clone2800

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

Ruby Pool - 03:32pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2800 of 2807)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn says:

"Ruby Baby! I'm proud of you!. We actually agree at some significant levels. Though I DO see purpose/ benefit to it. Esp in non-fertile couples being given the ability to have a genetically related offspring."

And I do agree with you on non-fertile couples, so they wont kidnap other peoples infants as reported in today's news.

Now does this mean we also agree that life begins when two cells are cloned?

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

Ruby Pool - 03:48pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2801 of 2807)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn says:

"Ruby, I am a little surprised, I thought you were a Xian and accepted the superstition of the sould being some etheral entity that survivies the death of the physical body. But you state it is merely physical life. OK, I will accept this as your stance, It does not however resolve the conflict for Christers that think there is some ghost floating in us somewhere."

A Christian with common sense. There are two divisions of soul, mental and physical...bones, tissue and things that decay as well as breath, thoughts,feelings and things that do not decay in a physical way.

All this agreeing is going to give me a false impression that we are on the same level of thought. Why do I feel the head chopper can come down any second?

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

Glenn Curry - 04:00pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2802 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Ruby Pool 1/30/98 3:32pm you say "And I do agree with you on non-fertile couples, so they wont kidnap other peoples infants as reported in today's news."

Ahhhhhhh! Noooooo! She's even agreeign with me now Yaaaaaaaaaaaa! :->

Wouldn't ya just love to ask those infant nappers if they beleive in "GOD" and consider themselves Xian? What do you want to bet?

"Now does this mean we also agree that life begins when two cells are cloned?"

It began before that even! And yes there is definately life when cells are cloned. But I don't think that what you actually asked is what you meant to ask. You have a tendency to confuse "life" with "a human being" And I do not think that at the point of dna replacement a new human life exists. Just the same potential as a monoploid zygote.

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

Ruby Pool - 04:16pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2803 of 2807)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn:

About all I can bet on with you is that the head choppers going to fall. :-(

Those "infant 'napers" are probably atheist trying to give Christians a bad name, by praying to God for mercy in front of the police.

Did I confuse life with a 'human being' ? I must be slipping...I thought life was two cells mating.

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

Keith Fosberg - 05:51pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2804 of 2807)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Ah, Ruby,

Such a question! If more people would ask themselves what life is before they go balistic about biology and genetics this forum would be much calmer (who knows maybe we could get back into that discussion about ethical memes and proactive evolution!)

Actually there really is no good answer to that question. Maybe the best answer (on Earth at least) is that DNA is life. There are several explanations that serve as working references, but some forms, such as the virus, defy clasification.

Have you ever heard of "Artificial Life?" It is a computer "thingy" where small programs reproduce, interact and basically pass every test for being defined as life, but most of us would not really consider them to be alive.

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

James Ochsenfeld - 05:57pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2805 of 2807)

I must say that I would agree with the President saying that we should not allow the research of human cloning to start or continue in the U.S., after all we are one nation under God regardless of what athiests say. Though what we say really doesn't mean anything, as professors in other countries are probably in the midst of the first human clone. I only pray that God will have mercy on us as this questionable experiment continues.

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

Cirk Bejnar - 07:52pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2806 of 2807)

Just a question: What is the moral oppostion to human cloning? I see no moral arguments against it. Though I see it a fairly useless and possibly dangerous if improperly used. For the recored I am a Christian and believe that human life begind when a diploid zygote is formed or when a cloned cell begins to divide independently.

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

Ruby Pool - 08:29pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2807 of 2807)

Better Read Than Said.....

Keith:

I'm locked into the answer that 'all life comes from existing life' so the the question, when does life begin, has to be answered, when the Creator breathed the breath of life into man and man became a living soul. From there life is passed on, and that's when life begins. To use any other belief means that the growing process is not life, but magic. Cells growing and multiplying 10,000 times in the first 2 or 3 weeks are from"potential life"...makes no sense to me and I think probably to any thinking person.

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

Gordon Anderson - 09:28pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2808 of 2813)

Scott #2779 says that it doesn't matter if the church is compatible with evolution and in science/church disagreements, science wins.

I agree that it does not matter in the sense that science will more likely determine the truth about nature. Science has a much better record in that. The church has a bad record in history when it comes to science. I think that is the essence of the pope's statement on evolution at:

www.natcenscied.org/pope.htm

The church does not want to be embarrassed again as in the condemnation of Galileo for his expressing the truth.

It does matter in the sense that many religious people do not know that religious people CAN accept evolution and still be religious. Evolution happened in either case.

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

Parsons - 09:49pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2809 of 2813)

(Calgary, Canada) I believe that human cloning is just another time bomb that mankind is igniting for itself. Since the beginning of time we've been trying to improve on and tamper with nature and every time we've gotten burned. Really, what good can come of this? Nature has provided us with everything we could possibly want and all we do is disrespect & pollute it. Scientists should spend more time & money researching cures for cancer, aids and other diseases and less time trying to duplicate human life.This is immoral. They are being paid thousands of dollars to behave as "control freaks" always trying to out-do God. They play on human emotions to justify their actions and insist that they are helping infertile couples have children etc... How will they explain to these "people" where they came from? We're already spending millions to council "casualties" of broken homes, test tube babies etc.. Everything in nature happens for a reason and if we can't understand it we should at least respect it. Once again humanity is going to find itself dealing with devastating consequences that are unbearable to imagine. Will the scientific community have answers then? We will all be held accountable in the end!

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

Frederick Abel - 09:59pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2810 of 2813)

We've proven to not be up to the challenge of manging the unsavory end results of our new technologies, results from: global warming, to ozone delpetion, to Chernoble, to Hiroshima, ...etc. demonstrate this clearly. What I agree to and suggest is a moratorium on cloning technology. The time gained will allow us master those technical inovations of the past and their consequences, consequences we have already released upon this planet. We have an increasingly smaller more resource depleted home, let's focus on the challenges presently before us, then move forward. The wisdom that will be gained will be a means to more sucessfully managing the results of this new biotechincal frontier.

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

howie-ngatai healey - 10:22pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2811 of 2813)

In my view the continuation of studies on cloning must continue. The super advancement of technology and genetic engineering is a natural progression of man which will eventually lead us to healthier longer more productive lives.Cures for all major diseases will come from this new technology lead by responsible hard working honest individuals. The scaremongering tactics of individuals misquoting philosophies from the bible and pessimists is nonsense and irrational. Responsible hard working individuals will lead revolutionary productive value changes for the benefit of all value producing individuals as we leave the nuclear division threshold and head into the Neo-Tech/Neo-Think technological era.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:48pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2812 of 2813)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Well, I said I would stay until I got bored... well, it happened. It is just absolutely incredible how ignorant people can be. I could sit here and argue for the rest of my life and it just will not get through. Some people appear open to the truth, for example Jeremy and Cliff have been able to accept logical proofs of my statements, and in some cases came to agree, or at least gave a good argument back. But others are so set in their beliefs that they flat out lie, or at least I hope that they are lying and it is not pure ignorance, in order to uphold what they have been taught since childhood.

I suggest for most people on this board to pick up a high-school biology text and just start reading. I can't believe that most of you don't understand the most rudimentary of biological fact. And those of you who are at least somewhat familiar with the necessary information... you have got to learn the basics of logic. If you are going to argue what you think is a valid point, you should first test it logically to see if it is in fact valid, then you should provide a reasonable proof so that others can understand your views. And for all newcomers, please read some of the previous posts before making outlandish remarks that have already been refuted countless times.

A couple of days ago I sat down for three hours and typed out an eighteen-message post refuting silly misconceptions, so please get your facts straight. As for the subject at hand, it is illegal to ban cloning, there is no ethical value associated with cloning, and there is no undesireable biological consequence to cloning; conversely, cloning is the next rational step in our medical progress -- it can potentially provide the cure to countless diseases and even mortality itself. If you want the support of these statements, read back a few hundred posts

<continued...>

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

Tom Anderson - 11:49pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2813 of 2813)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...continued>

It seems to me that Glenn Curry is often in the right because he is not blinded by faith, and that Keith Fosberg is often in the right because he is very intelligent and logical. Cliff is half and half because he tends to balance emotion and logic, in which case one wins out over the other depending on the subject; I just hope he'll stick to logic more often. Jeremy is strong in his opinions, but it seems he is largely misinformed, but he is open to logic, so there is hope.

