So anyway, I (i resolve not to write my name in caps from now on) went to see Armageddon yesterday. i was apalled at the evil message that the movie carried. The only thing that i could give credit to this movie was the special effects. After that the discrimination made to japanese (the guys in the boat) russians (the whore and the guy in space) was obvious. What Holly?wood is really saying : Uncle Sam and his wifes Nasa and Whitehouse are the saviours of this earth. The only way to get prepared is build more and more hi-tech. Harry (Bruce Willis) is the dysfunctional human who always carries a gun with him becomes Jesus and sacrifices his blood in order to save us. His xxx alcoholic maniac friends are the disciples and all the prayers that those muslums and pope made were fullfilled in these guys. This is what i call a direct offence to them who believe and whoever can't understand the slick undertones of Armageddon is really brainwashed and needs help. To go further i can't understand all of them guys who cherish at the idea of life in other planets, UFOs and other Nasa spanned myths. Why can't we use all those billions to save other lives in this earth and have their gratitude and blessing instead? I think all of the noise we hear about extraterrestrial life that generally comes from USA (one nation under god?) is to justify all the money that Nasa&co spend. Shame on us who just lower our eyes to this and continue to agree with them. Shame on the Whitehouse and Washington for pretending to represent the american people. At least in this case. Can't you understand it's all a game in our expense?

PS: I was taught in school that we are product of the Almighty Bing Bang therefore i am not responsible for the contents of the above. It just happened :P

In no way to defend 'religion', I think you ignore what psychologists (used to?) call "compartmentalization" (they love big words), in which condition one might operate quite effectively in different 'modes' of thought according to the degree of emotional sensitivity they reserve towards a given subject. Man's ability (and predilection?) for self-delusion intrudes well-cloaked into the best of intelligences.

Of course, I interpret that by "scientist" you mean the purest of the pure who pursue such discipline. Unfortunately(?) 'purity' of any form and 'Man' seldom go hand in hand -- and I'm not refering to sexual behavior.

Cliff Beall #4498

"... get by ..." and "... not a problem .." suggests tolerance, not complete embracement. Are you quite sure you got all (the 'goodies') you (rightfully) deserved? They don't have to kill you, or fire you, or openly ridicule you, to effectively deprive you -- they just have to not 'favor' you. Or, are you completely unfamiliar with 'water fountain politics'?

(Perhaps you might have a 'heart-to-heart' with some acquaintances of the darker (complexion) 'persuasion' -- they can tell you ALL about it!)

That is a bit less idealistic than your own preference but, I opine, more realistic.

Again, this posting is in no way to be interpreted as a support of 'religion', which (I repeat, and whole-heartedly concur) is the antithesis of science. The problem is, both involve Man, and he is, if nothing else, fallible (as the 'religionists' (whose forebears invented 'religion') demonstrate repeatedly and continually).

The basic problem with clones is nevertheless the fact that it is somewhat fundamentally new, anybody the consequences and possibilities to exactly measure can. The present discussion around the possibilities given meanwhile on the genetic engineering are throughout of fear coined/shaped. Or also not. Who may take on the responsibility for the genetic engineering to have been correct without knowing, what comes out afterwards. A new Hiroshima bomb? Where begin with this discussion? Best, where the requirement is for the moment largest: With the clearing-up. Only if the broad mass knows, in order which it at all goes, what hides itself behind genes and clones, then can we begin about talk which and the whole bring, can bring or may not bring. Easily to say " I am against it " am just as falsely as being basically agreed. In Switzerland the people co-ordinated recently whether the genetic engineering in the country may be advanced and investigated further freely. One argued (opponent) with the dangers, which could threaten, on the other hand with the possible loss of tousands workstations. But what do such discussions bring, with which at the thing one by-talks?

I do not think I am deprived. Look at it this way. I think Baptists have at least as much tolerance for me as they do for Catholics, and Catholics have at least as much tolerance for me as they do for Baptists.

Before I go any further with this, I am going to tell you something. About thirty years, I read something in Playboy magazine that impressed me. It went something like this: "Blacks are like other people. We have known a number of blacks and have found that we like some blacks more than other blacks, just as we like some whites more than other whites."

That made an impression on me because it put into words something I had know for some time and didn't know quite how to say, and it said it exactly the way I felt it. I have had discussions of the type you mention with a couple of blacks I have known and considered friends. As one might expect, the discussion with one was more convincing than the discussion with the other one. I will also tell you this. Religious people are like other people. I have know some of them and have found that I like some of them more than others of them, just as I like some agnostics more than other agnostics.

Personally, I think it is more idealistic. I think that this is the way it ought to be.

For what it's worth, the Skeptical Inquirer or Free Inquiry, I believe, published in the past year or so a study demonstrating that about 70% of Physicists and Biologists are religious skeptics. I believe mathematicians were at about 40%. These figures are only approximate based on recall.

Could we get back to something having to do with cloning?

Thanks

My quote of my Physics professor's introductory remarks re 'What is a Physicist' should be attributed to him (though I concur and accept them). His patent intent was to indicate what was 'real': that which is perceived and/or accepted as 'so' by (at least) the subject population; rather than what was 'ideal': that which is deemed to be 'preferred' by some. If something 'is', the argument as to whether or not it 'should be' is obviated, is it not? So, if that is how it 'is', it is 'realistic'; if that is how it 'should be', it is 'idealistic'.

I would take exception, principally, to the statement

I expect you meant to write

or, as translated into common, everyday American English

Other than that, you seem to be asking "Should we be discussing the subject, at all?" But this is an opinion board. Without opinions it has no reason to exist (an arguably preferred alternative). I think we should discuss it -- it's fun! And you can digress all over the place -- to the chagrin and/or outrage of practically everybody!

I have no real problem with cloning humans per se. Philosophical or religious reasons aside, strictly from a constitutional standpoint, I would enact explicit laws to make very clear that "cloned" humans are no less "Human" than those born in the "natural" way. That cloned humans have the same human rights as any other human. Otherwise, I fear their might arise a subculture of second class humans who are cloned for specific purposes. (prostitutes cloned from famous people: Madonna;etc.)(soldiers cloned for the killing fields) (those cloned for laboratory experimentation) (Those cloned to simply supply spare parts for those wealthy enough to afford the process: your body won't reject your own heart!) The list is endless. Abuse of the process results in abuse of human beings. Cloning should not be allowed until "rights for the cloned" are in place.

