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.
Ok, lets look at it another way. What right, does a group of people have to control my reproduction? Where is the danger to their society in having an age differentiated twin?
In accent Japan natural twins were looked upon as an evil and the second born one was killed. Is it tolerable that our society can similarly view a wanted child and enact laws that prevent "the attempt" to bear one, weather by cloning or any other "assisted means"?
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.
So jerks should be prohibited from having children? Or children of identical genetics? Do you really believe that twins are not capable of making their own choices weather born together or at different times? Is jerkiness an inherited trait?
What steps do you think the FDA should take to control cloning?
I think the FDA should make sure that food and drugs are pure and contain adequate warnings as to their proper use. That's it. Nothing else. Just do their job. Stick to being civil servants instead of trying to become civil masters.
Could cloning be the solution to the problem of endangered species?
No question about it. The genome of all species will have to be decoded and analyzed.
Tina Fox 7/22/98 10:09pm....................
... stop the MADNESS before it begins, IT IS NOT TOO LATE AT THIS POINT IN TIME!!!!! T.F.
It is not only "too late" it is way too late.
Cloning is a part of science which man should not endevor. The repercussions of cloning humans is far too great. Playing "God" is something no man has the right to do. Nature has setup its ways of reproduction, good or bad. Mans interference with that is trying to control a force greater than them.
buster mcqueen - 03:25pm Jul 23, 1998 ET (#4603 of 4642)Why should we clone if the world is always growing? would this not increase the overpopulation problem?
Question about cloning: Is each copy or generation exactly the same as the previous or are there small variations in the genetic material due to environmental stresses such as ionizing radiation, free radicals, and/or mutagens? Is the original copy of DNA subject to entropy through time?
I wonder if our world will turn into a specific book that I had read in english class. Do you remember Brave New World? IF not go to your local library and get it.
The question is. Is our natural way of increasing our population going to be taken over by cloning humans and testtube babies? Shouldn't it just be used for making organs so that we may survive a little longer?
Question about cloning:
Q: Is each copy or generation exactly the same as the previous or are there small variations in the genetic material due to environmental stresses such as ionizing radiation, free radicals, and/or mutagens? Is the original copy of DNA subject to entropy through time?
A: Good question. This is an issue raised by using DNA from mature donor cells (ie adult cells). DNA is always under attack and is always repairing itself, but with age mutations are inevitable. For example, when your skin cells can no longer keep up with sun damage, skin cancer can result.
FWIW- The first use for cloning in humans will be to help couples conceive after IVF(in vitro fertilization) and other interventions have failed. Indeed, the same kinds of hysterical objections were raised when IVF first came out. The sooner the technology is available, the better.
see also: http://www.press1.com/current/clone/
I think cloning would be great now you have someone new to blame I did't do it my clone did that way you could be perfect!!!!
Another question. Should we be afraid that some world leader will use this technology for something it should't. Example: Hitler's experiments for the super soldier?
Throughout history advances in technology have been treated by the spiritual community as heresies. The enlightenment and its progress in rational science offers a ready example. The church opposed these advances on the grounds of contraventing the natural spiritual laws of the universe.Fortunately, for our well-being rationalism has won out in these battles over the centuries. Cloning is just another one of these battles. We must choose between what is thought to be spiritually "correct" and the implicit need for humans to advance and better themselves through the application of technique and technology as a mechanism of survival.
People are afraid about dying. Yet without cloning people will still never die as long as they are remembered in spirit.
Shouldn't we set the doom's day clock ahead based on the realities associate with cloning?
I have occasionally researched the cloning topic, and feel that it is not to be taken lightly the research could be well in good if it is used for proper reasons. However if people try to act God then we are asking for trouble. Scientists tried the test tube baby routine and failed then came the cloning idea. My question is whats next. Remember that the only true science is math. Numbers never lie. Cloning is nowhere near being a true science we have no idea as to what could come about if we decide to play God.
Michael Brewster - 03:52pm Jul 23, 1998 ET (#4613 of 4642)Re: The Doctor who said cloned humans would not have souls. The human cloning experiment MUST be done to test the religious hypothesis that human beings have souls
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." What is preventing ANY government from corrupting the knowledge society would gain from cloning?! I am going into the medical field - DVM, to be exact - and the only valid reason I can think of for cloning is saving endangered species and organ transplant. But HUMAN replicas? I know that I don't want a copy of myself to live again sometime down the road. I am not DEVOUTLY religious but I do have my morals, and that is why I am going into the science field I am going in to. My moral conflicts are NOT by any means clouding my opinion on human cloning, but instead my CONSCIENCE is telling me that the 'secret' of cloning will not be safe - due to either dictators or greedy governments - and that dangerous things WILL happen, for instance on the black market (where they are already selling organs!).
The only thing left to say is that messing with this stuff will prove to be dangerous to almost every facet of life - and not just human life, to existence iin general!
The world is over populated as it is... the numbers of people are increasing at a astronomical rate every day... If we start prologing life longer then it should naturally by fate... then by keeping them alive the world will suffer a horrible fate of lack of space, food and rights... cause then what will we do when we run out of space??? move to mars?... think about the long term affects!!!
CLONED BODYPARTS IS ONE THING, HUMAN BEINGS IS A CRIME AGINST NATURE, AND GOD
I have to say that I do agree with Bill Nye when he said that it is not the experiences that makes a person, that instead the genetic make-up of the person has already essentially pre-determined what the person will be like. Of course, as we grow older we learn fron experiences, but I think that the way we reacted initially to problems we were first presented with, was the way our genes "told" us to react.
I AGREE WITH YOU STEVEN!
Also, I believe we should look at (and concern ourselves with) the problems WE have created (i.e. pollution, over-population), and attempt to solve those. I know that life does not work by solving ONE PROBLEM AT A TIME, that would be ineffiecient, but wouldn't it also be ineffiecient to bring more "unnecessary" lives into an already over- populated, 'dirty' world?
JEEZ!
It seems people keep forgetting that if we clone a person, we only copy their body, not their mind or thier opinions. There is no way of really telling wether or not the clone will behave like his/her donor.
Christine - I was watching Dateline, I believe it was, last night and they aired a story about boys who, at birth, surgically had their genitals changed to that of a girl. As the children developed, it was apparent that most of them displayed boy like behavier, in play and otherwise. Most even at a later age declared themselves male. This shows that somehow, there are some aspects of humans that are pre-programmed (pardon my word choice.) Experience does effect development and a persons way of thinking, but genes are responsible for much more than we have previously thought.
Paul --
Yes, I saw that too. I was disgusted by the doctors' attitude of "Yeah, so we messed up. But so what?!" Yeah, all they did was ruin at least one person's life by their "GODLY" opinions of themselves, and who knows how many of those children will end up like that one guy. That show scared me to think what science will be capapble of in the years to come!