Most, but not all, of the other respondents have been mostly misinformed, illogical, over-emotional, and/or blinded by faith. Catagorizing you fair people as such, I can predict what the next few hundred posts are going to roughly embody, however I have far too much other stuff to do to respond to ridiculous claims about imaginary nothings. Seeing as my patience has reached its end for now, I'll check back in a few weeks to test my hypothesis.

Tom

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

Tom Hession - 11:59pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2814 of 2814)

I'm Againest human cloning for any reason. In life you are dealt your cards and you've got to play your hand.

Several years ago a very beautiful woman suggested to a very well known intellegent (but quite homely) man (true story - but I can't remember the man's name) that they have children together. Her reasoning was that with his brains and her looks the children would be perfect. His answer was " What if the children have my looks and your brains?"

My point being: Who among us could possibly be qualified to chose who should be cloned? That choice is best left to the "Supreme Being". (Replace "Supreme Being" with the Deity of your choice.)

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

Heidi Bolander - 12:14am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2815 of 2818)

Humans will be cloned someday. It is unavoidable. We have opened Pandora's box of cloning and science will see it the conclusion. The best we can do is put governmental controls in place to try and keep it within some reasonable limits. There is great possibilities for the ending of some human suffering. In the end isn't the possible ending of disease more important than high sounding talk about the beginning of life. If people are so concerned with life they should be more concerned with the welfare of those already here. As to cloning humans, true cloning is entirely impossible. Clones will be a original as any twin. Developementally speaking what makes us who we are, are our neurons and the paths and connection that are made in the developing brain are not geneticly determined. They are at least as much environmently dependent. Even physical development is partial environmently controlled. There can never truely be another you.

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

Jim Timberlake - 12:58am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2816 of 2818)

Someone amongst us questions the existence of moral arguments against cloning humans. He has stated his firm belief in Christianity, although I'm not sure what the relation is to the statement he makes.

I think the moral arguments are many and founded. I'd bet Hitler would have loved the ability to clone humans. To imagine someone genetically manipulating a human, molding it into whatever one fancies, is downright scary. The adverse consequences of this are numerous. I firmly believe the dangers, the abuse that will surely ensue, associated with human cloning far outweigh any benefits.

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

Jim Timberlake - 12:58am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2816 of 2818)

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

Cliff Beall - 03:31am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2817 of 2818)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Tom, I read your dirge. It is clear that you are not bored. Instead, you are frustrated. You see yourself as the fount of all knowledge, but nobody much is listening, at least not on this board. I am disappointed. You were fun to argue with while it lasted.

One of the thing that made having an argument with you fun--in additional to your overall general intelligence and wit, was your propensity to make outlandish statements and then defended them "to the death" against all evidence. I always found that interesting. One example that comes to mind was the "million year old strands of DNA " in the human body. Another example is your assertion that "banning cloning is unconstitutional." Last night, I discussed in detail the reasons I think the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule the way you think it should. In response, you merely repeated your assurance that "it is illegal to ban cloning."

With you gone again, I must say the charm, in large measure, is gone for me as well. I am not much interested in a hundred disconnected comments by a hundred different people badmouthing "the opposition." It is the conversational aspect that has interested me. Arguments back and forth such as some of those that we have had were fun. Now it all seems to be gone.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:34am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2818 of 2818)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Noel hasn't been around for a couple of weeks. Keith is still here, but he is so politically correct that I seldom find substantial disagreement with him. Carl drops in from time to time, but he is such a pessimist. Ruby has a sharp tongue, and provides a laugh from time to time, but in a way, she baffles me. Glen appears to be quite knowledgeable on a number of subjects, particularly, the Bible--obviously much more knowledgeable than me, and I can certainly admire that, but I have a hard time accepting his stereotyping, name calling and insults. I was surprised to learn of your relatively high opinion of Jeremy. I have a high opinion of Jeremy, but had not supposed that you would. And then, of course, there is Dawn, one of the brightest women--correction, one of the brightest individuals of either sex with which I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. Overall, not a bad group. Maybe I'll stick around.

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

Patrick Nelis - 04:22am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2819 of 2822)

Cloning is a threat to our national security because all of our most reliable methods of positive identification would be compromised. Genetic testing and fingerprinting would become useless. Would you like to live in a world in which the criminals excuse was - "It wasn't me - it was my clone."?

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

Bob Janitor - 05:08am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2820 of 2822)

Who among us could possibly be qualified to chose who should be cloned?

A flame-bait of a rhetorical question. Humans have been choosing who lives and who dies for thousands of years now. We have also been breeding cattle, pollinating plants, trying to score with the cute chicks, etc. We already determine the genetic make up of the next generation. Cloning is just semantics.

You can clone and eugenically breed a body, but not a mind (and soul for you religious yahoos). The mind will develop uniquely.

There has been a lot bad science fiction about cloning. While a person with similar initial physical characterists would be made, don't forget there are already clones in nature-- identical twins.

Although most physical characteristics are the same, if you ever get to know twins you will realize one thing-- THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. They are unique. And, they grew up in a VERY similar environment.

A clone growing up in a totally different environment would share little personality/mental similarities with his "brother" and probably few physical similarities as well. (hair length, weight, dress style, mannerism, etc)

In summary, clones are not carbon copies. They are unique people.

I'm somewhat familiar with the bible, and I've never heard God condemning cloning. Supposedly, god is a smart guy. So, I'm sure he knew to the millisecond when us monkey boys would learn a technique of mammilian cloning. And, I'm sure if he thought cloning would be the downfall of mankind he would've told someone about it. Of course, being God, I'm sure he could think up better ways of communication, but maybe all-powerful supreme beings enjoy a challenge.

And, to answer your question, ME! My opinion is, of course, always right, although I do reserve the right to change it.

Morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Just remember that when you start killing off the ugly people... or things outside your moral mindset.

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

Carl Nicolai - 08:26am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2821 of 2822)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Tom et all: I read this board twice a day. Many times I dont say anything because many people here are all-ready expressing what I have to say.

One thing for sure. We must have a FAQ that is complete enough to explain the scientific, medical, ethical, legal, and religious ideas that have been presented here. In that way we dont have to hear the exact things over and over again.

The next CNN story about cloning will cause a whole swarm of newbees to repeat the same things that have transpired here.

Also I think this board should be devoted to human genetic engineering and cloning. It is that combination that will effect the vast growth in how humans look at themselves. There have even been a few statements about mechanicalogical life but that is much farther off and dosent yet insite the feelings of very many people.

I am very optimistic about what benefits genetic engineering and cloning will produce, but I am woried about the huge conflict the monster Democracy will engender.

Unless their work presents a "clear and present danger" scientists like all people have the right to do as they please. I would like it however if they used clean funds instead of rip off tax money.

Rest assured that this board will continue to see more of the good, bad, funny, intellegent, angry, and stupid comments than any other I've been reading.

I beleive we are witnessing the evolution of human thought here.

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

Joseph Sirbak - 09:54am Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2822 of 2822)

I see nothing inherently wrong with cloning humans. Those who argue that cloning is contrary to the will of God fail to recognize that it is God who has given mankind this technology. Those who argue that it will weaken the human gene pool fail to recognize that people will choose only to clone those genetic traits they consider desirable, and that cloning can therefore only strengthen the gene pool. Of course, out of respect for human life, human cloning ought not be permitted until sufficiant tests have been performed on animals, guaranteeing relatively high probabilities of success. There is no point in bringing life into this world which we do not expect to survive. Furthermore, is is essential that people recognize that clones will not be droids at the mercy of their creators, but will be legitimate human persons endowed with the same rights as every other person (e.g. organ harvesting from clones would be just as morally reprehensible as would be organ harvesting from any other child). Even though clones will not have "original" genetic make-up, their environment will immediately begin shaping who they are, just as nature does with every one of us. Someday, I believe technology will be sophisticated enough to literally "photocopy" people, including their experiences and memories. This is more controversial, but I will not even bother to defend this practice since it is necessarily generations away.

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

Keith Fosberg - 12:29pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2823 of 2825)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

To all of the "old-timers":

I will probably "lurk" around from time to time, but like Tom, I am getting frustrated in covering the same ground again and again. I really enjoyed the deeper discussions we were having here a while back (before Mr. Seed's untimely anouncement.)

If anyone is interested in setting up a news group, where we can have an FAQ & stuff you can find one of my email adxs in my CNN profile.

Cliff, I am going to get you for calling me "politically correct" you bugger! (Is that because I prefer to show people that thier "etheric" fears are unjustified instead of calling then superstitious ignorants?)

Onwards and upwards with human knowlege! I sleep easier knowing that my children may benifit from centuries of life thanks to the labours of our esteemed friends in the life sciences!