Bob Faulkner: I did not misread. I understood what you intended, and my response was exactly as I intended. If you did not understand the quote from Playboy and it's underlying meaning as I understood it, I will explain. According to my understanding, the intent of the statement was to indicate group likeness (similarity with other groups) and individual differences, as being in direct opposition to stereotyping which suggests difference as a group and individual sameness. The point I was attempting, with respect to tolerance as opposed to embracement, was that it is not necessarily so. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not. I think your predilection for pre-judgement can often be wrong.

This whole argument about whether or not I understand what you post might give me some concern regarding my ability, in general, to understand anything; except, of course, for the success in understanding I demonstrated first in education, then in business, then -- and, continuing, now -- in life, in general.

But this whole dialectic is wearing rather thin, not only for others (who have already complained), but for me, also. Believe, and post, what you will (of course), I will try to exercise restraint from intruding into your (inexplicable) world.

I would first like to say that I am ashamed of all of the close minded bickering coming from Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Beall. It is amazing that idiots like yourselves are alive today. As a gay man, I will never be able to have children. I am a strong supporter of cloning, and the offspring it promises me. I imagine a world where I can clone my self, to have a son, to bond with, to watch him grow up. I also imagine a world where I can clone my 3 pet cats before they die. We could clone gorillas to perform in circuses around the world, ending the need for costly and diffcult poaching. If we cloned rhinos, the entire asian continent would see a renewed intrest in "flying the flag high" instead of at half-mast. Ah yes, cloning is indeed the key to our salvation, and my imortality.

In the near future it is likely if not a certainty that cloning will be used in a non-sanctioned environment. Therefore it is imperative that scientists not reject cloning as morally or philosophically wrong. Rather, everything that can be learned about this new field should be. If we don't clone humans, we can at least garner invaluble information regarding the growth and structure of living organisms. Knowledge, in and of itself, is not evil, and should not be regarded as such. If we arm ourselves with the full knowledge of the procedures, processes, and ramifications of cloning, we can more easily prevent abuses of this technology.

It is the government that is the problem. They are politically motivated and not very concerned about human reproductive rights issues in this area. The FDA is willing to do just about anything to satisfy these political and in many cases religious concerns.

I don't think there is much of a problem about cloning animals for various purposes, however transgenic cloning may be politically difficult, and may pose some unique viral risks.

I don't see how we can totally prevent abuses. We don't even know what many of them might be.

I see no problem in cloning of animals. I see this as becoming a routine practice in agriculture and medicine.

I do, however, have some reservations about cloning humans. First of all, the process would (at least at first) require a lot of experimentation that would have to be performed. The nature of the experiments involving humans and human development somewhat alarms me.

Second, I have a hard time understanding the idea of cloning being a "right" as some would assert. Since cloning is an unnatural process, how could you claim that cloning yourself is a natural right?

Third, Some people believe that a cloned human is somehow less human than the original, and thus subject to the slavery of others. This is very dangerous ground we tread on.

Fourth, I am failing to comprehend what good can come from cloning. What makes humans special is their individuality. Also, cloning may have severe effects on gene frequencies in our gene pool. When I look at proponents for human cloning, I only see selfish individuals. Are these the people we want to clone?

Mr Montgomery: You stated that you look forward to cloning yourself and raising the clone as a son. You do realize that the clone is an exact physical copy of you in every respect don't you? You don't find the idea of raising yourself as your own son a little twisted? As a gay man, you can have children. You can do what people have been doing for thousands of years; impregnate a woman. There are alternatives to simply cloning yourself. That is how we've all made ourselves immortal.

Mr Magner: I agree with several points in your post. Cloning is not a right, it is a privilige and should be treated as such. If it is abused, only then should it be limited.

You are also correct on the adverse affects of cloned individuals entering the gene pool. Nature loves diversity. Too much similar gentic matter in a single gene pool can have terrible effects on the offsping. This can most readily be seen in agriculture.

.

Though our Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," (wonder why he didn't write "our Creator" -- was he hedging?) I have always read that noble phrase as a nationalistic, patriotic gesture towards establishing (European-style) provenance for governing. The only 'rights' any men have are those they secure for themselves. The 'rights' we so often take too lightly were paid for in blood by many no longer able to enjoy them. Otherwise, 'rights' are merely legal constraints and licenses enacted by some governing body.

In vitro fertilization is "an unnatural process" and now, almost as common as appendectomies -- and where in 'god's world' have you ever heard of a woman carrying (and birthing) her own daughter's baby (as I recall a recent news story). I expect 'cloning' to eventually concentrate on tissues and organs.

Since Luther Burbank and Booker T. Washington, agriculture has demonstrated the most spectacular successes in genetic manipulation. Actually, it goes back much further than those two: have you never seen archaic maize? (corn) -- it's miniscule! Even the 'maize' sold in the supermarkets during holidays is spectacularly enhanced by genetic selection.

All this 'could we', 'should we', 'would we', seems to presuppose that we (Americans) have some (global) control on whether or not it 'will be'.

Successful cloning began (as far as we know) in Scotland and is now realized in Japan. There is no way we can/will be left out of this great human adventure. Congress will posture back and forth (for and to the amusement of the public) and then side (as usual) with the money -- and, for this, there'll be LOTS of it.

The most spectacular (and reasonable) proposal yet is that of growing 'cloned' tissue and organs directly within (and of) the recipient's body -- though I, as yet, have no immediate need, I have my 'order form' all ready to submit for a complete, internal 'do'.

I take this opportunity to publicly congratulate the moderators of this board for 'cleaning up after' (deleting) that disgusting 'Percy' posting.

As I explained in my email to the moderators (sent after I noticed the deletion), I was not offended by being 'barked at' by something less than a dog, but by the outrageous (and thinly veiled) lewd implications of the 'dreamed of' 'bonding'. Further, I do not think that was the posting of a "gay man", but of some onager looking to get a 'rise' out of anyone offended enough to respond to it. (Steve, you're simply too humane.)

Percy Montgomery: Gay men do have children, usually by artificial insemination of a donor egg into a surrogate mother. You would need the egg (the cytoplasm) anyway and the surrogate mom even with cloning. It is pretty egotistical to want to raise your own clone, even though I have said that I would like to do so. The problem is that it would be pretty difficult for a clone to be aware of what someone else did with the same genetic potential--especially if that clone were a parent. I know that I would have my clone learning foreign languages at two, skiing at three, etc. What if you were a clone of a Nobel prize winner? It is bad enough not to surpass your parent's accomplishments when you only have half his or her genes.