YES PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF DIEING. WE CANT JUST KEEP SAVING LIVES THOUGH. THE WORLD HAS ALREADY BEGAN THE PROCESS OF OVER POPULATION. DESEASES WERE HERE AND ARE HERE FOR A REASON. I AM NOT A SICK PERSON, BUT FOR THESE REASONS, I THINK THAT EXTANSIVE MEDICAL RESEARCH IS KIND OF OUT OF HAND. CANCER KILLS MANY PEOPLE AND SO DOES AIDS. WE PRODUCE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO KEEP A LEVEL PACE. IF WE START CLONING HUMANS AND ORGANS, WE WILL BECOME OVERWELLMINGLY OVER POPULATED. THE RESULTS COULD BE SO HORRIBLE NOT EVEN THE HUMAN MIND COULD UNDERSTAND.
Paul Stucky - 04:14pm Jul 23, 1998 ET (#4623 of 4642)One man said that we are coming ever closer to immortality. The question is not whether the technology is there, because in theory, it already is. The question is whether it is right to cheat death and live in this existence forever. The market that could be created by harvesting organs could potentially become one where the extremely wealthy would be the only ones with access to this technology, and it could easily be abused. Essentially anyone with the means could live forever. Not only does this raise theological issues, but economical one. Instead of being a service, cloning would just be another business.
Is there anyone who agrees with my opinion?
Why is it that animals have been able to survive (for the most part) with the diseases they are afflicted with? Why aren't ALL animals dead? Why aren't they all SICK? Because they populate at MODERATE rate, and the sick get and old get singled out. It's their method of population control. Once cloning begins, who knows what kind of unforeseen genetic mishaps (diseases) might form!!!!!
Yes. Me.
Paul -- You said that so eloquently. That's basically what I said before. All cloning will become is a monopoly, just like "Windows 98." But so few people think like that because they want to see it happen, and they argue that by the time it will be successful, humanity will have changed... HA HA HA!
My belief is that we are meant to die. Yes, we are able to live forever, but we should know that this is not the way life is meant to work.
I agree with you Christine. We should let nature controll our deseases. I can understand the pain of a person that is in need of an organ, but you must except that. I lost my grandfather to prostate concer a few years ago. before cloning was ever a thought. even then we new of a our state of being in our world. not to choose whether we live or die but to except.
Cloning will be one of the best things to happen to the world. Through cloning we will be able to unlock the secrets of our DNA, once the human genome project has been completed; we will be able to produce new organs for sick people (either new human organs or pig organs with human characteristics which they are working on now); we will find cures to more diseases; we will be able to stop birth defects, and many other fascinating uses.
Leaving religion out of this, this could be one of the greatest technological advances ever. The benefits far out weigh the detriments.
As for misusing the technology, it is a possible, but unlikely, chance. It took approximately 300 zygotes in order to produce one cloned sheep, and as for the "Super Soldier", I'll just hop on down to Clones 'R' Us, order up some soldiers, and in just under 20 years they'll be ready to fight. Cloning is just starting to bloom, and whether our so called God can accept it, we'll have to wait and see.
The cloning debate is very healthy. Science should be allowed to go forth with reasonalbe testing to ensure cloning can be done with high success rates. Cloning will allow for organs that are not rejected by the body. People with life-threatening diseases now will have a chance to remove a diseased organ and survive. Cloning takes us as a society to a new level. Cloning is taking medicine to new heights. I welcome more responsible testing. And cloning also opens up whole new questions about religion, theology, and God. The scientific community has always frowned upon the idea of a God. When cloning in humans occurs one day, will they have a soul? They obviously were created by humans. I must then ask the question, one that must be tackled as this debate rages on, is there a God? Will cloning allow us a chance to see DNA first-hand. Will we know and unlock the secrets of life. I must say, this is all very exciting. Science is one step closer to understanding life and in turn the universe.
Wow, I really didn't know that there were this manny people against cloning - at least not according to that poll CNN is conducting. It's comforting to know that there are some people that believe in life the way it is meant to be lived - born, live (have fun), die. That's the way it has been since the beginning.
Anyway, it's been a lot of fun and intriguing, but I need to get back to studying...
-Christine- [email protected] Live near NYC, going to Tulane University...
Tchuess!
Not to start any type of religious quarrel, but I believe it is something like 85% of the worlds population believe in a higher power and the idea of life after death. I am not Christian, nor do I classify myself in any other religion (in fact, I used to be Atheist), but I know that the Creator has a plan for everyone, and that includes leaving this existence. I am anxious to see what is on the other side. :)
yes the technological advances would be there but you dont understand how over populated we are already. Why does it have to be so hard to understand that we are now on the offensive and we need to think of ways that arent questioning nature. Nature will allways find a way to screw up somthing that is out of balance. That is wy we are having trouble controlling pests in our farms.
must go to work. i am a 16 year old male that is mad at the world for doing what we are to the world. i am that and only that. just a human looking out for some of us.
peace
taylor
Paul Stucky - 04:36pm Jul 23, 1998 ET (#4636 of 4641)
Over-population is another good point.
Overpopulation is the most bullsh** reason for being against cloning. If you're really against it, then start trying to change the 3rd world countries' social norms. They're the reason for overpopulation; developed countries such as western europe, the US, Japan, etc. are staying level for population growth, even declining a bit. It's the underdeveloped countries that are causing the worldwide overpopulation.
Back to cloning. If you're worried about the Brave New World syndrome, go back and read it. The biggest problem there was the fact that they took "Soma", a futuristic equivalent of what i would guess is marijuana, so that everybody would get along, not care or think about life to much, and just accept that they are clones. That was a worldwide drug problem, not a cloning problem.
The technology is still a VERY long way off from being perfected, so no one will live forever yet, but if you could give up everything you had so that you and your loved ones could live forever, would you?
Raising the spectre of full human clones has already accomplished exactly what the biotech firms wanted - to create a DIVERSION from (and shockingly widespread acceptance of) the immediate horror of using animals to grow human body parts. Trans-species cloning has another name - bestiality, and the resulting creatures are monstrosities. To be differentiated from the scores of deformed _mistakes_ created en route to growing pigs whose _human_ organs are _harvested_ and attached to people whose moral awareness is so degraded that they consider their own bodies collections of replaceable _parts_. I encourage anyone who condones organ transplants to investigate firsthand the realities of the lab animal experiments necessary and think again about your approval of transgenic medicine.
Natural life expectancy is about 35 years.
Population control is done by natural starvation.
Trans-species cloning has another name - bestiality, and the resulting creatures are monstrosities.
Gee I'd sure like to view some of them. Do you have any examples?