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

Cliff Beall - 12:42pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2824 of 2825)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Bob Janitor: You can clone and eugenically breed a body, but not a mind (and soul for you religious yahoos). The mind will develop uniquely.

It is my understanding that there is evidence that some domains of the mind are genetically influenced; agressive tendencies have been the ones most studied. For example, it appears possible that your tendency to badmouth "the opposition" may very well have a genetic basis. Also, some people have the tendency to overstate while others tend to understate. I am not sure I understand how such a tendency to overstate or understate is "learned." Thus I would suspect this tendency also to be a genetically connected trait.

Bob Janitor: And, to answer your question, ME! My opinion is, of course, always right, although I do reserve the right to change it.

Sounds like something I might say. A very admirable statement.

Bob Janitor: Morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Just remember that when you start killing off the ugly people... or things outside your moral mindset.

Very true.

Carl Nicolai: One thing for sure. We must have a FAQ that is complete enough to explain the scientific, medical, ethical, legal, and religious ideas that have been presented here. In that way we dont have to hear the exact things over and over again.

Interesting comment. But if seemingly "hundreds" of people won't read twenty or so prior comments before plowing in with a one time, disconnected offer of self importance, how are you going to get them to read an FAQ?

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

Cliff Beall - 12:54pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2825 of 2825)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Carl Nicolai: Also I think this board should be devoted to human genetic engineering and cloning. It is that combination that will effect the vast growth in how humans look at themselves.

I think any discussion of genetic engineering and cloning must, of necessity, allow inclusion of the discussion of evolution, morality (religious or otherwise) and law, as they relate to those topics. But I like to see arguments, not isolated statements of opinion and disparaging remarks about the "other camp."

Carl Nicolai: I am very optimistic about what benefits genetic engineering and cloning will produce, but I am woried about the huge conflict the monster Democracy will engender.

I prefer democracy to dictatorship.

Keith Fosberg: Cliff, I am going to get you for calling me "politically correct" you bugger! (Is that because I prefer to show people that thier "etheric" fears are unjustified instead of calling then superstitious ignorants?)

Yeah, that is part of it. And I do like your style. But mainly, it was just something I thought would be funny to say, and something that would get your attention. I really liked your reply. I've never been called a bugger before.

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

Ruby Pool - 03:31pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2826 of 2829)

Better Read Than Said.....

CNN reports:

"Researchers said Tuesday, January 20 they have successfully created two identical, genetically engineered calves, a step that could lead to the mass production of drugs for humans in cows' milk."

What kind of drugs? Lithium? Cocain? Asperin? LSD?

Drugged milk anyone? I assume these cows will not be raised for their milk, but for drugs.

I think I will leave this board to the new comers. It's been fun.

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

Marija Dail - 03:50pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2827 of 2829)

I will try again, even if you didn't include my message from half an hour ago: I do not think human beings should be cloned; it brings me uncomfortably close to Hitler and his superior race theory. I believe that all naturally conceived life should have a chance to continue and make the best of it! I love science and progress, it's exciting, but a scientist has a responsibility to know when to stop. Is he the Creator of life? Can he give a SOUL?Is he the ultimate judge ofwho lives and who dies?

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

Cliff Beall - 04:25pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2828 of 2829)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Keith Fosberg: Cliff, I still support Dawn and Tom in the supposition that humanity is not evolving anymore. Mutation and drift may very well occur, but without selective pressure is it really evolution, or is it simply change?

First, Keith, in her comment, Dawn did not disallow the possibility of continuing evolution despite Tom's zeroing in on her first sentence only. The rest of her statement was: "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." (This, in my opinion, is hardly support for Tom's assertion that we are no longer evolving.)

Second, I do not disallow selective pressures on our evolution. But selective pressures are often very subtle and difficult to identify, even after the fact. Therefore, in answer to Tom's assertion, I chose to attempt a demonstration that evolution can occur even without selective pressure. It may have been a mistake to make such an attempt. But tell me, what, in your opinion, is the difference between change in the characteristics of a species and evolution?

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

Cliff Beall - 04:33pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2829 of 2829)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Dawn Willis: This just in from 1/30 issue of Science: Dolly may not actually be a clone from a somatic cell. The cells were taken from a frozen stock of mammary cells of a pregnant ewe, who had died... Fetal cells do circulate in pregnant females, so this cell could have been from the fetus and not the adult animal...

Incredible. Is it possible we have been arguing about something that does not yet exist? Is the cloning of adult cells still science fiction? One question: while this may affect Dolly's status as the first manmalian clone from an adult cell, as I understand it, this will not affect the status of Polly and Molly as clones of fetal cells and their ability to manufacture a protein needed by some humans. Is this correct?

Ruby Pool: What kind of drugs? Lithium? Cocain? Asperin? LSD?

Ruby, they are talking about pharmaceuticals. I assumed you knew. Polly and Molly are sheep which include in their DNA a human gene intended to switch on the production of a special blood clotting factor (protein) in their milk. This technology has the potential to improve the health of hemophiliacs. Also, the production of other proteins are possible, improving the delivery of medicine, and the health of people profoundly.

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

Ruby Pool - 06:31pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2830 of 2832)

Better Read Than Said.....

Cliff:

"- genetically engineered calves, a step that could lead to the mass production of drugs for humans in cows' milk."

I only read the CNN Report...this is what I was refering to. I thought "genetically engineered calves" were different than the clones. My mistake, if it was a mistake...BTW you baffle me as much as I baffle you and I was being a little unserious about it.

I'm trying to stay off this board, because I don't want to repeat what I've already posted repeatedly. This genetic calve was something new for me.

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

Ruby Pool - 07:23pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2831 of 2832)

Better Read Than Said.....

Marija Dail:

Scientist cannot create life...they can only pass it on in cloning. Life and soul mean the same, life is composed of spirit and physical components in the human cell. A clone, as I understand the process, can only be made with this life component placed in a living womb. It is not science creating life, but using the components of life to produce another being.

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

howie-ngatai healey - 07:41pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2832 of 2841)

To think human cloning is just about on us, what an intriuging thought to be able to not only have spare parts for our bodies but also it must be only a couple of years away before responsible hard working scientists have the technology to transfer ones conscious thought into a cloned body through nano technology or rasa transfer. Living beyond 500 years is now a distinct possibility. Obviously there would be strict guidlines. eg murderers, rapists, criminals, dictators, politiceans, bureaucrats would not meet the criteria required. What will I be doing in 2898, probably living in my own galaxy, created by me through technology still to be discovered, (maybe in 2498). and travelling to planet earth on business. We live in exciting times.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:30pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2833 of 2841)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Ruby Pool: I only read the CNN Report...this is what I was refering to. I thought "genetically engineered calves" were different than the clones. My mistake, if it was a mistake...BTW you baffle me as much as I baffle you and I was being a little unserious about it.

Ruby, except as a possible alternative reproductive method for humans, I know of no benefit from cloning except in combination with genetic engineering. But to me, this is the exciting aspect of cloning.

It should be understood that the two male calves, named George and Charlie, referred to in the CNN report do not have altered genes capable of producing useful proteins for medicinal purposes. They contain only two genetic alterations, a marker gene and a gene that makes cells resistent to an antibiotic. In those two male calves, Robl and Stice have merely tested the process. But they have pregnant cows carrying fetuses that have been genetically altered to produce human serum albumin. Albumin is a protein currently derived from pooled human plasma protein. Approximately 440 metric tons of plasma-derived albumin are used annually. If it can be produced in the milk of genetically altered cows, consider the advantage.

To be perfectly frank, Ruby, I am really not much interested in cloning as a reproductive method for humans. But as a an inexpensive method of manufacturing proteins to treat ailments such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and diabetes, the cloning of genetically altered animals is, and should be, exciting indeed.

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

Kurt Schoedel - 11:10pm Jan 31, 1998 ET (#2834 of 2841)

Mr. healey, right-on! Finally someone with the same spirit of fun and adventure towards these things (cloning, immortality, etc.) as myself.

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

Homayon Iraninezhad - 12:17am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2835 of 2841)

"There's only one race, the Human race!!!" DON"T Change it...............

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

Arvind Chauhan - 12:41am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2836 of 2841)

I think that cloning is a wonderful gesture by the humans to its creators. It should not be banned but done with careful and active pursuit. Arvind Chauhan

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

Cliff Beall - 12:43am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2837 of 2841)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Ruby Pool: Life and soul mean the same, life is composed of spirit and physical components in the human cell. A clone, as I understand the process, can only be made with this life component placed in a living womb. It is not science creating life, but using the components of life to produce another being.

Ruby, I know you must have said this before, but I think this time you may have said it better, or perhaps I just read it more carefully. In any case, I think I now understand your concept of the soul. I am pretty dense sometimes, I guess. The concept is really quite simple. I don't know what my problem was before.

I don't necessarily agree. As an agnostic, I tend to withhold judgment on matters that can not be investigated. But I must confess it is an interesting concept, and at least I now have a concept of how your belief system is put together. (You don't baffle me anymore.)

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

Doris J. Snyder - 01:22am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2838 of 2841)

From Doris Snyder...I've been around long enough to know that yesteryear's science fiction is today's scientific fact. Testimony no doubt to the the saying "whatever the mind of man can conceive, it can achieve". When you talk about cloning humans, the tendency is to get excited in a negative way, but I see it as the continuation of human capacity to make changes in the environment, towards a goal we can only dimly, if at all, perceive. My Dad was born before every house on a block had electricity, and his brother built the first crystal set (radio) in the neigbhorhood. But he lived to see a man on the moon, and watch it on television. And now I'm watching the ability to clone humans evolve. Let's look at the exciting and positive things it can do for humanity. Why would anyone want to stop that?

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

howie-ngatai healey - 01:34am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2839 of 2841)

Way to go Kurt Shoedel. Keep that mind clearly focused on that discovery, that adventure, that excitment which goes with new major discoveries and knowledge. It's the free spirits of the revolutionary power thinkers of years and centuries gone by that has got us this far in the advancement of civilisation. Heaven forbid if we closed the door now, we would possible all die of old age for a start, and that would be catastrophic. Especially since I'm looking forward to the millemiun beyond 3000. I often wonder if we all had stagnant unproductive irrational minds instead of the power thinking free spirited rational minds of the Alexander Graeme Bells, Thomas Eddisons, The Wright brothers, Einstein, Henry Ford and other great value producers, Dr Frank Wallace among them, where would we be in terms of education and advancement of our incredible human spirit. The new frontiers of discovery of today is similar to watching all those great movies of years gone by as Columbus set sail from Europe to discover unheard of places, James Cook and Able Tasman on their respective journeys from Europe to the South Pacific. What great excitement that would have produced as these great free spirits and adventurer took the world to a new level. Those times are with us again and in the future.

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

howie-ngatai healey - 02:11am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2840 of 2841)

Good on ya Doris Snyder, I'm on your side. An excellent rational honest opinion.

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

James J Wright - 04:31am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2841 of 2841)

What's the big deal? Who cares if someone clones people.

The only problem that I see is that if people start building clones for spare parts to live longer, we're going to have a heck of a population growth increase in the next couple of years.

Worst part of that is that the people who manage to afford it, and get permission to do it (ie politicians who write the cloning laws) will leave us with immortal versions of people like Jessie Helms. Yuck!

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

Robin Henry - 09:36am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2842 of 2843)

We don't really need to clone people; we already have more than enough. Rather than cloning, let's look after the people we already have and perhaps adopt some of the children who haven't got parents or who are living in poverty.

But if we must, I find nothing objectionable about cloning. It depends upon your view of life, death and religion. I don't see life as all that important in the larger scheme.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:39am Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2843 of 2843)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

howie-ngatai healey, Kurt Schoedel, Doris Snyder:

As I understand from Dawn's post, the 1/30 issue of Science brings into question the cloning of adult somatic cells. It appears that the cells from which Dolly, the sheep, was cloned was from a frozen stock of mammary cells of a pregnant ewe. Since fetal cells circulate in pregnant females, it is possible that the cell from which Dolly was cloned was from a fetus, not the adult sheep.

What this means is that the cloning of adult cells may yet remain "science fiction," and further investigation is required to establish that cloning of adult somatic cells is actually possible.

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

Carl Nicolai - 12:58pm Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2845 of 2846)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall: Ruby, except as a possible alternative reproductive method for humans, I know of no benefit from cloning except in combination with genetic engineering. But to me, this is the exciting aspect of cloning.

Ahh.. Cliff you forget that many improvements in animal stock happen by conventional breedind combined with luck.

One of the important aspects of cloning is that once you produce anything interesting, by what ever method, you can copy it.

One animal may only be able to breed say 10 times, but 1000 copies alowes a lot of cross breeding testing even by standard practices.

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

Ruby Pool - 01:26pm Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2846 of 2846)

Better Read Than Said.....

Cliff: Post 2833

Just caught up on some back posts. Thanks for the explaination of the calves. That makes good sense to me. Improving peoples lives without torturing the clones seems like cloning put to good use.

Carl:

"One of the important aspects of cloning is that once you produce anything interesting, by what ever method, you can copy it."

Good point. Cloning is looking up with uses.

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

Dawn Willis - 03:47pm Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2847 of 2848)

Cliff Beall: There is no doubt that fetal cells can be cloned. For those who might not understand why this is cloning, the eggs are fertilized in vitro and allowed to reproduce to the eight cell (I think it's 8 in mammals) stage. The eight cells are then separated and implanted in various uteri. They are born clones of each other, but not of any adult. A human gene of choice can be inserted at the one cell stage, so all clones will have it. Supposedly some cows are now pregnant with adult cell clones of living non-pregnant adults; we'll have to wait a bit to see.

Keith Fosberg: I don't think naked DNA would be considered life. It can't replicate without a lot of help. To me, life is a self-replicating entity.

Tom Anderson: I'm sorry if you really are gone. I for one enjoy your posts. If you should tune in, here is another explanation of why I don't think there is any million year old DNA. At most, we each contain 84 strands of parental DNA (46 chromosomes x 2 strands). Plus 100 or so mitochondria. Even if those 184 originals all wind up in different cells, we consist of 30 trillion cells which come and go, and all of which go when we die. What are the odds that one of the originals winds up in one of the 10,000 eggs or zillions of sperm, and especially in the very few eggs and sperms that go on to the next generation? Vanishingly small, I would think.

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

VIcente Romano III - 06:56pm Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2848 of 2848)

Cloning humans, no matter how noble the purpose, is a usurpation of God's power of creation and can lead to dangerous possibilities. But once a breakthrough discovery such as this happens, there is no stopping man from using it -- whether for good or bad. Just look at nuclear fusion -- how man has used it to generate power and create a weapon of destruction at the same time. I suspect that by the year 2000, cloning humans will extend beyond the laboratories and we can only pray that we will have enough sense to harness its potential.

Vic Romano -- <[email protected]>

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

Cliff Beall - 08:34pm Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2849 of 2850)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Carl Nicolai: One of the important aspects of cloning is that once you produce anything interesting, by what ever method, you can copy it... One animal may only be able to breed say 10 times, but 1000 copies alowes a lot of cross breeding testing even by standard practices.

Carl, we have argued this before, or, at least, I have argued it with Tom and Noel. With perhaps a few exceptions, I remain of the opinion that cloning as an aid to general animal husbandry would be counter-productive. The reason is that the ability to obtain appropriate new blood is one of the main problems in any breeding program. I made a couple of arguments about four months ago on this subject that I herein repeat with slight modification, ref posts #443 and #445:

First argument: Suppose you have a herd of cattle which you wish to upgrade, what do you do? The traditional answer is: get a good bull, and replace the less productive cows, as you can, with the new heifers that come alone.

It is generally considered permissible to inbreed the second generation cows when they mature to the same bull (daughter to father). (Or at least that is my recollection from forty years ago when I was growing up on a farm.) However, when the third generation of heifers mature, and you want to breed them, it is time to replace your bull with another bull from another bull farm because inbreeding the third generation of heifers with the same bull is just too much inbreeding, especially considering that your bull is probably a product of inbreeding already. You need new blood.

But suppose all the bull farms cloned from the same (or related) stock. Are you likely to get the new blood you need. True, they all have superior stock, but it isn't stock you can use. Therefore, while it is true you can increase the number of animals of a superior type by cloning the superior animals, really all that you have done is increase the number of animals that you can't breed.

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

Cliff Beall - 08:38pm Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2850 of 2850)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Second argument: Consider the following two points:

1. Cloning, by its very nature, does not increase the gene pool.

2. Significant improvements in a breed sometimes comes from unexpected sources.

Lets talk race horses. From time to time, a horse with relatively unimpressive bloodlines from a small farm is capable of running faster than horses with impeccable bloodlines from a large farm. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. (Presumably this is due to an unexpected favorable combination of genes, or perhaps a favorable mutation.)

Now suppose cloning of race horses became cheap and popular. The small farms might then be able to obtain clones of race horses with impeccable bloodlines. They become competitive much sooner, and will no longer need to spend years exploring the less impressive bloodlines, since they can now play with the big boys immediately using clones with impeccable bloodlines.

But wait a minute. What has happened here? We have more horses of a superior quality, but the gene pool has actually narrowed! How can this possibly represent an overall improvement? That's why I say it looks good in the beginning, but in the long run, it is counter-productive.

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

Bob Janitor - 10:05pm Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2851 of 2874)

usurpation of God's power of creation and can lead to dangerous possibilities.

God hasn't created anything, if he exists or ever did recently. Creation is a predictable process. Many animals, plants and bacteria clone themselves. Yes, there is selection over one DNA strand to clone over another, but there is in sexual reproduction too. Cloning is just semantics, and due to its high cost it won't see widespread use for a long time, if ever.

Just look at nuclear fusion -- how man has used it to generate power and create a weapon of destruction at the same time.

Really, I haven't seen any nuclear fusion plants recently. I have seen some FISSION plants though.

Fusion is using tremendous energy to combine two atom's nuclei into a single atom, and we've recently got as much power into the reaction as it puts out using two exotic forms of hydrogen and a laser. Fusion is used to enhance nuclear weapon power (thermonuclear weapons) but it's simply impossible to use it as a practical power source yet. Even worse, the fusion technology we're R&D'ing uses not ordinary hydrogen in water-- but isotopes (tritium and deuterium (heavy water)) that literally cost "a cadillac a barrell".

Fission is our current technology. A fast neutron whacks into a U-235 or Pu-239 atom and splits it in two, releasing tremendous amounts of energy and more neutrons-- a chain reaction in which all the unstable atoms will eventually be fissioned if it is not controlled and massive amounts of energy released.

Nuclear weapons SAVED one million US lives during World War II. Even with the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear technology hasn't killed that many people that were saved by it in the form of an "evil" weapon.

The "evil" weapon was developed to use on Japan and Nazi Germany. Not exactly friendly folks anyway. Talk to Jews or the Manchurian Chinese.

Nuclear energy currently provides 20% of our power at a low cost, and its radioactive byproducts (nuclear waste) are equ

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

Bob Janitor - 10:07pm Feb 1, 1998 ET (#2852 of 2874)

(con't)

equal to that of the medical industry and are a small percentage compared with uranium released by coal-firing plants, which account for most of our power generated. (uranium is found with coal)

Furthermore, it is possible to use nuclear waste to generate electricity. A patent (forget the number, search for it via patent.womplex.ibm.com) describes the solid-state conversion of radiation to electricity, and you can use a thermopile like NASA uses on deep space probes to convert the radioactive heat into energy as well.

So, how is nuclear technology relevent to cloning? Both are misunderstood technologies people have a lot of animosity toward, but after learning the facts it is understood they aren't as truly evil as people think.

I suspect that by the year 2000, cloning humans will extend beyond the laboratories

Yes, well, I'm still waiting for my year 2000 rocket ship lunar vacation that was predicted.

The cloning cat is out of the bag; ignorance won't work anymore. And laws only keep honest people honest.

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

Ted Liedle - 12:38am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2853 of 2874)

I write about the morality of cloning humans. If we are just animals then it would be equally moral to clone sheep, monkeys, or men. If we have an eternal spirit, however, it becomes a different issue. Is the spirit encased in the flesh at conception, the joining of sperm and egg? If conception doesn't take place, as in cloning, will the clone have a spirit? If it doesn't have a spirit, what will it be, animal or man? Shades of Jekyl and Hyde!

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

howie-ngatai healey - 03:33am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2854 of 2874)

I agree Cliff Bealle in part. Further research will need to continue indefinately by responsible hard working scientists before cloning of humans becomes a distinct reality. Taking the view in this early stage of discovery that cloning of humans may remain science fiction is unproductive in my view. It will not be the thought pattern of free thinking positive value producing scientists. Their minds will be geared towards power thinking and further succesful development. Only with a clear thinking positive picture of developing this study beyond science fiction will it then become a reality. As in succesful business, we remain market driven, hard working, value producing, responsible and focused. Succesful responsible scientists are of the same honest rational mind set. As long as we retain our objective thinking and not emotional thinking, all the answers will unfold in the months and years ahead. Meanwhile we will all debate the issues with profound honesty and rationally. Also view 2811, 2832, 2839.

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

Francis Till - 07:39am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2855 of 2874)

Ah, Ted ... and if it is revealed to the voice at the source of your religious beliefs that clones have no souls, will asking them do any good? Or would you then bother.

Of course, they might not know about the status of their souls ... but then, do you? And if they were convinced that they, too, wanted to worship alongside you at your pew, would you have them your congregation? Or is the matter settled beforehand, by revelation.

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

T. Blatnik - 09:46am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2856 of 2874)

I think that the whole idea of human cloning, can be benificial to all of man kind, as long as some established ethics in reguards to the involved processes are strictly adheared to and post no danger to the clones themselves. This could be a true solution for infertal couples, who are unable to have children. As long as it's done and kept in the right hands. No secret government labs, doing this to breed some super clone to be used as a weapon or in combat. The key is ethics, what we should -or- should not do, that's the question, with the technology available. Can we pursue this safely, with no undesirable after effects ?

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

Jeremy Durand - 10:27am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2857 of 2874)

Let the truth be known....I lied!

Would knowingly cloning a human from another that has a life threatening disease (of the heart, perhaps) be considered a crime, perhaps murder or assault with the intent to kill, since it could have been prevented?

Cloning human will not allow us to live longer as some claim. What will happen is that the clone will have an exact duplicate of it's "real" human counterparts genetic makeup - disease and all.

That seems wrong.

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

GayEllenMiller - 10:59am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2858 of 2874)

I think that cloning is NOT something that we should be doing, be it animal or human. What about the spirit for the creature that is created and God is the only one capable of creating. We know who can only make copies of things and what he does is never new.

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

Ewan Retief - 11:01am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2859 of 2874)

What will we ach What will we achieve? Cloning the answer to the world overpopulation problem?

Humans have had the infinite capacity to take the opportunity to create something new and useful, and mess it up.

Pollution, oil spills, endangered species, violent crime, war, drug abuse... Cloning? We can not stop some people out there from cloning humans. Just like we can not stop some other people from polluting our environment.

So at the end each man (person) must work out his own salvation.

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

Ruby Pool - 11:03am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2860 of 2874)

Better Read Than Said.....

Bob Janitor:

"Many animals, plants and bacteria clone themselves. Yes, there is selection over one DNA strand to clone over another"

I know animals mate and plants spawn. Please explain your cloning remark above.

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

Kevin Muldoon - 11:49am Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2861 of 2874)

Cloning does not make sense if you are able to play the "Pass Your Genes To The Next Generation" game. If genetic natural selection were likened to a board game, the act of human cloning would be akin to skipping your turn to roll the dice. If however, due to infertility, a person were unable to play the "pass your genes" game, cloning allows another chance to get back in the game. If we agree with the anology, then there is only one ethical question we must answer. Is it ethical to deny anyone the chance to play the "Pass Your Genes" game that every one of us believes we have the right to participate in?

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

Debbie McClelland - 12:19pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2862 of 2874)

Until the American public can deal with the abortion issue (at what stage does a "person" begin), there's no way that they can productively deal with cloning.

Personally, I think that cloning humans is an atrocity, as it shows no respect for sanctity of life. (Use it for medical testing, organ transplants, etc...) "Cirrhosis of the liver? No problem - Bob's Body Barn has cloned organs at reasonable prices!"

Get with it folks - there needs to be a limit as to what is acceptable research & medical practices! Hubris alert anyone?

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

Joe Bauman - 01:33pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2863 of 2874)

Center For Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine

Kevin, Nicely said.

Debbie, When does the American public deal collectively with any issue. I think the closest we can come is something like the a "popular war." Just look at all the discussion boards. They would be pretty boring if Americans all thought the same. All I'm saying is that there will be always people who argue about cloning, abortion, in-vitro fertiliztion, homosexuality, technology, federal government, death penalty, Seinfeld, and just about everything else worth, and not worth giving a damn about.

