hair
People just used to die before losing their hair; now that people live longer, they have a chance to lose their hair.
it is our nature to evolve, and it is our destiny to die
Neither of those statements is true anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:13pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2626 of 2627)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Bob,
Cloning is relatively pointless. It does not add biodiversity
Neither does sexual reproduction.
I don't think it should be used for infertility though. If you're infertile, don't use technology, keep out of the gene pool! We don't need your weak genes!
Infertility is not necessarily caused by "weak" genes; it can be the result of age, cancer, sitting in the sauna too many times, or many other things. These people shouldn't be without a genetic offspring if they desire to have one.
Rose,
And who will provide for these new people?
Their parents, just like all other children.
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
As I theorized before, people get their fears subconsciously from science-fiction... that line came from Jurassic Park (you should probably use quotation marks next time; Universal Studios might sue you, or CNN Interactive, which is why it against forum rules to plagiarize material from a copyrighted source).
Cliff,
I see no reason why our evolution should have stopped. Mutation of our cells continue to occur.
Mutation is not evolution unless those mutations are selected for or against.
Gene,
I am bothered by the fact that cloning is being called "good or bad". Cloning is a process that is neither. It has the potential to be put to good or bad uses. We should not be arguing about banning it or not, but about how are we going to insure that it is put to uses that help and not hurt our society. I find the religious arguments put forward without merit. The United States has seperation of church and state for good reason. People have the right to thier opinions no matter what the basis but laws governing cloning should be based on due process as provided for in the Constitution.
Absolutely!
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David L Meyer - 04:16pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2627 of 2627)
What might be the point in cloning humans? Would you breed humans to provide medicinal enzymes, hormones, or hair implants? I would not breed *humans* for such a purpose. Perhaps to extend your own life? The new life is not *yours*, but theirs. To produce perfect humans? In whose eyes? By whose measure? For whose benefit? At whose, and what, penalty?
The scientists who would clone humans should heed the lessons learned too late by those who, a half century past, thought it would be interesting to learn to extract power from the core of the atom - only to ask the big questions far too late to avoid great sorrow for them and their victims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 09:56pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2628 of 2629)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Ruby Pool: Cary and Cliff: Humans continue to evolve? Knowledge evolves, humans multiply. For a taller human...move to Texas.
Very funny. By the way, Ruby, I currently live in Oklahoma, but I used to live in Texas. Does that count?
Ruby Pool: The President and the FDA have already banned cloning in the US. We will read about it in the news happening in another country.
That does not bother me one bit. I am more concerned that it be done right. Where it is done is beside the point.
Tom Anderson: I quoted for you both the Constitution and the United States Code. Banning cloning is just as illegal as sterilizing a person without consent.
You have forcefully demonstrated that sterilization without consent is illegal. You have not demonstrated that laws regulating or restricting the cloning of human beings would be unconstitutional.
Incidentally, I notice that you quoted from my response to Jay, who was attempting to demonstrate that such laws would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court. But, as I pointed out to Jay, Roe v. Wade was 25 years ago. The current Supreme Court has different members. I asked him if he could show me a recent case--in the past ten years or so--that stretches the fabric of the constitution in a fashion such as it was stretched in Roe v. Wade ("reproductive rights" based on a "privacy doctrine" that is, itself, nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution, but may be "extracted" from various Amendments). Can you show me such a case?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:05pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2629 of 2629)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
cary kelley: i also disagree with your statement that we have stopped evolving.
Tom Anderson: Well, you would be wrong then. Evolution deals with the number of genes passed on to the next generations. A single population does not evolve unless there is introduced a selecting factor. Such factors could be preditors, disease, or sexual attraction. But in a single population in which there is no selecting factor, in which the entire population survives its entire reproductive years, the species does not evolve. It cannot evolve.
Tom, I am really surprised you would say such a thing. I would have thought you would know better. I suggest you to read the following two articles. I consider both to be authoritative and both are available on the net. Just click the link and you will be there. The first is, "Mutation, Mutagens, and DNA Repair Outline," by Beth A. Montelone, Ph. D., Division of Biology, Kansas State University. This is a lecture by Dr. Montelone from her Biology 400 class. The address is http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bethmont/mutdes.html . The second is "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" by Chris Colby. The address is http://wcl-l.bham.ac.uk/origins/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html . In the outlines of a number of biology courses I have found in my searches of the net, Mr. Colby's article is listed as required reading. (That is how I found it.)
<A HREF="http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bethmont/mutdes.htm"> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bethmont/mutdes.htm </A>
<A HREF="http://wcl-l.bham.ac.uk/origins/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html"> http://wcl-l.bham.ac.uk/origins/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html </A>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 10:43pm Jan 25, 1998 ET (#2630 of 2630)
Better Read Than Said.....
Cliff:
"Very funny. By the way, Ruby, I currently live in Oklahoma, but I used to live in Texas. Does that count? "
I don't know...did you shrink when you moved to Oklahoma?
I see no reason to worry about cloning either.
On the Supreme Court and the Constituton: There is a clause of the fourteenth Amendment prohibiting any state from denying citizens the 'privileges and immunities' of citizens of the United States. According to Judge Bork, "the law has been a mystery since it's adoption and in consequence has, quite properly, remained a dead letter."
Would this apply to clones?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Pierson - 12:03am Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2631 of 2633)
Cliff Beall writes:
The current Supreme Court has different members. I asked him if he could show me a recent case--in the past ten years or so--that stretches the fabric of the constitution in a fashion such as it was stretched in Roe v. Wade...
The current Supreme Court does indeed have members with a political orientation different from that of the Roe years. However, as demonstrated in cases such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992), the Court's decisions are still strongly rooted in the precedents set by, among others, Griswold and Roe. While Casey itself might not be immediately relevant to the formulation of an opinion about the legality of cloning, the ruling does support the reasoning behind previous cases concerned with reproductive rights. I cannot see why the extraction of the "right of privacy" from several Amendments and the concept's application to reproductive rights would be deemed less sound today than 25 or even five years ago.