To be differentiated from the scores of deformed _mistakes_ created en route to growing pigs whose _human_ organs are _harvested_ and attached to people whose moral awareness is so degraded that they consider their own bodies collections of replaceable _parts_. I encourage anyone who condones organ transplants to investigate firsthand the realities of the lab animal experiments necessary and think again about your approval of transgenic medicine.
Are you suggesting that I produce some of these transgenic animals? I don't think I understand what you mean by "firsthand".
Just what are the realities you are talking about?
Those of you who are apposed to cloning humans should also try to stop the birth of identical twins. Afterall, clones are simply indentical twins born at different times. Also, this debate about souls and clones is also rediculous. It should be obvious that human identity/soul has a genetic component and an environmental/experience component. Afterall, indentical twins have varying indentities/souls, which should resolve the debate.
I beleive in the defense of the individual. I don't want anyone else making decisions about what I should be as an individual. I want to make that choice myself. Thus, I want to have the means to change my own DNA as I see fit. I have several limitations I want to get rid of, such as ageing. I also want to increase my IQ to perhaps, 300. We all have our own ideas about what we are. Perhaps you mean to suggest that altering another person's DNA should be illegal. Afterall, that would be a form of assault. To alter one's own DNA is called individual liberty. Please try not to confuse the two (some people do, you know).
The religious vs. science issue is really about ACCESS TO TOOLS. Religions and scientific theories are simply intellectual constructs, the value of which depends on what you're trying to do. My experience has taught me that, generally speaking, science makes for a more useful set of tools than does religion. Particularly if your long-term objective is an indefinitely long life-span and access into space. I've found that religious memes make for a poor set of tools, at least in the achievement of my objectives in life.
Everyone else, check out the current issue if BusinessWeek. I think you all relate to the idea of biotech bodies. I'm certainly looking forward to redesigning mine. BTW, this is only the first part of the story. The next step is to get all of the tissues in your body to regenerate thenselves "in-sitsu". Makes for alot cheaper version of immortality (don't have to pay a transplant surgeon to do the job,
Richard Mark - 09:24pm Jul 23, 1998 ET (#4642 of 4642)
I am a PhD level chemist/engineer and also a "mid-life" or "mid-career" theology student.
My reading of everything from St. Ignatius Loyola to Moses Ben Maimon tells me that it is G-d's commandment that we do our best to prolong human life (See Ben Sidra in the Apocrypha, the collection of writing between the closing of the Old Testament and the writing of the New Testament).
We are already doing trans-species transplants with heart valves from pig hearts. They last a lot longer then the stainless steel valves (the ball bearings in a cage) - with much less risk of stroke. The use of pig heart valves is carrying out G-d's work on Earth. Let's take the next step. It is not a Tower of Babel - it is a unique kind of revalation.
Like all believers, all clergy (and all theology students) - I believe what I want to in Scripture. Just think, if the proton was 0.00000001% smaller there would be no universe (do the arithmetic). That tells me something.
G-d bless you and keep you
Andrew O'Reilly - 11:10pm Jul 23, 1998 ET (#4642 of 4648)Some people are so funny...
"We're meant to live and to die! Cloning is bad because we won't die! La la la dee dah!"
First, a clone of you, isn't YOU. You won't live forever, you'll still be dead as dirt and your clone will be chugging along happily as its own individual. If we perfect cloning technology of organs and can grow new organs, and rich people can afford them, so what?? Is this somehow different from what we currently have?
Second, we're meant to die? Says who? If cloning did lead to a discovery for methods of extending life -- how is that different from modern medicine? Perhaps you were "meant" to die from some childhood disease which one of your immunizations saved you from -- I guess we should just off you now and be done with it. Silliness. Anything that can extend human life, in a dignified manner (i.e. not keeping vegetables alive indefinitely), is a good thing.
Moving on -- the god issue -- until you prove your specific brand of higher power(tm) exists, leave it out of the debate. The last time we let religions rule the sciences, we called it the Dark Ages.
Next -- trans-species transplants -- what's the problem? I'm sure those folks who have animal parts inside of them to replace the fault humans ones they had before are quite glad about it. And, guess what, we are "just parts" when it comes down to it. Unique in our own ways, but comprised of parts.
Cloning is a good thing, if only for the possible offshoots in medicine it may bring. I'm fascinated by the whole idea personally -- and if cloning combined with genome studies somehow brings about the ability to live forever (or until one is ready to die), then meet me at the front of the line.
Richard Mark, you're right. All of the religions are (or should be) pro-life extension. Afterall, thats the whole perpose of religion, to promote the idea of infinite life in an infinite universe. Hence, the universal resurrection idea. However, if you read either the "Physics of Immortality" or "Infinite in all Directions", infinite life does not necessarly require the existance of a higher power(tm). This is the great thing about the extropian philosophy, which is why I'm into it. The problem that I (and several others here) have with the idea of god being an entity external of ourselves is all of the monopoly-authoritarian bull that comes along with this interpetation of god. God is like quantum mechanics, everyone has thier own interpetation of it. There is no objective method for determining which one is right. Religion is subjective in nature. Morality, on the other hand, is contractual in nature.
My interpetation: Mankind is a temperary step between animals and godhood.
Free Yourself,
Kurt Schoedel
Noel Yap: Amazing how it seems that the 'scientists' on this board are the ones who spew the most personal attacks.
Yes, interesting isn't it--and disappointing.
Pooh Bah: 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.
Pooh, I think perhaps that may be what some people are most afraid of: "We are only just beginning."
Mike Magner: 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.
Mike, I think you are as right as it is possible to be.
Andrew O'Reilly: 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.
Yeah, that can be a bit irritating. You never know for sure if you have exceeded the limit until you have committed. And after that, all you can do is delete and start over. Generally, with a little experience, you can have a pretty good idea where to divide a post, but it would be nice if the preview cut it off the same way so one could adjust before committing.
Cliff Beall - 01:15am Jul 24, 1998 ET (#4646 of 4648)
Carl Nicolai: Is jerkiness an inherited trait?
Probably.
Michael Brewster: Re: The Doctor who said cloned humans would not have souls. The human cloning experiment MUST be done to test the religious hypothesis that human beings have souls
This is interesting: BTW, what criteria will you use to establish that the "religious hypothesis" is or is not correct. I mean, how will you be able to tell?
René Jethmal: It seems people keep forgetting that if we clone a person, we only copy their body, not their mind or thier opinions. There is no way of really telling wether or not the clone will behave like his/her donor.
I'm betting there will be a great deal more similarity that you seem think.
Paul Stucky: Not only does this raise theological issues, but economical one. Instead of being a service, cloning would just be another business.
Well, of course. What would you expect it to be?
Christine T. Williams: All cloning will become is a monopoly, just like "Windows 98."
I fail to see why you think cloning will become a monopoly. It will need to be regulated to keep unqualified people from attempting it, but I see no reason why it should be a monopoly.
Cliff Beall - 01:17am Jul 24, 1998 ET (#4647 of 4648)Paul Stucky: My belief is that we are meant to die. Yes, we are able to live forever, but we should know that this is not the way life is meant to work.
Why do you think there is meaning to life. I think it is possible to have meaning in our lives if we put it there, but I do not think life was "meant" to work any specific way. I think it just is.
Kit Stricker: Cloning will be one of the best things to happen to the world...As for misusing the technology, it is a possible, but unlikely, chance. It took approximately 300 zygotes in order to produce one cloned sheep...
Kit, you can't have it both ways. In order for cloning to be so great, the technique has to be perfected, or, at least, improved. Once that has happened, however, the chances for misuse increase, do they not?
Kit Stricker: Cloning is just starting to bloom, and whether our so called God can accept it, we'll have to wait and see.
I am not sure how you plan to determine whether God can accept it or not. Of course, there are people who claim to know the mind of God. Perhaps you can ask them.
Paul Stucky: I am not Christian, nor do I classify myself in any other religion (in fact, I used to be Atheist), but I know that the Creator has a plan for everyone, and that includes leaving this existence. I am anxious to see what is on the other side. :)
If you used to be an atheist, but you now believe in a Creator--and a life after this one, but you are not a Christian or adherent to any other religion, hey, what are you?
Kit Stricker: The technology is still a VERY long way off from being perfected, so no one will live forever yet, but if you could give up everything you had so that you and your loved ones could live forever, would you?
Probably.
Kurt Schoedel: I beleive in the defense of the individual. I don't want anyone else making decisions about what I should be as an individual. I want to make that choice myself.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Kurt Schoedel: Thus, I want to have the means to change my own DNA as I see fit. I have several limitations I want to get rid of, such as ageing.
At my age, I am becoming increasingly aware that aging is a limitation.
Richard Mark: I am a PhD level chemist/engineer and also a "mid-life" or "mid-career" theology student.
What do you mean by PhD "level," Richard? You mean like "equivalent" to a PhD?
Richard Mark: Like all believers, all clergy (and all theology students) - I believe what I want to in Scripture.
Well, at least you are honest. I can appreciate that. BTW, is it okay with you if I choose--consistent with my agnostic leanings--to believe nothing?
Marc Rowley - 02:36am Jul 24, 1998 ET (#4649 of 4664)
It seems to me that many people have some odd ideas about what cloning really is. Things like living forever and such have nothing to do with cloning really.
A clone is merely a genetic copy. An identical twin.( True...nonozygotic twins are identically genetically....are they the same person?...I think not.) By cloning yourself you would not extend your life, you would only suddenly have an identical twin. You will be two different people. There is still an environmental aspect of development which would be different for the clone. This would cause different personality traits etc.
Yes, you and your clone would be very close in personality, as are identical twins, but that is where it ends....you are still two independant bioloical entities. Two different people.
Hmmm..I'd also like to talk about the benefits of cloning. I work for a biotech company as a scientist...we clone bacteria. Currently we are working on a process to have bacteria make drug precursers for us, which would allow
oops...that should be monozygotic twins in the last post.
http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?224@@[email protected]/5201
Carl, while I still maintain that a process which hasn't even been developed yet is not a 'right', that doesn't mean that I think cloning should be denied outright.
As far as jerks (I can't use stronger language without getting deleted) go, they are currently limited as to the number of children they can have by basic biology and our society's mating rituals. Cloning would make it possible for rich people to make unlimited numbers of clones of themselves. There are egotistical A--ho--s that would want to do this. Who's to stop them?
Anyway, my point about jerks was meant to be a somewhat humerous demonstration as to how this technology can be misused. Personnally, I don't see the benefit to mankind that would come from cloning individuals. Cloning would only decrease variety in the human gene pool. The effect of this would be determined by the extent of cloning that occurs. Also, I can't think of a single person on this planet who is perfect and is a conclusion to all human evolution. Therefore, why clone any specific person?
I still haven't figured out the trick for copying links...Darn computers!
As far as cloning human organs is concerned, I think that is a good idea but I have many reservations about the experimental phases before success is reached. I just hope the scientific ethics advisory panel is keeping a close eye on experiments involving developing human beings.
As with other cloning techniques, it is not the successful attempts that worry me, rather it is the 'mistakes'. How will such mistakes be treated? Will they simply be disposed of? Will we lose respect for human lives in general because of these experiments?
A cloned human being is just another human being. I am afraid that people will forget that. I fear that clones will be used as property (for slave labor or organ donation) or will be forced to live a particular life against their wishes. I fear that clones will not be given choices as to whether they wish to participate or not in follow on experiments. I wonder if many advocates of cloning really care about human dignity.
Carl, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to reproduce. Your rights protected by the constitution are only those rights which are listed. Additionally, the constitution grants Congress to make any laws it wants as long as those laws do not conflict with the constitution. Since there is absolutely no guarantee in the constitution of the right to clone one's self, there is nothing to stop Congress from legislating this.
One's only hope is that logic and rationalism will guide our elected representatives over the coming years in regards to this new issue. Hopefully extremism in either direction will not win out.
Carl, while I still maintain that a process which hasn't even been developed yet is not a 'right', that doesn't mean that I think cloning should be denied outright.
I maintain that the "government" is only what the constitution says it is.
Sometimes elected officials think that THEY are the government. This is not true as Nixon found out. So the question revolves on weather the entity defined as "The United States of America" has the right to control my reproduction in opposition to my rights to reproduce. The question of cloning is included in my right to reproduce.
If I choose to combine with two other people and produce a 3 parent child that is my right also and the government also has no rights in this area. BTW multiple parent offspring have been naturally occurring in many animals and humans since the dawn of time and six parent mice were done in the 1980s.(Science Mag.)
No one I know has ever cited a horror story concerning reproduction by consulting adults save severe inbreeding or desease transfer. It is arguably the only place the government has a right to regulate and that is only to protect the rights of the future child to a relatively normally functioning body. Of course I agree with you that the government has the right and obligation to protect the rights of any kind of humans whether clones or not.
Many people acting as government have committed, in essence, crimes against humanity via inhuman reproductive control methods. They do it today in China.
Mike Magner - 07:03am Jul 24, 1998 ET (#4655 of 4664)Carl, somehow your message ended up after my response to your message.
Carl wrote: "No one I know has ever cited a horror story concerning reproduction by consulting adults save severe inbreeding or desease transfer."
Human cloning hasn't been done yet. Maybe afterwards you will get your horry story.
Carl: "It is arguably the only place the government has a right to regulate and that is only to protect the rights of the future child to a relatively normally functioning body. Of course I agree with you that the government has the right and obligation to protect the rights of any kind of humans whether clones or not."
So therefore, if a scientist wants to perform experiments on cloning which involve human fetuses and human beings, the government can step in and interfere? I'll agree with you.
I think we should use cloning to make Gorillas smarter, give them a thumb and make them more docile more docile so we can use them as slave workers.
Who would care if we used Gorillas for transplants by making their organs more human like Robin Cook wrote about in his book
Chromosome Six.This would allow us to free the wage slaves and the illegal aliens from manual labor and provide transplants for all. Killing animals like gorilla is acceptable as long as we don't endanger the species.Horses work;why not gorillas? The vegetarians won't like it, but they are the lunatic fringe.
Clifton, sorry for being blunt, but its a terrible idea. If we are going to create anything that has sentience (independent volition), whether it be an animal or self-aware robot, then you must set it free and give it the same rights as the rest of us. Otherwise, it becomes a slave, and will eventually rebel.
Sentience equals freedom
Kurt, sounds like you get your ideas from watching Star Trek. Anyway, we wouldn't have to make them too smart, just smart enough to understand simple concepts (above the level of your average ape). Apes are good for your heavy labor but for an around-the-house butler, I would want a medium-sized monkey.
We already train animals and breed them according to who can do the best tricks. Why don't we let some genetic engineering improve upon this?
So therefore, if a scientist wants to perform experiments on cloning which involve human fetuses and human beings, the government can step in and interfere? I'll agree with you.
A historical requirement for being a human being is that it can survive without being connected to another human being.
How do we know that the religious persons agree? They don't give full funeral rights to aborted fetuses.
Sever the creature from a life support system and if it can survive it is deserving of legal protection as an independent being. That has been the LAW for several hundreds of years as I see it. (at least in the west or at least with the U.S. supreme court)
Now if it can survive this "blood" disconnection the "LAW" has a legitimate interest in protecting their existence.
My legally separable cells are my property until they can function as a being. at that time terminating their existence is murder because it threatens all such beings.
My kith are going to bring forth such human beings. You troglodytes have to decide what rights your democracy will grant them.
Think it over!
I agree. I'm not sure that I would extend the idea of sentience to all "feeling" beings, but it needs to be looked at.
I'm grappeling with it. Please give us more input about your ideas.
Thanks.
Sorry about the time travel these posts will be deleated ty the CNN elves. (I think there are off topic)
Clifton, Gorillas have thumbs! just an observation from the zoo.....Why is it that people are so lazy that they think we should engineer slave labor from other animals and then sit back and get fat?
I think too many people read science fiction and think that it is reality! Cloning simply makes a copy of an organism...another genetic copy. In order to engineer the organism to our liking, we must first have a complete map of their DNA...or at least a mostly complete map. I work with bacteria, and it is hard enough to get them to do what you want. An organism such as a Gorilla is much much more complex. We are very far away from having enough data to make specific alterations to their genetic code.
The engineering process often produces undesirable indeviduals as well...mistakes if you will....in bacteria we just kill them off...do we do the same to engineered humans or other animals? As the "creators" do we have that right? To destroy that which does not please us?
Also, we and the rest of the planet are the products of a very long time of evolution and refinement. Why do so many people feel that they are superior to nature and that they can accomplish the same in a shorter period of time? Are we really that foolish as a group?
Carl, it's just that I find any kind of slavery and servitude to be completely repugnant. I think if a being has sentience, then it should be free. Clifton suggests that these apes would have some kind of sentient capability. Hence, my response to it.
I work in control systems and automation. I think that robotics will be able to do most of what Clifton's apes could do in about 10-20 years.
bob cruder - 08:22pm Jul 24, 1998 ET (#4665 of 4665)I have heard no argument against cloning animals.
The argument against cloning humans appears to be that at some point in the clone's development one must choose whether to grant it the rights of a human being.
Some hold that such rights stem from the combination of independent survival and posession of some specific fraction of the human genome.
They would not grant rights to a chimp who carries better than 98% of the human genome. They would grant those rights to someone of human parentage with any number of genetic defects even those which make the being not appear very human or which interfere with brain development.
It must be especially troubling to those who claim that human rights must apply at conception. If there is no functional difference from fertilized egg and a cloned one, how do they answer. It's much easier to ban the act than to think through the repercussions.
Every characteristic posited as definitive for human classification has been found to some degree in one or more other species. Conversely, through genetic or developmental defect or through age or injury, there are humans who lack those characteristics.
If one does not judge by sentience, even on a sliding scale and one does not judge by any of those other characteristics, one is left only with genetics.
How many animal or even artificial genes need to be inserted into a human, even if merely to correct genetic defects, before the human loses rights?
How many human genes need to be inserted into an animal, even to create transplantable organs before the line acquires human rights.
Those who assign rights based on the presence of human genes cannot answer those questions and must ban the act. Those who assign rights based on sentience have no problem with cloning but for consistency must grant at least partial rights to non-human intelligence, both natural and artificial.
The latter are much more entertaining.
Edited by CNN Community Staff:
To Mike Magner:
To link a previous message, follow these instructions:
In this message header....
Mike Magner - 06:47am Jul 24, 1998 ET (#4653 of 4665)
right click on the post number, which in this case would be #4653, then choose copy link location, That places the link on your clipboard. Then in the post message box, paste the contents, and then continue with your post. the pasted link will look weird, like this:
(a href="/cgi-bin/WebX?14@^[email protected]/5256">Mike Magner 7/24/98 6:47am</a)
but when you post the message, it will become a good link, and look like this:
Mike Magner 7/24/98 6:47amHope this helps
CNN Community Staff
chi x - 09:54am Jul 25, 1998 ET (#4666 of 4673)Hi,Mike,
This chat is very interesting and also very important. We may immage if scientists can clone the human being ,the man or women in this world will be no any value. Because the cloning technique can easily produce man or women there will be much more peoples in this world. We will have no food,no clothes,no everything. The quilityof life will decrease a lot. The sexual life will much dangeous than any time before. All this world will be changed to be a strange sociaty. And finally the human will kill themselves! We must remember the prupose of cloning animal. The only aim is to save some animal which is difficult to keep continue generation like panda,etc. Or some people (business man) think it is good way to get enough meats. If we want to change completely this world do it---cloning new human! Remember it is terrible thing in the future.
Hi, Marc,
Could you please answer me a simple question? You work on bacteria. Excellent. Copuld you please tell me the details of what the cloning animals mean? How to do it in principle? Is it necessary we need to know all the genetic characteristics of the complete genome before cloning? Thanks.