America will never agree completely about cloning or abortion. But it is legal to have an abortion under limited circumstances any way. I would think that cloning will follow a similar regulated path. At least I hope so. Cloning for infertile couples makes alot of sense to me. Cloning for organs, well that's not going to legally happen for a very long time. Both from a scientific and a legal stand point. In order for that to happen in an, I would say, ethical manner it would be necessary to grow the organ needed without the body or atleast with out a central nervouse system and developmental biology is not quite up to the task yet. Can you or anyone else say that if you needed a heart transplant you wouldn't consider having a heart grown up for you. But again as I said this is far in the future.

I generally believe that no sizeable part of the population believes that growing a complete duplicate of yourself for organ harvesting is acceptible. Growing only select organ or a group of organs seems much more reasonable to me. The only problem is that we cant do that yet.

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

Anne Key - 01:43pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2864 of 2874)

The earth is one living being -a living swirl of various lifeforms. Humans are only a part of that swirl of life. Animals, insects, plants, algea, sealife, bacteria, etc, make up the rest. Cloning humans is unnecessary. However, I see nothing wrong with it -with the exception that it is unnecessary in that this planet already has enough humans. And humans are destroying the earth to the point that they have become a cancer upon it. Why proprogate a cancer? Some humans see cloning as a blot against their religion, their myths, their legends. Humans are the only animal on earth that have difficulty with handling their own mortality... so they make up legends and stories to fabricate myths of "souls" and "afterlife", which after eons of time become "law" and basic belief structures. Those "laws" are the foundation of what THEY believe as "truth". What if it isn't true?? Like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, all those myths were only "stories" of Man's inability to face his own eventual extinction -like the dinosaur. Cloning is only another attempt by Man to extend his existence. Only, it is totally unnecessary -and even if successful, that too will die off.

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

Anne Key - 01:43pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2864 of 2874)

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

Havaname Idone - 02:37pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2865 of 2874)

WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN A CREATION THAT WE HAVE LITTLE OR CLOSE TO NO KNOWLEDGE OF. WHEN WE SEND PEOPLE INTO OUTER SPACE, THEY BEAR WITNESS TO A SYSTEM THAT'S ALREADY IN MOTION THAT WE'RE NOT THE AUTHOR OF. THEY ALSO SEE THE POWER OF A KNOWLEDGE BEING EXPRESSED THAT THEY COULDNT EVEN BEGIN TO COMPREHEND. WE WONDER HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? THEN WE TURN AND ERECT THEORIES WHICH MEANS SOMETHING THAT HASNT YET BEEN PROVEN. THE SCIENTISTS OF THIS WORLD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEIR DOING. CLONES, COMPUTER CHIPS IN PETS, HOW IS ALL THIS GOING TO ULTIMATELY EFFECT MANKIND? THE BELEIF OF GOD OR NO GOD, WE ALL KNOW THAT THEIR ARE FORCES IN EXISTANCE THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. I WOULD'NT DOUBT IF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE AND IS JUST NOW BEING PUT OUT ON THE TABLE TO SEE THE REACTION OF THE PEOPLE! WHEN WE TAP INTO THESE SCIENCES OF LIFE WITH THE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE WE DO HAVE, THAT'S VERY DANGEROUS. WHEN WE ATTEMPT TO ALTER THAT SYSTEM, WE'RE FACING THE CONSEQUENCES THAT NATURE HAS SET UP WHEN YOU GO AGAINST IT. AND WITH THE MISERABLE CONDITION THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE IN TODAY WITH POVERTY, HUNGAR, AND DISEASE, WHY DON'T WE CORRECT THESE PROBLEMS FIRST? I THINK IT WOULD BE ALOT MORE BENEFICIAL AN LESS CONTROVERSIAL. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE PROPER FEAR OF NATURE. WE IN SOCIETY LOVE TO TAKE LIFE AND NOW WANT TO "CREATE" LIFE TAKING ON THE UNEQUVILANT RESPONSIBILITY OF GOD. SINCE WERE NOT THE AUTHOR OF OURSELVES, HOW CAN WE THEN TAKE ON THE AUTHORIY OF ANOTHER IN THIS ASPECT.SOME SAY THE ISSUE IS ETHICS. "IF THIS IS ORCHASTRATED IN AN ETHICAL-OUT-IN-THE-OPEN-WAY, IT WILL BE FINE". I BEG TO DIFFER. THIS WHOLE SOCIETY HAS LACK OF ETHICS FROM THOSE THAT GOVERN TO THOSE THAT ARE GOVERNED. THIS PLANET NEEDS RELIEF, HOWEVER, I KNOW ITS NOT GOING TO COME IN THE FORM OF CLONES.

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

gary Masters - 04:01pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2866 of 2874)

I personally don't have a problem with cloning humans or animals. Twins are clones (well, identical twins) and we don't seem to have a problem with them.

As for overpopulation, the latest word seems to be that population will rise for the next 40 years and decline after that. Most people seem to be unaware of that research.

Of course, anything can be done so that it is either evil or good. If we decide to clone, we need to do it good. (Or well, but who does grammar well these days?)

regards,

Gary Masters

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

Bob Janitor - 04:32pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2867 of 2874)

Havaname Idone:

TURN OFF CAPS LOCK AND QUIT AOL TODAY IF YOU EVER WANT SOMEONE TO RESPECT YOUR OPINIONS.

SINCE WERE NOT THE AUTHOR OF OURSELVES, HOW CAN WE THEN TAKE ON THE AUTHORIY OF ANOTHER IN THIS ASPECT

Humans have been trying to control each other since the beginning of time. You don't need to author yourself to not have an anarchy.

Furthermore, we know a LOT about physics. There are few imcomplete things here and there, but for the most part we have a very firm grasp of how things work. I'm sorry you didn't get a high school education and learn this.

Would knowingly cloning a human from another that has a life threatening disease (of the heart, perhaps) be considered a crime

I don't know, would it? Is it a crime when someone with a history of genetic disease has children? How about families where all the children have cystric fibrosis? Or asthma?

"Many animals, plants and bacteria clone themselves. Yes, there is selection over one DNA strand to clone over another"

I know animals mate and plants spawn. Please explain your cloning remark above.

Although from you have seen, it appears that plants and animals sexually reproduce, this is not always the case. Some animals, like the amazing hydra, which can get its head cut off and regenerate, form buds and reproduce asexually. Plants can also pop-up new plants via root complexes, and then die, in effect cloning themselves. You can also cut off branches of certain trees and plant them, and you will have cloned the tree. Granted, that's a pretty low-tech method of cloning, but it still works. There are many other examples, but I've leave it simple.

And humans are destroying the earth

Hahaha. Humans don't have the power to destroy the earth. We never will. The earth is BIG. All the nuclear weapons made can hardly even dent the insignificant crust that we live on, and pale next to the power of a climate-changing volcano.

Personally, I think that cloning

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

Bob Janitor - 04:33pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2868 of 2874)

(con't)

You seem to have some misconceptions about cloning. There is no "sorry, no clones" addendum to the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Just as it's illegal to harvest organs like that from a person today (or identical twin), with a clone it'd be no different.

There may come a time when yes, we can grow an organ individually. Or an entire body without a central nervous system. I don't think many would argue organ use that way would be immoral.

It might even be possible to grow a cloned body without a brain and do a "brain transplant" into a brand-new body. The skull would have to be surgically rebuilt, but it could happen. Back injury researchers have found neural regeneration is chemically inhibited, and found an inhibitor-inhibitor that allows neural cells to regenerate in the laboratory. What do you think?

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

Max Diaz - 05:17pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2869 of 2874)

Agnostics are unknowable; skeptics are questionable, and atheists don't exist.

Hey pro-cloners. House Majority Leader Dick Arney announced that he planned on presenting a bill that would place a permanent ban on human cloning.

I stated this a long time ago. Everyone on this board can argue if cloning is right or wrong. But the fact remains, no amount of data can match up to millions of dollars given to senators and congressman.

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

Rev John Sharpe - 05:22pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2870 of 2874)

I simply wonder if we really are mature enough for a move to cloning our own species. We have already proven that we have enormous difficulties separating economics,issues of ownership and industrial control from the fabric of life. I have that sinking feeling that any movement into human cloning will cross significant thresholds of freewill and individual worth and will most likely result in the first human 'product' to be thoroughly corporatised, owned, patented and taged as " batch 3456- remains the property of Parts Corp USA". What a fulfillment of the 'empire' dream it would be to hold the patent rights to cloned DNA altered human beings... bio product entities ready for the market.

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

tom.A - 06:19pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2871 of 2874)

Personally I can't imagine what it would be like taking your child to school where 1/2 the sudents look the same...rings through the nose...some dressed nicely...others, who knows;.... or just being around and seeing people that "you know you've seen before but just can't place it". The kind of confusion that would result in such a world would surely be insane.

