SkinWalker Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle The IVF kid wasn't identical to another kid. Nor will the clone be to it's "parent." Environment influences enough differences to ensure that. Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle No, but IVF is not cloning, just "yet another way for a couple to have kids". Ah... but the same stigma that you're suggesting was postulated about Louise Brown. Unless you read the June issue of Scientific American, you might not have known that she is a 25 year old nursery school aid. In fact, this article so closely illustrates my point, that you might have thought I read it first had my original post not preceded it's issue. A "cloned" person, should the process become possible (it appears to have it's problems with primate species for the moment), will not be distinguishable from other persons. Certainly, there will be media hype. Certainly, the name will be familiar to most people. But this celebrity period will be brief and undoubtedly expire long before the child enters grade school. A person who receives ridicule for "race" has the outward appearance that gives he or she away. A person who gets teased for being "chubby" has a more round appearance than the teasers. The homosexual who is bullied for being an "abboration" is so only because he or she has made his or her sexual orientation known, perhaps openly or perhaps by exhibiting stereotypical characteristics. A clone will, for all outward appearances, look like any other person. There will not be a scarlet C sewn to his or her shirt. The name may even be common enough to blend in.... Louise Brown certainly isn't a unique moniker. In short, your arguement that cloning shouldn't be permitted on the grounds that "celebrity status" will irrepairably damage the child or even affect the child in any harmful way, is invalid. If it were, it would be wrong for any celebrity to conceive a child for fear of media hype. Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's daughters both attended grade schools and institutions of higher learning without damage. GW Bush's daughters are able to score booze on fake ID's.... Baby Jessica stunned the world with her trip down the well... She's now 15 years old and lives in East Texas. Invalid. It's a Strawman Caricature. But it may not matter for the time being since it appears that cloning of primate species (that includes us, ya'll.) has a unique problem. The cloning process inadvertantly removes tiny spindles of protein that evenly pull the cells apart to ensure even distribution of chromosomes. Without these protein spindles, chromosome distribution is done unevenly. This would seem to be an educational setback, however, and once more study is done, it would be reasonable to assume that the cloning process will improve as well as become safe. The REAL problem, the one you would read about if you click the link above, is that without government support of cloning, the research is likely to be "market driven" and thus will proceed without strict scrutiny and control measures. This may lead to some of the same problems that IVF encountered, such as premature births, multiple births, decreased birthweight, increased likelihood of birth defects. All problems that could have been more closely examined, predicted, or even solved with government support. In fact, if they couldn't have, the likelihood of IVF being used so prevalently in the past 25 years would have been much lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 we cloned a sheep! we may even clone humans! someday we could have the power to design our own babies to be smarter, stronger and prettier. we may even create cows that produce more milk, and other wonderous things! what do you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog ows that produce more milk we can make them produce more milk with the use of steriods, infact that's what a lot of the milk you drink is, hormone induced lactation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Interesting. the cow example was just one thing we can do if we could create our own life forms! the point of this thread is SHOULD we take control over nature? in one hand, we shouldn't: Most people would fear ethics (right and wrong) I dont see anything WRONG with genetic engineering, but i fear safety! what if we create a new desiese? we MUST be careful. on the OTHER hand, maybie if we can break through the safety issues and acheive great things! like clone replacement organs for people, re engineer animals to do better things for us! get rid of parasites, the posiblities are endless! personally i dont think it's safe. it may not be worth it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 Some very good discussion came from a short thread some time back... I merged it with the new thread. Read and discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primalunderdog Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 we have all ready cloned a bladder,i don't know about anything else,but i think that a cloned baby is WRONG because god ment for a child to be nertured(exuse my spelling) in a womb,not a fake womb.Now if somthing is wrong with the women and she could not support a child i think that would be OK.Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Having read this thread, I can see nearly all the arguments regarding cloning laid out very neatly... But I feel the most damning argument against cloning is the risk of immoral usage on the part of scientists. But let's be honest and clear: Scientists have been using their breakthroughs in technology for amoral purposes since time immemorial. Weapons technology, disgusting testing on live animal subjects, etcetera. Therefore if one is to "argue against cloning" one must argue against all scientific advances because they are ALL misused by UTTERLY evil sods. One must argue against science. We should lobby against the existence of evil sods, not against cloning, which would merely be a tool. Either way though, our lobbying will be ineffectual. There will always be evil sods, and cloning will become a viable technology because even if our countries stopped developing it, others would not. And even if all countries stopped, there would be dissident scientists working on it within the stalled nations. Right now, genetically modfiying pigs for example, to produce human-compatible organs, seems a worthwhile endeavor.I take enormous issue with this. The idea of creating a lifeform whose only purpose is to die to provide raw materials to patch up another lifeform, arbitrarily assigned a greater value of "worth", is perhaps even more atrociously amoral than battery farming is, discounting the horrible conditions in which battery stock are kept. People might say it's no different than eating meat to prolong one's life... I take issue with that too. We are omnivorous animals. It part of our NATURE to consume the flesh of other lifeforms. But to create a life without hope of life, without individual rights? That is creating a slave organism and the ultimate insult. Using a living thing as one might use a car, or a microwave. Living things are not toys, they are not machines. They live as we do, and feel pain, thirst and go insane without mental activity, just as we do. If we did this we would become the evil alien race in every sci-fi movie you've ever seen. We would become cheap movie villains with latex foreheads. We would lose all moral high ground and admit finally that there is no good in man, only raw, ugly self-interest and self-deluding sociopathy. If this day should ever come to pass, when other creatures are genetically formed by our will only to die by our hand to prolong our sick existences, I may go postal and take as many people with me as possible before I exit a world I would not enjoy living in. Or has that day already come?.. Modern farming is similar, after all. It's only a short step forward, to postal-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I too agree that cloning and genetic engineering is another step in human acheivements! its like the discovery of fire then the discovery of electicity then atomic energy discovery of the building blocks of life is next! imagine what we can DO! I say we TAKE the oputunity to find a way to make people smarter, more atractive (prettier) and more athletic! we can geneticly re-engineer ourselves to have high motabolism so we can say goodbye to the obesity problem! when god suposedly created man, he must have been tired after a week's work, and therefore made man imperfect! Now WE can iron out ALL the wrinkles! we can also fix the flaws in the animal world! re-engineer mosquitos not to itch when they bite! re-engineer nature as we see fit! the possibilities are ENDLESS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog I too agree that cloning and genetic engineering is another step in human acheivements! its like the discovery of fire then the discovery of electicity then atomic energy discovery of the building blocks of life is next! ...all which led to ceaseless bloodshedding, which has caused the animal kingdom to effectively crumble. Not that I'm neccessarily against your point, but we have to keep that point of view in mind. imagine what we can DO! I say we TAKE the oputunity to find a way to make people smarter, more atractive (prettier) and more athletic! we can geneticly re-engineer ourselves to have high motabolism so we can say goodbye to the obesity problem! I severely disaprove of this practice. Sure it sounds fine in theory, but it'll only cause a much larger gap between the rich and the poor. when god suposedly created man, he must have been tired after a week's work, and therefore made man imperfect! Now WE can iron out ALL the wrinkles! If there is a God who has unfathomable power over the universe, I'd hazard a guess that we shouldn't try to do something He omited from his work schedule... we can also fix the flaws in the animal world! re-engineer mosquitos not to itch when they bite! re-engineer nature as we see fit! the possibilities are ENDLESS! Considering the harm we've done to Nature passively, it's probably not the wisest to try to be active in changing something that has taken a billion years to perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 also, isn't the toxin that a mosquito releases that causes the itch also one that helps keep bacteria, from the outside, from seeping into the opening and causing an infection? or was that a bee sting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I severely disaprove of this practice. Sure it sounds fine in theory, but it'll only cause a much larger gap between the rich and the poor. how will it cuase a bigger gap betweeen the rich and poor? I say it will bring them closer together cuase today the rich are mainly thin, (look at all the famus models and singers and actors) when genetic engineering comes to practice, we'll ALL be thin! no one gets left out! If there is a God who has unfathomable power over the universe, I'd hazard a guess that we shouldn't try to do something He omited from his work schedule... Such a god SHOULD have made this world perfect in the first place! (sure he DID once, but ruined it for generations to come at the Adam and Eve episode over one little fruit! Does THAT sound merciful to YOU?) Now WE can be the creators! Considering the harm we've done to Nature passively, it's probably not the wisest to try to be active in changing something that has taken a billion years to perfect. nature is NOT perfect. we have not done harm to nature we simply made it liveable! cutting down trees is an example of "harm" isnt it? it is not comfortable to live in a forest with a rock for a pillow! we cut down the trees to buils houses! We made only IMPROVMENTS to our world! We have not yet altered nature to perfection yet! we still have bugs to work with along with pollution problemswitch will soon be fixed with recycling and alternative fuel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog how will it cuase a bigger gap betweeen the rich and poor? I say it will bring them closer together cuase today the rich are mainly thin, (look at all the famus models and singers and actors)when genetic engineering comes to practice, we'll ALL be thin! no one gets left out! Try more along the lines of this-treatment-is-reserved-for-the-rich. This stuff can potentially transform you into a superhuman, do you really think the rich will let regular people have it? Such a god SHOULD have made this world perfect in the first place! (sure he DID once, but ruined it for generations to come at the Adam and Eve episode over one little fruit! Does THAT sound merciful to YOU?) Now WE can be the creators! Mind you, I'm agnostic, but I still think you're being a bit too arrogant. Remember, we're talking about the human race, if we were to become the manipulators stupidty would be like a child in an unattended candy store. nature is NOT perfect. we have not done harm to nature we simply made it liveable! cutting down trees is an example of "harm" isnt it? it is not comfortable to live in a forest with a rock for a pillow! we cut down the trees to buils houses! We made only IMPROVMENTS to our world! We have not yet altered nature to perfection yet! we still have bugs to work with along with pollution problemswitch will soon be fixed with recycling and alternative fuel! Made it liveable? It was plenty liveable before homo-sapien sapiens even existed. We didn't live long in comparison to the present, but nature was still in equilibrium. By the way, by "our world" do you mean the human world? I'm talking about the entire world, animals and vegetation included. We've done alot of harm; we've caused various species to become extint, cause global pollution problems, and made certain areas of the world inhabitable only by cockroaches(Chernobyl, for expample). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Try more along the lines of this-treatment-is-reserved-for-the-rich. This stuff can potentially transform you into a superhuman, do you really think the rich will let regular people have it? why not? there are a lot of things that the regular people can have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog why not? there are a lot of things that the regular people can have! I imagine that superhuman qualities is one thing that the rich wouldn't be liberal in supplying to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 they will give streingh and speed to workers to make them more efficient in productivity! scientists smarter to increase research and development! the rich have much to gain by letting everyone else have powers too! all the better to serve them. they will make more money if the sell motabilism stuff to every one than if they just sold it to the rich, for there are more of us than there are of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 you're over looking one thing, the genetic manipulation would cost thousands of dollars. now I dunno about you, but I'd rather spend the 10,000 (possible lowest it'll be for years if it's ever harnessed and used) on other things, a car, buying stuff for the baby itself. this **** won't cost 5 bucks, it's thousands of dollars. All medical "marvels" of this standard costs thousands, hell invitro fertilsation costs a thousand an egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog nature is NOT perfect. we have not done harm to nature we simply made it liveable! cutting down trees is an example of "harm" isnt it? it is not comfortable to live in a forest with a rock for a pillow! we cut down the trees to buils houses! We made only IMPROVMENTS to our world! We have not yet altered nature to perfection yet! we still have bugs to work with along with pollution problemswitch will soon be fixed with recycling and alternative fuel! sorry, but that's utter bull, and human arrogance at it's worst. People have lived fine for thousands of years perfectly without having all the crap we have today. We don't NEED nor do we require all this crap we have to survive. We've also ruined the enviroment for our own convenience. Humanity does not need to ability to "super" itself, it will only cause more trouble and I now see this even more clearly having seen your ignorance to life and biological science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by Spider AL We should lobby against the existence of evil sods, not against cloning, which would merely be a tool. To that, I cannot disagree. Cloning is can be no more "evil" than the crossbow was during medieval times. People just naturally fear that which they are know little about if you ask me. Originally posted by Spider AL But to create a life without hope of life, without individual rights? That is creating a slave organism and the ultimate insult. Using a living thing as one might use a car, or a microwave. Living things are not toys, they are not machines. But does this not describe domesticated animals like cattle, sheep, or swine? Isn't a saddled horse merely a form of technology? We've interfered in the natural lives of animals for our own purposes for around 10,000 years. Growing pigs that can provide an bacon as well as a few new heart valves that were clogged by previous strips of that tasty source of cholesterol seems like a fair trade to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 But does this not describe domesticated animals like cattle, sheep, or swine? Isn't a saddled horse merely a form of technology? We've interfered in the natural lives of animals for our own purposes for around 10,000 years. Growing pigs that can provide an bacon as well as a few new heart valves that were clogged by previous strips of that tasty source of cholesterol seems like a fair trade to me.I did touch on the idea of domestication in my last post... And while enough similarities exits for it to me merely a short step towards direct genetic modification, that step exists nonetheless. Parisitism occurs in nature. Even to the point where ants farm aphids to produce "milk". It's arguable therefore that our parisitic dependance on farm animals, livestock etcetera, is not wholly outside our nature as human animals, and therefore has little care for our purely human concept of morality. What does NOT happen in nature and what has never happened, is the intentional direct genetic manipulation of an organism's offspring to provide fodder. Not new animals, merely fodder. It just so happens that in this case the fodder would be alive... The example of selective breeding may pop up here as being exactly the same, but it isn't. Nature places limits on the selective breeder that cannot be surmounted. One will never realistically be able to... breed a pig with human-compatible organs using only existing, unaltered pigs, for example. Selective breeding is indeed morally questionable, but it's still only the manipulation of an existing species, an existing TYPE of animal, within the scope of its own stock. Yes, huge changes can be effected, but since this takes many many generations there is both less individual responsibility on the shoulders of each breeder in the chain, and also a longer period in which to question the morality of the direction of the breeding. If we were to genetically modify a pig for organ-compatibility, we would no longer merely parisitically taking advantage of another animal's EXISTING qualities, we would be creating a creature whose fate is utterly preordained by our wills, containing exactly the right balance of qualities to suit US, not the creature's evolutionary requirements, its wellbeing or ability to function. More insidious, far-reaching and rapid than mere selective breeding, we would on a whim, in an INSTANT, be creating a slave. A slave without hope of escape from bondage. Without hope of furthering itself or its race. It wouldn't HAVE a race. Each animal would merely be an organ bank, UTTERLY subservient to our whims. It's as amoral as... as... cutting someone's brain out and using it as a central processing unit to run a city. Just about the most utterly wrong thing we have ever done as a race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 what if we could just clone the parts and not a whole animal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 THAT would be great Kip. There's nothing immoral about cloning a kidney. Cloning a brain, cloning anything with a brain would be littered with moral pitfalls, but cloning a liver would be like cloning a... microwave oven. Fine. Now all we have to do is come to a moral decision regarding the research that goes INTO growing an organ in isolation. Wouldn't it involve stem-cell research or something? Or is that just nerve-structures. Hum. I feel some reading-up coming on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 The only 2 arguement I can see for cloning are: -medical research -Saving endangered species I'm all for cloning being researched and organs being cloned to for those who need them. But wide-spread cloning? No. No way. It takes away our uniqueness. But if there's wide-spread cloning we lose our exclusive physical features. They're not exclusive any more. And, to me anyway, that seems wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 But if there's wide-spread cloning we lose our exclusive physical features. They're not exclusive any more. And, to me anyway, that seems wrong.I don't know... If I had a double in the world I don't think I'd feel any less individual as a result. It's my thoughts, desires and experiences that make me an individual, not my face or body-type. Besides, we're not as unique as we like to think. People can label different social and psychological groups with a remarkable degree of accuracy. And remember, you're unique... just like everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 But if there's wide-spread cloning we lose our exclusive physical features. They're not exclusive any more. And, to me anyway, that seems wrong. I say clones are no different than twins! Twins dont take away our exlusive physical features. do you kill the second twin becuase he is EXACTLY the same as the first twin born? some will probably clone someone dead anyway. we probably need more people like einstein! Now all we have to do is come to a moral decision regarding the research that goes INTO growing an organ in isolation. Wouldn't it involve stem-cell research or something? Or is that just nerve-structures. Hum. I feel some reading-up coming on. whatever stem-cell research is, I say any research that goes INTO cloning organs in isolation would be worthwhie! like the progress of all technoligies, it will be a gradual process. (what IS stem cell researh) EDIT insane sith sorry, but that's utter bull, and human arrogance at it's worst. People have lived fine for thousands of years perfectly without having all the crap we have today. We don't NEED nor do we require all this crap we have to survive. We've also ruined the enviroment for our own convenience. sorry if you got the wrong idea, but i think the misunderstanding is HERE: your talking about the enviormental problems and im talking about progress: people live a lot longer now than in aincent times! 24 was considered old age thousands of years ago! now people can live to their 80's sure there are envirmental problems, but there are people who are working to save earth as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.