Being irreligious doesn't handicap one in a scientific career, but it can cause problems within the family and even socially (at least in the south).

Ok I'll just cut to the bottom line. My reproductive rights are part of the inalienable rights I posses as a human being. I have not, and do not cede these rights to any government nor recognize the right of any government to exercise any power over them.

Any attempt of individuals, weather acting under color of office or not, to violate these rights shall be held as a crime against myself and indeed against humanity by me. No problem.

Cloning is covered by this, and BTW identical twins are clones, not that it makes any difference.

Dawn, your own clone hmmmm. I din't think you were that rad.

Yes, I do. I never cared much for the word, "propensity," which is the word I previously used in such cases. Predilection is far superior. Sorry we couldn't seem to find a common ground, but thanks for the word.

Percy, I have no philosophical objection to your having children by this method. Unfortunately, the process is not yet perfected, and I don't think it should be used until it is perfected. But, hopefully, that will be relatively soon.

But I have a question. There has been some speculation that homosexuality is genetic. If that is the case, with all the genetic engineering that is going on, it would appear possible that somebody may soon come up with a "genetic treatment" for homosexuality, for example, a pill that could be taken at regular intervals, and presto, you would be a heterosexual. Understand that I can appreciate that you probably do not think there is anything wrong with being gay, and I admit I would have a hard time arguing that it is "unnatural," since homosexuality is widespread in nature. Nevertheless, the question is, if such a pill was available to you, would you take it? And, second, do you thing many of your gay friends would take it? Just a couple of questions. Answer if you wish.

I would prefer that it be in a sanctioned environment.

I agree.

Carl, I really think that people in government are more concerned about human reproductive rights than you give them credit for. They are, after all, people, and, in general, fairly sophisticated people. I think they understand that in order for them to have certain rights, themselves, those right must be available to all. The FDA is, of course, concerned about safety, but I think that after some progress is made on that issue, scientist "with standing in the scientific community" will be allowed to proceed with scientific studies with respect to human cloning also. Also, I do not think the religious right is nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is, and I don't think they can stop cloning. Anyway, like every other group of any size, they, themselves, will be split on the issue.

(Almost) amazed at how many (still) fall for the "Percy" ('Dovetonsils'(?) -- still miss Ernie Kovaks) posting -- I still think it's a low-brow fraud, and not at all a true ID.

Ok I'll just cut to the bottom line. My reproductive rights are part of the inalienable rights I posses as a human being. I have not, and do not cede these rights to any government nor recognize the right of any government to exercise any power over them.

Any attempt of individuals, weather acting under color of office or not, to violate these rights shall be held as a crime against myself and indeed against humanity by me.

Cloning is covered by this, and BTW identical twins are clones, not that it makes any difference.

Regarding excess computing power, check out http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/biztech/articles/15sun.html

I think you've stretched "clones" a bit far of its proper reach. Merriam-Webster states that a "clone" is

In other words, a "clone" results from a 'budding' process, devolving from a single mature individual, rather than the development of a zygote resulting from the union of two (separate source) gametes.

I expect all would agree that the normal male|female function which (occasionally) results in "twins" is not, at all, asexual.

Humans have created enough havoc as it is with global warming, deforestation, animal extinction, air, water and sound pollution. Now we want to play with our own species!

There are no such "rights" -- we get only what we're willing to fight for and defend. That 'pretty' phrase was coined in the Declaration of Independence to stand in lieu of the "Divine Right" claim of monarchs to rule over their subjects.

Nature controls over-population through famine and disease -- contemporary China's limit on off-spring is a harbinger of what eventually will come throughout the world. And some form of the 'dole' will be the subsistance norm for a significant percentage of the population unable to provide job skills to support an increasingly more esoteric technology. How long do you think McDonald's would keep those kids and retirees around if a really practicable (and error-free) robot 'server' were available. Leno will have to find jokes other than his elitist humor poking fun at those who can't qualify for better employment.

Now, as a gesture of sharing what might not be already known, try using this --

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/07/biztech/articles/15sun.html">this</a>

which results in --

-- and makes it a lot easier for those anxious to quickly find out what you find so interesting.

Thanks, bob, I've been too lazy/busy to open up an HTML book. Although I prefer having the address right in front of me (for cut and paste reasons), I will start providing links, too.

Also, the point of the article was that we would have more than one (see, no smiley).

Doesn't the church say similar things about the Bible?

It also asasdfsumes that the observer doesn't affect the experiment in any way (ie the observer is experimenting on a closed system). We all know that there are no closed systems (with the possible exception of the entire universe).

Sorry about the 'asdf' -- the post wouldn't go through.

However, since one cannot measure certainty (unless one conducts the experiment at all points of space-time), one cannot quantitatively know the confidence level of this knowledge.

What happened before humans were around to have faith?

Because one must still have faith that the scientific method works for all problems. For example, you use a logical proof for the nonexistence of God to convince people. It doesn't work, yet you keep doing it. Tom Mowbray has said that this is a sign of insanity.

Wars and genocide have been around far longer than the Church has. Although the Church is guilty of such actions, it doesn't hold sole responsibility.

Do you now claim that groups of people (eg religious bodies and societies) are alive?

I agree.

I agree. Of course, you do know that this stance is anti-democratic ;) Isn't this the authoritarianism that we despise of structured religions?

Religion did/does serve a purpose. It bound people together into a community. It allayed peoples' fears. It's purpose has changed as the needs of societies changed. It may no longer be needed in some of today's societies, but it's gonna take some time to die.

I agree. However, it is reality that these people exist. They cannot be forcibly changed, nor will logic work on them. The ones trying to convert them would be better off spending their efforts elsewhere.

This is my stance.

I don't see why this would be a prerequisite, although it does make it more convincing.

Yes, the perceived safety in that, even if something is not known, it is knowable to an extent defined by the given science.

When gotten at the proper time in a society's development. The fears of the God-fearing must be dealt with in a manner they can accept -- they do make up for a sizable chunk of the population.

It can even give their economy a severely needed boost.

If scientific knowledge were complex enough (and I think you and I agree that it is), there will undoubtedly lie contradictions within it (as proven by Godel).

These are biased opinions of what is good and bad. Also, there are several ways to achieve the same goals. Furthermore, noone can say what lies ahead -- 50 years from now, society might be saying that technology X brought the downfall of society (read The Beggars in Spain trilogy for an example of this).

It depends on what society is ready for. If your statement were completely true, noone would opt for Microsoft.

I'm asdfuming these statistics were come by using twins separated at birth? To conduct such experiments involving clones would be unethical 'cos they would have to control the environment of these individuals.

This is interesting, however, not all religions (most notably the 'more primitive' ones) are such. I would be more apt to say that religion provides a service for its society (which is why certain religions are more popular in certain societies). As needs change, the religion either changes with it (as is evidenced with the Churches' morphisms) or it dies (as did mythologies).

I see, so I can be undecided about the existence of UFO's, God, and the tooth fairy until it's been proven either way?

Sock it to 'em.

I think this is changing -- I've always been proud to express my (changing) views.

And, in general all the unknowns we're faced with. So, I suppose I do agree with Tom and bob regarding the mutexness of Religion (using their definition here) and Science. I still contend, though, that Sprirituality and Science can be complementary.

They still rule many, many people.

There are other ways to rule.

It takes millenia for civilisations and religions to die.

I guess this summarizes my previous posts for the (archaic) need for religion.

Carl, is this the type of fanaticism you were describing?

I've seen studies based on twins separated at birth that would suggest a non-zero influence of genetics on personality.

I see. Kind of like how one can't be Christian and Hindu and the same time.

Wouldn't this have to be proven (in experiment, not in logical conjecture). Also, what time frame are we talking about (ie leading to hurt someone else in a day, a week, a lifetime)?

Read the post above about separated-at-birth twins.

I thought Godel already proved your statement is false -- any system has truths that are taken for granted or it contains contradictions within it. I think his example was 'The set of all sets that don't contain themselves'. This set neither exists nor is it non-existent.

Determinism says nothing about the behaviour of a system in the future.

Talk about bending words. The original question was if you had proof that humanity doesn't have a consciousness, not that we were all 'drones sharing a single consciousness'. Again, you seem to think that 'society' is not an entity in its own right.

I actually respect the latter less.

What do you mean by ideas. Chicks are born with the knowledge of how a hawk looks and flies.

I agree.

If we could get brain tissue to regenerate and we still have to observe that cloned parts aren't rejected.

Doesn't the church say similar things about the Bible?

It also assumes that the observer doesn't affect the experiment in any way (ie the observer is experimenting on a closed system). We all know that there are no closed systems (except possibly the entire universe itself).

However, since one cannot measure certainty (unless one conducts the experiment at all points of space-time), one cannot quantitatively know the confidence level of this knowledge.

What happened before humans were around to have faith?

Because one must still have faith that the scientific method works for all problems. For example, you use a logical proof for the nonexistence of God to convince people. It doesn't work, yet you keep doing it. Tom Mowbray has said that this is a sign of insanity.

It also assumes that the observer doesn't affect the experiment in any way (ie the observer is experimenting on a closed system). We all know that there are no closed systems (except possibly the entire universe itself).

It also assumes that the observer doesn't affect the experiment in any way (ie asdf the observer is experimenting on a closed system). We asdf all asdf know asdf that asdf there asdf are asdf no asdf closed asdf systems (with the possible exception of the entire universe).

Sorry about the 'asdf' -- the post wouldn't go through.

It can even give their economy a severely needed boost.

If scientific knowledge were complex enough (and I think you and I agree that it is), there will undoubtedly lie contradictions within it (as proven by Godel).

These are biased opinions of what is good and bad. Also, there are several ways to achieve the same goals. Furthermore, noone can say what lies ahead -- 50 years from now, society might be saying that technology X brought the downfall of society (read The Beggars in Spain trilogy for an example of this).

I actually respect the latter less.

What do you mean by ideas. Chicks are born with the knowledge of how a hawk looks and flies.

I agree.

If we could get brain tissue to regenerate and assuming that cloned parts aren't rejected (this still has to be observed).

America has successfully cloned millions of human sheep. What's the big deal?

Why, Daddy?

Because.

Why, Daddy?

Because!

Why, Daddy?

SHUT UP!

Noel Yap #4543

No, it is not, Sir Poseur! To disagree with you, or to express opinions based on historical fact, is not "fanaticism" -- but it is characteristic of you to so shamelessly describe whatever does not agree with your "changing" views.

Further, if you have comments on my postings, address them to me -- as I do mine to you and others -- not as some contumelious aside to one of your sycophants. Or, are you so fixed in practice of such McCarthy-like innuendo you are beyond reform?

"Changing" -- as from posting to posting. On reviewing your more recent postings, I see you writhe, burrow, and flip, just to effect a pretended dispassionate attitude 'a la guru'. You are no Socratic 'gadfly', stirring the conscience of the people, merely an opportunistic canine nipping at the heels of those actually in the lists. Express an opinion of your own; or have you ever had one?

Well, perhaps, in order to do a really scientific, double blind-type study, but the twin studies you referred to separately were not controlled in this sense, and they are probably useful and provide useful data. And, you know, I recently read an article that mentioned that this type of argument can be used to say that clinical trials are unethical.

At least chickens appear to be instinctively afraid of a hawk, and if this is not the equivalent of an idea, I would think that it would have to be considered close to an idea. The migration patters of some birds are also very remarkable. This knowledge of which way to fly and where to go appears to be the result of something in main memory for which no environmental reason can be found. Or at least this appears to be the case.

Personally, I am of the opinion that practically everything considered "human" is genetic.

I assert that there are such rights. I agree that when "rights", are threatened many people will fight to defend them. Others will submit and loose part of their humanity which can include many types of freedom.

Cloning like all technological advances allows many more rights to be expressed.

.........

In the "religion of science" there have arisen a group of what I call "Stop Sign Ecologists" they run around and say "don't touch it" to anyone who is going to effect the environment. They seem to believe that only man is unnatural and should be constrained.

These are the same freeks who allowed several million square miles of natural forest in Yellowstone to burn unchecked a few years ago. They were also responsible for the totally unfounded allar apple scare in Washington state that caused the farmers some 164 million dollars.

I beleive that their kith will attempt to make human cloning illegal. (laws have allready been passed in several states)

This is an attractive doctrine, Carl. However, unless you are willing to stipulate that other animals have similar rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as humans, then you must assume that there is some significant (perhaps, spiritual?) difference between humans and other animals. I find myself unwilling to stipulate that other animals have such rights since that would seem to be a slippery slope indeed, and I see no evidence that there is any significant difference between humans and other animals with respect to rights, except our ability to fight for them effectively. Therefore, attractive though it is, I disagree with you in this respect.

Carl, again I have misunderstood you. I thought your concern was the religious right, and that made little sense to me, since their influence is relatively small and dwindling. But I think I see your point here. I have not previously thought of it this way before, but I must admit that this group, principally represented by the current Vice President, is one that does have significant power and influence, one that is on the rise, and one that might conceivably represent a significant threat to rights that we hold dear, all in the name of the ecology. But I hesitate to mention this too loudly. I think we are getting very close to the nearest thing to heresy that we have in this country.

Well it all use to be very clear. Humans had a language and they used tools. Animals didn't. Now we find that some animals do fashion and use primitive tools and we are teaching animals to sign. We also have the dolphin that must have a language because they can teach each other tricks when all they have is a sound link between each other.

We are already on the slippery slope. The two elements that are going to send us plunging into the unknown abyss are human interspeciation (still a closed subject) and transgenic cloning and Gen. Eng. ( tricky business )

As far as religions go the present examples of monotheism are just not going to cut it. It is moral and ethical vacuum time. Basically we are doing acrobatics at 20,000 feet without a net.

BTW the last commission on cloning came very close to violating the seperation of church and state. IMHO

This practice of quoting the quoted quoter (for inordinately lengthy bombards) is going to result in the equivalent of a Wagnerian opera, wherein each new character re-tells the whole story up to their entrance. How's about using those 'Oh, so convenient' posting numbers to reference the target text?

Also, unless you use a copy/post procedure, you're going to 'fold, spindle, or mutilate' words, etc.; as in "areoriginal patent" vs. "are the original patent" (that such exquisite, timeless prose should be represented in other than its original, pristine form is nigh to bring tears to the eyes of the literate).

Beall #4556

Instinct and tropism are contra-indicative of ideation.

Also, if I remember the particulars correctly, the chicks reacted to the silhouette of the hawk when it was passed above them, with 'tail' trailing; and ignored it when it was passed in reverse, with 'tail' preceding (which effected the silhouette of a harmless duck). They showed no recognition of a hawk relative to other profiles.

Hear! Hear! Right on target. The true horror of Hitler, Stalin, et al, is not that they were "a beast, that wants discourse of reason" (that Billy sure could write it), but that they were fully human. No "beast" (animal) hates (can hate) and abuses its own species as do humans.

And, how can we (humans) violate such species-specific behavior? I think that our intensely individualistic mentalities (brains) make us, each, sui generis. Further, the spectrum of activity that is included under the cloak of human far exceeds that recognized as such by the 'proper' sort -- as science learns to accept anew with each passing experience.

Nicolai #4557

Take care to assert while in the appropriate society. Try it in China! Or Albania! Or pick your own favourite sphere of tyranny.

The concept of personal "rights" is meaningful only in the context of a society which recognizes reciprocal respect and due process. As with 'Law', 'personal rights' without ability of enforcement is meaningless -- which brings one right to the precipice of 'might makes right'! Run with it!

It is now known that the 'Indians' (American aborigines -- who really respected and loved Natue) recognized the rejuvenative value of 'over-burning' long before we assumed 'husbandry' of the land. You just don't keep up with what's going on. Also, have you been to Mt. St. Helens? -- how are you going to stop Nature from enjoying that sort of play? Though I am outraged at the 'logging' of Redwoods, etc., capable of living thousands of years, the passing of parts of relatively 'ephemeral' forests is a simple fact of Nature.

Such states are like 'red-light districts' -- they relieve some of the 'religious' steam. Besides, do you really think much scientific experimentation is going to 'sojourn' itself in such intellectual 'black holes'?

Nicolai #4559

If Robertson, Falwell, Helms (Hehms), Lott, et al, have their way, you won't be able to stick a razor blade between the crack.

The real political weakness of secular humanism is that its adherents are not innately 'fanatic' enough to want to impose their 'beliefs' on others (they're too busily involved in real-life, reasonable, pursuits).

And the real hypocrisy of (organized) 'religion' is that, though it claims its interest is in the 'afterlife', it strives endlessly to intrude into, and control, this (only) life.

Organized 'religion' is nothing more than an attempt to establish a 'provenance to rule' based on 'authority' beyond the challenge of contemporary rivals. Every 'religion' strives for theocracy; but, it's never the theo that rules -- only the charlatans that presume to speak in its stead.

Nicolai #4557

(almost missed this one ..., but it 'called' to me)

Such statistics are readily available on the web to anyone with sufficient (not that much, really) industry and respect for facts.

Cloning is just another way for people to reproduce. It doesn't matter what method is used to create more people, they will still be human and deserve all the rights and considerations as anyone else.

Identical twins are "natural" clones of each other but are seperate distinct human beings, it doesn't matter that their DNA is identical, they are people just like anyone else.

The knowledge and abilities gained directly and indirectly through scientific fields such as animal and plant cloning research will enable people to learn more about medicene and boost productivity and decrease suffering from starvation and dieases.

All life must adapt and adjust to suvive, people reason and learn. It is natural and essential to survival that people continually learn and change themselves and the world around them: from fire, farming, houses, medicene to spacecraft, genetic engineering and beyond.

We must be careful not to be reckless and irrational, but we can't stick our head into the sand and ignore the good technology and science can bring (just because we don't want the responsibility to not misuse it or deal with the resulting changes in society). To ignore its promise would condem civilization just as sure as blatent misuse of technology (and the irrational, ignorace and fear of its results).

(For example there is nothing wrong with allowing infertile people who wish to have children (and can be responsible parents), have children that are genetic clones of themeselves -- the babies whould be tottally different people with different minds, personalities, histories, etc. -- But we would need to be sure people did not irrationally and fearfully mistreat, fear, or single them out because of their origin)

To develop the science of genetics and cloning, (as well as all other sciences) gives us the chance of a better future if we would not otherwise have.

Carl: I was intrigued at first by the idea of my own clone, but after a lot of thought and the birth of my first grandchild by ordinary means, I decided it was a bad idea. My own natural born children , my siblings and parents are so different from me that I always longed for a twin.

I'd say identical twins are clones, although it might be impossible to identify which is the clonee. The fertilized zygote is produced sexually, but the splitting off of the identical cell is an asexual process that doesn't occur very often. Like yeast reproduce both sexually by fusion of haploid cells and asexually by budding of diploid cells.

Noel, Cliff: My memory, which isn't always that acurate, seems to recall that the Minnesota Twins study of identical twins separated at birth gave about a 70% concordance of a panel of personality traits. Some of the examples were quite remarkable--like always flushing the toilet before use.

bob faulkner: If no animals are as evil as humans, it may be because they aren't as clever. Jane Goodall has recorded instances of murder and cannibalism among primates--rare, but it happens.

All: Newsmagazines are featuring stories on science and God, saying that many scientists now accept at least the "first cause." It is strange, but reporters seem to think that if scientists accept a belief in God, it must be so. As far as I could tell, no scientist that was interviewed was a creationist.

Dawn Willis #4566

Don't recall having put it exactly that way; but I certainly wouldn't argue against the idea that they "aren't as clever." What else significantly differentiates us? (please, no one harp on gross morphology).

Knew about the Jane Goodall study. Perhaps you are not aware that male lions, 'deposing' the leader and taking over a 'pride', kill all the cubs -- it immediately brings all the females to estrus (with predictable, ensueing fun and games), effectively guaranteeing that all new offspring are theirs. The same 'practice' is true of certain baboons.

Clever? Who knows? Evil? Lower animals are beyond 'Good' and 'Evil'; they simply 'are'. Murder? A human, legal term, not applicable to lower animals.

P.S. You might note that I took care (in this posting) to specify lower animals -- not simply animals. Being neither mineral nor plant, I readily accept my appropriate biological classification as animal.

To 'schmooze' over the difference between natural 'twinning' and either natural or artificially induced 'cloning' is just more evidence of the constantly demonstrated tendency of the lay public to over-generalize and, particularly, to misuse any technical term they choose to 'appropriate'.

To say that one twin is the 'clone' of the other is absurd. There is no "the splitting off of the identical cell". The division of the blastomere is of equal parts, always -- which is why the birth of triplets or quintuplets always means the early pre-development death (and resorption) of one of the pre-embryonic divisions.

How long before we all break into a chorus of that ridiculous ditty "I'm My Own Grandpa"?

I don't believe that cloning is just another way to reproduce. Human twins have DNA from both mother and father, which makes them unique.If twenty-two years ago, I had been cloned from my mother's DNA, only, then I wouldn't be able to tell if her twenty-two year old picture was her or me,(this may cuse some future genelogical problems). Cows and sheep probably don't care whether they have the fathers DNA or not, because the male isn't involved after conception, the way the mother is.My dad and I both, would feel cheated if I had none of his looks or physiological traits.

I know that one opinion cannot stop the abuse of this discovery. So, I think that if humans are to be made that the public should be the deciders on how and when a cloan can legally be made, this would require a voting system. The information about cloaning would need to be as wide spread as A.I.D.S. awareness is, on a permanent basis. When the vote takes place, the voters should be required to attend an intensly, informative seminar or class. And possibly pass a written exam to assure the rest of us, that each voter is making an informed decission. I would like to know if there are any professional opinions out ther from a mental point of view? I suspect that there might be a significant jump and steady rise in numbers of 'Idenity Crisis' patients.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my opinion. I have children of my own, and everything we, as adults do now, WILL affect my kids and thier kids in the future. I have a responsibility to them, as thier gateway to the future, to be always be proud of the decisions I make as a member of society.

Carl, the religious right is still trying, but they have a problem. Their problem is that nobody takes them seriously. It is very tough trying to play the authoritarian when people are laughing at you. A few years ago, tele-evangelism was in ascendancy and it appeared that the religious right was a gathering force to be reckoned with. But a couple of sex scandals later, they have become almost irrelevant. I must say that I was impressed with the Pope in Cuba. With Cuba as the backdrop, the Pope looked good, but I think it was, more or less, an exception. Overall, I think you are probably right.

I disagree. I think it is a strength. These days, fewer and fewer people want to be told what to do. I think that being a "fanatic" and trying to "impose" one's beliefs is actually a weakness.

In examining my own thoughts on the matter, I find that I do not think it must be so, but I do think it is interesting. I would also note that for a reporter, anything that is interesting is significant. I would therefore guess that for most reporters, it is not significant in the sense that it must be so, but it is significant in the sense that it is interesting and will sell newsmagazines.

I am surprised that a sophisticated city lad like yourself would even have heard of that Lonzo and Oscar song. It is a bit hillbilly even for a country lad like myself.

On contentious groups, unlike the mostly polite one here, CNN blows off a lot of posts so using the number produces errors. By a right button click on the # and select copy link you can post the Posters name and time date stamp.

bob: I am not sure we have a lot of substantive areas to argue about. The point of the Yellowstone post was that a rational being would discover a way to manage a forest and produce the benefits of fire cleansing without the destructive action, including air pollution, of an uncontrolled fire.

I would merely like to raise one point into this discussion. The government will do as it pleases. What we the people have to say on the whole thing doesn't truelly matter to the politicians. Sure they may agree with one side or the other when election time rolls around, but do you think that we will hear another peep out of them during the following two or four years? I'm not saying that you shouldn't be discussing things because of that, I am merely saying that perhaps you should think about it....

Another ''weakness '' of secular humanists is that they tend to be cerebral academics who place a premium on free inquiry,intellectual autonomy and philosophical pursuits. They are a fractious, contentious lot, with substantial division within their own ranks about what secular humanism is and what its agenda should be. Most also have a strong aversion to proselytizing,arbitrary authority, and conformity. Religious fundamentalism thrives on the latter and thus has been far more succesful in recruiting adherents, grassroots organizing, and exercising substantial influence on social, scientific, and political issues.Meanwhile, secular humanists have been engaged in their own internal variation on the ancient theological question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

] Carl: I was intrigued at first by the idea of my own clone, but after a lot of thought and the birth of my first grandchild by ordinary means, I decided it was a bad idea. My own natural born children , my siblings and parents are so different from me that I always longed for a twin.

Ya! I think I know how you feel. I had a child late in life and have no desire at this time for a clone because I love what I have and I love diversity. However I refuse to have my reproductive rights messed with by any government. Population control via what communist china does to it's citizens is not an internal mater to me. Forced abortion and punitive sterilization is an inhuman use of state power. I understand there is an active government positive trait eugenics program also in China. Basically I can tolerate a certain amount of semi rational government in a free democratically controlled republic, but there are limits. Sorry if my concerns come off as rage.

----Cont----

----Cont----

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the clones are of the original cell, which after division, no longer exists. I guess the two resultant cells and beings are best called sister clones and began to develop a unique character from that moment on.