Dear Bob,
Suddenly I have a very strange idea. If scientists really could clone human themselve we would be never dead. We only need to keep a healy adult body cell which contains all the chromsomal DNA encoding all the features of ourselves. If we think we are too old,not enough young we could clone a new me to continue new life so far and then put "original me" into a "jail" waiting for dead. Is that wonderful? Everyone would be very young and very stronge!
To all friends,
The subject of cloning animal and human is very interesting and important. I still agree to do much more scientific research on cloning animals and human. Scientific need much more new create although there are a lot of argues or dangers. we can immage if one day we create new human using cloning technique I am sure it is most most important news in the world. The dreams of God will be realized.
Was almost ready to give up on this subject, when I read:
The dreams of God will be realized.
-- absolutely THE wildest thought I've read anywhere. Have never before heard or read the idea of 'God' "dreaming" -- not even from the 'religionists'. Go for it!
BTW, so many of the posts lamenting the certain over-population to result from the alarmingly imminent and certainly universal 'human cloning practice' seem to overlook the fact that a human womb (i.e., individual woman) is still required to gestate each 'clone'. Until they can artificially generate a placenta, I don't see much chance of a 'Xeroxed' population. Do I hear no protestations from the (usually so vocal) 'distaff' quarter?
And, finally (for now), with this 'sell your mother for a dime' government ready to grant patents on genomes, might we all (some day) be required to pay a personal 'royalty' to whomever first publishes the fullest, physical 'measure of a man'.
We're human we always do what we're not supposed to do just ask a five year old kid, he'll tell you. What I want to know is; How is the Government going to keep track of our future clones??? DNA testing and identification will become obsolete! Implanted I.D. chips anyone???
http://community.cnn.com/cgi-bin/WebX?224@@[email protected]/5267
Carl, it's just that I find any kind of slavery and servitude to be completely repugnant. I think if a being has sentience, then it should be free. Clifton suggests that these apes would have some kind of sentient capability. Hence, my response to it.
I agree. 95 or so % of the people I have talked to over the last 30 years don't seem to grasp this point. I see humans today that can't handle "races" or even "ethnic groups" let alone human interspeciation, and we haven't started talking about chimeras and cyborgs.
I work in control systems and automation. I think that robotics will be able to do most of what Clifton's apes could do in about 10-20 years.
Except for saying "Don't do it" most of the religions today don't have the moral framework let alone any serious ethics to deal with what is on the immediate horizon.
In my opinion cloning of human beings is wrong. As far as cloning of animals is concerned that is a different story. Cloning, in my opinion is interfering with nature. Creating a life should be left to nature or God. Humans should not be involved in things such as creating life. Life is the most precious thing ever created. It should be inproved but not created or distroyed. Cloning of animals is a little different, wrong but different. I think animals should be cloned only when they are becoming extinct so that they won't wipe out of the face of the Earth.
Mike Magner - 03:47am Jul 27, 1998 ET (#4674 of 4682)A couple of other thoughts:
I am tired of arguing whether or not human cloning is right or wrong - right and wrong are relative measures an hold no meaning here. I also think the overpopulation argument is greatly exaggerated. The only real question is whether human cloning has any percieved benefit for mankind that outwieghs the risks.
As far as animal cloning is concerned. I would definitely not argue against it on moral grounds but I still wonder if the dangers have been considered. Our intelligent folks in agriculture have done some seriously dumb things in the past to ensure large healthy animals in the short term. Such examples include feeding animal parts to sheep and cattle, and injecting animals with large amounts of antibiotics and steroids. The result of these actions has been to produce excellent breeding grounds for new diseases that are resistant to current antibiotics, thus risking the health of livestock (and Humans) in the long run.
I worry that this practice of cloning livestock will have disasterous results in the long run. With decreased genetic variability, the populations will be unable to respond effectively to new diseases and conditions in the future. Nature provided most species with a large gene pool to allow the poplulation to survive extreme conditions that may appear. I predict that large herds of clones will be wiped out much easier by new disease threats than mixed herds. Is this really what we want?
... privacy vs. right to know origins. By Tom KiskenStaff writer Before his blood seeded a legal feud over rights of the dead and sanctity of a person's DNA, William Hike died in a hospital bed as his daughter Rhonda softly sang "How Lovely Is Your Dwelling Place." Hike, who was 66 and ran a tree service ... http://www.staronline.com/071998/news/news.htm , 22051 bytes
So Was william Hike DNA that special.? I read that DNA from a chimp is 99 and 44/100ths the same as human. Are the religionist saying we can tamper with the 99 44/100ths because it is animal DNA, but that god has meade the 56/100the of DNA sacred so we can not fool with it?
................
I worry that this practice of cloning livestock will have disastrous results in the long run. With decreased genetic variability, the populations will be unable to respond effectively to new diseases and conditions in the future. Nature provided most species with a large gene pool to allow the poplulation to survive extreme conditions that may appear. I predict that large herds of clones will be wiped out much easier by new disease threats than mixed herds. Is this really what we want?
Nooooooo question about it. Colonies of cloned animals will have an increased risk of a catastrophic disease wiping all of them out. Like modern hygienic pig farms we will always have to guard against this problem. The latest strategies with plants suggest the same thing.
We will probable have to artificially insert genetic diversity via Gen. Eng. in order to mimic nature in this regard. The other way is to totally control the environment. This will cost a lot.
Maybe we can take several clones and deliberately expose them to a natural environment so they will be attacked first and we can find out their weaknesses before mass producing them.. There is also the possibility of finding a use for the space now occupied by the introns in terms of resistance to decease and genetic diversity. In this way we could build more diversity into the animal.???????
CNN:How close do you feel science is to the cloning of humans?
Science can do it now. The will to reproduce by cloning is all that is lacking.
The only question is when will someone decide to do it.
Cliff: As the resident ethical expert on this board what do you think? One year? Two?
It looks like your IVF safety standard is getting close.
Gee maybe we can get the destroy the world by melting the polar ice, the millennium bug, the rise or fall of humanity, and several other cataclysmic events to happen all together in the year 2000. That way afterwards we can all relax for another thousand years and get down to business. ;)
Carl, it sounds intriguing but there would still be problems with some of your proposals. The main problem is that we wouldn't recognize the potential environmental or disease threat until it was too late. Even with the genetic variation we have today, this is still a threat.
I think a more reasonable solution is some genetic engineering mixed with natural breeding.
I have to wonder why we would want to go to the extreme of cloning for normal agriculture. Normal breeding results in plenty of healthy livestock and is mush simpler and cheaper. The only benefit for cloning in animals that I can see would be for the purpose of medicine - i.e. growing human hormones and organs.
Clifton, I am not sure what a religionist is. I personnally and somewhat Christian (non-denominational) and somewhat agnostic. Basically, when ever I talk to aetheists I suddenly become more religious. When ever I talk to religious zealots, I suddenly become more agnostic.
DNA, whether of human or animal origin, is just a molecule (albiet VERY complex). Most people don't realise how often DNA is "cloned" or copied every single day. The DNA fingerprinting technique used in detective work, for example, involves the copying of human DNA.
Where I become concerned is when experiments are performed on human beings. There are very strict ethical guidelines established for human research. However, these guidelines get fuzzy when you are talking about the pre-born. Science as clearly shown that human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an ovum. However, society is in debate about whether a fertilized egg constitutes a human being. I find it extremely interesting that Pres. Clinton wants to keep abortion legal for every circumstance imaginable but wants to somehow ban cloning research. I think that this stance is more than a little inconsistant.
I have to wonder why we would want to go to the extreme of cloning for normal agriculture
Quality control, quality control, and Quality Control.
I agree with you that there has to be other ways than exposing our stock to the problems of genetic over specalization. I just am not sure what the answers are.
Mike Magner 7/27/98 7:30amRef to :Clifton, I am not sure what a religionist is. I personnally and somewhat Christian (non-denominational) and somewhat agnostic. Basically, when ever I talk to aetheists I suddenly become more religious. When ever I talk to religious zealots, I suddenly become more agnostic.
Ya I have the same problem. I keep looking for some religion which has answers, but there just aren't any, and the true belivers are Jerks.
I sure wish we had Thomas Jefferson to talk to about cloning. He would understand. (A great farmer that one. 180 years ahead of his time.)
Florian: As somone who constantly loses her driver's license and other photo IDs, I would love to have one implanted in my arm or somewhere.
Cliff, Paul Stuckey, Richard Mark: It seems to me that the thing that makes life so precious is the knowledge that it isn't going to last forever. And once the world was full, there could be no more new babies, new ideas. I don't think I want to live forever, but I want to die before my children and grandchildren do.
Aren't any of you guys concerned that the new mouse clones are all female? The special adult ovarian cells were able to be cloned, but the analogous cells (Sertoli cells) from the seminal vesicles didn't work, nor did any other adult cell types that were tested. The recently cloned calves were male, else I would suspect that cloning might have a serious problem.
Carl Nicolai - 09:13pm Jul 27, 1998 ET (#4683 of 4685) Dawn Willis 7/27/98 6:35pmAren't any of you guys concerned that the new mouse clones are all female? The special adult ovarian cells were able to be cloned, but the analogous cells (Sertoli cells) from the seminal vesicles didn't work, nor did any other adult cell types that were tested. The recently cloned calves were male, else I would suspect that cloning might have a serious problem.
I'm not. In general females are more valuable even in the natural sense. Males are generally expendable except for a few breeders.
Thirty years ago the then USSR conducted as series of experiments with male maternity using interpariteniel ectopicly pregnant male sheep. Except with intestinal blockage and placental separation problems there didn't seem to be any more difficulty than using females in this mode. ( I'm not making light of these problems they are life threatening if not delt with )
I'm not sure about hormone problems but you could use the animal equivalent of knienfelders syndrome (XXY) males or external sources. You could also implant an artificial organ of cloned XX cells.
The point is that if you want males there are work arounds even if male humans want to carry their own clones (or other children) to term.
BTW do you know of a more complete article than the CNN one on the Net?
(please excuse the spelling)
Cliff Beall - 11:16pm Jul 27, 1998 ET (#4684 of 4685)
Carl Nicolai: Cliff: As the resident ethical expert on this board what do you think? One year? Two? It looks like your IVF safety standard is getting close.
Interesting "expert" tag, you gave me, Carl. Thanks, but no thanks. Look at this way, if you let me be an expert, Tom will surely want to be one too. And from there, it will be all be downhill :-)
With respect to your question, I think it is hard to say based on popular accounts of recent activity, when peer reviewed articles seem to bear so little resembalance to the comparable popular accounts. But, if you want my guess, I would guess human trials will start in six to nine months, probably in Japan. Of course, I was guessing three to six months a year ago. Perhaps a year from now, I will be guessing a year into the future, but probably not. I think it will be soon, probably sooner than I would recommend.
Dawn Willis: Aren't any of you guys concerned that the new mouse clones are all female? The special adult ovarian cells were able to be cloned, but the analogous cells (Sertoli cells) from the seminal vesicles didn't work, nor did any other adult cell types that were tested.
I was waiting for you to come on and point out the problems, as revealed in the peer reviewed article, Dawn. Thanks for the info. So the technique works only with ovarian cells? Wonder if it might possibly have something to do with possible increased resistence to mutations in ovarian cells? Perhaps the cells have a memory if no mutation has occurred, but if even a slight subsequent change is made to the sequence, the memory is incomplete, and, therefore, useless.
Cliff Beall - 11:19pm Jul 27, 1998 ET (#4685 of 4685)
Dawn Willis: The recently cloned calves were male, else I would suspect that cloning might have a serious problem.
Since you mentioned them, I decided to re-read the article about the Japanese calves. But when I looked, I could not find the article. I'd have thought that article would have stayed around for a while since those calves were reported to have been cloned from adult cells. I assume that there will be a peer reviewed article about them in a scientific journal in 5 or 6 months. That should be interesting. In other cases, a CNN article has seemingly indicated compete success, but a subsequent peer reviewed article reported a number of problems. But, maybe, in this case, it really was a complete success. I would tend to believe that of the Japanese, moreso than other people. The best I can recall, the two calves that were born in Japan were about five weeks premature with more on the way. I am therefore holding my breath and looking for a virtual barnyard full of cloned animals to materialize in Japan in about two weeks--both male and female. Breathing aside, that could very well provide the needed justification for human cloning trials in Japan.
Carl Nicolai - 04:41am Jul 28, 1998 ET (#4686 of 4694)
Moving right along we have:
The latest combine complete with another new word "xenografts".Not bad P.R. Kind of reminds me when they changed the name of the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance machine (NMR) to the Magnetic Resonance Image machine (MRI)
So when I get my new teeth I wont be a chimera I will have a xenograft. Not bad.
How far away are we from altering genes to treat diseases like schizophrenia and psychotic illness; and how morally different are we from Sparta and Nazi Germany when it comes to genetically selecting the children through sperm bank experiments like the ones going on now for 35 years at Caltech, Pasadena California.. Scientists are and have been genetically selecting mothers for selected deceased fathers(scientists,musicians,artists,etc) artificial insemination. The oldest of the children from this American experimental work are in their 30's now!. What are the benefits so far from this genetic engineering of the youth and diseases like schizophrenia and psychotic illnesses?
This new development only means that researchers are getting closer to being able to clone humans. But, this doesn't mean they can. My understanding is that it took hundreds of tries to get it to work in the sheep and would be greatly suprised if it were any different in the case of the mice.
As long as researchers are not using human materials (i.e. DNA, cells), the FDA should not have a say in the direction the research goes. Once that line is crossed however, the FDA should and possibly and new agency should carefully regulate the research.
The cloning of whole people is unethical. There are just to many social, moral, and political questions involved to allow it anytime in the near future. When the technology becomes available, I am not against the cloning of human organs. This would end the suffering of those who wait years to find a viable genetic match to their DNA and would end the practice of parents having more children in order to come up with a match.
Cloning is a natural part of human evolution. We don't get excited when we clone a new circuit or chip to improve on its design, so why get excited when we improve on the human design. God gave us the basic blueprint and He also gave us the mind to improve upon it. Cloning will open up new frontiers for humanity. When we first step foot on Europa to meet the underwater citizens, they will probably be met by a human clone. One who has been cloned to survive in Europa's environment. When we go to Jupiter and mine its gaseous atmosphere for hydrogen fuel, it will probably be a human clone to do it. I would rather see a clone with some humanity in it, than a human with just electronic parts and clogs. Cloning is an extension of Gods love for us. When He said 'Go forth and multiply', He didn't specify not by clones. When we go forth and multiply into the oceans of the world, it will be as a clone. Cloning is God's answer to the conquest of space. God is at the subatomic level of humanity, within every cell and atom that makes us human. If a clone contains one human cell, then there shall God be.
Andrew M #4564: (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
Who or what is to decide whether the parents can be responsible.
bob faulkner #4566: Evil? Lower animals are beyond 'Good' and 'Evil'; they simply 'are'.
That's 'cos humans define what's good and what's evil. A correlation would be that morality is subjective.
bob faulkner #4566: 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.
Yes, but at the same time, you used biased judgements that would put you at the top of a biased hierarchy.
Jeffery Green: Throughout history advances in technology have been treated by the spiritual community as heresies.
There's a difference between spirituality and morality.
Christine T. Williams: I know that life does not work by solving ONE PROBLEM AT A TIME, that would be ineffiecient,
Not only is it inefficient, but impossible due to the interrelationships among problems.
Christine T. Williams: Once cloning begins, who knows what kind of unforeseen genetic mishaps (diseases) might form!!!!!
Perhaps this will be our method of population control.
Paul Stucky: My belief is that we are meant to die. Yes, we are able to live forever, but we should know that this is not the way life is meant to work.
Humanity has a history of changing the rules.
Christine T. Williams: Tchuess!
I guess you're German?
TAYLOR CARPENTER: Nature will allways find a way to screw up somthing that is out of balance.
I think you mean fix something that's out of balance.
Kit Stricker: Overpopulation is the most bullsh** reason for being against cloning. If you're really against it, then start trying to change the 3rd world countries' social norms. They're the reason for overpopulation;
I agree, however, they're population was in control until modern medicine intervened. I know we can't take it back now, but this is a good example of how good intentions went awry.
Carl Nicolai - 05:13pm Jul 23, 1998 ET:
already taken 7/23/98 4:54pm
Trans-species cloning has another name - bestiality, and the resulting creatures are monstrosities.
Gee I'd sure like to view some of them. Do you have any examples?
Haven't you seen "Splash!" ;)
Andrew O'Reilly - 11:15pm Jul 23, 1998 ET:
we are "just parts" when it comes down to it. Unique in our own ways, but comprised of parts.
We are more than our parts. Have you ever seen anyone assemble a bunch of free carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, ... atoms and get a live human (or live anything for that matter).
René Jethmal: It seems people keep forgetting that if we clone a person, we only copy their body, not their mind or thier opinions. There is no way of really telling wether or not the clone will behave like his/her donor.
Cliff Beall - 01:15am Jul 24, 1998 ET:
I'm betting there will be a great deal more similarity that you seem think.
I'm starting to think that there may be a difference between 'normal' identical twins and time-differentiated twins (ie clones). Clones will live in completely different societies (in all aspects including social moors). Their genetic predisposition will determine in what manner they cope with these surroundings, the outcome, however, may be different for both of them.
Cliff Beall - 01:17am Jul 24, 1998 ET:
If you used to be an atheist, but you now believe in a Creator--and a life after this one, but you are not a Christian or adherent to any other religion, hey, what are you?
Why label and categorize?
Mike Magner - 04:08am Jul 24, 1998 ET:
I can't think of a single person on this planet who is perfect and is a conclusion to all human evolution.
Nor will there ever be unless you can get the environment to stop changing.
Carl Nicolai: A historical requirement for being a human being is that it can survive without being connected to another human being.
I wonder which part of a siamese twin isn't human?
mike oudin - 01:18am Jul 30, 1998 ET (#4695 of 4701)
if scientists can replace genes in the cell of a mouse or sheep, and then culture them, then they can do this with human cells. actually a simple process, although labor intensive. the only holdup in the process is willing participants, and legal permission. this is reality folks, like it or not. it may take hundreds of tries before success,but it will happen eventually. time to grow up, kids.
Carl Nicolai: A historical requirement for being a human being is that it can survive without being connected to another human being.
Noel:I wonder which part of a siamese twin isn't human?
Good point.
Siamese twins present some very serious ethical problems if they share vital organs or can not be disconnected for some reason.
The one who is not jugged to have the most vital organs usually perishes after the separation operation. I have never heard of anyone being charged with a crime because of this.
Siamese twins that are left connected do not, because they are connected, have certain human rights or at least can not exercise them
In some cases it may be difficult to decide whether there are one or two humans.
It is probably a very serious crime to deliberately create such humans. (common law: no statues that I know of) IVF, genetic engineering and cloning errors will probably cause a host of new law and legal cases. Part of the price we pay for progress.
Well..its a really positive improvement... what ever that is created or developed by humans...for a million scientist who developed it and utilise it for a good cause..theres always..some other scientist..who...shamefully utilise it...for the wrong reasons..
Cloning might save world hunger...which is a sad phenomenon thats happening in third world country.. vegetables and dairy products can be clone to feed the world.. to who ever have any evil ideas..to get some profits out of this excellent achivement.. just remember..that...every body dies...but not all go to heaven
robert, I think you are speaking not only of cloned humans but of genetically engineered clones. The problem with your thinking on this is that you suggest that if you create a clone to live on Europa for instnace, that clone will have to accept life on Europa without any choice in the matter. Basically what you are talking about is Biological pre-destination, a thought that kicks sand in the face of the American concept of liberty and self-determination. Once you create a human being by any method, you must allow him or her to make their own decisions.
We are more than our parts. Have you ever seen anyone assemble a bunch of free carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, ... atoms and get a live human (or live anything for that matter).
If you will grant that a virus is alive then no problem. (This can be argued however)
Noel,I ran
This article past the evolution board. You might like it.