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

adolfo padilla - 11:45pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#300 of 1108)

there was a time when examining corpses was anatema it was forbbiden , but many good things were learned. things that helped a lot of people.

Now you are talking about clonning, sometimes things can be risky, but knowledge is not bad from it´s own. We humans could apply knowledege for good or for bad. But is better to know, we could needed sometime.

Carl Nicolai - 12:04am Jul 25, 1997 ET (#301 of 1108)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Does anyone have an idea of when the clone wars will start, and which countries will be involved? What will the primary issues be? It looks like an economic and maybe patent issues rather than a religious problem at this time. I think things should heat up arround the early 2020's

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

Larry Van Kessel - 03:01am Jul 25, 1997 ET (#302 of 1108)

The main problem with a moral dilemma such as the human cloning issue is "Whose morals do we use?". I believe that whether or not the government is "allowing" or funding human cloning research is a moot point... it is going to happen if someone wants it to happen, (the government doesn't allow the traffic of narcotics yet marijuana is the largest cash crop in the United States). I believe this will be the case with human cloning, someone is going to be doing it whether or not Bill Clinton (or anyone else for that matter) wants them to.

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

Michael Montalvo - 03:01am Jul 25, 1997 ET (#303 of 1108)

I know that cloning and gene-splicing are different, but how can we know what built in defects we might be transporting without having fully mapped the human gene?

It is my understanding, though very little background, that there might be interplays or dependencies between specific genes..

- are there? and how will these effect things?

Just a few of the many things that might occur:

- Used to help "endangered" species

- Used to resurrect "extinct" species?

- In addition to famous atheletes making millions on their regular contracts, I see "cloning" adendums

- The desire to dig up people who have died in the past to regain their abilities

- and the most vexing of all, the issue of having a soul

If human cloning occured in the near future, even if we agreed to grant full rights, would we be creating another persecuted minority?

The religious implications are enormous.

I see a whole new legal specialty coming into being, to complement the medical one

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

Michael Montalvo - 10:39am Jul 25, 1997 ET (#304 of 1108)

Therese Bujold 7/24/97 11:29pm

"Do any on you "cloning knowledge bases" know how cloning could possibly be used to cure Type 1 Diabetes?"

Therese,

Here's some Links to enhance possible responses:

Autoimmunity and Childhood Diabetes

JCI-Diabetes

Mike

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

Nevis Shane - 11:24am Jul 25, 1997 ET (#305 of 1108)

Cloning seems to be a very scary subject to most people (probably due to science fiction movies). The potential of abuse in cloning of course is a problem. But, at least at this point, one still needs to be implanted in a womb, the "clone" still needs to grow into adulthood, so the age old psychology question comes up again. Nature or Nurture? What is most influential?

Someone talked about the Soul and what would happen to that. Humans have been creating other humans for a long time now, why is it necessary to produce humans in the normal manner in order to have a soul?

The potential of "breakthroughs" is enormous with this type of study, in medicine and psychology.

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

mel - 12:20pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#306 of 1108)

Cloning? All for it! Too many times in the past government and the religious have stood in the way of science. There is so much to learn. So we don't know much about genetic markers of DNA. What better way to learn. To our talented scientists I say, "keep up the good work".

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

Michael Moberly - 12:44pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#307 of 1108)

Finally!! A sheep that can type!!!

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

Jay Lockhart - 01:07pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#308 of 1108)

Michael Montalvo - 03:01am Jul 25, 1997 ET (#303 of 304)

- and the most vexing of all, the issue of having a soul Unfortunately, that question has already been answered: There is no soul. If there were cloning would not be possible, as it is about as unnatural as you can get.

This begs the question "What happens to us when we die?". If there is no soul, is there no God?

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

Jay Lockhart - 01:07pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#309 of 1108)

Craig Patton - 09:14pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#296 of 303)

In the last final ditch effort of mankind to "become God", we have crossed the final barrier. We have implemented life artificially. (Note--not created). Imagine how insulting this must be to the creator. Oh I am sure the creators job is secured. Besides, He is probably excited that his creations are actually doing something besides killing each other.

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

Jay Sorensen - 01:12pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#310 of 1108)

Buna ziua. Ce mai faceti?

Somewhere (not in this forum) I read a rather hysterical letter charging that, if cloning becomes feasible, we'll be a world full of identical twins all sharing an inferior sort of soul. Or the "Boys from Brazil" nightmare: What if they clone Hitler? I think all the hype is silly. First of all, it's going to be decades (at least!) before cloning becomes a serious possibility -- Dolly notwithstanding. Second, as any identical twin can tell you, twins only look alike. Every person has a unique personality, regardless of genetics. I know biology plays a large role, but so does environment. Gosh, just think -- if we *could* clone Hitler, and have him raised in a loving family that didn't tolerate prejudice, and send him to art school.... I think Hitler was the closest to an intrinsically evil human being this century has known, but even so, I don't think we need to be afraid of his theoretical cloned offspring. This is an interesting subject of debate, but it's hardly a threat to life as we know it.

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

Ken Meyerkorth - 01:57pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#311 of 1108)

Wherever you go, there you are.

Cloning humans is the inevitable step man must take to overcome that last item of nature that man has no control over, immortality. Just think, your heart is plugged up with cholesterol deposits, you can clone one and replace it. A tumor develops in your liver, replace it. It's just that easy.

As far as cloning whole human bodies, I think it would be safe to say that the process should be kept just overly priced enough for whole bodies that people don't start swapping brains to new bodies. Especially since that would entirely blow most religious references to the human soul out of the water! Besides, swapping living brains is pretty much out of the question when you look at what would be required to prevent loss during the process.

A question, if the soul idea was real and the brain swapping process were perfected, would the person know who they were after the surgery?

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

Jay Lockhart - 02:28pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#312 of 1108)

Ken Meyerkorth - 01:57pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#312 of 312) Philosopher, writer, thinker and general nice guy.

A question, if the soul idea was real and the brain swapping process were perfected, would the person know who they were after the surgery? Ahhh. You touch on a most interesting subject. If the soul exists the new body would not remember any previous existence. This is based on the premise that the soul is the "person" and is the personalty, identity and memory of the body it inhabits.

However if the new body does remember its "former self", then this proves that the soul does not exist. This would validate that the brain, and all of its neurological components, are the keepers of identity, memory, and personality.

I personally think that the soul cannot exist, based on the success of cloning in general. True birth or existence is based on natural or subnatural circumstances (i.e sex, surogacy or test tube). This supposed to be how and why the soul could assume a new life. Cloning invalidates all theological theory concerning life, birth and soul.

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

Chris - 02:35pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#313 of 1108)

Don't mess with mother nature. Thanks to "bioengineering" we now face a global AIDS pandemic.

Please keep Frankenstein on the big screen...where IT belongs. Remember... Soylent Green was made from PEOPLE.

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

Noel Yap - 04:27pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#314 of 1108)

Ken Meyerkorth: "Cloning humans is the inevitable step man must take to overcome that last item of nature that man has no control over, immortality."

Why must we control Nature? Why not just live in balance with it? Control of Nature is a philosophy that's been perpetuated for several centuries now. It's old hack that doesn't fit today.

I believe we will eventually have McClones, but we must approach the unknown conservatively. Imagine we were less restricted with our nuclear research! Where would be now?

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

J. A. Griggs - 04:36pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#315 of 1108)

Jay, wrote:

You speak as if humans are being cloned. Sheep are being cloned, not man. If you are arguing that animals have no soul, then you are correct. Human life, however, is extraordinarily different. God created man in his own image; he breathed the breath of life into him and he became a "living soul."

Our physical bodies are simply houses for the soul. These bodies are will eventually die and return to the dust of the Earth. Our souls will live on forever (in Heaven or in Hell as appointed by our Lord). Mankind was created for the divine purpose of serving God. The reward of eternal life is for those who serve him and cannot be obtained in our physical form. It is appointed for all man to die (after death the judgment). We must depart from our physical bodies to receive our reward (or punishment--whatever the case may be).

The existence of the human soul is not a "theory," it's fact. It's a fact because the word of God teaches us that it is, and all of the "what ifs" in the world won't change that.

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

Chris - 05:39pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#316 of 1108)

I guess we just don't get it.

The AIDS virus is a recombination of bovine leukemia(cattle)and maeda visna (sheep)viruses. The deadly AIDS killer "cocktail" was created in the name of SCIENCE.

They have given us a legacy of deception. Don't be duped into thinking that the work of the Creator can be duplicated by "men" motivated by personal gain and profit.

FIGHT BACK, NOW! Remember...Soylent Green...is made from PEOPLE...is made from PEOPLE...

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

Brian Thomas - 05:47pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#317 of 1108)

I think cloning is invading in on God's territory.He makes life and humans do not need to be artifically making it

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

Tom Anderson - 06:26pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#318 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

No, Chris, AIDS is a virus. There were cases recorded hundreds of years ago. Leukemia is a blood cancer. "Science" did not "make" AIDS. But, it is the best way to beat it.

Man is the creator; he created God, and now he can create man through artificial as well as natural means.

There is no soul. The consciousness is entirely the product of our brain. Tabula rasa; we are born without anything but the very basic instincts, and we create our personality by experiencing the world around us. It is based solely on memory, which is kept in the brain. When the brain dies, or is transfered, so is the consciousness. And, yes, all animals have consciousness; maybe not the same intelligence, but certainly consciousness. And certainly personality; don't tell me that pets don't have personality!

As for the dangers of cloning, most of the last thirty or so messages cited dangers that do not exist. You cannot equate cloning with nuclear weapons. Cloning cannot be made a weapon. And there will not be "clone wars". Clones are no different than any other people, except in the way their zygote was made. They are born to a mother, and still raised from birth to adulthood in the same number of years as everyone else. Cloning an "evil" person is not possible, as the "evil" is a feature of that person's personality, which is very different according to environment. The only possibly bad thing that could result from cloning is the ignorance and prejudice of other people, which is not a result of the cloning, but a property of society that we have yet to resolve. And, still, nobody would know that someone is a clone unless they were explicitly told so.

Tom

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

Chris - 06:28pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#319 of 1108)

Want to know what cloning can do. Check this out:

http://www.glum.com/excerpts.html

This really happened. WAKE UP!

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

Tom Anderson - 06:34pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#320 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Chris,

That is the most rediculous thing I ever heard... it is absolutely false. It is filled with obvious errors. Try being a little more critical of what you swallow... you WAKE UP!

Tom

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

Ken Meyerkorth - 07:16pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#321 of 1108)

Wherever you go, there you are.

Jay Lockhart: I'd really have to contest that theory on the basis that dead cells leave the body at all times. That being the constant, a little bit of the soul would leave the body slowly. New cells are split from old cells thereby 'thinning' out the soul over time. No human being has exactly the same cells they were born with, therefore the soul must reside as an electromagnetic image rather than a physical aspect. A body that has a polarity change due to a brain swap could not assume the soul of the body the brain left.

Case and point, a right-handed patient and a left-handed patient swap brains, how do the new bodies react to the change?

Noel Yap: It is a human trait to overcome nature. You personally might not think so, but I'll bet you are not shivering naked in a meadow somewhere under the stars every night. You are overcoming nature to write the message you sent the board. Man has always tried to rule nature and nature has always thrown a whammy in the path. Cloning is the next big step man can take to overcome nature. Man dies because his/her parts fail over time. If Man can rejuvinate the parts with perfect copies, Man can replace the parts thereby living much longer than expected and have NO REJECTION. (big point)

Needless to say, this is the inevitable outcome of the cloning process and I'm all for it. Those of you who want to shy away or claim religious rights of the soul, can do so as it is your right. Me, I'll live on after you're gone and relish the fact I'll see more progress than you ever did. Who knows, maybe I'll be Armageddon's witness.

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

Michael Montalvo - 07:22pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#322 of 1108)

Chris 7/25/97 5:39pm

Chris, no disrespect intended, but this sounds like the argument...

"If man were meant to fly, he would have wings"

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

Ken Meyerkorth - 07:29pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#323 of 1108)

Wherever you go, there you are.

OOPS, I missed somebody....

Tom Anderson: A point to the 'Clone Wars' concept. Think of it this way. You clone 50000 copies with a huge amount of masculine potential, say, Arnold Schwarznegger. Build them up and mentally program them to kill. Heavily arm them and unleash them into a country you don't like with the orders to destroy and kill everything and everyone they see. What can you do about it? Exclude the military right away because they would strictly be a terrorist weapon and not an Army. I know it sounds like a Sci Fi epic, but with cloning, it is possible in the next 60 to 80 years.

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

Ken Meyerkorth - 07:39pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#324 of 1108)

Wherever you go, there you are.

There's always one more!

Chris: Two things, you recombinated to diseases to create one, or so you claimed. The math does not work out because a bovine disease and a sheep disease wouldn't recombine. They'd be seperate in the same mixture. The other thing, since these two diseases do not affect humans, the human body would probably expell them or form an immunity before anything happend. That's like combining Ebola with Streptococci and dying of a severe sore throat.

Get off the Soylent Green thing as well.

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

Chris - 08:45pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#325 of 1108)

Ken - If you review the literature you will see that under laboratory conditions (Frankensteinian) the DNA is combined and grown on tissue cultures first animal...then human tissue cultures. This is how the mad scientists do it.

Check out Dr. Glum...if you don't believe him...check out Dr. Leonard Horowitz, author of Emerging Viruses. Read the literature...then let's talk again. Thanks!

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

Tom Anderson - 09:40pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#326 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ken,

A point to the 'Clone Wars' concept. Think of it this way. You clone 50000 copies with a huge amount of masculine potential, say, Arnold Schwarznegger. Build them up and mentally program them to kill. Heavily arm them and unleash them into a country you don't like with the orders to destroy and kill everything and everyone they see. What can you do about it? Exclude the military right away because they would strictly be a terrorist weapon and not an Army. I know it sounds like a Sci Fi epic, but with cloning, it is possible in the next 60 to 80 years. If you make 50000 clones, you need to have 50000 mothers, and you have to feed, cloth, and train these 50000 Schwarzeneggers for at least 18 years before you can use them. It is an absolutely rediculous way to raise an army. And it could be done without cloning... there are plenty of masculine type people out there. Besides, if you raised an army with the same traits, they would also have the same weaknesses; so you would be better off with a diverse army anyway. Sorry, no army of clones.

Tom

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

Jay Lockhart - 09:40pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#327 of 1108)

Ken Meyerkorth - 07:16pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#322 of 326) Philosopher, writer, thinker and general nice guy.

Although your argument has merit concerning that the soul is probably a "force" or energy, I personally do not see the connection between cells and the soul. I hope that I didn't imply that the soul was part of the body?

Indeed, we do not die with the same cells that we are born with, but some how we retain knowledge and memories (albeit we lose some information as the years pass) despite the loss of cells.

We may have to wait and see if a human can be cloned before we can postulate one way or the other. My theory is that if a human can be successfully cloned, then we have no souls and God does not exist. If the clone is still born, then God exists as does the soul.

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

Tom Anderson - 10:04pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#328 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jay,

The information in our brains is not contained in the individual cells, but in the overall structure. It is a neural network. We can lose cells and still retain the pathways. If you were to transfer your brain to another body, you would be the same as before, but with a different body. However, when the brain is destroyed, as in death, you no longer exist since your memories are destroyed.

Tom

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

Jay Lockhart - 11:16pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#329 of 1108)

Tom Anderson - 10:04pm Jul 25, 1997 ET (#328 of 328) Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jay, The information in our brains is not contained in the individual cells, but in the overall structure. It is a neural network. We can lose cells and still retain the pathways. If you were to transfer your brain to another body, you would be the same as before, but with a different body. However, when the brain is destroyed, as in death, you no longer exist since your memories are destroyed. Still that is only theory. Neither of us can postulate on whether the soul or the brain is the person. If we can successfully transplant brains and the recipient recieves al of the other person's memories there is no soul. Otherwise it could be postulated that the soul exists. At this time no one knows if the soul is real or not, except the demised.

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

J McIntosh - 12:34am Jul 26, 1997 ET (#330 of 1108)

Enh? It's always frustrating to read someone who feels it necessary to defend his faith by going "Buh! Buh! That's only theory!" all the time.

My own religious views aside, I wonder why so many seem to view this as black and white? Who says a soul has to be pulled from the Cosmic SoulBin or whatnot only with an embyro formed through sexual union? Why can't it pop into an ur-baby whose daddy is a test tube?

My advice is to stop worrying about it. Heaven can wait.

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

Dr Jayzo Strommen - 02:00am Jul 26, 1997 ET (#331 of 1108)

Gents, All this thought about cloning is great! Further past the question marks and periods lies a future that is brilliant. Lets face the facts, cloning is here... We as a race(human) must come together as a whole, so that we don't have to worry about over grown men with machine guns.. Am I dreaming? Yeah, but it makes me think of another thing.. LIFE>>> It's something that can distract me more clearly. And with that said, living longer always sounds good to me.. Cloning will be good... The men in white jackets need our help...

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

Mike Zeares - 06:09am Jul 26, 1997 ET (#332 of 1108)

Lots of interesting comments on this board. I think the main benefit of cloning will be in organ replacement. Need a new kidney? Grow one! I think this is very exciting. We are already surrounded by clones, we just don't know it. Ever eat seedless grapes? What worries me is our politicians seem to have gotten their ideas about cloning from bad science fiction. It is not possible to "grow" an adult human nor is it possible to "download" a person's memories into a new body. Anyway, if clones are an abomination to God, then all identical twins should be destroyed. If there is a soul, each fertilized egg gets one, no matter its origin. The proof of this is that identical twins have distict personalities, even though they are usually raised in the same enviroment. I think the only legitimate objection to full human cloning would be that it would reduce genetic diversity and thus make us more vulnerable to disease.

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

Smita Desai - 07:48am Jul 26, 1997 ET (#333 of 1108)

Cloning and any research related to that, is not unethical or immoral in my opinion. This has a potential of cloning human limbs and providing to the needy, which is the greatest blessing, specially since organ donations are always scarce. In any research, there will always be some people that will misuse it and cause problems or even devastations, but that does not mean that the research should be stopped, only that those people need to be better educated in the ethics of life.

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

woody carver - 11:47am Jul 26, 1997 ET (#334 of 1108)

now that they have cloned a sheep with human dna components would killing the sheep constitute murder. also nature has a way of adapting,could the human dna mutate and take over thereby creating something which we would not be able to define or possibly even control?????

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

woody carver - 11:47am Jul 26, 1997 ET (#334 of 1108)

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

Tom Anderson - 04:24pm Jul 26, 1997 ET (#335 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jay,

I already refuted that; since the probability of nth number of consequtive phenomena to occur simultaneously by chance is highly improbable, the probability of nth number of consequtive phenomena plus one omnipotent being to occur simultaneously is infinitely more improbable.

Therefore, no superior being exist.

Tom

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

Marc Brian - 07:54pm Jul 26, 1997 ET (#336 of 1108)

I think most fears I hear about regarding cloning are unfounded. No matter who the clone comes from, all you've got is a baby with the same good and bad potentials as any other baby. Imagine the dreaded "Boys From Brazil" scenario: Some fool clones Hitler. So what? The baby wouldn't grow up with the same influences as Hitler. He could never be raised by the same parents. He would never fight in World War I. He wouldn't eat the same food or breathe the same air. The beliefs and psychoses he grows up with are as unpredictable as with any other child. All we'd know for sure is he'd have dark hair.

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

Johari MA - 04:46am Jul 27, 1997 ET (#337 of 1108)

Jim Willingham 7/26/97 3:28pm >>I think he may have been paying you a compliment<<< Yes, Mr. Willingham, you are right. Thank you.

>>You are not inferring that I am a coward, are you? If so could you expand on why so?<<<< No, of course Mr Lockhart, I don't mean that you are the coward :-).

A consensus opinion is that : anybody who approaches an issue with fairness, in search of the truth, is a brave man. Mr. Lockhart, I know that you are a skeptic, BUT…not so many skeptics would be brave enough to approach an issue fairly and admit facts accordingly. They are not looking for 'the truth', they are biased and blindfold their mind with extremeness. They are close minded and confused. They conclude ENTIRELY (based on their LIMITED knowledge) --- that they are TOTALLY right …and know EVERYTHING. What we are aware of Mr. Lockhart, is NOT "all that is". That is a fact. We are limited with 5 senses and thus, there are certain things that are verifiable and non-verifiable (someone said this earlier)

You statement Mr. Lockhart,

>At this time no one knows if the soul is real or not, except the demised<<< is my final resort for the skeptics. A believer can't bring in his hands and say : THIS is 'soul', THIS is 'god'… THIS is angel…etc..etc. What he has …is his 'indirect proof from science' and ….testament -- which skeptics vehemently deny, of course. They (including you) are free to adopt a skeptical ideology.. we have the rights for our choices. BUT, we (all) can't deny a single fact: only when we die, THEN only shall we know the ABSOULTE truth i.e. whether the Lord exist or not. Therefore, your statement above, is indirectly addressing my opinion (which is why I said thank-you).

BTW in regard to cloning/immortality : IMO immortality is not possible, even if cloning humans is a reality. If (ever) brain transplant is possible, death is STILL probable, because the brain itself is 'organic'. Organic matter has its own half-life, and …it WILL degrade in due time. Therefore, I don't think immortality is possible.

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

Johari MA - 06:08am Jul 27, 1997 ET (#338 of 1108)

Tom Anderson 7/26/97 4:24pmMr. Anderson you DID NOT refute my point. You are confusing yourself with my logical explanation and dodging it blindly. IF you know what you are talking about, give me YOUR explanation for the statitiscal improbability of nature (to arise by chance) -- on the BIBLE code board, where we can discuss 'god' appropriately.

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

Mohamed Hagali - 05:16am Jul 28, 1997 ET (#339 of 1108)

Mohamed Hagali Freiherr-vom-stein str. 10 60323 Frankfurt (M) Germany tel: 069-71033429 Please send me all informations avaialble about cloning specially all about the sheep Dolly. Thanks alot. Mohamed

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

Gerald Paul - 09:37am Jul 28, 1997 ET (#340 of 1108)

I think we must explore cloning in animals. I feel that it is wrong to avoid confronting hard scientific issues because we are afraid of the answers we might find.

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

Sam Tazzyman - 11:08am Jul 28, 1997 ET (#341 of 1108)

I am currently doing a school project on people's opinions about cloning. My e-mail adress is [email protected]. Please send me your opinions on the subject, and if possible answer my questionnaire (Much of it is similar to the Time/CNN poll found elsewhere on the web, because I am replicating the survey): -

1.If you had the chance, would you clone yourself? 2.Is it morally unacceptable to clone humans? 3.Is it morally unacceptable to clone animals? 4.Are you willing to eat cloned fruit and veg? 5.Are you willing to eat meat from cloned animals? 6.Should governments regulate the cloning of animals? 7.Is cloning animals against God's will? 8.What do you see as the advantages of cloning? 9.What are the disadvantages/dangers of cloning?

Please also tell me your nationality.

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

Jeff Emler - 09:07pm Jul 28, 1997 ET (#342 of 1108)

Cloning is not new. Mankind has been cloning non-animal species for hundreds of years.

Next time you bite into an apple, pear, peach, or any other commercially grown tree-born fruit you should realize that you are eating the reproductive organs of an artificially produced clone.

In fact, any individual produced as the result of a graft is, in effect, a clone of the parent it was taken from.

People have been grafting fruit trees for hundreds of years. Instead of taking chances with sexually reproducing a tree it is much more of a sure bet to graft a portion of a superior individual onto another's root stock, thus producing an exact, genetic replica of the parent. This is, in effect, a cloning.

So now science has the ability to clone animals. Cool idea. Now, instead of bothering with all of the hassle of selective breeding, we can simply clone superior individuals. I don't know about you but I like to eat. Anything that helps to assure the food supply is a great idea in my mind.

As for cloning humans, naturally occuring human clones are already in existence. They are called identical twins. Genetically, they are identical to each other right down to their hair follicles. Each twin, however, is an individual person.

Artifical human cloning is a scary idea but at the same time it's incredibly interesting. A human clone would be the genetic twin of its parent, and this person would also be an individual with an intellect, personality, and yes..a soul if you will. This individual would grow and develop just like any other child and become an adult with an accumulation of life experiences. This individual would have the same rights as anyone else. I'm not sure I would oppose human cloning. It could become a useful means of human reproduction.

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

Noel Yap - 07:27am Jul 29, 1997 ET (#343 of 1108)

TA: "There is no soul."

We do not know for sure either way.

TA: "The consciousness is entirely the product of our brain."

If we knew this for sure, we would know how to stay conscious forever -- just keep the brain alive.

TA: "Tabula rasa; we are born without anything but the very basic instincts, and we create our personality by experiencing the world around us."

Anyone who has met newborn identical twins with different personalities knows this is not true.

TA: "It is based solely on memory, which is kept in the brain."

Yes, personality, whether hereditary or learned, exists in the brain.

TA: "You cannot equate cloning with nuclear weapons."

If you were referring to my comment, my comment was about nuclear technology in general. If the proper information were known and disseminated, today's nuclear waste/danger problems might at least have been alleviated.

TA: "Clones are no different than any other people"

According to Science, but the legal implications must still be ironed out. I'm sure most on this board will agree that clones are people, but I'm also sure a small percentage would argue that clones are property.

TA: "They are born to a mother, and still raised from birth to adulthood"

Society must still decide who the mother and legal guardians will be.

TA: "Cloning an "evil" person is not possible, as the "evil" is a feature of that person's personality, which is very different according to environment."

To an extent. We still are not sure of how much environment influences in-born personality.

TA: "The only possibly bad thing that could result from cloning is the ignorance and prejudice of other people, which is not a result of the cloning, but a property of society that we have yet to resolve."

Yes, a very good example of a social problem that Science can not solve. This is exactly why we can't just let scientists proceed at their own pace -- their pace is too fast for society to handle. Perhaps if we had a dictator (or such) that could control society better, but we do not live in such a society.

TA: "nobody would know that someone is a clone unless they were explicitly told so."

Yes, we're now facing the same kinds of problems regarding genetic testing, hereditary diseases, and insurance.

KM: "No human being has exactly the same cells they were born with,"

Except for brain cells, if I remember correctly. This (for now) will pose a limit to our mortality.

KM: "It is a human trait to overcome nature."

It is human nature to use nature to its advantage. This doesn't mean we have to make it bend to our every whim and that we should not respect it.

KM: "but I'll bet you are not shivering naked in a meadow somewhere under the stars every night."

My wearing clothes does not mean that I cannot live with Nature. In fact, I can live more with Nature 'cos I wear clothes. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for progress, although we must learn to be responsible with upcoming technologies before we develop them.

KM: "Exclude the military right away because they would strictly be a terrorist weapon and not an Army. I know it sounds like a Sci Fi epic, but with cloning, it is possible in the next 60 to 80 years."

Yes, this is the type of stuff we've got to think about and be prepared for before we develop this. I know there'll be lots of benefits (as with all technologies), but we need to look out for the disadvantages, too.

TA: "Sorry, no army of clones."

Good arguments, but this is just one (albeit ridiculous) example. We, as a society, must try to forecast any other technical/social problems that may arise so as to avoid/prevent/alleviate them.

JL: "My theory is that if a human can be successfully cloned, then we have no souls and God does not exist."

I don't understand this logic. A clone is pretty much the same as a "normal" human. The only difference is the number of parents and the process of fertilization.

JL: "Still tha

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

Ken Blakely - 02:11pm Jul 29, 1997 ET (#344 of 1108)

I must say I'm not sure what the issue is. People seem to be afraid that we'll somehow be able to create a group of other people - clones - who are exactly alike, or something like that. Any expert in genetics, behavior, or psychology will tell us that isn't possible. Even if we could clone a person - and I have no doubt we will - an individual's genetic makeup DOES NOT unilaterally determine their personality or behavior. We've all known identical twins. We can tell them apart, right? It takes a little practise sometimes, but the fact that we can proves that they are not physically identical. As for personality, we also know that identical twins turn out to be distinct individuals with differing likes, dislikes and behavior patterns, despite the fact that they are genetically identical. This tells us that environment plays a significant role in development. Since it is IMPOSSIBLE for two individuals to experience exactly the same environment - they cannot occupy the same space and have the same thoughts at the same time - it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to create two identical individuals.

In the end, a man and his clone can be no more identical than two identical twins.

So, what's the issue?

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

Noel Yap - 03:28pm Jul 29, 1997 ET (#345 of 1108)

KB: "So, what's the issue?"

Speaking for myself, society still has to deal with the legal and social ramifications. Some examples are:

Are clones legal individuals?

What are the impacts on the labor force?

I haven't thought about it much, but I'm sure there's lots of other questions that should be tackled while we are afforded this breather.

I, personally, have no qualms about any moral issues, although some on this board do.

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

David Blake - 07:29pm Jul 29, 1997 ET (#346 of 1108)

Cloning for immortality??? Gee... what a creative dream!

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

Johari MA - 07:08pm Jul 30, 1997 ET (#347 of 1108)

Help...!! CNN, your WebX server is having a prob... it is behaving erratically... not accepting 'a bit' long messages. (Juruselam Bombing board... also complaining) No profane language used. Mr. Noel, I will reply to your 'qualms' !

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

Dawn Willis - 07:18pm Jul 30, 1997 ET (#348 of 1108)

Therese Bujold: Diabetes is probably a multigene disease triggered by an environmental insult of some kind. Because of the genetic component, one would probably not want to clone the pancreas of the patient (unless the environmental factor was known and could be eliminated). Techniques are now in the works to make an individual "tolerant" to organs from donors, and this would include cloned donor organs, if such a thing becomes possible. Since it seems to take an entire organism to develop the cellular variety found in most organs, it is hard to see how organs can be cloned outside the total being at this point.

Michael Mantuloo: The complete map of the (or should I say "a") human genome is on target to be finished by 2005. Yes, there are all sorts of gene-gene interactions as well as gene-environment interations. But cloning would take the whole DNA from a "successful" grown individual and create a a baby with the same genes. Does the clone have parents? Sure, the parents of the child or adult from whom it was cloned are its biological parents as well. But unless they ordered the clone, perhaps to replace a dead child, I wouldn't think they would be financially responsible.

It is already possible to take an in vitro fertilized egg and stimulate the embryo to split in two--making twins where nature might not have. Which twin has the soul? Or does each have half a soul? This talk about whether clones would have souls or not is silly. They will have what all other human beings have, a separate identity. I'd rather like to raise a clone of me, since I know better than my parents did what the potential of my genes is. However, it wouldn't be fair to my natural children. Since I wouldn't want to be a clone myself, I suppose I shouldn't want to have one..but it would be a form of genetic immortality, even if not immortality of the personality (for the clone would have her own personality, despite my best efforts to impose my will!)

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

Tom Anderson - 07:30pm Jul 30, 1997 ET (#349 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Yeah, Dave, now heaven and hell aren't the only choices!

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

Johari MA - 06:46am Jul 31, 1997 ET (#350 of 1108)

Mr Noel., >>Are clones legal individuals? <<< Does this question deserve an answer???? >>>I, personally, have no qualms about any moral issues, although some on this board do.<<<< Perhaps, would you care to elaborate on this. What about the potential risk (inherited disorder, eg cancer) that could affect the clone (due to technical problems in cloning?) i.e if we do it NOW.

>>Cloning for immortality??? Gee... what a creative dream! <<< Yeah....Dreamers never stop dreaming. Death is a reality! Sorry for the bad news!

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

Noel Yap - 07:22am Jul 31, 1997 ET (#351 of 1108)

JM: ">>Are clones legal individuals?<<< Does this question deserve an answer????"

Yes, suppose I somehow clone myself today. May I claim him as a dependent? May I put him to work with no pay? If I change my mind, may I have the surrogate mother get a third trimester abortion? If I change my mind later on, may I kill the child or adult (post-natal abortion)? Once he's an adult, may I use him for spare parts without his consent? There are many, many more questions that will be answered if the clone were/were not a legal individual.

JM: "What about the potential risk (inherited disorder, eg cancer) that could affect the clone (due to technical problems in cloning?) i.e if we do it NOW."

I believe in the freedom to make an educated decision. If there is a risk of genetic disorder from an imperfect cloning process, and the decision-maker(s) knew of the risk, then it's up to them. The problem with this is, we won't know the risks until we try. Still, my thinking is consistent, the decision-makers will know there is an unknown risk; they will make their choice based on what they know (or don't know or feel or don't feel).

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

Jay Lockhart - 12:24pm Jul 31, 1997 ET (#352 of 1108)

Jeff Emler - 09:07pm Jul 28, 1997 ET (#342 of 351)

As for cloning humans, naturally occuring human clones are already in existence. They are called identical twins. Sorry Jeff, but that argument holds no water. Cloning is not the same as twins. One goes through a natural procedure (sex) or assisted natural procedure (test tube or surogacy).

Cloning is totally different, in that organic material is directly from the host. Only one person is needed. Religion has been explict in saying that life is only created from the joining of man and woman. What I am saying is that if cloning a human is successful, then there is no such thing as God or soul.

Did you folks ever consider that WE may be someones expirement?

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

Tom Anderson - 05:27pm Jul 31, 1997 ET (#353 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cloning is not the same as twins. Yes, it is. Twins are clones of each other... one 'parent' produces the 'clone'; though you can't say which is which. It is only one genome, though.

What I am saying is that if cloning a human is successful, then there is no such thing as God or soul.Well, that would be the case if people didn't reinterpret their religion in the face of every new scientific discovery. "The bible never said the world was flat", "no, evolution doesn't exist" or "god allows evolution", "cloning? the bible never said that God wouldn't give clones a soul!" It's rediculous.

Did you folks ever consider that WE may be someones expirement?That is the general idea of every religion.

Tom

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

Noel Yap - 06:00pm Jul 31, 1997 ET (#354 of 1108)

TA: "that would be the case if people didn't reinterpret their religion in the face of every new scientific discovery."

Science is the same way -- something else it's got in common with other religions.

TA: "The bible never said the world was flat"

No, it never did. In fact, it actually says it's round. It was the cursed Church that dictated falsehoods such as this.

TA: "It's rediculous."

I agree. I don't know where "religious" people got the notion that God doesn't want cloning other than interpreting (possibly misinterpreting) a passage in the Bible or by following someone they somehow "labeled" closer-to-God.

Technology is neither good nor bad. What can be construed as good or bad is how we use it. The pause in research can be used to decide whether we use it constructively or destructively.

Spiritual religion should be something followed from within the person, not dictated by some authority.

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

Johari MA - 07:20pm Jul 31, 1997 ET (#355 of 1108)

Mr Noel, >>Yes, suppose I somehow clone myself today. May I claim him as a dependent? May I put him to work with no pay? If I change my mind, may I have the surrogate mother get a third trimester abortion? If I change my mind later on, may I kill the child or adult (post-natal abortion)? Once he's an adult, may I use him for spare parts without his consent? There are many, many more questions that will be answered if the clone were/were not a legal individual. <<< Gee, I don't know that there could be so many questions how to treat 'a living being' ….. 'as it is'. I wouldn't ask too many questions for his status. We have established our own law for human rights. As long as it is a 'human being', they have the same rights. May be there is no such thing as 'slavery' (now), but when people start questioning about the right of a clone as a 'human being' (whilst knowing HE IS a human being), I think it is pathetically nonsense. Mr. Noel, your statement above is a complete testimony of my doubt for the benefits of cloning. When the society started to ask such nonsensical questions, we will be closer to such 'civilised' nation and cloning will definitely 'solve' more problems. >>The problem with this is, we won't know the risks until we try.<<< Yeah, Mr .Noel, that's the problem. If the experimenter would consequentially 'have' the risk, then I think it's fair. But, if it's the other way round…. the ENTIRE life of the clone would be miserable. THAT Mr. Noel, is why I don't think cloning is such a great idea. I have no problem with cloning livestock (eg Polly, for producing therapeutic proteins). But, with humans, as I said above, there are potential side effects that could outbalance the 'benefits'.

MAY BE, in future, cloning humans will be a reality, though I have my own objections. People may say that I am doing it because of religious reasons etc… BUT, I would look this issue as a 'human being'. To me, the ethical complications (during and after the research) would outbalance its benefits : transplant (?), immortality (refuted), asexual reproduction (?) .

Mr Lockhart,

>>>What I am saying is that if cloning a human is successful, then there is no such thing as God or soul. <<< Interesting postulation. The good news for you Mr. Lockhart: you are at the right place, at the right time. There is an enthusiastic immortal-ist on this board . No doubt, he would be willing to voulenteer !

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

Tom Anderson - 09:45pm Jul 31, 1997 ET (#356 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

The Bible (I don't think) ever said explicitely "the world is flat"; however, it certainly describes "corners" of the earth, as well as a "foundation" of the earth. One passage also describes how from the top of some mountain (I forget which), it is possible to see all of the earth; of course, a majority of the earth is always invisible due to the curvature, which they didn't know, so they assumed if you could go high enough, you could see it all. Also, it's placement of heaven and hell, and earth in between, was well in accordance with the ancient model of a flat earth with "ether" surrounding and a single plain of stars, etc. So that is where I base my statement that the Bible described a flat earth.

Since the Bible mentions nothing of cloning (which makes the book incomplete), I find it arrogant for anyone of that religion to oppose cloning, since they are interpreting what is not there (even if one was to believe in it). Of course, this is always done, despite the illusion of a static doctrine. This differs from science, because that is how science is supposed to work, but it directly conflicts with the nature of religion. Nobody can tell me today that I should believe in their religion, since they themselves are believing in something radically different from just one or two generations ago, and will believe different in the future. That is a severely inconsistent belief system... to think that all is perfectly known, based entirely on a book, when it is actually very dynamic. Cloning can be found very unacceptable today (fear of the unknown), and that fear can be defended by religious belief. However, once it becomes a regular part of life, religion will change (while claiming to have always been) to accept it. Therefore, I say, throw away all religious objections as merely ignorant fear, and proceed, as man has always done, toward the future.

Tom

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

DAVID REYES - 01:37am Aug 1, 1997 ET (#357 of 1108)

CLONING IS BEING HAILED AS THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF THIS AND OF ANY OTHER TIME AND IN IT'S OWN WAY IT MAY WELL BE. BUT IT IS ALSO WITH OUT ANY DOUBT THE SINGLE MOST UNMISTAKABLE SING OF A QUICKLY ENDING WORLD. SCIENCE IN IT'S POMPOUS ARROGANCE HAS CREATED LIFE THIS IS AN ABOMINATION NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.

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

Noel Yap - 07:48am Aug 1, 1997 ET (#358 of 1108)

JM: "As long as it is a 'human being'"

That's what the court needs to decide. Look at abortion, some people think one way, some the other. The court decided that it is not a human being.

JM: "If the experimenter would consequentially 'have' the risk, then I think it's fair. But, if it's the other way round…. the ENTIRE life of the clone would be miserable."

And yet, the "religious" have no problems with couples who choose to continue the gestation of a baby with birth defects. Or, what about couples who have been advised not to have babies 'cos of the high risk.

TA: "The Bible (I don't think) ever said explicitely "the world is flat""

Right, it's the interpretations that were wrong. When people interpret the Bible, they should question the interpretation to see if it makes sense. As life goes on, people learn from experience, their old interpretations may not fit anymore. This, itself, will change those interpretations. When people start to cling to old beliefs just 'cos their old, that's when they start getting into trouble (ie the Church vs Galileo).

TA: "This differs from science, because that is how science is supposed to work, but it directly conflicts with the nature of religion."

I think this is true only 'cos people let it be true. It doesn't have to be like this -- my belief system is dynamic.

DR: "SCIENCE IN IT'S POMPOUS ARROGANCE HAS CREATED LIFE"

Science is very far from creating life. It is just now learning how to use what's already there.

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

Verena Souw - 03:24pm Aug 1, 1997 ET (#359 of 1108)

I think you are all saying very interesting things here.

Johari: I think you hit the head on the nail. A human clone would not be an abomination, it would be a living, feeling, THINKING human being. There would be no doubt about what rights he/she would have. However, they would most probably have a difficult time being accepted into society.

Tom: Although I am all for progress, we must always make sure we are not heading in the wrong direction. The emotional and psychological effects on the clone for simply existing would be devastating. He/she would have no family, and be regarded as an "invention", not a human. I think that fear of the unknown is a large factor, but I don't believe it is the only reason behind opposition to cloning.

David: I fail to see why cloning is a "sign of a quickly ending world". Cloning allows us to explore thousands of beneficial options, such as raising cloned sheep for their enhanced milk. Also, science has NOT created life from nothing, as you imply. Is that how you feel about in-vitro fertilization? The children are, after all, created in the lab. Or what about test tube babies?

Noel: Re: abortion. The reason the court decided that a fetus (before a certain point in the pregnancy) is NOT a human being is because it cannot survive on its own. The clone, as soon as it is "born" would be considered a human. Comparing a live clone to that of an unborn child is useless. The unborn clone on the other hand, would have the same status as a fetus. But to suggest that the government would rule that a clone at any age after its birth is not a human is ridiculous.

As for myself, I think that cloning animals to harvest bio-products for medical purposes is fine, since the psychosis of the animal is not affected because it cannot understand what a clone is. A cloned human would be tormented, an outcast, and until humans can accept them fully as human beings and not as "abominations" we should hold off on cloning a human.

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

Charles Oliver - 02:43am Aug 2, 1997 ET (#360 of 1108)

I believe the real threat of cloning are implications for human organ transplants. Raising humans for body part replacements -- to allow the wealthy and powerful to live longer.

I was amazed and shocked that President Clinton's Panel on Cloning merely recommended a Five Year Moratorium on domestic cloning of human beings.

Most recently, we learn that human DNA is being mixed with animal DNA for heart valve reproduction. Next, it will be liver, spleen, kidneys, bone marrow, and cures for Altzheimers. In my worst nightmares -- I can envision US companies locating cloning centers secretly off shore.

A vision of the future more hellish and frightening than The Island of Dr. Moreau.

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

Tom Anderson - 02:54am Aug 2, 1997 ET (#361 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Verena,

You are making the same mistake nearly all others do... cloning a human does nothing to their status as a human. It does not deprive them of family or friends, it does not label them, and it does not make them outcast. It is only a different method of creating a zygote. Everything from that stage on is the same as in a nuclear fused zygote. I understand where Johari is trying to say that creating a clone and raising it right now may have unknowns, but that is precisely why we have to support research at this critical time, or else some whacko is going to try to do it out of ignorance. As with all medical research, this would never affect an actual human trial until after numerous steps in the research process, such as a better understanding of the chemicals involved and trials on other animals like chimps. The impact an eventual human cloning process would have would be the greatest achievement ever. By stopping this now because of fear, it could potentially halt the cure of every known disease, especially cancer, and possibly mortality itself.

Tom

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

Johari MA - 05:50am Aug 2, 1997 ET (#362 of 1108)

Noel Yap 8/1/97 7:48am >>That's what the court needs to decide. Look at abortion, some people think one way, some the other. The court decided that it is not a human being. <<< OOOooooo THAT's how you think. IF you think 'what other people think' is more important other than BEING HUMAN or HUMAN BEING, then what I think Mr Noel, … you're gonna need the best of luck on your methodology of thinking.

>>And yet, the "religious" have no problems with couples who choose to continue the gestation of a baby with birth defects. Or, what about couples who have been advised not to have babies 'cos of the high risk. <<<< Mr. Noellllll, this is irrrrrrelevant to my previous point (as supported by Verena) and…. not all religion have the same solution to a problem.

Verena Souw 8/1/97 3:24pm

>>>Johari: I think you hit the head on the nail. A human clone would not be an abomination, it would be a living, feeling, THINKING human being. There would be no doubt about what rights he/she would have. <<<<< Yes Verena, unfortunately, not all people on this board are THINKING properly, despite the reality of the situation. >>>>.... family, and be regarded as an "invention", not a human. I think that fear of the unknown is a large factor, but I don't believe it is the only reason behind opposition to cloning.<<<< You said it, we also fear of FAKE.. FAKE… FAKE… I saaYYYYYY FAKE humanist!!! That is evolving to another form of 'unknown species'. Yuk yuk…..

>>>>Noel: Re: abortion. The reason the court decided that a fetus (before a ………… unborn clone on the other hand, would have the same status as a fetus. But to suggest that the government would rule that a clone at any age after its birth is not a human is ridiculous.<<<<< Well, people just like to beat about the bush. Bushy mushy mumbly excusy …. …. Unfortunatellllllyyyyyyy… they won't GET REAL…blinded people never accept reality… because they are BLIND !!!

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

Johari MA - 05:57am Aug 2, 1997 ET (#363 of 1108)

Tom Anderson 8/2/97 2:54am

>>>I understand where Johari is trying to say that creating a clone and raising it right now may have unknowns, but that is precisely why we have to support research at this critical time, <<<<< No Mr Anderson, you are again confusing yourself and it seemed that you STILL don't understand my WHOLE point. I have proven that you are confused TWICE (Johari MA "The Bible Code" 7/28/97 6:24am, Johari MA 7/18/97 4:50am) …….and I don't think we need another argument……. BECAUSE Mr. Anderson, I will prove AGAIN that you are confused. I will borrow this from the Bible : "By your own mouth I condemn you". [19:22] >>>As with all medical research, this would never affect an actual human trial until after numerous steps in the research process, ....<<< Whoooaaaa… THAT Mr. Anderson, is YOUR tendency, as we see on this board ALL ALONG : generalisatiooooooon. You must have some sense of reality to say that ALL medical research would NEVER effect human cloning research. Which school taught you this???…. WAKE UP Mr. Anderson. WAKEEEEE UPPPPPP!

>>>such as a better understanding of the chemicals involved and trials on other animals like chimps. <<< THAT Mr. Anderson, as I said before, is the reason why cloning humans is not yet ideal. You are the one talking in circles. FIRST you admit that a better understanding of cloning in chimps is important, THEN you said that we should clone people NOW (no halting) THAT Mr. Anderson, proves again you are talking in circles. Circle of confusion and delusion. >>>….. it could potentially halt the cure of every known disease, especially cancer, and possibly mortality itself. <<<< OK, how do we AVOID cancer via cloning…..Don't give me the trial and error method Mr. Anderson, …that is NOT a cure, that is the BEGINNING of a problem (to the clone and to the crazy human that invented the clone). We'll see your 'scientific' explanation ( if you have one for this) and your 'humanist' answer ;o

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

Charles Oliver - 08:22am Aug 2, 1997 ET (#364 of 1108)

Sorry Guys -- I think you are missing the point here. Neither the government nor any major corporation will accept the risk of allowing a human genetic clone to walk around free. When humans are cloned, the clones will never see the light of day. They will be raised for body part replacements.

The humans so cloned will have a future akin to VEAL!

Cloning will be done offshore, in countries where "Human Rights" are simply problematic at best.

Now for the scary part. Suppose monkeys or sheep are cloned with Human DNA. Again -- body part replacements. These hybred monkeys and sheep may be "Sensient" or have the capacity for some degree of conscious thought. What are these hybreds? They are not human, therefore have no rights under any form of public or private international law.

So -- if you are VEAL -- and know it -- the hourly torture of your existense would be pure suffering far beyond Steven King or Edgar Alan Poe!

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

Andrew Johnson - 12:51pm Aug 2, 1997 ET (#365 of 1108)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am far from educated in this field, however, the ingnorant have been known to shed light in the simplist of manners on the most complex of topics. This in essence is what Hitler wanted to do. Create a world of clones? Although the reseach itself can lead to medical aid beyond belief; abolishing donor transplant lists, longer than any critical status recipient would care to admit. For example, imagine the surplus of pain which a burn victim goes through. Here we are talking about the possibility of diminishing that immense amount of pain and suffering down to less than trivial amounts. When compared to the original number of skin graft operations, this new technology will eliminate a large amount of grafting operations, in this specific scenario. You are all arguing over a point which is not insignificant in the least, though fear of the unpredicatable has been known in the past to stop medical and technological advances in its' tracks. I believe the person who said "ingnorance" has been the cause of past trouble is correct. Here the fear of a specific destination is leading to ignorance of the significance which a plethora of other possible avenues offer the Human Race, as a collective of organisms trying to coexsist along with all of nature and their shared environment. Who is to say that one or more of an extinct populus is not a key fac6tor in the biological cycle of life. Where this cycle is not directly but indirectly beneficial to humanity and the planet upon which it resides and depands upon. I will admit this is a very very far stretched point, though some may consider it relevant.

Sincerely Andrew Johnson

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

Tom Anderson - 04:05pm Aug 2, 1997 ET (#366 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Johari MA 8/2/97 5:57am,

I am not the one who is confused. You have yet to produce any kind of solid argument. You speak of insignificancies and frost your posts over with far too much insult. That is not the way to approach a discussion. Until you can manage a post with any relevant logic, do not expect a response except of this kind.

Charles Oliver 8/2/97 8:22am,

Sorry Guys -- I think you are missing the point here. No, Charlie, you are way off.

When humans are cloned, the clones will never see the light of day. Where do you possibly imagine this stuff from? Read my last post. There is no difference between nuclear injected or gamete fused zygotes... both lead to a little baby, born from a mother.

These hybred monkeys and sheep may be "Sensient" or have the capacity for some degree of conscious thought. All animals have conscious thought.

When reading such ignorance, "the hourly torture of your existense [is] pure suffering far beyond Steven King or Edgar Alan Poe!"

Andrew Johnson 8/2/97 12:51pm,

Yes, Andrew; now, if only Johari could be enlightened as such.

Tom

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

Peter Pann - 05:44pm Aug 2, 1997 ET (#367 of 1108)

Gee Tom:

"All Animals have conscious thought . . ." ??

Maybe old Charlie was speaking of consciousness like in a Cartesian sense. "I think therefore I am" Ergo cogito ergo sum . . . I think only humans have conscious thought processes.

So when you meet a monkey who knows he is a monkey maybe he should be allowed to vote?

Thought old Charle was just pulling your collective legs?

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

Johari MA - 06:50pm Aug 2, 1997 ET (#368 of 1108)

Tom Anderson 8/2/97 4:05pm

>>>I am not the one who is confused.<<<< Yes Mr. Anderson, confused people don't know when they are confused, even when the reality of the situation is against them. They are lost in deep water.

>>You have yet to produce any kind of solid argument. <<< That's your interpretation. You just won't admit your argument has no scientific bases and keep your 'faith' with such UNcritical thinking. You can't even answer my posting above, because you only speak of your general knowledge. Johari MA 8/2/97 5:57am

>>>>You speak of insignificancies and frost your posts over with far too much insult. <<<< Yes, it is 'insignificant' to you because it is either you don't understand my scientific reasoning or you just IGNORE facts of reality. Truth frosted your response Mr. Anderson, NOT me…..because truth speaks by itself, and people can judge you from your own fallacies. When one adhere to falseness and reject reality, he is insulting himself AUTOMATICALLY.

>>That is not the way to approach a discussion. <<<< Yes Mr. Anderson, NOBODY would hang too much with people who talk in circle . They just need to present facts to refute the 'confused'. People who talk in circle of delusion and confusion will not accept reality as they are themselves trapped and REFUSE to get out of such nonsense.

>>>Until you can manage a post with any relevant logic, do not expect a response except of this kind. <<<<< Thnks Mr Anderson, I don't expect anything from you. You are yourself filled with confusion. Until you live with REALITY and ACCEPT it, then only you will stop CHOKING Mr. Anderson. THAT is a fact. You can argue on this board and on other boards and for the REST OF YOUR LIFE that god does not exist, but at the end of the day… you will discover that your life will be haunted with FEAR and DOUBTS. Whether you want to accept it or not, doesn't matter to me…. BECAUSE Mr. Anderson, that kind of fear will FOREVER haunt you.

AND Mr. Anderson, whenever I jumped on this board, if I have time, I will refute any falseness with facts, and it wouldn't require your response, because people have their own brain to think and make their own judgement.

Peter Pann 8/2/97 5:44pm >>>So when you meet a monkey who knows he is a monkey maybe he should be allowed to vote?<<<< Peter Pann.. when people start saying that animals have consciousness (due to their 'spontaneous generation' of idea -- with extreme generalisation and extrapolation), we already know that he is talking with 'consciousness of nonsense'

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

Johari MA - 07:22pm Aug 2, 1997 ET (#369 of 1108)

Andrew Johnson 8/2/97 12:51pm Mr. Andrew, I am not very good at spelling myself. BUT, when you speak about ignorance, you should not ignore these spelling mistakeS yourself:

ingnorant simplist reseach unpredicatable "ingnorance" coexsist depands

Also, you are confused on what I/we really fear of. We are not afraid of technology. We are only afraid of crazy people, that would handle technology in a wrong manner. That's it. If you don't read the threaded msgs from the beginning, and ignore it, you are the ignorant and you will find yourself making extreme generalisation about what we (really) are talking about here.

Despite the facts presented, there are STILL people who would want to create clones (live human clones) -- with the intention of organ transplant. These people are definitely THINKING properly.

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

Peter Pann - 01:22pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#370 of 1108)

Hello Johari MA!

Well, yes -- when someone is arguing animals have real conscious thought they are voicing total nonsense. I would argue, however, that such nonsense may be "unconscious nonsense" -- in the sense that some people are unaware of how ignorant they really are.

". . . When you meet a monkey who knows he is a monkey, maybe he should be allowed to vote . . ."

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

Tom Anderson - 03:36pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#371 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Peter & Johari,

What makes you think animals don't have consciousness? Do you think they are mindless robots? They clearly have knowledge of self, and chimps can even recognize their reflection in a mirror. Consciousness is the consequence of a functioning brain, not an act of God. Animals even have personality; ever notice the personality of your pets? You are pretty arrogant to assume that only humans are special enough to have consciousness.

Tom

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

Jay Lockhart - 04:23pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#372 of 1108)

Cloning a Human can be great- Assuming God and soul aren't variables to a still born.

Cloning (along with genetic bio-engineering), could erase racism. What if no matter what race you slept with, as a male, your race would be always be born as your race? Or what if all births were one race??

Cloning could be seen as the next step in Darwin's evolutional theory. A perfect human could live for hundreds of years with exceptional sense perceptions (esp, clarovoyance, clariaudiance etc.)

What if we engineered a human with photosynthesis? This could end starvation!

What if we cloned and engineered asexuals? Men and women would be obsolete, as we could impregnate ourselves!

The possibilities are endless, but the question is whether we can clone a human? We have to be ready to redefine God, soul and religion.

• All intelligent people, please e-mail me with your thoughts, hypotheses or postulations!

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

Peter Pann - 05:50pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#373 of 1108)

Gee Tom:

I am sorry, but --

I think you ought to enroll in some university courses on Philosophy, Psychology and Cognition. Literally thousands of papers have been writen on the subject. Great Philosophers have been writing on the subject for many hundreds of years.

You may feel your pets have "personality." Great, very cool. That does not mean they are capable of rational thought. If you are saying animals have cognitive thought processes, can reason using symbols and language, and realize "I am -- I think --Therefore I am -- To Be or Not to Be -- I live and I will die" -- rationality, you are ignoring hundreds of years of study. You perceive "personality" in your pets because they have very unique traits. That is fine, it is good. But is that their perception or yours, Tom? Unique traits and your perceptions of them does not mean a prioi your pets can reason.

Is the monkey that sees his mirror image reacting to an image of "The Self" -- or simply attracted to seeing an another animal? You think it recognizes itself? Think they are really sensient? Why don't you ask them Tom? I mean set up laboratory tests. [I am aware of such tests with gorillas and monkeys and claims by some they may be taught sign language. Might have more hope with dolphins and whales . . .]

If the animals answer, if they have true cognition, and you can prove it, I suggest they should be given the right to vote. I don't mean this maliciously.

I mean if any scientist can prove rational thought by any class of animals -- and can establish proof of their sensient awareness and language communication -- then we will have to consider new legal and social standards.

But doen't this beg the question on cloning?

Doen't this argument prove Charlie's contention that mixing human DNA with animals to raise replacement body parts would be extremely cruel. If the animals have or develop true cognitive awareness, then their existence would be pure torture -- wouldn't it?

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

Johari MA - 07:07pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#374 of 1108)

Tom Anderson 8/3/97 3:36pm >>Consciousness is the consequence of a functioning brain, not an act of God. <<<< Mr Anderson, whether consciousness is an act of God etc etc is NOT the main topic here. If you wanna ask us to join you CHOKING about consciousness/God, thank-you very much. We are very much secure with our belief system . If you wanna choke yourself on that topic Mr. Anderson, it is better that you bring your dilemma to the BIBLE CODE board. That may be the best place for people who are desperately trying to convince themselves (everyday) that God does not exist.

Peter Pann 8/3/97 5:50pm

>>> But doen't this beg the question on cloning? Doen't this argument prove Charlie's contention that mixing human DNA with animals to raise replacement body parts would be extremely cruel. If the animals have or develop true cognitive awareness, then their existence would be pure torture -- wouldn't it?<<<< Yes Peter, this is another testimony that some people are lost in 'deep waters' and confused. They talk in circles until they became 'unconscious' about their obvious error . Though, sometimes, they know such behaviour lead them to such nonsense-ness, they (stubbornly) prefer to live with such confusion. THAT dogmatic behaviour is typical of the (real) arrogant. Truth speaks by itself, again …… Thanks for joining this board Peter.

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

Tom Anderson - 07:38pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#375 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Peter Pann 8/3/97 5:50pm,

I think you ought to enroll in some university courses on Philosophy, Psychology and Cognition. Thanks for the suggestion, Pete, but I've already done that. Might I suggest some courses in neural networks, biology, and human development.

That does not mean they are capable of rational thought. They do have rational thought. They may not have a structured logic, but neither do most people who post to this board. But they can clearly analyze a situation and decide what to do... just watch a pack of wolves organize a hunt, they certainly use reason to herd their prey and then weed out the weakest.

If you are saying animals have cognitive thought processes, can reason using symbols and language, ... you are ignoring hundreds of years of study. Several animals, including dolphins and chimps, have been taught a language that we created and expressed their ideas using this language. This is not new. Go to your local zoo, and you are likely to see such things. Even take dogs for instance, they can recognize our words and even the slightest expressions in our faces to understand what we're saying.

You perceive "personality" in your pets because they have very unique traits. And what do you think makes different traits in different dogs of the same species except for the personality they developed through their life (just like people). You really have to stop separating man from animal, for man is an animal very similar to other mammals, especially closer relatives such as chimps.

Is the monkey that sees his mirror image reacting to an image of "The Self" -- or simply attracted to seeing an another animal? You think it recognizes itself? Think they are really sensient? Why don't you ask them Tom? I mean set up laboratory tests. This has already been done numerous times; and it is conclusive... they recognize themselves. For example, researchers put some paint on a chimp's forehead, the chimp looks in the mirror and starts to try to wipe it off of his own head. Actually, young chimps develop many reasoning skills earlier than young human children.

If the animals answer, if they have true cognition, and you can prove it, I suggest they should be given the right to vote. Our legal system has nothing to do with cognition. We still have to eat hamburgers.

I don't think you truly understand what consciousness really is. Do you think small children don't have consciousness? Yes, but their intelligence is the same as many animals. Intelligence and consciousness are not the same. All creatures with a brain have consciousness, just not the same intelligence (memory capacity and recall), which is due mostly to the size of their brain in relation to their body.

Tom

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

Charles Oliver - 07:48pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#376 of 1108)

Please pardon me while I jump back into the frey:

My previous posting raised the issue of off shore human cloning by US corporations -- which would comply with the recommendation made by Presdient Clinton's panel.

"I believe the real threat of cloning are implications for human organ transplants. Raising humans for body part replacements -- to allow the wealthy and powerful to live longer.

I was amazed and shocked that President Clinton's Panel on Cloning merely recommended a Five Year Moratorium on domestic cloning of human beings."

Again, I believe this Presidental Panel just gave de facto approval to any US company that wants to clone humans on foreign shores -- while there is merely a proposed 5 year hiatus on domestic based human cloning research. If you are the CIA, sounds like you can open a research center on a Pacific Island and create body parts for anybody on a priority list.

What are the implications? Assuming you are a US Senator, or in the Administration, or rich and powerful . . . sounds like heart, liver, lung, spleen, kidney, colon, [whatever] transplants can be made without risk of rejection. The DNA can be engineered to guarantee a perfect match.

This may open a secret world market for body parts for world leaders, the rich, the famous, etc.

This would be unconscionable in itself.

And the existential future for such "generating clones" would be so incrdibly terrible as to be beyond belief. It violates every conception of law and morality.

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

Jeff Emler - 10:51pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#377 of 1108)

Jay Lockhart wrote:

Sorry Jeff, but that argument holds no water. Cloning is not the same as twins. One goes through a natural procedure sex) or assisted natural procedure (test tube or surogacy). I think you're getting your verbs and nouns mixed up Mr. Lockhart. A clone (noun) is the exact genetic replica of another individual. This replica can be produced by cloning (verb), as science has recently demonstrated; or it can be produced naturally, as occurs when the first mieotic division of a zygote produces identical twins (noun).

Cloning is totally different, in that organic material is(taken)directly from the host. Only one person is needed. Yes, cloning is different than sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction results in offspring that is the product of mixing genetic material from separate individuals. This offspring is, essentially, the product of a random roll of the genetic dice, so to speak. Nothing wrong with that of course; it is one of the reasons for such a wonderful variety among individuals.

Cloning, on the other hand, produces an exact genetic replical of an existing individual. This is handy when the desired outcome is to eliminate the random component of sexual reproduction, and reproduce a superior individual exactly.

Say you have a steer that is a superior meat animal. You would like to raise a whole bunch of these same steers that are as good as this one. You know if you mate the same bull and cow you might, or you might not, get another steer this good. However, if you clone that steer you know for certain you will get another steer of equal quality. An added benefit too, of course, is that you can produce an unlimited number of clones from this one individual steer. Using sexual reproduction, that poor old cow is probably only good for a dozen calves over her entire life.

Religion has been explict in saying that life is only created from the joining of man and woman. In what part of the bible did you read this? And what is created from the joining of a pistil and a grain of pollen? Or the joining of a bull and cow? My daughter's tabby cat joined with the neighbor's tomcat and now we have six beautiful kittens. Are they life? If not, what are they?

What I am saying is that if cloning a human is successful, then there is no such thing as God or soul. Interesting conclusion. Upon what information to you support your theory? God and souls are best left for preachers and other such people to hash out. Others of us prefer to do more tangible good for mankind. God loves us and he wants to provide for us. Cloning is his gift of knowledge to us so that we may feed ourselves and improve our existence.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:14pm Aug 3, 1997 ET (#378 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Charles,

Why only the rich and famous? Cloning technology can extend everyone's life. What is so immoral about cloning organs rather than taking them out of corpses? It sounds much better to me.

Tom

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

Peter Pann - 12:14am Aug 4, 1997 ET (#379 of 1108)

Hello Again Tom --

I just don't think you get it, do you?

No -- you just don't.

Now about those monkeys -- do they get to vote or not?

Later, Dude.

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

Yit-shun Leungki - 04:29am Aug 4, 1997 ET (#380 of 1108)

Cloning is like Nukes, we can't control 'em so whatever the US does, there will always be an unscruplous government somewhere which will be cloning, cows, sheep, humans etc...

I'm in favour of cloning, imagine that we could clone species which are in danger and then play with them gentically to deepen their gene pool. We could clone organs and appendages or even eyes (cool!).

Also we clone plants all the time, some claim they don't feel anything, well I'm sure it's just a question of perspective.

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

Ramon C. - 07:31am Aug 4, 1997 ET (#381 of 1108)

Cloning has enormous potential for good. Imagine how many people can be fed from a single cloned cow or sheep.

But knowing the human race, we'll probably find some way to use cloning technology to build weapons of mass destruction.

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

Noel Yap - 04:49pm Aug 4, 1997 ET (#382 of 1108)

Verena Souw: "A human clone would not be an abomination, it would be a living, feeling, THINKING human being."

There is no doubt, as I have posted previously, that most people would agree. There is also no doubt that some will disagree. As a society, we have to come to a concensus.

Verena Souw: "they would most probably have a difficult time being accepted into society."

Yes, during the transition phase. Our plan should be to quickly assimilate clones into the society so as to decrease the amount of disruption.

Verena Souw: "Although I am all for progress, we must always make sure we are not heading in the wrong direction."

Yes. This is why I'm for this hiatus.

Verena Souw: "He/she would have no family,"

His/her family structure hasn't been thought about as of yet.

Verena Souw: "and be regarded as an "invention", not a human."

Hopefully just temporarily; hopefully not legally. This, in itself, is not a reason not to proceed, it is, however, ample reason to pause and think.

Verena Souw: "The reason the court decided that a fetus (before a certain point in the pregnancy) is NOT a human being is because it cannot survive on its own. The clone, as soon as it is "born" would be considered a human. Comparing a live clone to that of an unborn child is useless. The unborn clone on the other hand, would have the same status as a fetus. But to suggest that the government would rule that a clone at any age after its birth is not a human is ridiculous."

My point was that the court found reasons to decide against what some people considered "common sense". There is still the possibility that it would find reasons to decide that clones are not live human beings.

Verena Souw: "A cloned human would be tormented, an outcast, and until humans can accept them fully as human beings and not as "abominations" we should hold off on cloning a human."

I disagree. Life is hard. Life as a clone will be harder for a time. Such is the case for any minority in this country. As time goes by, society learns to accept these groups. But it will only happen if these groups were made part of society to begin with. There is no way to avoid the hardships of early generation clones.

Charles Oliver: "I believe the real threat of cloning are implications for human organ transplants. Raising humans for body part replacements -- to allow the wealthy and powerful to live longer."

This would be a direct consequence of the courts deciding that clones are property.

Charles Oliver: "I was amazed and shocked that President Clinton's Panel on Cloning merely recommended a Five Year Moratorium on domestic cloning of human beings."

I don't agree with time limitations. Goals should have been set. The state of cloning research should be dependent upon the completion of these goals.

Charles Oliver: "In my worst nightmares -- I can envision US companies locating cloning centers secretly off shore."

We can't do much about what other countries do, but we can work on how Americans use this technology.

Technically, you're right. In general, people are illogical and irrational, though. If we weren't, there'd be no prejudism of any sort. The way society treats clones will not abide by the laws of science, they will continue to follow the preconceptions people will tend to have.

Tom Anderson: "creating a clone and raising it right now may have unknowns, but that is precisely why we have to support research at this critical time,"

Looking at it narrowly from scientific eyes, I would agree. We, as a society, though still need more time to gear up for the changes -- to decrease the time spent in the transition phase.

Tom Anderson: "By stopping this now because of fear, it coul

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

Tom Anderson - 06:48pm Aug 4, 1997 ET (#383 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

Tom Anderson: "cloning a human does nothing to their status as a human. It does not deprive them of family or friends, it does not label them, and it does not make them outcast. It is only a different method of creating a zygote." Technically, you're right. In general, people are illogical and irrational, though. If we weren't, there'd be no prejudism of any sort. The way society treats clones will not abide by the laws of science, they will continue to follow the preconceptions people will tend to have.No, you don't understand what I said; it is impossible for their status to be different. You see, they are born just like any other child and people would be able to look at a person and say they're a clone just as easily as you can look at a person and tell that they were born through a cesaerean section. Or tell that a person is a twin without the other one around. There is no label placed on someone who looks and is just like everyone else. And why does everyone keep assuming that a clone would not have a family? He/she still has to be born to a mother, and that mother may or may not be married as is the case in all pregnancies. We're not talking test tubes here. It is just another form of reproduction, not another form of person.

Tom

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

Peter Pann - 11:09pm Aug 4, 1997 ET (#384 of 1108)

Hold it! Just for a Minute!

I just surfed about 30 messages back. Seems to me like some of you guys are saying it is just fine to clone human DNA with animal DNA. So that you can get replacement parts for people. Right?

Then some of you are saying these animals may be pretty smart. And some are saying they might get REAL SMART if you mix in human DNA. Right?

But everybody seems to think its OK to use these body part to save a persons life. Right?

Look if these animals are smart, and get so smart they can tell they are gonna get cut up for spare parts -- don't you think thats CRUEL? Or PRETTY WIERD?

So Elsie the Cow is laying there and she knows some guy is gonna come in and take out a kidney. And then it happens. And a couple months later they come and take out her other kidney. Then an EYE. Then a LUNG. Then they come in looking for her HEART, LIVER, her other EYE. Just like some JUNKER at the AUTO WRECKERS!

Man, isn't this a bit TOO WIERD!

And you guys think these animals are GOING TO UNDERSTAND THIS WHOLE THING?

So how come the Cow doesn't get to Vote? I think somebody said something about this. THIS IS NOT AN ETHICAL THING TO DO.

Uh, unless the Cow volunteers, I mean. Maybe sign a contract saying its all ok?

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

Noel Yap - 07:09am Aug 5, 1997 ET (#385 of 1108)

TA: "they are born just like any other child and people would be able to look at a person and say they're a clone just as easily as you can look at a person and tell that they were born through a cesaerean section."

Good point. All we gotta do then is prevent any Hitlerian type labelling.

TA: "He/she still has to be born to a mother, and that mother may or may not be married as is the case in all pregnancies."

What about surrogate mothers?

PP: "Look if these animals are smart, and get so smart they can tell they are gonna get cut up for spare parts"

Well, then, we shouldn't be engineering intelligent animals.

PP: "Uh, unless the Cow volunteers, I mean. Maybe sign a contract saying its all ok?"

Any intelligent being should have the right to wave their rights. Unfortunately, in this country, this isn't so.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:04am Aug 5, 1997 ET (#386 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

All we gotta do then is prevent any Hitlerian type labelling.Perhaps; but, if some crazed dictator wanted to round up all clones and kill them, then who would admit it? There is no way to tell just by looking at the person, and there is no test (DNA or otherwise) that would distinguish a sex-child from a clone-child. Afterall, the clone was a sex-child a generation or two back. It's as though you wanted to go out to your garden and destroy all the plants that were created by clippings... you could never tell the difference.

What about surrogate mothers?The helpless infant still must be raised by someone. That someone is a parent, whether adoptive or natural.

PP: "Uh, unless the Cow volunteers, I mean. Maybe sign a contract saying its all ok?" Any intelligent being should have the right to wave their rights. Unfortunately, in this country, this isn't so.It isn't about intelligence. Even if pigs could protest with picket signs, we are naturally carniverous, and will eat them anyway. I think that this whole line of thought is due to the western canabalism taboo. But it's not canabalism to eat other species, intelligent or not. It may be less than strictly ethical, but it is nature, and you cannot get around that. All animals are intelligent to a degree, and often know that you intend to kill them (unless it's very quick and unexpected). For instance, if you were to kill a cow limb by limb, I think it would know that you have malicious intentions, and it would try to get away. And we know this (if only subconsciously) since we try to make it quick and unexpected.

Tom

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

Jeff Emler - 01:23pm Aug 5, 1997 ET (#387 of 1108)

Peter Pann wrote:

I just surfed about 30 messages back. Seems to me like some of you guys are saying it is just fine to clone human DNA with animal DNA. So that you can get replacement parts for people. Right? I think that you are exaggerating the capabilities of cloning just a little bit. Cloning results in the genetic replication of individuals. It cannot be used to create hybrids between different species. Just as it is impossible to obtain a successful graft between a peach scion and an apple rootstock; it is equally impossible to graft the DNA of different animal species to one another.

Any attempt to hybridize the DNA of two separate species would not survive beyond two or three cell divisions; if it even got that far. Hybridization among species is, very simply put, incompatible with life.

I'm afraid you will have to be content with the speculative fantasies of science fiction writers, as far as interspecies hybridization goes, Mr. Pann. email

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

Noel Yap - 03:55pm Aug 5, 1997 ET (#388 of 1108)

TA: "if some crazed dictator wanted to round up all clones and kill them, then who would admit it?"

Well, how was Hitler able to round up Jews and homosexuals? I think he got their family histories. Even when there was some doubt, he would have preferred false positives rather than false negatives.

TA: "The helpless infant still must be raised by someone. That someone is a parent, whether adoptive or natural."

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that the parent might be the government itself.

TA: "It may be less than strictly ethical, but it is nature, and you cannot get around that."

This thread is waaaay out into the future, but anyway, it's the ethics we need to hash out and spread.

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

Tom Anderson - 05:48pm Aug 5, 1997 ET (#389 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that the parent might be the government itself.We're not talking about some abstract organization, we're talking physical caring for. A single person is necessary to do that. And how is this specific to cloning and not to any form of reproduction? You could just as easily say that the government can raise any sex-child too.

Tom

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

Johari MA - 06:10pm Aug 5, 1997 ET (#390 of 1108)

Mr. Emler, I agree with your notion, based on our current knowledge. Though certain things are currently beyond our imagination, our knowledge increases everyday, including cloning. While such thing sounds illogical (today), there are scientists out there, who likes to ask such silly question, and they might *try* to do such thing 'for civilisation'. This could create new species - that are not necessarily useable for graft purposes.

>>it is equally impossible to graft the DNA of different animal species to one another. <<< Mr. Emler, I don't know on what perspective you used the word graft here, but the current techniques allow us to blend DNA between species, though… it would not create a fully 'functional' organism, most of the time . I think you are implying that hybrid clone from different species are not viable, which is true, based on our current knowledge. But, there are people who said that mixing DNA from different plants is OK, though I don't know (entirely) whether this is true or not because I am not a plant biologist. >>Any attempt to hybridize the DNA of two separate species would not survive beyond two or three cell divisions<<<< If you mean that hybridising two species DNA would not produce a viable new species , yes (very likely, now). BUT, while in most cases such attempt is incompatible for the viability of the 'new species' itself, this is not entirely true when we talk about mixing DNA at cellular level; Have you heard of monochromosomal somatic cell hybrids? This sort of hybrid cells are actually produced by combining human DNA with rodents tumour cell. This kind of hybrid cells retain a single or multiple human chromosomes - they are viable and immortal. They are widely used to help assigning the locus of a particular gene in our genome.

I've stumbled on a better explanation previously, but I forgot the link…. This is just one example :

Somatic cell hybridization

In somatic cell hybridization, human cells and rodent tumor cells are fused (hybridized); over time, after the chromosomes mix, human chromosomes are preferentially lost from the hybrid cell until only one or a few remain. Those individual hybrid cells are then propagated and maintained as cell lines containing specific human chromosomes. Improvements to this technique have generated a number of hybrid cell lines, each with a specific single human chromosome.

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

Peter Pann - 08:06pm Aug 5, 1997 ET (#391 of 1108)

The reason that I mentioned it is that the UK scientists who created the cloned sheep recently announced new experiments to mix human DNA with sheep DNA. The purpose was to create hybred DNA for the specific purpose of cloning organs for human organ replacement.

While all this may be futuristic, it raises complex questions of medical ethics.

In theory, I contemplate scientists using DNA from a speciifc human who is requesting organ replacement.

The notion of using a sheep or pig is attractive because of growth time to maturity, I am assuming it would take quite few few years to grow a human clone to maturity, while a sheep could be gown to "harvest age" within 12 months.

Of course, the idea of cloning a human duplicate for organ transplant is repugnant. Growing a sheep or pig is really problematic. The ethical issue arises when and if some scientist discovers the animal so cloned may develop enhanced cognitative abilities. The idea of consciousness is simply a catylist to the debate.

The hypothesis that American corporations or organizations will use a foreign site for experiments is also a logical assumption. If humans are cloned off shore -- it is more likely than not that "Human Rights" of the cloned are merely problematic.

Using human clones for organ transplant would most likely be extremely expensive, and reserved for the privileged few.

Animal cloning would be relatively inexpensive.

The ethical questions remain. I would hate to think we would slowly carve of an intelligent life form which is kept alive merely as an on-going experiment.

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

Peter D. Offenbach, Ph.D. - 08:06pm Aug 5, 1997 ET (#392 of 1108)

All of you are fools. As a doctor and scientist, I cloned myself six years ago and am raising the boy as my son. He knows about this. My wife, sadly, died in childbirth and she'll never know how special her son is. His nose looks a little funny, though; I'll have to fix that when he's stopped growing. Watch for our story on CNN this weekend.

Peter Offenbach, Ph.D.

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

Peter Pann - 08:30pm Aug 5, 1997 ET (#393 of 1108)

Hello Dr. Offenbach.

Welcome to the Debate!

I do not think there are any ethical issues raised if a father wishes to clone a son in similar circumstances. Period. No debate on that issue.

I am dubious, but if the government decided to clone another Einstein or Picasso -- philosophers may agree such an event might be highly moral and socially beneficial.

What I am concerned about are the ethical issues raised if a wealthy person or family set up a Foundation to clone human genetic duplicates to act as a mere orgon donors. [Certainly, this is medically possible and predictable, given human nature?] Or the government decided it was wise to clone humans for certain powerful, privileged or politically connected individuals -- for body parts.

Another physician, Michael Cricton, M.D., raised similar ethical concerns in the best selling novel "Coma." In that instance, the organ donors were not clones, but organic brain trauma victims.

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

Noel Yap - 07:20am Aug 6, 1997 ET (#394 of 1108)

PP: "The ethical issue arises when and if some scientist discovers the animal so cloned may develop enhanced cognitative abilities."

If we can get sheep to grow human organs for transplant, then we can choose which organs to grow. Cognitive capabilities come from the brain. Human cognitive capabilities come from the level of complexity found in the human brain. The only way sheep will have human cognitive capabilities is if we choose to let it.

PP: "Using human clones for organ transplant would most likely be extremely expensive, and reserved for the privileged few."

This would really depend upon what sort of health care we've got. But, practically, I agree with you. Medical care cost has been increasing and the insurance companies don't want to pay for it. OTOH, according to this capatalist society, it's not really wrong to give preference to the rich. So, are capatalist ethics the way to go?

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

Tom Anderson - 11:09am Aug 6, 1997 ET (#395 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

PP: "Using human clones for organ transplant would most likely be extremely expensive, and reserved for the privileged few." This would really depend upon what sort of health care we've got. But, practically, I agree with you. Medical care cost has been increasing and the insurance companies don't want to pay for it. OTOH, according to this capatalist society, it's not really wrong to give preference to the rich. So, are capatalist ethics the way to go? I disagree; it is most dependent on the level of production. Currently, organs must by donated by the unfortunate, so supply is rather limited. However, cloning could easily produce a surplus, making transplants affordable to nearly everyone (and dead people could be buried whole, without regret to the living).

Tom

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

Noel Yap - 03:34pm Aug 6, 1997 ET (#396 of 1108)

TA: "However, cloning could easily produce a surplus, making transplants affordable to nearly everyone"

Very good point. Except in the stages of early adoption when there aren't too many suppliers and the process is still expensive. The trend, however, will be towards cheaper production (pun intended) costs. This also assumes that the mother would not be so expensive.

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

Tom Anderson - 07:09pm Aug 6, 1997 ET (#397 of 1108)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

Except in the stages of early adoption when there aren't too many suppliers and the process is still expensive.As is the case with everything new. Just think, those 486's that nobody would pay a penny for today used to cost thousands!

This also assumes that the mother would not be so expensive.I think that when we talk of cloning individual organs, we do not necessarily require a mother, as would certainly be the case with whole organisms. As was said before, organs could possibly be produced in livestock; or, stretching a bit, outside of any organism (excluding society, that is ;o). We may have discussed this before: it may be possible to clone nonvital organs directly on the recipient... a lost finger for instance.

Tom

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

Jeff Emler - 11:19pm Aug 6, 1997 ET (#398 of 1108)

Johari MA wrote:

If you mean that hybridising two species DNA would not produce a viable new species , yes (very likely, now). BUT, while in most cases such attempt is incompatible for the viability of the 'new species' itself, this is not entirely true when we talk about mixing DNA at cellular level; Have you heard of monochromosomal somatic cell hybrids? This sort of hybrid cells are actually produced by combining human DNA with rodents tumour cell. This kind of hybrid cells retain a single or multiple human chromosomes - they are viable and immortal. They are widely used to help assigning the locus of a particular gene in our genome. True, what's impossible today may be tomorrow's reality. I must say, though, it's a quite a stretch from coaxing a tumor cell into accepting a single foreign chromosome to producing a living creature composed of two different species. Tumor cells, as you are aware, do not behave like normal cells, and are easily manipulated.

To put it into perspective; think of the difficulties in simply making an organ transplant among the same species continue to be viable. The recipient of the donated organ must take powerful drugs the rest of his/her life to prevent rejection; and this involves tissue between individuals of the same species. I realize that the mechanism of rejection involves the immune system, and not the disparity between the DNA of the donor and recipient. However, this demonstrates the resolve of an organism's resistance to "non-self."

Though I do not know the exact biochemistry; I am aware, just by empirical observation and reading, that the resistance to non-self is a powerful biological law. Laws exist in biology just as surely as they exist in physics. The fact that species will not cross is a biological law. The consequence of any attempt to overcome this law will surely always be the demise of the organism. I speculate that it would be easier for science to overcome the law of gravity, than to successfully cross two different species.

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

Peter Moon - 12:32pm Aug 7, 1997 ET (#399 of 1108)

I think that this clonning IS THE BEST!!

If you think about it, this world will only change for the better once we start cloning humans. The novel "Brave New World" will finally come a reality!! We can clone people for dirty work that no one else wants. We can also clone humans for intellegence to better ourselves and our planets. We shall clone for the betterment of mankind. It is a future that I for one am trully looking forward too!!

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws