Master_Ginn Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Alright i'm studying cloning and stem cell research in my biology class, and the debate is wether it is right to clone. Either human,animal,or plant. First of all i believe human cloning is absolutely wrong. What good can come from cloning my best friend. Even if he were to die and i cloned him, we wouldn't have the same memories together, he might not even act the same way. What i'm tryingto say is that if i were to clone someone because they were gonna die, that clone would be a seperate person, not the same person who was cloned. Plus to be able to clone a human there would deffinately be some kind of mistake here and there. Like with the sheep in the UK, they tried hundreds upon hundreds of times to clone it. Most of them just died, but some lived but eventually found to have diseases months perhaps years after their "birth". So the same thing would happen to humans, many would not even survive the process and others would die of disease. I''m not so sure about animal cloning. I don't like them being treated like they are, but i don't see too much of a benefit for them to be cloned either? perhaps food? Plants on the other hand could be cloned for food. If it's true what they say(that the earth will run out of food for everyone by 2050) then we would have to clone our plants for food. But would these plants have some sort of defect that could kill humans? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 First, I'd like to point out a little more clearly what Eggplant was saying.... cloning is not natural in the sense that you refer because it doesn't happen in nature in that way. Mitosis isn't used for reproduction with humans, we rely on meiosis. Cloning is natural with other forms of life, particularly simple animals (some worms, etc.) and plants (the elm tree, grasses, etc.). I think you were referring to "natural" in its colloquial form, however, as in "is cloning acceptable?" Instance, I would point out that acceptability if often influanced by fear and ignorance, and is certainly so in the case of cloning. Originally posted by Father Torque ... people are trying to clone for personal pleasure. Frankly, i think its sick. What kind of "personal pleasure" do you refer to? If you mean humans for concubines, then I agree... (that's not happening though). If you mean horses for racing, then I would have to disagree. Why would this be any different than traditional breeding methods? Originally posted by Father Torque Only animals that are basically gone should have the right to have their species cloned. Why? Originally posted by Father Torque I dont think its nescessary for people to clone themselves. it just causes media bundle-ups, are bizzare rumors. Suppose someone is incapable of having children in any other way? But the majority of cloning research isn't so concerned with reproductive cloning as with therapeutic cloning. This is a whole different concept. Suppose you knew your child had a defective heart that would give problems at adolescent age? If the technology existed to allow a heart to be cloned and grown in medium that mimics the human body, wouldn't you want that advantage? The "ethics" that surround cloning research are polluted with dark-age thinking. Too much of the "religious-right" is getting bent out of shape and making attempts to legislate all research to the point that none will occur. There has yet to be a convincing argument that I've seen against even reproductive cloning. The real danger is that if it is legislated to the point that there is no government support or oversight, private organizations will find some economic value and pursue it. Without oversight. That will be a danger. The invitro fertilization technique is a good example of this. Originally posted by Xerxes I have also heard that scientists are going to clone Jesus by using blood samples from the Shroud of Turin. You heard wrong. This would be exceedingly difficult, primarily because the Shroud of Turin was a hoax and the "blood" was Vermilion paint. Red ochra was also used. The so-called shroud is a 14th century artifact. Not to mention that cloning of primates is hampered by some technical problems that have yet to be overcome. Though researchers are very close to solving them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 And lifts this one too. Let's face it. Some day, there will be a clone of a human, if there's not already. The arguments against cloning, in my view, are actually invalid. There are several main arguments, one of the more promenant being that the results will be genetic "monstrosities" or horribly misdeveloped. If that is the case, then there really is no problem. Regular cloning won't happen, because scientist/cloners will not want this type of result. They just won't do it. No restrictions needed. Another argument is against having an "identical you." As someone mentioned earlier, that won't happen. You would not only have to clone the physiology of the person, but the environment as well. Right down to the number of cloudy days and unexpected loud noises. Couldn't be done. Playing god is another argument, but that one isn't valid for many reasons. Scientifically speaking, it is entirely invalid. Even if one buys into the whole faith meme, there are still theological reasons why it's invalid. In at least three religious documents used by the world's major religions, it mentions man being created in a diety's "image." That, in itself, would indicate that it is acceptable to take on "god-like" qualities in order to maintain and improve the human condition. Fundamentalists no doubt would fume at that statement, but it is valid none the less. Throughout history, man's attempts to improve the human condition and general knowledge have been considered "playing god," such as medical advances in surgery, blood transfusion, and family planning. Also in areas of science such as astronomy, biology, and nuclear chemistry. Michael Shermer at Scientific American said, "the soul of science is found in courageous thought and creative experiment, not in restrictive fear and prohibitions." I have to agree, otherwise we would still subscribe to the religious poppycock that the Sun orbits the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 To see some really good arguments from both sides of the issue, look at these threads: http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98320&highlight=clone http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113606&highlight=clone http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=88310&highlight=clone There was a good discussion in the first about negative celebrity status associated with the first clone.... You should get some good info for your biology class... at least enough to keep an argument going strong, regardless of which side you choose Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgwall44 Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 well see first of all it would be cool to clone plants since it could end the whole world hungary contraversy. Also i think cloning is wrong. See i don't think we should do it since the child hood dream of having super powers could come true. Some psychopathic moron would come along and try to make the ultimate human, such as making him faster, stronger, and what not. You know it would happen if cloning where to go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Right, so you think cloning people are unethical. So, does that make cloning plants ethical? I'm not trying to prove anything, just pointing this out to you. hgwall, you said cloning was wrong. And yet you supported the cloning of plants? My argument's flawed, I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 There is no right or wrong in cloning. It all depends on perception. Clone all you want, I don't care. But take care not to make their lives miserable after cloning them(talking about discrimination). Clones are the same like us, other than the fact that they are not produced biologically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Originally posted by hgwall44 well see first of all it would be cool to clone plants since it could end the whole world hunger contraversy. You'd still have to grow the plants normally. In fact they'd be perfectly normal, boring plants, which would have to be grown in perfectly normal, boring ways. You are confusing cloning and genetic engineering methinks. Some psychopathic moron would come along and try to make the ultimate human, such as making him faster, stronger, and what not. You know it would happen if cloning where to go on. Again, cloning can make only normal, boring copies. You are talking about genetic engineering here. Reproductive cloning is just plain stupid: We've already got too many H. S. Sapiens on the planet. Therapeutic cloning is smart: Potentially solves a lot of technical hurdles concerning organ transplants, and removes the pressure on doctors to 'secure' organs from almost-dead people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Cloning humans and (Maybe) animals, no way. But for humans it destroys the Whole indivisual thing, I mean how would you feel about someone out there living a life under yiur Identity, Legaly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 but, seriously, why must he have YOUR id if he's a complete other individual? he may have the same genes (which will change during life of course), but he will only be some twin with a different personality with different experiences and so on. also because of the different birthdate its impossible to have the same id.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 You aren't cloning fully developed copies of anyone or anything... you are cloning at a celular level... whatever it is still has to grow. Basically you are almost producing an offspring, but where all the genetic material comes from one parent. So, unless they clone you before birth, or develop some sort of growth acceleration (unlikely) there aren't going to be two of you walking around. Even if they did clone you at birth, you wouldn't both end up the same, in the same way that twins don't end up the same. I can see very few reasonable reasons for full human cloning (especially with overpopulation already being a problem). However I'm sure there are a lot of mediacl uses such as creating additional cells, organs or even limbs which i can see as valuable. Heck, if i am willing to donate my organs to help someone after i die (or donate blood) then i would be willing to allow someone to use me as a sample to create cloned organs to help people as well. I didn't vote as i don't think it is a black & white issue. I think it will be like most new technologies (phone, internet etc..) in that it will have advantages and disadvantages and will be used correctly and incorrectly... but it isn't inherently evil in itself. ---- One interesting side thought though... would the sucessful cloning of a human individual invalidate the theory of a Soul? Either the clones would share a soul, or one would have to be created FOR the clone from somewhere. just wondered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Originally posted by toms One interesting side thought though... would the sucessful cloning of a human individual invalidate the theory of a Soul? Either the clones would share a soul, or one would have to be created FOR the clone from somewhere. just wondered. The concept of a soul is one that belongs to metaphysics. There doesn't appear to be any "energy" that exists within us to indicate that there is any kind of soul or independent consciousness. It's very likely that our self-awareness and "soul" is nothing more than a complex pattern of neurons bouncing about in our heads. If a clone of a human is created, it will be every bit an individual as if it were a twin of the same person (except it's chromosomes will only come from one parent). The creation of a cloned human will happen. It's but a matter of time. The question is: will it happen in secrecy and "underground" because of government/societal pressures; or will it occur in a recognized lab where the government can exercise a bit of control and observation? For the latter to occur, the government is going to have to make some concessions in it's stand against the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 I think it will be a long time till a human is cloned in the US. but in foreign countries i think they'll clone way before us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 but it will happen on earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 korea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.