Jay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mara Bennett - 12:28am Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2632 of 2633)
There are many children who need good families to love and guide them. We can not be so vain or so selfish as to want an exact clone of ourselves to raise in order to give biological birth. I do not see a good thing in genetically creating life in order to satisfy selfish desires, be it for organs or tissues, milk or drugs, flesh to eat or babies to fulfill the maternal instinct. It seems that with all of our technology, we have not evolved as much as we would like to believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:01am Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2633 of 2633)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
First, Ruby, I want to emphasize that I do not have a problem with the Privacy Doctrine. I am all for privacy. But privacy can be argued more than one way. As you may be aware, the privacy Doctrine did not originate with Roe v. Wade. It goes back to the 1920's with a series of cases that struck down laws that banned such things as the teaching of foreign languages below the ninth grade and private schools. These decisions relied heavily on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the intended purpose was to protect the privacy of the family. (The state had no right to tell parents how to raise their kids.)
Of course, a later version of the privacy doctrine was used in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth to strike down a paternal consent requirement for abortion--which essentially protected the child's privacy from the family. But even that was over twenty years ago. Who is to say how the current justices will react when a case involving a statue restricting cloning arrives at the docket. My sense is that the present court will not even hear the case, particularly if the law is written as proposed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).
Jay, your point is well taken. And I would not argue that the court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I don't think the present court is in the mood to break new ground either. If it turns out that I am wrong, well I have been wrong before. (Certainty: most of the time it ain't...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Yee - 07:56am Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2634 of 2659)
can you imagine cloning a army within a few hours and strike a weaker country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
subhash mehra - 11:02am Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2635 of 2659)
cloning is fiddling with the natural laws. whenever mankind tries to play with nature beyond permissible limits nature takes its own revenge.even with the cloning we can expect the same.Natural laws should be allowed to take their own course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Coronel - 12:27pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2636 of 2659)
True enough, the issue of cloning humans as a legitimate scientific practice is a matter of science; whether it is good or bad, is a matter of faith. No amount of ethical arguments can diminish the many possibilities of cloning. I just wonder what if, --- a human freak comes out from the tube? Perhaps thousands of them from labs doing experiments world-wide, should they be exterminated? What if we legalize extermination of cloned humanoids, how different can it be from murder? Granting that we don't kill cloned freaks, or even if we can create an army of genetically superior humanoids, isn't this no different from a madman who once dreamt of seeing an Aryan super race and how his minions of scientists performed experiments to millions herded to their slaughterhouse? But cloning is different since we are only dealing with the human cell, combined with an X-PROCESS (company trade-secret) to replicate a human prototype with all its positive alterations; a good finished product with full copyright and patent restrictions. Therefore, the issue of cloning humans starts off as a scientific pursuit and later matures into a full grown corporate and business decision.
I'd like to see the day when Microsoft produces its own human-cloning department. Are you guys ready for the bugs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 12:56pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2637 of 2659)
Simon,
Cloning an army would take 16 to 20 years not hours. About the same length of time it takes to raise any other group of humans from conception.
Subhash,
What are the "natural laws" you're referring to? Where are they written? Oops! Trick question, anything written isn't natural, is it? What do you mean "permissible limits?" Who defines them, or are they in fact a product of your own morality? Nature already uses cloning in a variety of ways, and has for millions of years. Is that immoral? Does cloning strike you as having genuine, substantive consequences or is your concern merely a modern manifestation of "If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 01:51pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2638 of 2659)
Cliff Beall, Tom Anderson: It is possible to dilute a substance (food coloring) so that there is less than one molecule or atom per unit of solution. Until cloning came along, only DNA in the germ cells became part of the next generation, so you only inherit two of your billions and billions of unique DNA strands from your parents anyway. Also, even atoms within DNA molecules exchange with their environments so that the identical O or H in the DNA probably isn't the same O or H it was a few years ago (but I don't have to tell you physicists that). I doubt if any of the exact same DNA, atom for atom, that existed in the 1 million year old man is still around. Some people are concerned that somatic cells have aged DNA due to shortened telomeres, so that the clone's cells will start out the age of the cloned DNA, but this is speculation so far. I haven't read anywhere that the telomeres in Dolly's somatic cells are shorter than in any other sheep her age. Besides, with the cloning of the telomerase gene, this problem, if it is one, can be easily overcome. The telomeres are not copied from the parental DNA template, but are an enzymatic add-on.
Is human evolution still occurring? Certainly mutations are, but as Tom says, evolution can't occur without selective pressure on a population. Does such pressure exist today? Our ability to keep people alive who formerly would not have lived to reproduce may be causing us to evolve into a "weaker" species. The tendancy for educated people to have fewer children than the less educated may be causing a "dumber" species. There are a few individuals who seem to be genetically resistant to infection with HIV. They may be the ultimate survivors in third world countries with endemic AIDS.
Finally, Tom, do you really want to live forever? If everyone did, eventually we would reach a point where very few children could be born (I'm assuming there would still be murders and accidents). The world would get very dul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 01:55pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2639 of 2659)
continued--
The world would get very dull without the infusion of new ideas. Mind-sets do age, and I don't think this is a function of biology as much as of life experience. Even clones would probably be more creative than a bunch of 100 year+ old minds in 25 year old bodies!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 02:02pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2640 of 2659)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Tom Anderson
Post 2597
You say that no more people would exist with cloning than without it. How do you figure?
If cloning were to get to a point of commonplace then there would be millions of clones in addition to the billions of people on this planet.
You speak of experimenting on clones to possibly help find cures for cancer, aging, etc. You're comfortable with this? I'm not. Those clones you'd like to experiment on would as very likely feel pain as other humans. Testing on clones sounds to me like some of those Nazi-experiments in WWII.
And let's say we are able to cure cancer, fertilize the unfertile, or stop aging and death. That just supports my claim that the world will become more overpopulated.
We die for a reason.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 02:29pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2641 of 2659)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Thanks Dawn,
I knew there was something (of at least trivial concern) about the possibility of DNA ageing, but couln't remember the details. It may well be nothing to worry about (as you indicated) but I think we should be certain before we attempt to birth a human from this process.
