Pisces Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion It's the same natually born. To think that a human 10-year-old clone having aids because someone decided to have a child is wrong. See my point? Yeah, I get the point, but children have to be born. And having a child through...natural means, always carries some risk. But if cloners know, through previous clones, research whatever, that clones are going to have diseases, age prematurely etc. and clone them anyway. That makes it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Tyrion is a screwed up clone experiment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by NeoDios Yeah, I get the point, but children have to be born. And having a child through...natural means, always carries some risk. But if cloners know, through previous clones, research whatever, that clones are going to have diseases, age prematurely etc. and clone them anyway. That makes it wrong. No,children dont have to be born. There are plenty of couples who dont have children(because they cant). Also, it's only wrong if they know it will have horrific side-effects. If they think it could have side-effects,then let 'em at it.(since you know that your un-born child could have side-effects,too). Edit- Yes,Rogue15. I am a clone,and your behavior is going to make me tell my bosses on Thatoes to bomb the hell out of Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion Also,what about if the couple couldnt have kids naturally? Does that mean they cannot have thier own children?(And they want a kid of thier own DNA,not a orphan). Actually, if they can afford to have a clone made i'm PRETTY sure they can afford to do artificial incemination, and if they are unable to succeed, then what is wrong with adopting a child? Get one as a baby, they would raise it as their own, it would be their kid. If they can't accept something like that then too bad for them, s*** happens. 2. Hmmm. It seems it isnt the clone's fault for the attention. Mostly,it's us "naturally created" humans who will do most of the trouble. Yes, but think of the life that clones would have to live. There would be MASSIVE amounts of people who would not accept them. They would be faced with ridicule, violence, terror, all kinds of rotten things. Do you have the right to force somebody into a life like that? It's the same natually born. To think that a human 10-year-old clone having aids because someone decided to have a child is wrong. If you know that you have AIDS and you purposely concieve a child, that is wrong, because you are most likely dooming them to having AIDS, having a hard life, and possibly dying young because of it. I am completely against the cloning of people. I have nothing wrong with cloning of body parts or organs, but an entire person is totally wrong IMO. it's also a good way to see how a baby would've been if it hadn't died of a miscarriage or something else like that, parents would no longer have to deal with losing a child forever That is probably the worst thing that a couple who lost a child could possibly do. Every time they saw their "clone" child it would be a constant reminder of the child they lost. And how would you feel if your parents told you that you were actually the clone of the child they lost at birth. Disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDove Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I hope they clone Einstein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by BlackDove I hope they clone Einstein. Yeah. If they do,it's be great. Although,it'd take alot of luck to get him to be as "special"(in the sense he thinks outside of the box,or in,depending on the perpspective). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDove Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 All teachable if they start with him at extremly young age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by BlackDove All teachable if they start with him at extremly young age True. And they would act more caringly with him,knowing he has the genes of a great mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratmjedi Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think that Cloning in general is a bad idea. We may have the best intentions for it right now but what is going to happen when some crazy person decides to use them in a bad way like making a Army. Also think about their rights. They may of not been born normally but they are duplicate's of a person. Just because they were made and not born doesn't mean that we are going to just take what part's we may want from them and then get rid of them, unless we can just clone the part and not have to kill a being for it. I mean we are playing with stuff that we shouldn't be playing with. I say leave it to God to make a being but we shouldn't. Think about the stuff the clone would have to go through if we did allow it to live. It would have no real parent's and would go through a lot of emotional and mental problems. But what if we don't use them for that all. There are still going to be problems arise from this whether we are going to want them or not. It's like Jurassic Park. Life found a way to survive no matter how much we tried to control it. Like a lyric from one of my favorite songs say. "You reep what you sow" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDove Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion True. And they would act more caringly with him,knowing he has the genes of a great mind. Not to mention it'd most likely be all planned out so he'd be ahead of everyone if he WASNT a great mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kstar__2 Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 i think cloning is good, but only cloning animals, why, it could solve the food problems in the third world. however, cloning people, i just don't see the point, but that doesn't mean goverments don't, i think that they very well see, that clones could be used as an army. and that, IMHO shouldn't ever be possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDove Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 but breeding an army to colonize space...mmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kstar__2 Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 why do we need "unreal" people to colonize space? we've got plenty of "normal" people for that job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by Ratmjedi I think that Cloning in general is a bad idea. We may have the best intentions for it right now but what is going to happen when some crazy person decides to use them in a bad way like making a Army. Making an army? The f*ck? That's pretty unthinkable, seeing as it's much easier to make an army of non-clones. I think you've been watching too much AOTC Also think about their rights. They may of not been born normally but they are duplicate's of a person. Clones have the same rights as identical twins. Just because they were made and not born doesn't mean that we are going to just take what part's we may want from them and then get rid of them, unless we can just clone the part and not have to kill a being for it. This is earth calling ratmjedi - repeat, this is earth calling ratmjedi.... j/k bud Seriously, stuff like that isn't going to happen for as long as the Human Rights exist. I say leave it to God to make a being but we shouldn't. Thousands of people are born every week - or is that God's work? Think about the stuff the clone would have to go through if we did allow it to live. It would have no real parent's and would go through a lot of emotional and mental problems. A clone is an individual just like any other. It would have real parents, just like those being born by IVF also have real parents. Mental problems? Not likely. Those born via IVF are perfectly normal people. Life found a way to survive no matter how much we tried to control it. Exactly. If the human race wiped itself out in a nuclear war, single celled organisms would still survive, and thus we'd see a re-enactment of the evolution of life. Unless earth itself was destroyed, I doubt life would be that easy to quench (and even then, there's speculation about life on Europa etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Cloning is just a case of "Too busy seeing if they could, to think about if they should" The ethical, moral and legal views on this issue are intrinsic to what we hold in our everyday life - our individuality. It is unethical and personally immoral that people are even thinking of cloning other people. We have to draw the line somewhere at what is acceptable in medical science. I am with those that think of the extreme - those that say it will never happen are those that are being naive. Who would really want to have a clone of themselves, you would have no control over it, since it is fully functional and self thinking. A lot of the difference is in the nurture, they would only be physically the same as you, not mentally, as they would have a different education and experiences to you. For those that like to see a use to replace parts, I say it is unfortunate that you have lost that part of your body, but it doesn't give you a right to get a replacement. Think of those that would exploit it, thinking that they didn't have to worry about how they acted, they can get it replaced soon enough..... To treat them like this gives that clone the insignificance of being less than human, being a "farm" for body parts - this I would believe render them legally not a person, since they have no rights over what happens to them........ Legally, what rights would a clone have? Remember, that IVF is only the creation of a random embryo outside the body, not selective breeding. If they are a legal person, then how would we be able to use them for replacement body parts. To get into the ins and outs of this would take too long, but I will some it up this way: IT IS PLAIN WRONG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by BCanr2d2 For those that like to see a use to replace parts, I say it is unfortunate that you have lost that part of your body, but it doesn't give you a right to get a replacement. Think of those that would exploit it, thinking that they didn't have to worry about how they acted, they can get it replaced soon enough..... To treat them like this gives that clone the insignificance of being less than human, being a "farm" for body parts - this I would believe render them legally not a person, since they have no rights over what happens to them........ Legally, what rights would a clone have? Remember, that IVF is only the creation of a random embryo outside the body, not selective breeding. If they are a legal person, then how would we be able to use them for replacement body parts. I think you misunderstand a bit here. If a person needs a heart, then the thought was never to create a clone and then rip the heart out of him. Not completely sure of this, but I think they by cloning create embryo that they use to create a new heart, so that they never really create a new clone, they only create the organ they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 It is not plain wrong, but it is pointless - we're already too many people on this planet. You speak of humans being used as spare body parts. Did you know that scientists are working on stem cell cloning? It means you can grow an extra lung (for example) on a person who needs one, by simply cloning his cells - and it does not require that the clone is any older than a few days in a womb. Is that plain wrong as well? Stem cell cloning and reproductive cloning results in two very different things. With stem cells, you can grow those body parts you mention, make disabled people walk again, cure a multitude of diseases without having to grow another being. With reproductive cloning, you can make a near exact genetic copy of yourself - but for what use? The clone is still another person, it is not you. You also mention selective breeding. Currently, you can alter IVF-childs, so that you can avoid severe handicaps (you decide which sperm and egg cells are used for the conception, meaning you can decide to an extent how the child is going to look and which gender it's going to be etc). And that is not even cloning. I'm all for stem cell cloning, but I really cannot see the good in reproductive cloning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Can't really see the point in recloing either, I have seen a person who wanted to clone his dead mother back. Thats really sick. About cloning an army: Clones have personality too, they are not just some fighting machines. And cloning one person would be expensive enough, cloning an army would take more money than anyone would use on an army. Of course, the best way is to not fighting wars, so that no one, neither normal person or clone, would have to die in such an early age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 this is just preposterous. without getting into any ethical, moral, philosophical or political issues here... I mean c'mon. how in the world do they expect the world scientific community to take this seriously. The supposed cloning was not observed by those outside the company, it was not documented (or documentation will not be released), and the supposed dna proof will be taken in an environment that is about as completely uncontrolled as possible. two weeks AFTER the secret cloning that no one was allowed to document. in someone's home. someone who wasnt necessarily ever at clonaid. this sounds like a semi thought out hoax to me, meant to garner media attention, government grants, or outside investors. or who knows. maybe the aliens told them to do it. I dunno what they are trying to prove, but Clonaid is headed by a guy named Rael or sumthin who says that 30 years ago aliens abducted him and told him that through genetic engineering the aliens were able to create the human race. Man who woulda thought? So with this said, I don't see how anybody can take their work as credible. As for my stand on cloning, I'm against it. I don't think that humans have the right to play the hand of God. Not to mention, there has not been enuff experiementation and testing to do any such thing. In animals, they have far more mutated cells than normal. Sure the majority are benign, but the risk is greatly elevated. Most animals come out with tumors during their mid-life. From the information I received, I believe it is absurd to try to clone human beings at this point. check it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by -s/<itzo- Clonaid is headed by a guy named Rael or sumthin who says that 30 years ago aliens abducted him and told him that through genetic engineering the aliens were able to create the human race. Man who woulda thought? So with this said, I don't see how anybody can take their work as credible. See, whenever we hear such nonsense as this, we sit back and laugh at them. A guy that is this insane surely can't be taken serious, no? But if a dude comes around and says he's the son of God or whatnot, we take his words for truth. A person that has some sort of connection to "God" is allowed to become president of the US. Anyone here wanna tell my the glaring, huge difference between the two cases? But the first two paragraphs were quite sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.