I am, like many others, totally fascinated by the idea of age differentiated clones, as they, by being born in a different time frame, should be much more mentally different than ordinary identical twins. I guess we could always bud and freeze an IVF zygote.

Also there is the matter of different cytoplasm and how it relates to traits. We should be able to do much of this work with animals however.

A careful reading of the committee report on human cloning reveals several things . First the report *touches* on virtually all concerns. Secondly people "representing" only monotheistic religions were included and they were not interviewed, they were a part of the process. Thirdly The results seem to have been a foregone conclusion. Fourthly their suggestions reflected the political reality that the U.S. can pressure other countries to aid in the suppression of human cloning in a manner similar to the Interpol effort to control drug trafficking. Fifthly their concern over the repression of human cloning seem limited to the economic concerns in inhibiting the ability of U.S. companies to compete in the world market for Gen. Eng. products.

I think the Japanese have given us a wake up call. We would be well advised to heed it.

The image of "the government" as a monolithic entity fascinates me. If this is the case, how do you explain "gridlock." It appears to me that there are as many opinions in government as there are people in government. To me, the most interesting thing about successful politicians is that while they appear to be people much like other people, they were somehow able to get themselves elected to positions of relative power and influence.

I would say it is probably okay, most of the time, for elected politicians to set policy.

If CNN "blows off" the referenced post, won't the 'right button click' trick be defeated also?

I accept the "point of the Yellowstone post", but I submit that there is (should be) a reasonable minimum on hyperbole: "several millions of square miles" could (depending on the value of "several") exceed the area of (at least) the 'contiguous 48'. I visited Yellowstone in '96 (1996, for y2k purists) and found the burn-out just a temporary eye-sore in a not especially outstanding area of the park. It might 'spoil' a (part of) a sight-seeing trip, but, to Nature, it's just a passing (and probably beneficent) 'scratch'.

Can't understand why you would associate the word "science" with those 'freaks'.

Almost blew right past "... their own internal variation... " and was ready to suggest that secular humanists would hardly be debating anything about 'angels' (unless they were looking for some sort of 'funding'); and your appositive profiles certainly 'ring the bell'.

C'mon, be real! What are you going to do? Shoot 'em with your 'pop-gun'? The best we all can do is maintain vigilance and opposition to extremism, and support and defend the freedoms we have -- and strive for more!

Gladly, as follows (from Merriam-Webster) (again?):

The words "progeny" and "individual" are at least as important as "asexually". The implication of a 'child' proceeding from an 'adult' (but 'asexually') is clear enough to any unbiased reader. For a good example, consider the simple hydra, they 'do it' with a-sybaritic abandon.

Also, your original cells "no longer exist", just as the body totally replaces (but with diminishing precision in DNA replication) all its cells over several periods of a lifetime. "I think" and "I guess" just don't cut it when referring to things already clearly defined by recognized, competent, sources!

("Sophisticated city lads" like myself know of such insipid cacophony as a result of the lamentable noise pollution in cities. But I am (very) pleased to state that I could never have identified either of the associated perpetrators, "Lonzo" or "Oscar".)

To suggest that humans reproduce like yeast (or any other 'simililarly inclined' organism) demonstrates not only a basic misunderstanding of the subject, but even a paucity of imagination. Try justifying the image of an adult human being either splitting down the center or splitting off a subordinate portion of itself, resulting (immediately) in the original human being and its (immediately) viable asexual offspring. That would be the equivalent of humans reproducing like yeast. To claim anything else is just 'schmoozing' with words to verbally support an rationally insupportable position. You simply must accept the demonstrable fact that 'simpler' forms of life can do things we can't do.

According to a (today's) Excite Science News article, looks like those 'clever' porpoises (dolphins, whatever) are also into the infanticide schtick. Dead porpoise 'calves' are 'turning up' all over, with clear signs of 'pummeling' typical of that done by adult males. The article clearly implies the work of porpoise 'stepfathers' who don't see the point of "... hanging around for two years with the wrong male's calf." Pretty soon, we humans won't be able to claim any uniquely differentiating behavioral attributes.

Bob, I believe I prefaced that remark with: "These days, fewer and fewer people want to be told what to do."

Perhaps your rejoinder might have been appropriate three hundred years ago. I do not think it is today. Look at the facts. The Soviet "Empire" is no more. The "Revolution" in Cuba is in trouble. Most American Catholics practice birth control despite the fact that the church frowns on it. Never mind that three hundred years ago, kings were believed to have a "divine right" to "rule." Most people, these days, do not accept, or respect, any such right and have no desire to be "ruled." I think what this means is that any organization, religious or otherwise, whose stock in trade is telling people what to do, is in trouble--these days, regardless of what might have been the case three hundred years ago. What happened three hundred years ago simply does not apply today. Today, it is a whole different game with totally different rules.

We are in agreement as regards the difference in advantage with the difference in times. My reading of the argument regards those who would impose their 'religious' beliefs or bias on others. That the 'religionists' are in decline is true generally (delighted with the Baptist boycott of Disney -- not having a ready hole to trip them, they dug one of their own); but they will fight on, and anyone who values personal freedom (not license) must be ready to check their every advance.

For an excellent treatment of the collusion between 'church' and 'state' (until 'church' got so greedy it tried to absorb 'state') read John Nowell's translation of Richard Friedenthal's "Luther His Life and Times". The significance of the work is its excellent treatment of Luther's 'times', when the 'church' was openly (and correctly) referred to in the most expletory terms.

P.S. If you liked John in Cuba, how did you like him mis-leading his 'flock' by kneeling before that fake 'icon', the 'Shroud'? His predecessors in the 14th century properly identified it as the fake it is (and must be); but anything that unites the 'faithful' (and brings in a little 'pourboire') just must be encouraged.

bob faulkner: In the lab, when we select individual mammalian cells with variant characteristics from a population of cells and grow more of them, we say that we have "cloned" that cell. We do the same with yeast and bacteria. Maybe we use the wrong term according to the dictionary, but it is pretty accepted in cell biology circles to use the term "clone" that way.

Carl: Your suggestion about IVF is intriguing, and within the realm of current technology. Since we can take an IVF embryo at the four to eight cell stage and grow each cell to the blaustua, pre-implantation stage, wouldn't we have "cloned" or asexually reproduced all of the copies? It isn't the same as somatic cell nuclear transfer, but if we put aside three of the embryos for implantation at some later point(s) in time, would this process be covered by the proposed legislation? If the original turned out to be worth replicating, we could have another--if not, let the embryos stay frozen forever!

I see that the Chinese are interested in cloning pandas using egg cytoplasm and a surrogate mother from another species. And no doubt the orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians are interested in cloning a perfect red heifer to have around when the temple is rebuilt in the end-times.

I am grateful for the things we have learned from science. The fact that we can grow skin to graft on to a burn victem is wonderful. I just hope that the science community has the wisdom to stop before they step on Gods toes.

Puleez! a writer suggested that if we go too far with cloning we might step on God's toes. Has he not heard? God aint got toes.

I must qualify my stand. While the scientific method and the mystic method may be mutually exclusive, each can be applied by the same person to different problems. A person decides which problems he wishes to tackle, and, depending upon what the problem is, decides the method he wishes to use. For example, in the situation regarding a death of a loved one, one must decide whether the problem is the death, or whether it's the grieving. Most people will tackle the grieving by praying (or whatever). This same person, while applying religion to the grieving may apply the scientific method to designing compressed natural gas (CNG) stations.

Yes, but a person can be either of these two depending on what role he wants to play.

As Godel has proved, there are contradictions in any complex system.

I agree.

Water-fountain politics exists. You can label it as "bad", but that won't make it go away. Why not apply the scientific method to deal with it?

You can complain (or pray, ...) about a problem or you can do something about it.

Maybe. Sometimes it can be changed.

Isn't this the ultimate skeptic?

I think we shouldn't totally prevent abuses. Mistakes lead to new paths of discovery.

bob faulkner - 02:47pm Jul 16, 1998 ET (#4553 of 4554)

Notice who's doing the growing and who's doing the stagnating.

Just goes to show how little faith I have.

Amazing how it seems that the 'scientists' on this board are the ones who spew the most personal attacks. And, OK, I'll bite, I do come by my own ideas every now and then. It's not often, but how many of us actually do come up with brand new contributions. So, seeing my own limitations of non-originality, my usual mode of working is researching what's out there and testing to see if it works -- no sense reinventing the wheel. If my research turns up nothing, I will invent.

There is a difference. If there weren't, we wouldn't have different meanings for the words "human" and "animal."

Yes! Clone, Clone, Clone. Natural breeding has created a planet of idjits. In all things, extremes have to be avoided. We will avoid the extreme Relgious Right and we will avoid making a Religion out of Science. BUT - Please let Science have a go! We are only just beginning.

Oh , I see! Now we are on to the fact that animals and hoomans are different. Thats like saying there is no different between an Asian and a Caucasion. Of course, any one can see the difference. Just because there is a difference doesn't give anyone lee-way to treat "the different one" with any less respect than we treat ourselves. All species are conscious entities and in that they can "perceive" . If they can Perceive, they can Aperceive. Its called the Law of duality. If you were to Aperceive a little more you would see their really was very little difference between Animals and Hoomans:)

Well how should I say this? How about "ABSOLUTELY NOT",cloning could be the complete down-fall to man,in more than one way. First, DNA, should not be messed with by man, due to how complex the subject could/can get. Second, there will be cloning to man, no matter what- this is obvious, because of the fact that to find cures for such incurable dieseases, like AIDS, Cancer, what have you. You need to know how the cure will react/correspond with the human body. That is simple logic, who will be the individuals that will put themselves up for this expierement? They will probably be the class of society, starting with the ones that do not really have much say. For example the real poor or prisoners, this country has no right to take an individuals right of being an individual away, what i mean by that is that a person holds traits, characteristics, personality differences, eyes, everything.....even thier freedom of speech...freedom of this and that you know...what our country is known for. Touching/expierementing with an individual should be againts the laws of man, if anything should be! Do to the fact that your not just messing with someones external, or internal part, you are touching thier "roots", the DNA, that made them, it should be immoral to every degree. Third, in a religious sense, we as human beings do not have the right to touch God's creations, to the degree of replication amoung man/woman/child/embryo. This completes my opinion on the issue, I really hope people realize that thier would be more starvation, homelessness, diesease from a higher amount of people within the over-all population, please congress, and scientists and researchers, should all think twice, stop the MADNESS before it begins, IT IS NOT TOO LATE AT THIS POINT IN TIME!!!!! T.F.

I normally do not like to get too involved in the religion vs. science debate but I do have a couple of comments.

Scott Adams, in his book "Dilbert Future", states that all human beings are "stupid, selfish, and horny." My observations of my fellow man confirm this statement. Religion seems to work very hard to curb the latter two human traits. There is not too much that can be done about stupidity (even scientists haven't found a way to cure it) but if you take away selfishness and horniness, stupidity is a little less dangerous.

The fact is, people want to be led. They may think that they are thinking for themselves but 99% of all thoughts that people have are unoriginal. Most thoughts are just regurgitations of what someone else has already said. Not only do we do this all the time, but we think that if we put quotation marks around the thought and put a name to it, we somehow look even smarter.

People always look to 'experts' to tell them what to do. It is just random as to whether people pick scientists or religious experts to follow. Most people mentally drift back and forth between these groups of experts.

I had written about 200 hundred posts ago about some of my problems with human cloning. There were about 4 or 5 issues that I had raised but the only one that got any response was my objection to calling human cloning a "right".

Maybe it is because we all have different ideas as to what a right actually is. The word is so overused that it doesn't hold much meaning anymore. I would assert that most people consider anything that they want to do IS a right. And, anything that they don't want other people to do IS NOT a right.

My main fear of human cloning is that arrogant, self-impressed jerks with lots of money will clone themselves several times over and the rest of the population will get stuck living with these jerks. The last thing we need is more jerks.

Tina wrote:

You're so right, since we don't fully understand a subject, we should stay away from it! Knowledge is bad, bad! And while we're at it, let's throw away any medical knowledge we've gained in the last 200 years...after all, the body is complex, wouldn't want to tamper with it. And space travel? Sheesh...the complex physics...forget it.

I am quite certain that there are many, many people out there with terminal diseases that are willing to participate in experimental medical studies to find cures -- after all, the worst that can happen is you will die -- but that is going to happen anyway. We won't need clones for this.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. We shouldn't clone because people are unique? Cloning is no different, genetically, than a man-made twin. Should we outlaw birthing twins?

Well -- I had a lot more post there, but apparently CNN has limited the length one can post -- of course, the posting box doesn't enforce this rule. How about raising the limit so we can actually make a reply longer than the 30-second blurbs of news we get on CNN.

Thanks!

Anyway, on with cloning!