Lets get a few things more or less streight folks:
No one will "clone up" a bunch of soldiers. It cost money to start and then you have to wait until they grow up to use them. Anyone who wants a big army fast will just drum up some "national cause" and clear the countryside of teenagers.
Parent are not going to have three children the old fashion way, adopt two more and then clone up seven more to get an even dozen. Someone has to raise children, so Tom is 100% correct, cloning will not cause a population explosion. (Advanced medicine developed in part through research related to or supported by cloning may cause a population explosion though.)
No cloned human, be they 5 cells or 72 years old will have any different protection and privledge than anyone else in the country they live in. People are people. Did anyone check your DNA records today? Make you prove that you were sexualy concieved?
There are no "laws of nature" in so much as this term is used to indicate rules. The only "laws of nature" are the ones that we are learning through science. If cloning was against the actual "laws of nature" then it wouldn't work.
Religious/Spiritual law is an ethical guide. It doesn't apply to U.S. law, natural law, or cloning (since it doesn't address cloning.) I do think it bears consulting as to how we behave. The principals that are behind the constitution and the attached bill of rights have their root here.
Wait -- "graven image?" :^)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Diaz - 02:59pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2642 of 2659)
" Religious/Spiritual law is an ethical guide. It doesn't apply to U.S. law, natural law, or cloning (since it doesn't address cloning."
Jeremy you are absolutely correct Religious/Spiritual law is an ethical guide and does not apply to U.S. law. When has ethics ever been a significant part of U.S. law?
Whether or not cloning is right or wrong has no bearing on the legality of the issue. Simply put, the individual(s) who amasses the most amount of money to support dozens of senators and congressman will win the issue. My money says cloning is wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIF - 03:09pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2643 of 2659)
GO AHEAD MAKE CLONING ILLEGLE AND SO MUCH FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS! SO MUCH FOR THE PEOPLE DYING EVERYDAY BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ENOUGH ORGAN DONORS. YEP! OH WELL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 03:15pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2644 of 2659)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Keith
With all do respect, I don't think you can accurately state what cloned humans will and will not be used for.
Max
As much as I agree with the quote, it wasn't mine. My reasons for objecting to cloning human being has little to do with religion or legalities and more with practicality and my personal beliefs about the state of our world and the nature of mankind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 03:17pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2645 of 2659)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Clif
I repeat, people die for a reason. If I remember correctly, something to do with balance of nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Sergio De Marchi - 04:17pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2646 of 2659)
David: The scientists who would clone humans should heed the lessons learned too late by those who, a half century past, thought it would be interesting to learn to extract power from the core of the atom - only to ask the big questions far too late to avoid great sorrow for them and their victims.
...and this same power is probably being used to provide the energy that you are using to run the computer that enables you to see this message at this very moment...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIF - 04:27pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2647 of 2659)
JEREMY DURAND: HOG WASH!!! IF YOU WERE DYING BECAUSE SOMEBODY SLIPPED YOU A MICKY IN YOUR DRINK ...TOOK BOTH OF YOUR KIDNEYS.....UMMMM YEP I GUESS U COULD SAY BALANCE OF NATURE AND ALL THAT NONSENSE! HEHE I MEAN COME ON YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT! AND IF YOU WANT TO REALLY GET RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT, GOD GAVE US DOMINION OVER THE EARTH AND ALL IT CONTIANS......WE REAP WHAT WE SEW..... PERSONALLY I'D LIKE TO SEE HUMAN CLONING JUST NOT ON A GRAND(WHOLE) SCALE... I'D LIKE TO SEE HUMAN CLONED PARTS SPECIFICALLY IF U HAVE A BAD HEART; WITHIN 3-6 MONTHS YOU GET A MADE TO ORDER HEART MADE FROM YOUR OWN DNA....THAT WAY YOU WONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BODILY REJECTION... HEHE PEOPLE DIE FOR A REASON ...SHEESH!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Diaz - 04:47pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2648 of 2659)
Mario - fear won't convince people that cloning is wrong. The consequences of cloning homo sapiens can only be fully realized until that time has come.
CLIF - Medical progress is irrelevant. A rich senator does not care if your relatives die. No significant amount of data supporting cloning can combat millions of dollars of support. To wit, when has cloning equated to the increase in organ donations?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chapman Clark - 04:52pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2649 of 2659)
Wouldn't be cool to have a couple of clones in the basement in case you ever got mortally wounded?
I mean come on, they wouldn't really be REAL people because they would be kept in isolation and would have no real life. Therefore, they would be yours. Would anyone really have a problem with this? It's not like slavery or anything, since they were your clone from day 1. We all have pets, right? What's the difference?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Pool - 04:59pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2650 of 2659)
Better Read Than Said.....
Jeremy:
I just cloned you on the abortion board...I want a response. Get back up there. or is it down there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry J. Zilkan - 05:29pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2651 of 2659)
I received a heart transplant a little over a year ago from a twenty year old man who was killed in an automobile accident. I am a Christian and do believe in God and the bible. I had to wait over 18 months for this transplant, hoping and praying the whole time. On the night of the transplant I had to decide whether to take it or not, belive this it was the most difficult decisions I ever made. Scientific development which may enhance life should be encouraged. The problem is not whether to clone but under what guidelines and rules. Humans normally want to live and extend life but sometimes their spiritual and moral thinking blinds them to what is right and wrong. Yes, if cloning is allowed their will be tragedies and misfortune and many mistakes. This is true of any experiment or advancement man has made and will make. Man stumbles and falls in all things. Those of you who believe God does not want us to clone, should then believe that God will not allow it to happen. If God did not give the men of science the knowledge to even pursue this endeavor then it would not be a problem. The point is God did, and if you don't believe in God then believe this, twenty-five years ago people were saying it was wrong to perform organ transplants. If cloning was today where organ transplants are, I would say that not only would I be alive but so would that twenty year old young man that gave me the gift of life.