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

Bob Janitor - 07:15pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2872 of 2874)

Max Diaz...

Yes, there is no limit to our corrupt politicians' stupidity. Laws only keep honest people honest. They do not understand cloning. They didn't even take high school science.

Rev. John Sharpe...

For the last time CLONES DO NOT SOMEHOW HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN A PERSON CONCIEVED OTHERWISE! Be at a test tube or naturally.

Tom.A...

Cloning is a difficult, expensive procedure that would not see "50% usage".

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

Kurt Schoedel - 07:32pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2873 of 2874)

Bob Janitor, your right. The biggest application of cloning technology will be for organ-tissue regeneration/rejuvenation. Research is currently being done by cloning neural or cardiac stem-cells, which can be differentiated into the proper tissue by use of growth factors (nerve growth factor, etc.). As you probably know, these tissues are made of non-dividing cells and are parmarly responsible for ageing. Stem-cell regeneration techniques would go a long way to curing the ageing process. There is even talk of developing "cell-line" regeneration techniques where somehow (I don't know the details) the stem-cells in your body itself could be coaxed into dividing and differentiating into the relevant tissues you need to regenerate. This would be an in-vivo technique, which would radically reduce the cost of this technique as well as eliminate all of the "moral/ethical" problems. However, cloning research is needed to develop this technology.

Max Diax, I just checked all of the cloning bills on the House site. All of the bills are specifically designed to prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes. It appears the Congress is taking a somewhat rational approach to this issue (what a surprise!) for the moment. Of course, we know that clones are simply identical twins born at different times, so its no big deal.

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

B Randolph - 09:18pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2873 of 2879)

Whatever happened to the real thing?

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

Joseph S - 09:21pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2874 of 2879)

B Randolph,

A number of good reasons for cloning come to mind not the least of which is producing organs for organ transplants, if this is ever feasible.

One of the reasonable restrictions to this might be simply that we don't make expendable clones to harvest their organs. However, if we could clone organs without the required body it seems to me that this would be a good thing.

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

Joseph S - 09:30pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2875 of 2879)

B Randolph,

That being said, if we ever do clone whole human beings it should only be after considerable thought on the consequences involved with creating people. I, for one, support a ban on cloning until it can be demonstrated that the risks to the human being that we would be creating is sufficiently low as to warrant the use of this technology.

Moreover, I won't be satisfied until people I trust, people who have actually studied the science and have involved themselves in the body of work required to gain an expertise in this field, say that the risk is minimal. And even then, human cloning should only take place if there is a good reason to do it.

Suffice it to say, the experts in their own minds on this board, Bob Janitor, Tom Anderson, etc. who would dismiss objections without so much as a wave of their hand, are not the people I trust to give an expert opinion on this matter. In fact, noone who has enough time to write to this 'do nothing' board commands my respect as much as some researcher who doesn't have time to piddle with these things.

When I find an advocate of cloning who doesn't prefer the phrases "It's so simple..." or "Anyone who's gone through high school science...", etc. I'll begin to trust their opinion. Life is an important matter.

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

mjq - 10:51pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2876 of 2879)

Atlanta

If you clone someone, and this individual doesn't like the fact that they are a clone....will they be able to sue your pants off? I mean after all...they could blame you for bringing them into the world while you already know certain things about them already...like when they are going to die (if natural), what incurable disease they may get at a certain time of their lives, something simple like they may need to get some moles removed when they turn 30. That's mental cruelty. I guess you would/should then clone someone already dead. Someone who had a long life or suffered only a curable disease and no-one really knows any other details. But what if you made them "elvis" or something like that? I think that would definatley be grounds for premeditated mental cruelty.

At any case, I think that they should have the right to sue the hell out of their "creator" and anyone else involved in the decision to clone them. Not having the opportunity to receive the random lottery of genes really limits the ability to have a unique life. I would sue everyone I could.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:09pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2877 of 2879)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

howie-ngatai healey: I agree Cliff Bealle in part. Further research will need to continue indefinately by responsible hard working scientists before cloning of humans becomes a distinct reality.

Despite the caution in my prior post, I really have no doubt but that Dolly is the first mammalian clone of an adult somatic cell. Also, the calves implanted by the American scientists, Robl and Stice, appear unquestionably from adult somatic cells. It seems to me that you may need a bit more than the ability to clone to realize your dream of immortality. But I am not saying your dream won't happen. (However, I would think that immortality probably ought to be limited to single people who swear off having children of their own. That way, no one could claim immortality would be a contributing factor to population growth. How do you feel about that?)

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

Cliff Beall - 11:12pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2878 of 2879)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Joe Bauman: Cloning for organs, well that's not going to legally happen for a very long time. Both from a scientific and a legal stand point. In order for that to happen... it would be necessary to grow the organ needed without... a central nervouse system and developmental biology is not quite up to the task yet.

Actually, it would appear that the ability to clone individual organs such as a heart or liver would require the equivalent of an artificial body, including an artificial brain, circulatory system and filtering systems to provide the means of getting rid of the organic waste: obviously both incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive.

But some time ago, I read an article that pointed out that the human body already has considerable regeneration capability and indicated some progress was being made in regeneration research. Conceptually, at least, it would seems that regeneration of needed organs, or repair of same--in place--should be relatively simple and cheap. Actually, it might appear to be as simple as instructing the body of the problem and providing the appropriate repair instructions, probably the same instructions that were uses to generate the organ in the first place. What do you know about progress in this area?

Max Diaz: Hey pro-cloners. House Majority Leader Dick Arney announced that he planned on presenting a bill that would place a permanent ban on human cloning.

This was expected, Max, but it has nothing to do with money. I would expect that the real money wants cloning. Personally, I hope the law congress passes is one modeled after the proposal by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). I certainly don't want the law to aversely affect current genetic research. If it does, I think it is likely to be ruled unconstitutional. Or, at least, I hope so.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:16pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2879 of 2879)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Kurt Schoedel: The biggest application of cloning technology will be for organ-tissue regeneration/rejuvenation. Research is currently being done by cloning neural or cardiac stem-cells, which can be differentiated into the proper tissue by use of growth factors (nerve growth factor, etc.). This would be an in-vivo technique, which would radically reduce the cost of this technique as well as eliminate all of the "moral/ethical" problems. However, cloning research is needed to develop this technology.

Yes, this is basically what I was referring to earlier, Kurt, but you obviously know more about it than me. I asked Joe to comment because he has identified himself as being associated with the "Center For Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine" and appears to be knowledgeable in this area. What can you tell us, Joe?

Kurt Schoedel: All of the bills are specifically designed to prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes. It appears the Congress is taking a somewhat rational approach to this issue (what a surprise!) for the moment.

I am really not all that surprised, Kurt. I don't think there are many, including the Congress, who wish to eliminate genetic research and the possible eradication of horrible diseases and genetic defects. Lets hope it stays that way. I think it probably will.

Joseph S: Suffice it to say, the experts in their own minds on this board, Bob Janitor, Tom Anderson, etc. who would dismiss objections without so much as a wave of their hand, are not the people I trust to give an expert opinion on this matter.

You got a point. Joseph.

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

Charles D. Gibbs - 11:39pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2880 of 2927)

C.G. fron Grove City says NO !!!!!!!!!!!!

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

David Schudel - 11:43pm Feb 2, 1998 ET (#2881 of 2927)

I think that the purposes that science is cloneing things now is against all morale. Cloneing should only be used if it can be usefull, such as cloning human organs and tissues for use of transplants, and cloneing of animals to help feed starving people. I am totaly against the cloneing of an entire human being however. Just because science can do it, does not mean that they should!

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

Miles Langham - 12:46am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2882 of 2927)

Levity anyone?? Elvis and Bon Scott first. Then Lincoln, McCartney and Marylyn Monroe. Oh Baby!

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

Bob Janitor - 12:51am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2883 of 2927)

ban on cloning until it can be demonstrated that the risks to the human being that we would be creating is sufficiently low as to warrant the use of this technology.

Well, although the current success rate is low, we can test the resultant zygote and see if it's OK or not, and continue monitoring it throughout development.

say that the risk is minimal. And even then, human cloning should only take place if there is a good reason to do it.

"Good reason" for one person may not necessarily apply to another. And the risk is fairly minimal, once you get past the low success rate. It's not like they spontaneously turn into a hideous monster at age 30 or something :-). Once the DNA is in place, it's in place.