Harry Zilkan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Diaz - 05:47pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2652 of 2659)
"Those of you who believe God does not want us to clone, should then believe that God will not allow it to happen."
God does not want us to sin, but we do anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Zoser - 05:57pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2653 of 2659)
Seeing in night and bringing forth by day.
People on this planet can not treat other races right ...let alone if that person was generated by human thought.If you want to make the same mistakes over again then clone. What is going to happen when they ask where did they come from and why they are here.Are you going to explain that their property(Sounds Familiar)?For organ transplants some times it is for good reasons. But to give some one a human organ after the doctor has told them more than once the stop hurting their body.We should not look at clones for the excuse to drive our bodies into the ground. They can not cure a common cold but they think that they can build a human being with out great flaws to the evolutionarty drive of genes.We were not suppose to clone.That is why we have babies.The universe has already got a plan for population growth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nirmal Gerow - 06:47pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2654 of 2659)
Okay, this is a huge issue. First of all is it ethical to do the experimentation? Point: In-vitro is legal now. No one has seen the result of a human clone, so no one can say how much individuality a human clone has...never the less, my view:
First came the Test Tube baby. Everyone had images of a being that was anotomically correct, but how could it be human? It wouldn't have a soul? Right? WRONG! My sister has a 1 1/2 year old son who she wouldn not have had if it weren't for the proceedure now known as In-vetro. He is a baby like everyother baby. He isn't 'soul less' or alien. He has the same wants and needs as any other child. And he loves like every other child despite the fact that he was conceived in a petri dish.
So much for the idea that clones wouldn't really have a life and they would be just like pets. Did the person writing this ever consider that the clone MIGHT actually have more of a life than the original? Did anyone take in the invisible factors that science has trouble 'proving', such as the soul and it's contents? The very thing that makes the cloned machine run?
As for governments raising clones to build armies of mass destruction, I use my above argument. You would have to literally have to keep them separate from the community at large, brain wash them, teach them that they were nothing else. Now would that be the American way? Sounds like Nazi Germany to me, or any other Dictatorship.
Genes, DNA and Scientific mumbo jumbo aside, if these cloned people lived the 'American Way' they might fancy being something other than a pawn in a war game. Hell, they might aspire to being president or a charasmatic religous leader! Who cares how they got here, they are human and they will only function with a soul and not with a 9 volt battery! (Assuming that the reproduction thing worked out okay and their brains work) So if this is true, there STILL would be a shortage of organ donors because even they would have the fre
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Sergio De Marchi - 06:53pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2655 of 2659)
Andrew: Wouldn't be cool to have a couple of clones in the basement in case you ever got mortally wounded?
I mean come on, they wouldn't really be REAL people because they would be kept in isolation and would have no real life. Therefore, they would be yours. Would anyone really have a problem with this? It's not like slavery or anything, since they were your clone from day 1. We all have pets, right? What's the difference?
PETS? WE ARE TALKING HUMAN BEINGS!!! Looks like you miss the point. A clone is just another human being (clone or not, nobody can tell but who already knows). It could be done without you knowing it (blood donation is only one option). An army of clones? I doubt it. Clones will have their own beliefs etc... Clinton and Muhamad Ali did not want to go to the war... Can you tell if a clone would want to go? Even more interesting would be an army of, say, Muhamad Ali's. Of 1,000 troups, 500 died. Who are the dead and who are the survivors? There are interesting things like... let's say your clone wants to marry your doughter. Lots of things to discuss right? Your clone might not be someone you know... what then? As life goes on, so does science...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nirmal Gerow - 06:54pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2656 of 2659)
The rest of my rant....
Genes, DNA and Scientific mumbo jumbo aside, if these cloned people lived the 'American Way' they might fancy being something other than a pawn in a war game. Hell, they might aspire to being president or a charasmatic religous leader!
Who cares how they got here, they are human and they will only function with a soul and not with a 9 volt battery! (Assuming that the reproduction thing worked out okay and their brains work) So if this is true, there STILL would be a shortage of organ donors because even they would have the freedom to donate their organs or take it all with them!!
In addition to add to my Little Miss Sunshine song and dance, on the positive side I suggest that may be a way for women to have children who have been unsuccessful with the Invetro proceedure.
Cloning itself, in my opinion, is not unethical. The ethics part is what we do with this technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
christopher m chiasson - 07:04pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2657 of 2659)
Does this mean we cloaned the whole cows nerv. system? So the affermative states that cloneing would be good for injuries and disfunctional organs. Well that has to hurt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
christopher m chiasson - 07:20pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2658 of 2659)
Well it seems Japan is a little overpopulated, look at their problems. Also what about jobs, would a clone be perfect, if so would they work for us or themselfs? If they worked for us (what would be the word for that)Im sure that cloans would be flawless, would your employers hire the harder worker?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goh Kwan Win - 07:30pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2659 of 2659)
Goh Kwan Win
Human Cloning
I don't think human cloning is a good idea. This is breaking the law of the nature. Everyone knows that no one can go against nature. If someone think Human Cloning is good. Then can you tell me why they clone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Bertani - 08:17pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2660 of 2664)
Human cloning is the obvious next step.
In a world dominated by the absence of respect for human life ,nothing will stop this.
it is just a matter of time...
I truly believe that alterating the natural evolution of life is something extremely dangerous.
By producing sintetic new life forms, we will soon have untested organisms, not proven to be compatible with the enviroment. The consequences are totally unknown. This scares me...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Anderson - 08:29pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2661 of 2664)
Harry J. Zilkan #2651 gives a very personal account of the benefits of medical science in receiving the heart transplant. And, yes, there were those who opposed transplanting organs on religious grounds.
I wonder how advanced our medicine would be if the church had encouraged science during the Dark Ages - a period of several hundred years. The church opposed almost all attempts to gain knowledge as an arrogance against God. The examination of the human body by cutting was opposed.
The same people who resisted the availability of condoms and birth control techniques are the same types who now oppose human cloning. Yes, there are going to be problems, but there will be much to learn on the way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Hamann - 08:49pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2662 of 2664)
The idea of cloning seems so totally wrong, imorale and probably un-Godly, until I gave thought to cloning my 2 children ( now 17 and 12 yrs old) and being able to relive their ever joyful childhood. Just a thought!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS HOFFMAN - 09:08pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2663 of 2664)
THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO CLONE ONES' GENETIC MAKEUP, BUT NOT ONES' SOUL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rex biteng - 09:15pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2664 of 2664)
Front page future headlines for cloning...
"Clone rights activists march on capital hill demanding equality"
"Christian fundamentalist bombs clone replication clinic!"
"Clone corporation exposed selling illegal movie clone sex-slaves!"
"Terrorist cell called CLF (clone liberation front) hijacks plane and demands release of brothers and sisters used for experimentation and space exporation."
No matter if cloning is right or wrong, someone or some government is going to create the 1st human clone it will not be stoped because we have the technology.
to be continued...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Lee - 10:00pm Jan 26, 1998 ET (#2664 of 2691)
• I think that infertile couples should adopt if they want a baby. God made man in his image. Man does not make man in man's image. Furthermore, God has a reason for a couple to be infertile even though it may not be readily apparent. The FDA should ban cloning of any sort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 01:00am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2665 of 2691)
Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
THOMAS HOFFMAN 1/26/98 9:08pm you say "THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO CLONE ONES' GENETIC MAKEUP, BUT NOT ONES' SOUL."
That's because the genetic makeup actually exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 01:15am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2666 of 2691)
Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
christopher m chiasson 1/26/98 7:20pm You say "would a clone be perfect"
You misunderstand what cloning is. Cloning is making a copy of an existing life form thru duplication of it's genetic code. The process of modifying that code is genetic engineering, not cloning. They may be coupled and used in conjunction with each other. But don't confuse the two. If you are against the attempt to make a superhuman, that is not cloning, that is genetic engineering.
Learning to clone a human would allow a nonfertile couple to have a baby that is of their dna makeup. What is wrong with that? A couple gets a child that is actually related to them. Is't that the goal of procreation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Padmanabhan Soundararajan - 01:50am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2667 of 2691)
Human CLoning is Bad for Nature and is very bad interms of evolution. Even if Human are cloned, human greed will be so much that cloning will be to a size unimaginable. Imagine a rich guy asking, hey why not make a 1000 copies of myself. Well when they do that nature takes care of it. The evolutionary process takes care. These clones will be so suceptable to newer diseases that their resistance will go haywire. What happens next will be history. Cloning in my point of view has its own advantages and disadvantages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas A. Baer-Seltzer - 02:40am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2668 of 2691)
Conservatives rejoice at the arrival of a new issue they can complain about and blaim all the problems of the world upon. Genetic cloning is a scientific issue and has nothing to do with "God". Untill the day the existance of an all powerful deity, much less his or her will can be proven in a rigorous and scientific manner, gods should be left out of scientific matters and it's progress. Up untill now, I'd really thought we'd learned our lesson the first time. 1/26/98 Age 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cevat Gokhan Guller - 06:13am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2669 of 2691)
Cloning is the next frontier to be conquered by the mankind. It should be given an extreme importance in a world where millions of people are waiting for an organ tranfer. DO NOT BE CHAINED BY THE CONSERVATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiri Barton - 07:30am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2670 of 2691)
I'd like to warn Christians opposing the cloning idea.
Isn't it just because they're worried to disclose there's no soul? Or not the soul they want? If they're so sure about their faith, why do they disagree?
Does the Bible reject cloning?
I'm not a Christian, as you may guess, but I do believe there's some kind of soul in each of us - as the result of inborn genus code as well as behavior gained throughout the raising process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Moreland - 08:03am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2671 of 2691)
Cloning:
The only thing I can say is that I'm Glad Hitler
is dead, and that noone knows where his DNA is. I know
that half of who you become is because of nurture, yet
half of who you become is also nature. Cloning will not
resolve that issue, just add to its complexity.
Will cloning replicate the "soul"? Most of us
have not defined clearly what that is yet. Some
dispute the existance of the soul altogether, I feel
inanely. Some consider it as a biologically supported
phenomena; an illusion manifested by awareness. Some
regard the soul as being beyond the scope of time and
space; a dimension unto itself, perhaps an energy
that is localized, and contained more or less by our
body, but not contingent upon it.
My particular conviction is that the soul
is a timeless energy. My soul is not trapped by my
body, rather it is my body that allows my soul to
express and to be impressed, not very much unlike the
computer that is housing these meanings that you are
reading. I express my soul through my thoughts, to my
fingers, to the keyboard, to the amorphus internet
continuim, to your computer screen, and then to your
mind to impress upon your soul.
Identical Twins are reported to be telepathic,
at least they seem to know what is on each others mind
without question more so than those of us without a
twin. I am sure (hopefully, without being too presumptive)
that all Identical Twins would report to
have seperate souls. Perhaps, Identical Twins, have
more of insight as to how souls might be connected if
indeed souls are greater than time and space. Perhaps,
Clones might as well. I wonder if you can find a set
Identical Twins that does not believe in a soul. I
wonder if you will find any set-- group of clones that
will not.
Any study about the nature of our souls, seems
to me to be a good thing... even if we discover that
they (our souls) are not. Clones will help us in that
discovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 09:56am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2672 of 2691)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Gee, how they rant.
Here are a few facts;
1.Cloning does not produce a synthetic organism. 2.There is no legal basis for the denial of any human's rights in the U.S. based upon the method of procreation. 3.If you clone Hitler (you can't, but that is beside the point) you will get a short semetic man. The rest of what made "Hitler, the monster" was his life. 4.You can't have a baby in one month by impregnating nine women; The same applies to cloning. 5.The major advantages to research that cloning will offer do not involve any liberties against humans that do not already exist (fetal/embrionic research.) Even if you oppose this research, cloning is non-sequiter since it introduces no ethical changes here. 6.Man creates man in his own image many times everyday. (Your parents did.) 7.Cloning will not halt evolution. Cloning is, in fact, a major player in the establishment of the, presently non-existant, future of human evolution.
These are not facts, but I think they are valid;
1.What ever a soul is, or is not, is not going to be effected by the methodology of procreation. 2.If God didn't want us to do something he would have said so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K.A. Brown - 11:03am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2673 of 2691)
Just because I can pick up a gun and walk into a store and threaten or kill somebody doesn't mean I should.
Just because I am of reproducing age doesnt' necessarily mean I should.
Just because we have the technology to clone doesn't mean we should.
Each of these actions holds certain consequences. Consequences should be heavily considered. And if history tells us anything it is that if somebody can do something bad/wrong/illegal with cloning they will. You can't idealize cloning and think it will prove any different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 11:52am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2674 of 2691)
Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
K.A. Brown 1/27/98 11:03am you say " if history tells us anything it is that if somebody can do something bad/wrong/illegal with cloning they will."
replace "cloning" with; electricity, telephone, gas, water, snow, guns, hands, feet, cars, words, money ... and you get just as true of a statement. The fact that there are people that will misuse ... whatever... is not a valid arguement against cloning anymore than it is against; electricity, telephone, gas, water, snow, guns, hands, feet, cars, words, money ....
ANY thing, especially technology, can be used for good or bad. And the catagorization of each is an individual thing.
Cloning has promise of many benefits to society. So did electricity. The same superstitious arguments were presented against it. Those locked into antiquested superstition will never learn, they will always try to drag society back into the dark ages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 11:55am Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2675 of 2691)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Clif
You said:
"JEREMY DURAND: HOG WASH!!! IF YOU WERE DYING BECAUSE SOMEBODY SLIPPED YOU A MICKY IN YOUR DRINK ...TOOK BOTH OF YOUR KIDNEYS.....UMMMM YEP I GUESS U COULD SAY BALANCE OF NATURE AND ALL THAT NONSENSE! HEHE I MEAN COME ON YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT! AND IF YOU WANT TO REALLY GET RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT, GOD GAVE US DOMINION OVER THE EARTH AND ALL IT CONTIANS......WE REAP WHAT WE SEW..... PERSONALLY I'D LIKE TO SEE HUMAN CLONING JUST NOT ON A GRAND(WHOLE) SCALE... I'D LIKE TO SEE HUMAN CLONED PARTS SPECIFICALLY IF U HAVE A BAD HEART; WITHIN 3-6 MONTHS YOU GET A MADE TO ORDER HEART MADE FROM YOUR OWN DNA....THAT WAY YOU WONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BODILY REJECTION... HEHE PEOPLE DIE FOR A REASON ...SHEESH!
Tip: Stop using all capital letters. Its harder to read and makes your post look sloppy.
To repond to your post, religion has absolutely nothing to do with my objection to human cloning. As I stated my objection stems from issue ragarding practicality and the nature of mankind (which is in no way, kind).
As I've also stated, the world we live in is entirely too overpopulated. People are having too many children (some have litters like frickin dogs). We're messing around with youth genes that may prolong our existance on this planet. Now were talking about cloning human beings. And all of this is for what? The planet can only sustain so much. We're already eating up it's resources at alarmingly higher rates every day.
Also, what exactly would we propose doing with human clones? Testing on them? Wasn't bad enough to subject animals to barbaric and inhuman testing procedures? Now we want to do it on humans too?
I'm not comfortable with the idea of human cloning at all. To much room for abuse. Hopefully the powers that be will continue to agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 12:55pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2676 of 2691)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Clif
BTW, I agree about cloned PARTS. However, I do have a question/thought:
If you had a bad heart as a result of a genetic problem (as opposed to poor eating habit), wouldn't a heart cloned from your DNA contain the same genetic defect?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Diaz - 01:09pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2677 of 2691)
What do conservatives and Christian have to do anything with being against cloning? From what I understand, many of the people against cloning have stated that they are not Christian and are against it for practical reasons. Furthermore, many people who are for cloning have stated that they are Bible believing Christians.
Therefore, why attack religion?
Instead, lets avoid the topic of religion and deal with the practical, scientific aspects of cloning. From these premises we should argue whether or not the global society should clone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Shewbart - 01:17pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2678 of 2691)
Oh My God! They killed Kenny! Why couldn't it have been Kenneth Starr?
Jeremy Durand (#2677): Good One!!! That was an excellent point.
I agree with Nicholas Baer-Seltzer (#2669) that god should be left out of it. However, I do have some serious reservations about cloning. It is possible to clone a race of human beings. These could be genetically designed for any number of purposes: Slavery, testing, McDonald's employees, or any other menial labor that the educated, wealthy or powerful don't want to do themselves. It would be nice if people would never abuse this technology, but be real here. Some people are monsters.
I think that the cloning of DNA for research is a good thing, when used properly. I think that strict guidelines are necessary. It is possible to do cloning on humans, without ever actually cloning a human being. The scientific community needs to establish guidelines for itself and the public needs to keep a careful eye on them. The Lay public cannot write laws regarding cloning. Hazing wording in a law will exclude some very important research. We, as the American public, should just keep a skeptical ear toward the ground.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 01:17pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2679 of 2691)
Hey Jeremy, medical testing already occurs in humans! I've volunteered a number of times and received as much as $1000 a week in compensation. Not bad if you don't mind daytime television and hourly blood draws.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 01:40pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2680 of 2691)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
M.A.DeLuca
The difference is that you were not cloned for the purpose of medical testing. You volunteered.
BTW, beware of companies like Pharmaco who pay you for experimenting on your body. I have several friends who've had bad experiences and had no legal recourse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:58pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2681 of 2691)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Once again (with feeling)
Slavery is illegal!
There is no "genetic loophole clause" that effects this, so will everybody please stop worrying about it? Also, can we please separate the terms, cloning and genetic engineering? They are not the same thing.
Thank you (end rant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 04:18pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2682 of 2691)
Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
Keith Fosberg 1/27/98 3:58pm you say "There is no "genetic loophole clause" that effects this, so will everybody please stop worrying about it? Also, can we please separate the terms, cloning and genetic engineering? They are not the same thing."
You are expecting the same level of informed, logical, rational evaluation to reality from the "other" camp. You are not going to get it. What stance do they have if they bothered with an such obvious approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 05:06pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2683 of 2691)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Glenn (and/or Keith)
If you're so informed, please tell me where I can find any documents that state a human clone will share the same "human" status as a "real" human. That they will be privy to all the rights and freedoms that "real" humans have.
Also, please show me figures that guarantee there will be no further overpopulation problems as a result of commonplace "cloning".
Perhaps, with those assurances, I'll feel differently toward this whole human cloning thing.
See, my problem is that I can't see into the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 05:08pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2684 of 2691)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Glenn
Must you take such a condescending and holier-than-thou attitude all the time?
It really takes away from pleasurable discussions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 05:22pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2685 of 2691)
Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
Jeremy Durand 1/27/98 5:06pm you say "If you're so informed, please tell me where I can find any documents that state a human clone will share the same "human" status as a "real" human. That they will be privy to all the rights and freedoms that "real" humans have."
This is known as the fallacy of "Shifting the burden of proof". You are trying to assert that these clones will be subject to some other set of laws. None of which exist. Then you want us to prove that these OTHER laws don't exist and that people that come into existence thru cloning will be treated differently than those that come into existence thru sex, fetility drugs, invitro or any other method.
If you want to assert something, it is up to YOU to prove the proof.
"See, my problem is that I can't see into the future."
Mo? Well you can see into the past. Show me the basis for your assertion? In what way (other than noteriety and possibly positive financial gain) has a test tube baby been treated differently under the law? Or a baby born due to other fertility processes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 05:32pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2686 of 2691)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Glenn
"This is known as the fallacy of "Shifting the burden of proof".
I learned it from the master, (insert name: Glenn Curry). You're always asking people to prove their claims. I'm simply asking the same.
"Show me the basis for your assertion?
Without getting into the issues of racism and such, I will simply state that it is the nature of mankind to view others, different from oneself, as insuperior and not equal. It has happened all throughout history between various races and cultures. What would make clones any different. Show me the basis for YOUR assertations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Durand - 05:46pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2687 of 2691)
Let the truth be known....I lied!
Glenn
"You are trying to assert that these clones will be subject to some other set of laws."
Wrong. I am merely trying to determine if the same set of laws that apply to "real" humans will apply to clones. Such legal considerations MUST be taken into account when discussing issues like this. In fact they should already have been taken into account before the concept of cloning human even made it to centerstage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 06:31pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2688 of 2691)
It's not just a life, Its an adventure!
Jeremy,
You made my point for me in your last post. You mention clones and "real" people. Well, clones are (or rather will be) real people unless specific legislation is passed to alter that status.
They will recieve equal treatment by law according to the bill of rights and more specificaly, afiirmitive action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Boyd - 06:43pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2689 of 2691)
After viewing some of the comments made here I can't help wonder if people can see the forest for the trees. Scientists have been dabbling in this for years, they just feel that now is the time to come out and admit that they want to clone humans. I don't care how you try to intellectually reason it out, human cloning is just simply wrong. It can in no way benefit mankind. Why don't they just stick to cloning fruits and vegetables to feed the population we already have? M. Boyd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Johnson - 07:07pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2690 of 2691)
Jeremy or Glenn- update me on "Dolly the cloned Sheep", what is the latest news regarding her life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Olson-Kennedy - 07:15pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2691 of 2691)
M.Boyd "It can in no way benefit mankind." What an egotistical thing to say. Who are you to know if it will help or not? Why send people to the moon? How will that help mankind? We are now using all sorts of inventions and devices that were origanally devised for NASA. We have no idea what will come out of this. We need to remain open minded and see what comes, not judge something before it happens. Yes, I do think that it needs to be regulated. But we shouldn't kid ourselves to think that just because we make-up some regulations and laws that it will stop the experiments. We need to acknowledge what science has done and cope with the results as best we can when they come and not before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Rausch - 09:52pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2692 of 2700)
I'm getting really SICK of hearing arguments that cloning will somehow overpopulate the world. Did you ever figure that it takes $$$ to make a clone? And that's $$$ that most people simply don't have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Janitor - 10:00pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2693 of 2700)
Terra,
Dolly, of course, is doing fine (well, as fine as any sheep in a pen is).
M.Boyd,
It can in no way benefit mankind
You arrogant fool. You have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you know what qualifies as benefitting mankind. You think scientists are in some conspiracy to clone people? Their opinions on human cloning vary... after all, they are all unique humans. (even a clone is a unique human)
It's sad, however, when scientists lie about their cloning opinions to satiate the ignorant technophobic beliefs of closed-minded fools who have an unquestioning devotion to a sad ancient religion that has throughout history taught killing, hatred, fear, guilt, slavery, hypocrisy and ignorance in a contradictary book which plaugurizes myths from earlier religions (ie; Noah's flood, Cain and Able, etc are all from Sumerian and Egyptian religious myths).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 10:48pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2694 of 2700)
Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
Jeremy Durand 1/27/98 5:32pm you say "Without getting into the issues of racism and such, I will simply state that it is the nature of mankind to view others, different from oneself, as insuperior and not equal. It has happened all throughout history between various races and cultures. What would make clones any different. Show me the basis for YOUR assertations."
Ah yes the original sin concept. Never fails, talk to a Christer and you get monologue on how inherently bad human nature is. Why else would we need a savior if not from ourself and all the other baddies out there. You state that ALL races and cultures view the other as inferior. Not at all true, You are speaking from the view of a White Xian Westerner. Many civilizations have had a core philospohy of acceptance. Look at the native americans, many welcomed the "white man" as either their brother or a god. Hardly considered inferior to the European onslaught. Perhaps if they had been made aware of the Xian tenets of prejudice and genocide they would have followed YOUR philosophy and not allowed the Europeans to land in the first place. But they weren't indoctrinated in the hatred promoted by the Xian god myth.
What of the blacks, in Africa and those that were taken for slavery to America? They hardly considered themselves to be superior to their white Xian oppressors. Hey, it was the white Xians again! Is there a trend developing here?
As too modern technology developements and living examples of it's application. There have been test tube babies for over 20 years now. When was the last time you heard any stories about their being oppressed or considered second class citizens? The only time the process/ product was under attack was when it was being developed and the Bible thupers were shouting about how it violated nature and gods's will. Boy, deja vu all over again!
So, yes there are sections of society that seem to consider themselves au
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 11:17pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2695 of 2700)
Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
Kristin Olson-Kennedy 1/27/98 7:15pm you say "M.Boyd "It can in no way benefit mankind." What an egotistical thing to say. Who are you to know if it will help or not? Why send people to the moon? How will that help mankind? We are now using all sorts of inventions and devices that were origanally devised for NASA. We have no idea what will come out of this."
You have to understand the mindset behind this philosophy.
A brief history.
The world is flat, if you send those people out past the edge they will die, what good will that do?
The only thing that makes people sick is demons from the devil (actually said by Martin Luther), why bother with medications?
The body is sacred, it is against nature and gods will to cut a dead body open, even if we could learn about it's workings and help others with this knowledge.
Vaccines aere tinkering with gods's will, they should not be allowed, no matter how many lives could be saved (1885 Bishop of Montreal)
In vitro fertilization is playing god and should be stopped by law! We have no right to do this, what kind of monsters will we produce? What value can it possiblity have?
Birth control must be stopped, especially in 3rd world countries where we can gain so many new souls so fast!
This is the history and present implementation of this philosophy. It has shown the exact same reaction since it's invention to every effort to move society forward. It even succeeded in moving society back into the "Dark Ages" for a while. So why are we suprosed to hear it again? It's just echoing off the wals of the churches and chapels. You know what their accoustics are like. They say it once centuries ago "No, it goes against gods will" and it is still bouncing around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Curry - 11:22pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2696 of 2700)
Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
Bob Janitor 1/27/98 10:00pm you say "It's sad, however, when scientists lie about their cloning opinions to satiate the ignorant technophobic beliefs of closed-minded fools who have an unquestioning devotion to a sad ancient religion that has throughout history taught killing, hatred, fear, guilt, slavery, hypocrisy and ignorance in a contradictary book which plaugurizes myths from earlier religions (ie; Noah's flood, Cain and Able, etc are all from Sumerian and Egyptian religious myths)."
I wish I had read this before I posted my replies Glenn Curry 1/27/98 10:48pm and Glenn Curry 1/27/98 11:17pm. It would have saved me a lot of typing. Very well said, I've needed another such voice around here. Good job!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Finch - 11:42pm Jan 27, 1998 ET (#2697 of 2700)
Cloning of humans is inevitable. We can delay it somewhat perhaps. Genetic tampering to smarten up your kids and make them healthier is also coming.
Choice of a good mate will become less important and life will be cheapened. Those concerned about abortion will be really shocked to see what's around the corner.
And there's nothing anyone can do really to stop it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Graham - 12:14am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2698 of 2700)
From my understanding with telomerase it is now possible to give a clone a lifespan identical to that of the parent organism.
I do not have a problem with the technology of cloning -- I do have a problem with a genetically-engineered inheritor. Imagine if you will Bill Gates the 22nd ... Not that I feel Bill Gates is a bad man, but should anyone be afforded through vanity to extend their influence and active control of the destinies of others using non-conventional means beyond their "natural" lifespan (telomerase may be able to extend the lifespans of non-cloned organisms as well.)
To put it another way, imagine Saddam the 10th and George Bush the 12th fighting out Desert Storm the Final Chapter: Son of Desert Storm 10 -- while King Elvis the 9th turns out his latest recordings and Albert Einstein the 7th finally unites gravity with the other subatomic forces.
What happens to human society? Einstein may have been the perfect mathematics teacher. So we crank out copies of Einstein (using wombs of engineered cows as incubators for cloned fetuses) -- now appearing in a high school near you, Albert Einstein teaching mathematics. We have a new form of slavery with the fate of the individual predestined according to genetic rules.
As for rights, a clone would think and feel like any other human being -- denying them rights smacks WAY too much of pre-Civil War society to me.
I suggest if we want cloning to benefit the planet let's start cloning endangered species. Let's refine human cloning to the point where we can clone individual organs, and solve our donor problem. Let's do as one person suggested in this forum and clone superior food species to feed our hungry.
Let's control human cloning by international treaty with extreme penalties for violation and hopefully keep the cloning of entire humans from happening in the first place, or at least keep its occurance to a minimum. The cloning genie may be as difficult if not moreso to contain tha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:30am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2699 of 2700)
Certainty: most of the time it ain't...
Jeremy Durand: If you had a bad heart as a result of a genetic problem (as opposed to poor eating habit), wouldn't a heart cloned from your DNA contain the same genetic defect?
Possibly. But the technology to "clone a heart," as opposed to cloning a complete human being, is probably in the far distant future, if at all. Nobody has the faintest idea of how it could practically be done. Presumably, by that time, technology might conceivably be available such that scientists will know how to correct the genetic defect. Actually, I suspect the technology to cause the heart to repair itself will occur much sooner--perhaps in our own lifetime--thus making the point moot.
Jeremy Durand: Wrong. I am merely trying to determine if the same set of laws that apply to "real" humans will apply to clones.
Jeremy, I think "real" is the wrong word in this context. A clone will be a "real" person. I think the phrase: "naturally conceived," might work better. Insofar as an answer is concerned, It is my opinion that in the absence of special laws for clones, the existing laws will apply. I would, by the way, oppose special laws for clones just as I oppose special laws for Jews, Arabs, Catholics, Baptists, atheist, agnostics, as well as any black, white, red, green or purple people we may have in our society.
I think most people agree that laws that apply to anyone should apply to everyone. This being the case, I don't think we have to worry much about special laws for clones. But at the same time, I don't think it hurts to be vigilant.