BTW, I have put a very interesting article from Grolier's encyclopedia on regeneration on my website. Browse to:

http://207.196.172.36/regen.txt

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

Mohammad Yousuf Yaqub - 01:30am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2884 of 2927)

You will be raising hell by this. What if there are 100 more people identical to you? One will be punished for the other's deed. STOP IT.There are limits as well as direction to what science should do. There are other frontiers like cancer and AIDS to conquer. Go after them. Best of luck there.

MOHAMMAD YOUSUF YAQUB LUMS, P A K I S T A N.

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

Mark D. Draper - 02:20am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2885 of 2927)

Some random thoughts. I believe the question at the top was about cloning offspring for infertile couples. Why can't the adherants of current popular mythology see their infertility as a "sign from god" and not bother to breed in the first place?

I would like to see the science advance to the point where self-regeneration could be accelerated and perhaps a way to "grow" meat products without the attentant brutality of slaughterhouses.Maybe the way veggies are grown hydroponically. Quality could be improved.

Humans always redefine "morality" to suit their needs. War and business (to mention only two) have their own morality which most people try to deny when they aren't involved. Yet the advancements in technology from war or cut-throat business are embraced without thought to their background. Technology will be abused regardless of the laws in place. But we shouldn't let that fear blind us to something more practical than adding to our population. Mark D. Draper

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

Kolt Cowie - 02:28am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2886 of 2927)

Everyone should have a clone of themselves so that they can use the clone as a personal slave. just think! Every clone would work for free, so the world wouldn't need money anymore! Everyone could have anything they want! WOOHOO!

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

Bob Janitor - 02:47am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2887 of 2927)

Kolt: Uhh, no. The Bill of Rights and Constitution apply equally to clones, twins, test tube babies, and "natural" children. If you used a clone for a slave, you would go to prison for a long, long time.

For those that haven't seen it yet, go to http://207.196.172.36/regen.txt for an interesting article on regeneration.

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

Marv Dyck - 02:52am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2888 of 2927)

Would any one deny that a cloned sheep is a sheep !? No. Therefore why isn't a cloned human being a human being!? Of course it is.

You can't cut up for spare parts any human being irreguardless of method of birth, it's called murder.

As for the government cloning secret armies , That would be genetic engineering and a scary government, not cloning. Maybe the defination of humans in all human rights bills should be expanded to include genetical engineered humans. Then your scary government could only create people with grenade launchers built into their third arm and Not own them like a slave army.

Another law that should be made is that all persons own a copyright to their own DNA. Then you can't make a clone of someone with out their permission. Can you imagine being a movie star and someone breaks into your house and steals some hair from your hairbrush, makes a 1000 clones of you and rents them out as hookers.

Considering that clones are equal human beings with full human rights, Why, other than as an alternate procreating method, would any one want to clone anyone?

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

BISWAJIT BISWAS - 04:44am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2889 of 2927)

Its inevitable. Science will take its own course in deciding destiny of human civilisation. What we call today "civilisation", is not it the gift of science? Then why there is fuss over cloning, it's just another landmark of scientific endeavour, like landing on moon. Of course, issues of ethics, are bound to arise. But, when we talk of future, we expect us to be more matured, to rise above levels of ethics. We need to find out the positive sides of it, instead of making comments on perceived threats.

Biswajit Biswas [email protected] Bangalore, INDIA

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

Robert Buckel - 05:27am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2890 of 2927)

I think there should be cloning. Not for us to fight wars with or make a new breed of perfect genetically altered humans,but for us to experiment with. We could test drugs and/or various objects of that kind or even weapons of Destruction. Pretty Brutal, I know, but who cares, they are only Clones

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

Jiri Barton - 07:03am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2891 of 2927)

The only way of distinguishing a clone from a non-clone is in the phase of cloning. Then everything goes the same way. So why to use clones as slaves when you can't tell s/he is a clone? I mean no scientist can prove or show any slightest trace of that human being a clone.

If we somehow branded clones with a stamp on their foreheads, or with a report at the time of birth, wouldn't it be the same as the slavery we all know about? I mean this band on voting if you're grandparents were slaves.

And YOU, folks who would treat clones as slaves, what makes you think you would use clones as a fridge and not clones would use YOU as their fridges? How do these two situations make difference?

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

Stv Allison - 07:36am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2892 of 2927)

Let's face it - it's going to happen.

There was an international agreement signed in Paris recently to outlaw human cloning, but not every country signed it, and it never will be signed by all countries in the world. Therefore - someone, somewhere, will try it- and keep on trying it until it works.

Then, some time later, we'll hear about it but by then it will be too late for the opponents.

What happens after that is anybody's guess.

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

Alejandro Mejia L. - 07:58am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2893 of 2927)

I don't agree just because every human is unique and the individuality of everyone must to be saved always.

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

Dan Winkler - 10:07am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2894 of 2927)

cloaning over 100 deformed sheep isn't cruel but cloaning humans is? yeah right!!!

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

Larry Seligm. - 10:22am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2895 of 2927)

Realistically, I think the cloning of humans would lead to the following:

• Clones would have all the same rights as anyone else, and would act and be treated the same as everyone else.

• There would be a rash of lawsuits over who owns specific DNA sequences.

• People would be annoyed by meeting a clones of themselves or of people that they know.

• Because clones couldn't be used for drug testing, making warbots, slavery, etc., people wouldn't find it all that useful to make them, since they're just increasing the population, or deciding the physical characteristics of the population in advance.

• Some couples who have lost a child may try to have a clone made of that person.

• Clones would not behave the same way as their antecedents, because they would have experienced the same things.

• If the process became inexpensive, there could be pandemonium if people started taking DNA from sports stars, politicians, actors, etc., and having clones made. Laws and ethics would prevent most, but not all, of this.

• A few famous people would want to clone themselves. The difference in age between the clone and the original would mean that by the time the clone grew up, the original may have lost his/her popularity, and the clone would be uninteresting, especially since the behavioral characteristics were different.

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

Chris Stura - 10:47am Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2896 of 2927)

I belive that human cloning is the next logical step in the advance of biochemical engineering. I think that it will lead to the discovery of many things that will benifit mankind. I also think it would be kind of cool to have a bunch of people exactly like me!!!.

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

Andreas Cocq - 12:17pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2897 of 2927)

Cloning is, for the scientific mind, absolutely fascinating. It probably provides possibilities that we haven't even thought of ... and the ones we have thought of seem incredible enough ! However, seeing how homo sapiens has not be able to write computer programs or operating system without serious bugs, which by comparison is child's play, what leads us to delude ourselves that we have even a remote chance of "doing it right"? Considering that even after extensive beta testing one mainframe operating system still accumulated some 20,000 bug reports, I think - at the very least - there needs to be a tightly controlled, evolutionary process which can lead us our destiny. Politicians are not really equipped to deal with these issues, and neither are judges - but the most dangerous actors on this stage are the scientists that feel the nobel prize within their grasp. My suggestion would be to appoint an international "control board" to oversee the activities of scientists worldwide. I am not advocating "big brother", but I do believe that this whole subject matter is too important and too powerful to only be used/controlled by individuals, especially since these are not some obscure, esoteric theories but can affect every human being.

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

Rick Deckard - 01:13pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2898 of 2927)

Larry: I agree completely with you. What do we need human clones at all? As I said before, genetic engineering on humans to correct or prevent diseases or defects is far different from actually building duplicates. What would we use these duplicates, if not as slaves? We're gonna become a "Blade Runner" society.

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

J.L. Martin - 01:23pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2899 of 2927)

I will say up front that I believe the cloning of humans to be immoral and unnatural. As an aside from my Christian views, I support this opposition by drawing a comparison to any and all legal bio-reserach conducted in recent years...Animals are used for research purposes because of the lack of emotional ties associated with the adverse effects of experimentation (i.e. dismemberment, mutation, etc.) Similarly, these reasons are perhaps the justification of using animals to trial the new "mystique" of cloning. Admittedly, there are direct and valuable benefits rendered from animal-based research, with litle or no ill side effects derived through the death or suffering of a varmit.

On the other hand, there are extreme social and emotional ties between humans, who must (as humanitarians) inevitabely interject compassion into the world of science - even into those ground breaking discoveries of cloning. Let us pose the question - "What law could possibly be derived to explain the termination of a living, breathing, cloned human being due to genetic complications?" Any such act would be unethtical. So, again, I must say that the acceptance of cloning by the world's scientific community would be no more justified than the involuntary high dosage radiation exposures to civilians in decades past - Cloning is unnatural and immoral, by God's laws as should it remain by man's laws.

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

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws