Human cloning

Human Cloning

	Email		Print
	Bookmark		Link

Human cloning

Human cloning Discussion Forum

Human cloning: a bad idea

Human cloning: a bad idea

amorze
11/10/08

There are so many objections to human cloning that I could not even begin to state them all. I must begin with my main objection. Human cloning will upset the natural balance of ecology; much like many of our medical advances. I imagine that many pro-cloning advocates are all for population control, eliminating polution, conserving our natural environment, etc. Human cloning is a trend that is running against the grain of such positions. Why?

Nature has developed certain measures by which overpopulation is prevented. It also has a natural cycle that cleans the earth of polution and recycles all organic life. Disease itself is a function of nature that is neccesary to check overcrowding and polution. How does this play into human cloning? Human cloning is not a natural form of reproduction. The same goes for artificial insemination, test tube conception, fertility drugs, etc. Human cloning upsets a balance nature has set up in order to maintain life on the planet. To clone we must copy old genetic material. We all know that if you have to many generations of copies then degeneration sets in. Same goes for DNA. If we solve that riddle then we have a new one. How do we deal with human clones that do not age genetically? Then we have eliminated mortality. Great! No, it is bad. Why? Because immortality upsets another natural boundry.

Then you have the socio-economic problem of people not dying, but new people are still being born. That leads to overpopulation, overconsumption, depletion of resources, and class struggles. Such conditions always end in conflict for resources, i.e. war. War results in masses of dead bodies, which in turn cause an increase in pathogins, which result in pandemic outbreaks(which is nature returning to a balance).

santaclause
11/23/09

The illuminati are mostly clones, the members of the 13 families may have millions of offspring that are implanted in other women and guided later into positions of athority. These include heads of police, military and corporations. The majority are actually (sheep dogs)Movie stars, sports, media and musicians. Thier job is to herd us and distract us until thier masters return to slaughter us. Baaaaaah

setaresetare
10/15/09

If we want to make organs for people who needs them ... it is agood idea , for example many people need kidney or heart ... may be we can modify the cloning for this type help .... I am not good at english ...i do applogise

hannum7
10/15/09

There was a movie about that recently. The clones didn't know that they were clones. They were sleep brainwashed given a fabric of childhood memories, including their parents death in auto or plane crash.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to stop large corporations when they have become huge and rich from engaging in "market development" and "economic growth" into the lucritive and growing "demand" for high-quality internal organs for transplant (into those that can afford the large cost, of course).

Due to the artificial and confined nature of the underground "city" in which he lives, one of the clones begin to suspect something, and managed to escape. On the surface he finds, not a barren radioactive wasteland as he was told, but a big city of humans.

He stumbles around, makes some seedy friends, and finally learn that the "institute run underground city" in which he thought he lived and worked as a free citizen is actually a clone creation, indoctrination, and containment facility, and that his large cloning cost and training fee had been paid by a rich corrupt corporate executive who ruined his own liver by drinking too much Ao800 per bottle wine A. (Ao is the Amero, the future currency that replaced the dollar because ofthe massive inflation from the $81 Trillion in "bailout" loans (thefts) that occurred in the early 2000's).

The escaped clone of course goes on a killing rampage, rescues his clone girlfriend right before her lungs are removed and transplanted into an aging sex-godess who smoked her lungs to mush... Fairly good movie, but like most modern action films, too little character development.

ColumbineKid
10/16/09

That movie was amazing. It was called The Island, wasn't it? Geez, that's my favorite movie. To those who haven't watched it, i recommend it as a very feasable possibilty if we begin human cloning. Stem cell research will provide all the tissue we need for huma transplant, so why do human cloning? It's just because the scientists know that they can. But just because you have the potential to do something doesn't make it a good idea. PROTEST HUMAN CLONING.

Jenab6
10/16/09

Yes, it is difficult to put a stop to the evil that the pursuit of profits motivate corporations to do. But this difficulty is not much different than putting a stop to the wicked ways of an evil dictator who is hurting people. The answer, is--kill him. Invade his precincts, point a gun at his head, and pull the trigger. Destroy anything and anyone who tries to stand in the way. Make the evil-doer die. Then he can't do the evil things any more. Military action is how moral people with power can eliminate evil people with power. The application is the same, whether the evil one is the "chief executive officer" of a country or of a corporation. Evil has a sure win only if good forswears the use of force and does not act.

hannum7
10/15/09

Jenab6
10/16/09

By the way, if you want to read a good science fiction series that has the corporate exploitation of clones as part of the plot, then buy THE VORKOSIGAN ADVENTURE, by Lois McMaster Bujold. The good guys eventually bring in a team of mercenaries and help the clones to escape. A while later, they send an assassin after one the top bad guy and, after a bit of struggle, the bad guy is toast. That's how you deal with corporate bosses who forget their morals.

hannum7
10/15/09

There was a movie about that recently. The clones didn't know that they were clones. They were sleep brainwashed given a fabric of childhood memories, including their parents death in auto or plane crash. One of the clones begin to suspect something, and managed to escape. When he learned on the outside that the "institute" in which he thought he lived and worked as a free citizen was actually a clone creation, indoctrination, and containment facility, and that his large cloning and training fee had been paid by a rich fat slob who ruined his own liver by drinking too much Ao800 per bottle wine and champaign (850 Ameros, the future currency replacing the dollar because of massive inflation caused by $81 Trillion bailout thefts of the early 2000's), he of course goes on a killing rampage, rescues his clone girlfriend right before her lungs are removed and transplanted into an aging sex-godess who smoked her lungs to mush... Fairly good movie, but like most modern action films, too little character development.

Jenab6
10/16/09

I might point out, however, that the theft of human organs happens already, even without clones to take them from. Not long ago, a Jewish rabbi was arrested in New Jersey by the FBI for trying to sell a human kidney. The rabbi was part of an international organ trafficking business that acquired kidneys by luring people from East Europe to Israel, where their kidneys were removed, sometimes at gunpoint. The exploited European would then be released, and his kidney would be put on ice and delivered to the USA for sale to the highest bidder. The rabbi's part of the business was finding the customers and arranging the deal with a curiously unsuspicious hospital administrator.

I have seen photographs of dead Palestinians whose corpses had been cut open from neck down to crotch, and then sewn back together again. Some of the photos had captions telling me that the dead people's organs had been removed.

I have always been curious about what kind of "retirement plan" there was for the women who were kidnapped from their homes in Russia and enslaved in Israeli brothels. What happens to them when they get too old to attract customers? Maybe they are killed, too, and their organs taken and sold to give the brothel owners a last little bit of profit from her.

Clones would be people, not a bit different ethically from anyone else. To put them in farms so that their organs could be "harvested" (stolen) later would be just as bad as putting anyone else in the same situation.

hannum7
10/15/09

There was a movie about that recently. The clones didn't know that they were clones. They were sleep brainwashed given a fabric of childhood memories, including their parents death in auto or plane crash. One of the clones begin to suspect something, and managed to escape. When he learned on the outside that the "institute" in which he thought he lived and worked as a free citizen was actually a clone creation, indoctrination, and containment facility, and that his large cloning and training fee had been paid by a rich fat slob who ruined his own liver by drinking too much Ao800 per bottle wine and champaign (850 Ameros, the future currency replacing the dollar because of massive inflation caused by $81 Trillion bailout thefts of the early 2000's), he of course goes on a killing rampage, rescues his clone girlfriend right before her lungs are removed and transplanted into an aging sex-godess who smoked her lungs to mush... Fairly good movie, but like most modern action films, too little character development.

hannum7
10/13/09

Book Idea: Setting Boston, 2033
A wife complains that running the food synthesizer and telling the robot to make the beds is wearing her out and not leaving her enough time to virtu-visit her friends and mind-experience tactile-romance novels. She demands that her husband, an over-worked junk-belly investments manager, buy her a clone (or else no more sex.) The clone is to be used as a house slave, and this is legal because to get out of the federally run slime-creation chamber, all clones have to have written agreements with, and permission from, their cellular originator. Clones emerge fully grown to adults, and are taught to speak and basic skills by spending their first 3 months of life in negative reinforcement life training compounds, where they must learn quickly or be whipped, hosed with water cannons, and used as sex slaves. Most originators demand 20 to 30 years of servitude, in exchange for being granted life, and they have to sign the agreement before they are released from the slime-creation chambers. Those who refuse to sign, or who try to escape, are recycled.

At first Jinex (the wife) is pleased with her Christmas present of a new clone-slave. JinexII looks exactly like Jinex at age 21 (Jinex is now 37). The young clone has youth and stamina and quickly learns all tasks required of her. She even successfully paints the entire 18-room house, inside and out, by hand. She becomes very useful; Jinex and her husband come to feel that they can't imagine any more how they could get by without her. Soon though she becomes TOO useful, and TOO indispensible, and she feels that power. She resents her position. She wants a real life, the "real gusto." Little Ekasti, the son, refuses to go to sleep without a story from JinexII (and won't allow Jinex to read it to him).

Etc, etc... Jinex finds her clothes and shoes borrowed by JinexII... Jinex comes home to find JinexII in bed with her husband... You get the idea. Identity theft a la clone!!!!

Jenab6
10/13/09

Almost all of the "objections" to cloning and to clones are seen to be invalid by replacing the clone, in the argument, with a naturally born identical twin.

A woman's identical twin could be enslaved with as much or as little justice as her clone might be enslaved.

A woman's identical twin can seduce her husband and make an adulterer out of him, just as the woman's clone might do.

There's no reason to suppose that legal rights would not be accorded to cloned persons. And, because of that, any argument that assumes that clones might be treated differently than identical twins is based on special pleading and adverse prejudice in regard to cloning humans.

hannum7
10/14/09

Re: Clone Identity Theft as Plot for Novel

It seems to me that your equating an identical twin to a clone has severe defects:

1.) Twins are born at the same time, and thus have the same age. In the novel Plot, as in reality, clones would be "born" (or in the Plot, be allowed to leave the slime-creation chambers) a few decades after the cell donor's birth. This would make the clone much younger than the donor, yes? Hence the possibility of identity theft, and adultery with younger clone, etc.

2.) A man and a woman decide to have a baby, and they receive twins. This is no big shock to them. But clone creation is vastly different than this. There is no loving family for the clone to be born into.

3.) The reason people have babies is to create a nuclear family. They want to raise a child together. You assume that it would be the same with clone creation? Why?? This issue may be rephrased as, What is the purpose of creating a clone? Do you agree that there may be several purposes, depending on the individual? And that one purpose may be to have a slave? For when Jinex's husband (in the Plot) buys a clone for her (and here we must assume he pays the fees or expences, or gov't permit fee, for cloning can hardly be free). Doesn't one who pays, and also donates a cell to be slim-formed, have ownership or control rights? And a responsibility to the clone, to provide it a place to live, a job, food?

The Plot has clones emerging from slime fully grown, but if they were to emerge as infants, or even as 8 year olds, it is the same-- Someone must pay for their creation, training, housing, employment. Why, there are not enough jobs and houses as it is in the world of 2009, nor any reason to expect these conditions to improve. Surely you do not envision millions of clones being just "dumped" into the local economies of the world, with no one responsible for them, no jobs for them, no houses, no rules!

Millions of poorly-trained clones, perhaps with bodies of 21-year-olds, but minds and development state of a 3-year-old, wandering the streets, like Frankenstein's monsters... perhaps joining together into wandering bands, marauding, stealing food... perhaps, through the making of innocent mistakes, as F's monster did, meaning no harm, but frightened or vengeful villagers chasing them with torches and pitch forks! Surely you don't want that!

4.) Yes, someone will have to pay for the slime process, it could hardly be cheap. Lots of guys in white lab coats, with PhD degrees from Harvard and MIT and clipboards. All kinds of nutrient feeding tubes, to keep the ooze the right levels of amino acids, phosphates, and glucose, constant samples and checking on the slime salinity and PH levels. This kind of high level staff cannot be gotten cheaply... and the taxpayers, simple selfish morons as they are, won't want to pay for it. Not when "our own son Phil can't find a job, you're not going to create a bunch of eager, scrubbed faced, hard working clones to take all the jobs, and us humans don't have any!" There would indeed be pitchforks and torches to put an end to that.

In the Plot, Jinex's husband has to pay thousands of Ameros for the cloning of Janex's cell. The price must be high for another reason. If one could create a clone for 100 Ameros, everyone would buy several of them. Cindy Crawford and Angelina Jolie could make millions selling "starter cells" for 20 Ameros each, and every 20 year old guy would buy at least one. And I don't need to detail what "jobs" these masses of new, rudimentarily trained beauties would be put to.

Jenab6
10/14/09

I was referring to alleged moral objections to cloning. I didn't say that cloning couldn't be a fit subject for a science fiction story.

However, you said that cloning is different than a twin because the twin has loving parents, whereas the clone does not. On the other hand, how is cloning necessarily different than, or more objectionable than, or more problematic than (take your pick) an adoption service for naturally born babies? How is it that clones are less likely to be matched with a good adoptive or foster family than a naturally born orphan or adoptive child?

Once again, we see that an alleged unusual difficulty actually does not exist.

Any risk of exploitation that a cloned child experiences is experienced also by orphans and adoptive children. The same protective regulations that apply to orphans and adoptive children can be made to apply to cloned children in exactly the same way.

What is the purpose for creating a clone? I've answered that question already in another reply. The purpose of cloning is to give the finest exemplars of human excellence more individual embodiments. Each clone will be a different person, just as identical twins are different people, but they will all have the same genes, again just as identical twins do. If clones are made from the genetically best people, the people who are strongest, smartest, most dexterous, most agile, best behaved, possessed of the best in sensory acuity, the greatest stamina, and the least affected by hereditary disease, then there will be more chances for these genes to enter the breeding stock of mankind, to be propagated thereafter by sexual reproduction.

That's what cloning is for.

Of course clones can be abused. But so can orphans be. So can children put up for adoption be. While the abuse of clones is a possibility, it is not a unique problem, and the same legal mechanisms that protect the orphans and the adoptive children can also protect clones.

hannum7
10/14/09

hannum7
10/13/09

theres22
10/12/09

What would happen if a song kept playing for ever...??? you wouldn't really be able to class it as a song. all good things must have a beggining and end. I don't believe it is a question of immortality but maybe just a matter of improvement...somebody else in this forum had argued that human destiny is to die at war..and that in some respects that geneocide is acceptable..I don't know if this person has had previous bad experiences with disease. I would agree that hybredisation and resistance to disease may assist and reduce the need for clannish wars and generally improve society as whole..unless, like the person argueing for massacre in the field, you wanted to create a canvas for basic genetic clones without animosity for origin to be slaughter en masse...pretty pointless really if you look at it like that. If it did ever become reality to clone in this way I would have to argue for exemplification and purpose not simply production.

Verinsess
10/11/09

This problem began millions of years ago, when Eve ate an apple. Eve caused humans to gain higher knowledge. Thus, science orginated. Over time science conflicted with ethics. We must deal with our own demons we invited.

whiten
10/13/09

This problem began "millions"(more like millenias)of years ago,when Eve "ate an aple"(sucambed to the temtation of abusing with higher knowledge).Thus,total abuse with the higher knowledge and the science-to-be originated.
Over time science got more and more infected with such an abuse that in it's own conflicts with the basic moral and ethics required for a

whiten
10/13/09

Continuing from the previous (above):

- healthy social and civic progress.

Often science,due to that abuse(the bite-on the aple),ends-up as merchandise for sale to the higher bider regardles.

We all must deal with the demons we invite.

cheers. :-)

Jenab6
10/13/09

> "This problem began "millions" (more like millennia) of years ago, when Eve "ate an apple" (succumbed to the temptation of abusing with higher knowledge). Thus, total abuse with the higher knowledge and the science-to-be originated. Over time science got more and more infected with such an abuse that in its own conflicts with the basic moral and ethics required for a healthy social and civic progress. Often science, due to that abuse (the bite-on the apple), ends up as merchandise for sale to the highest bidder regardless. We all must deal with the demons we invite."

Nope.

The highest purpose of morality is to preserve the group that practices it, and to advance their prospects for future survival. In the hierarchy of values, life comes first, truth second, and all else comes after.

Life is the highest value because no other thing has value without it. Neither truth, nor freedom, nor justice, nor comfort have any value to the dead. Only to something alive may anything be good.

Truth is the next in value, since all its subordinate values won't endure without it. Justice will become corrupt, freedom will be stolen, comfort will disappear... without truth.

Values like justice and fairness are not the primary object of morality. They are, in fact, moral luxuries, to be indulged only when they don't threaten any higher value. And "social progress," which means, more or less, that the extant races of hominids ought to be generally equal of circumstances because they are equals in quality and in character, is a mischief based upon a lie. The moral value of JUSTICE is positive, though it is inferior to the value of truth. The moral value of "social justice" is negative, since it is in conflict with truth--and, in fact, also in conflict with life.

whiten
10/17/09

Hi there

You sure,you not inviting any demons there?! :-) :-)

Moral is the firm upholding of the values already set and accepted as true,whatever the values be,I think.
As you say; the life, truth and justice are very dear to us all.
Without morality we end up diminishing the values of the above.

Immorality leads to; life,truth and justice ending up as merchandise for sale regardless.
Immorality is the bypassing of the true long established values by reasoning; "that some time under some circumstances is allowed or needed to do so, or even required to".

So,to kill, murder and destroy, by any standard, end-up to be labeled and considered as immoral,we like it or not.

The only chance for a sane social and civic progress rests with the moral ability of that social and civic order.

Moral in a way means; to be (or at least trying the best to be) all the time as fair as possible regardless of the circumstances.

That is what I think.

cheers :-)

Jenab6
10/18/09

> "Moral is the firm upholding of the values already set and accepted as true, whatever the values be, I think."

I disagree. What you described is LAW. By using passive voice in your statement, you concealed the actor, the ones who do the "firm upholding." That actor is mankind, the human agency and its institutions, most especially the law.

No, the law is not morality.

Morality is NOT whatever values are "already set and accepted as true." Morality and law can support the same values, but this is not necessarily the case, and in general there is a substantial difference between morality and the values firmly upheld by human institutions.

That is, the laws can be immoral. And, in fact, the laws are frequently immoral. They require people to forswear attempts to help their race survive, to deny a future existence to the molecular information that made them possible.

The law, working moral corruption, endeavors to place the individual interests of people against their genetic interest in propagating their kind. "Deny the survival of your race, accept handicaps upon your genetic propagation, or you shall be made personally to suffer!" is essentially what the laws sometimes say.

Government and family are not friends; they are competing bases for fundamental human organization and, as such, they are old enemies. Never believe a politician who proclaims his fidelity to family values. If he had family values, he wouldn't be seeking a good-paying job among the enemies of his race.

whiten
10/19/09

Hello JenaB6.

Very pleased of your reply.

Pleased to see that you disagree with my understanding of the "moral" and still ending-up describing it more or less in the same way.
Apart from your misunderstanding of the difference between the firm upholding of the values... and these values..., it seams we are barking at the same tree. The "firm upholding" it is an action (a performance,an applying) while the values in their own are not action.

Laws can some time be corrupt. While the laws do contradict the very essence of the concept they uphold; "the striking of the balance in the matter or the subject concerned" then it could be said they are corrupt.
In the cases when this is a clear understanding but allowed and "justified" through that reasoning described in my previous reply to you then these lows are not only corrupt but also immoral.

So when the killing, murder and destruction are not considered crimes and allowed and "justified" through that reasoning then they also are immoral.

There is not only laws, there also are the rules. Rules are not made, they simply are. And many of these are not social but natural.
Legislating social laws that contradict such rules it is a paradox which often ends-up to have very harsh and hazardous consequences.
Assure you; rules can't be broken, bended or reformed. Only we can be broken, bended or reformed around them. Which ever be the case is up to us.

"Evolution of species comes through variation." This is one among many rules of nature.
"Life is not for sale." it is another one.
"There is no mercy on killing." ...etc.

We may like to reproduce and propagate our genes through the intercourse with close family members.
The rules of life and evolution do not really allow it.
Sooner or later that line of reproduction and propagation ends-up corrupted faulty and discarded.
The reproduction through "cloning"(if that really possible) fares even worse.That will be propagation of one with one's self.A paradox as far as evolution cares.
Life and evolution are one and can not be as separated.

So immorality is the act of reasoning with conviction the allowing and "justifying" of the unjustifiable.
Generally it is a weakness to face the truth.

Motivations to immorality can be many. But greed,vanity and feverish passion top them all,I think.
Luck of self control it's fertile ground.

Morality is the firm upholding of these rules, the values that are not breakable, bendable or reformable.

It is an act of reason and reasoning upholding the truth regardless and despite of the huge temptation to the illusive contradictions and paradoxes that often seam more promising and attractive than the truth.

Hope you understand my point. :-) :-)

Jenab6
10/11/09

I think that someone who alleges that there are "many" objections to a medical practice for which there is considerable support and enthusiasm is obliged to present a summary list of those "many" objections. You wouldn't go into details unless challenged to prove that what you regard as an objection is really objectionable. But you shouldn't say "many" without proving "many."

Human cloning should not be used for every human. There are some persons of whom it might be said that even one copy is too many. But there are others who are such prime examplars of human excellence that their genes ought to be given propagation opportunities an order of magnitude higher in number than usual. Cloning can provide these additional opportunities.

Eugenics is a good thing. Without some form of eugenics, a breeding stock degenerates from entropy, as genes that cause weakness, unhealthy traits, and predispose organisms toward acquired disease, proliferate down the generations. Nature practices eugenics in a crude and brutal form: yet the results are, in general, quite good. Intelligently practiced eugenics can provide the same good results without so much brutality.

I must complain again about your style of writing. You ought not say that nature has developed "certain measures" without identifying what those measures are. In this unusual instance, I can guess what you left unsaid, but you ought to break the habit of glossing over details.

Nature's measures for population control are various forms of killing. Death by accident happens more often to the clumsy or the stupid than it does to the smart and agile. Death by predator happens more often to the slow and stupid than it does to the smart and fast. It is a good thing for individuals to be agile, smart, and fast. Why, aren't those traits heritable? Yes, yes they are. And can't intelligent breeding concentrate desireable characters in a race? Yes, yes it can.

Cloning can give genes for quickness, intelligence and athletic ability more chances to propagate. Simply find athletic geniuses, screen them for family histories of heritable medical problems, and clone away. Give the babies to good homes. Raise them at state expense--a better investment was never made. As Lois McMaster Bujold wisely said in one of her novels: "All true wealth is biological." Amen. And eugenics is the way to play the stock market well.

theres22
10/15/09

What about this one...If all the moral, ethical and religious arguaments where agreed upon on a concesus, and it was possible to replicate the original humans via genetic engineering (human cloning) would you agree that it would be more socially justifiable to design them with a much shorter life expectancy than average to both integrate them into the social environment that would eventually incorporate them as an additional part of the broader community and help the broader community learn an emotional and moral understanding of how these clones would actually evolve alongside their orignals...maybe it could be a foundation to give all the human-race a time out...however you take that...-

solos90
9/13/09

Totally agree with you. Playing God is not something that we should do.

Jenab6
10/11/09

We should not generate or use electricity then, since doing the "let there be light!" thing is also among the functions of divinity.

clairemaria
9/4/09

I agree that we are already overpopulated so I do not think human cloning is a good idea especially considering the fact that some countries are on child-number reduction.I am failing to get the major objective of human cloning as well as its main benefit to society.

Jenab6
10/11/09

Voluntary methods of population control fail because whatever genes promote compliance behavior get deleted by natural selection from the gene pool. The "responsible" people, who limit their breeding, get outbred and replaced by the "reckless" people, who kept on breeding as fast as they could.

Forcible measures to limit births at the national level also have a potential problem. At least, they do if technology can't make up, in terms of national defense, what a reduction in the number of soldiers takes away. A country that assiduously ensures that its population is kept down might become vulnerable to conquest by a more numerous neighbor country, after which its population might go from limited (by birth control) to zero (by military genocide). And once again the "reckless" rapid breeders win the game.

Nature provided a way for humans to keep their numbers down: low-technology warfare. We're actually supposed to fight each other, to partition ourselves off in clannish tribal groups and make plans to exterminate our rival clannish tribal groups. In that way, the victors will limit the human load on the biosphere by killing the losers, and at the same time the struggles will generally go in favor of the stronger and smarter peoples. Over the generations, the human species would improve, as well as staying within sustainable numbers.

But along came the "universal brotherhood" religions, and the liberal sentimentalists, and the fossil fuel industries, and spoiled nature's whole game. For that, we shall pay a price when we start running low on fossil fuels and discover that we are far into resource overshoot. The human die-off that will follow will dwarf anything that man has ever done to himself with war.

9898362828
9/19/09

I don't think so that, human cloning is a bad idea,because at a certain level of it's application very important.

emmanchang
8//09

Brethren,
I do not first of all know if these individuals will have souls since they have not undergone God's reliable process of life.

1jah2haile34
9/17/09

Good point! just walking zombies! or Night of the Living Dead ! There is a FUNGUS, AMONG us!!!

Jenab6
10/12/09

"...just walking zombies! or Night of the Living Dead ! There is a FUNGUS, AMONG us!!!"

That is not true. Your clone is an individual person. His personality will be every bit as real as anyone else's. The only significant difference between your clone and an identical twin is that your twin is the same age as you are, whereas your clone can be several decades younger than you are.

1jah2haile34
10/12/09

Greetings Jenab6
First of all I hope there is no "pun" intended by your log-in name'Jenab6" Anyhow You must live in Stephen King's Fantasy World. Ask yourself: How did I Get here??? Wether you follow the Biblical or Evolutionary theories there is and will always remain ONE WAY to concieve. S.E.X.!!!! Any argument after this is of Homosexual nature,or Satanic/Anti-Nature call it what you will. The FACT remains the same. Once you tamper with the Original in anything it gets messed up and can NEVER be the SAME or Better!!!! You might want to argue "Technological advancements" But as we advance technologically we are messing up Planet Earth. Why??? Once you leave the Original/Orthodox way you get exactly what you see going on in the News around the World Today. Nice.... is'nt it??? The ONLY purpose to Cloning is so that the ILLUMINATI and those Big Boys can Clone the Original Masters of the Earth!!! Like: Imhotep,King TutAnkhAmen,Caesar,Napoleon etc....To bring them back to Life or to Copy their Greatness,Diligence,Mastery,Authority,Reverence and especially their SECRETS!!! New World Odour?/Order!!!!
According to the Bible Satan can do everything he is the Master of deception. But one thing he can not do is Blow the Breath of Life into Man!!! NOW SATAN IS TRYING ANOTHER METHOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jenab6
10/13/09

Well hello there, 1jah2haile34.

Yes, sex is the usual trigger for the reproductive mechanism among animals. But sidestepping sex and "hot wiring" the mechanism did not begin with cloning. For a long time, women who have had trouble conceiving a child have been having their eggs fertilized in vitro and then surgically implanted. This isn't cloning. It is merely getting a doctor to assist in making sure that the husband's sperm find and merge with the wife's egg cell.

Do you have an objection to in vitro fertilization? If not, then your stated objection to cloning disappears, since in vitro fertilization avoids sex just as much as cloning does.

I rather think that the Illuminati, or, rather, the race of hominids whose evil deeds are often attributed to the Illuminati, wish to PREVENT cloning, at least by races other than their own. This evil race wants to weaken other races, so that infiltrating them and then enslaving them will be easier to do. THEY don't want their prey becoming stronger and smarter, no. Since strength and intelligence are heritable to a high degree, cloning can offer a way to accelerate the rise of strength and intelligence for the people who practice it. These so-called "Illuminati" don't want that to happen. So they propagandize against cloning, and they try to enlist religious sentiments against cloning among the people who are to be their victims, eventually.

No, Satan isn't advocating cloning. Rather, the nearest thing to Satan in the real world is opposing cloning, and they are using every available rhetorical trick, every possible deception, to prejudice human minds against it.

1jah2haile34
10/18/09

Greetings Jenab6
We were not speaking about in vitro we said CLONING!!! there is a difference. You can twist the Iluminati Agenda if you want to it doesn't change the fact that it did not exist NATURALLY therefore it is an UN-NATURAL Phenomenon!!! Anything UN-NATURAL is SATAN or NON-PRODUCTIVE!!! Hence Homosexuals;it is an Un-Natural act, The Proof of it is Where are the Offsprings of their Man-man/Woman-woman UNIONS??? Adoption is not "OFFSPRING" I am dealing with the Prototype D.N.A. I am not Judging them,just stating that as an Un-NATURAL act it is NON-PRODUCTIVE!!! just like cloning it is Un-Natural therfore NON-PRODUCTIVE!!!!

theres22
10/21/09

Surely the sole purpose OF= cloning is production !

1jah2haile34
9/17/09

Good point! just walking zombies! or Night of the Living Dead ! There is a FUNGUS, AMONG us!!!

theres22
9/17/09

There..as with all strategy. It is the tried and tested that are usually understood more thoroughly.

1jah2haile34
9/17/09

Good point! just walking zombies! or Night of the Living Dead ! There is a FUNGUS, AMONG us!!!

Mollymariam
8/18/09

I agree with You that Human Cloning is not a natural form of reproduction.

Owenbomar
7/29/09

I agree 100% the moral and phisical problems ruin any benifits

Jenab6
10/12/09

"I agree 100% the moral and phisical problems ruin any benifits"

That is not true. There are no unusual physical problems in producing a clone. Even if a surrogate mother is hired to gestate the cloned baby, the gestation is in no way different than the gestation of a naturally conceived baby.

There are, likewise, no moral problems in producing a clone. Your clone is simply someone whose DNA is the same as yours. If there were moral problems with that, then there would be exactly the same moral problems with identical twins. Since there are no moral problems in the existence of identical twins, there are also no moral problems in producing a clone.

1jah2haile34
8/14/09

This whole argument is foolishness. When an individual produces male/female offspring and it looks like them, there is your natural cloning!!! Why leave the original way to try/do something unnatural??? Foolishness!!! Man CAN NOT CREATE/CLONE MAN except the ORIGINAL WAY... SEX!!!! WHO has a problem with sex??? Anyone??? And if you do have a problem with the ORIGINAL way ask yourself... HOW DID I GET HERE?!?!?!!!

theres22
9/17/09

I think its more likely to be the old cosmetic versus medicine argument if youre looking to make designer babies..definately bad Idea...however if you think about the potential to restrict natures' natural problems maybe not all bad..???

Jenab6
10/12/09

"I think its more likely to be the old cosmetic versus medicine argument if youre looking to make designer babies..definately bad Idea...however if you think about the potential to restrict natures' natural problems maybe not all bad..???"

One moment here. Let us think a moment about what designed babies are likely to be designed FOR.

No parent is likely to want to design a baby that is some kind of freak.

Nobody is likely to want to design a baby that is weak, stupid, slow, clumsy, awkward, ugly, vision-impaired, lacking in stamina, or unusually susceptible to disease.

The babies that get designed will be unusual only in good ways. Parents will want their children to be strong, smart, quick, dexterous, agile, good-looking, resistant to disease, and possessed of perfect vision and great stamina.

Do any of you see something wrong with that?

Well, all right then. Clone away.

1jah2haile34
9/17/09

I question: What NATURAL problems does Nature have? Any Problems that is in Nature is unnatural! Mans Intervention,poision plan, and his concrete jungles are unanatural phenomenons in Nature;and in Nature there exists the Law of cause and effect.Mans cause is the unnatural effect on Nature!!! So, there is no Natural problems in Nature! Other than that I agree with you.

theres22
10/16/09

Conflict, territory, disagreeable scents, conjoined brains...man's imposition on nature to change his environment to suit his needs and intervene as much as possible with the primordial-soup to beautify mans potential...may now be at such an evolutinary stage that the inclusion of cloned materials into his forebearers environment is becoming an option...

theres22
10/16/09

1jah2haile34
9/17/09

theres22
9/17/09

It has to be agreed that it is most definately the physical/mental interface...but then the envirnoment is merely a phsycological response (hence: MENTAL)of the experiential path of your own creation that you have nutured it into. Nature-Nurture!!!

1jah2haile34
10/12/09

What???

theres22
10/16/09

That was meant to say psychological.. if you are able to play with nature to this extent and reproduce the substance of your own existence..basically you have to be cautious how it is incorporated into the society that made it possible in the first place..you also say concrete jungle quite loosely because that is exactly what this whole arguament(however you spell it)is fundamentally about...the best of medicine, or otherwise, in the most upto date environment-

solos90
9/13/09

I agree on your point about who has a problem with sex.
I don't have a problem with sex because i know that sex got me here.

Jenab6
10/13/09

I don't have any problems with sex. But I don't have any problems with cloning, either. Sex results in a dice toss combination of human genes. We need sex to produce these unpredictable results so that we can choose the people with the best combinations of genes and give them more chances to sexually reproduce.

But a human can only spend so much of his time having sex. In order to give the best combinations of genes extra chances to propagate sexually, we may first clone additional copies of those especially favorable gene combinations. When there are two people with the same set of genes, they have together more breeding opportunities than either of them would have alone. That's what cloning is for.

theres22
10/15/09

Hoy...what about the 'BLOB. if you recreated a genetic clone that would eventually master is own creation from plasm, then sent it to a neighbouring planet that you knew it was able to survive, after a pre-determined amount of time that it was programmed to evolve into, then you wouldn't have any of the social or ethical upset with society and you could also create a humodial-soup that could be monitored at a distance...-(ever seen the 1997 movie 'mars attacks')...that could work!!!

theres22
10/15/09

Or was it 1996..that one anyway. without boys girls aren't that useful..

zerogee
3/29/09

Wow I guess because fire can burn you to death we should have never learned to create it right. Knowledge is the key just because it is summer and fire is not needed to keep me from freezing to death. Does this mean that I should not learn how to master it because it is not necessary to continue my survival at this time of my life. There is nothing in it self that is good or evil right or wrong. How we use our knowledge is the only question. Even the best of intentions can create the most dreadful results when attempting something not completely understood. I would rather go into the future learning as much as possible because in a time where the possibility of the extinction of all life by an ever growing list of ways natural or man made,Cloning my be the fire that man needs to ensure his survival in a very uncertain future.
zerogee

3031058
2/10/09

My only problem is, I have a paper to write and no one seems to be giving any reasons WHY these things would in turn, happen.

asdf
2/12/09

That could help in your daily life so you can get more things done at once

theres22
9/24/09

I like that approach..may be you are then restricting human natures natural potential by physically being able to be in more than one place at any time..instead of pushing the limits of individual capability..partly more humane to enable a broader capability but then less challenging for those people who like to push themeselves to the upper limits...

Khvalovsky
2/12/09

Any crime is done by someone or a group of persons who use something as a weapon or tool of murder. Cloning can become a new kind of biological warfare when life is taken from one participant of scientific experiment for bringing profit to another one. If the both parties are potential human beings without making accent on their origin - natural or artificial, it would be wrong to maim or kill in any case. What's the difference? The crime, such as murder remains open to public. Who's an agressor and initiator and who's a victim? One part suffers the annihilation and another is victorious. On the genetic level sertain structures have been mixed and their nature has been changed. Are you sure in natural purification and making life healthier? There're numerous hidden worlds inside us and their functions are being studied on all possible micro levels. Some tiny intelligent creatures should exist inside every alive cell and they certainly inhabit all material objects as well communicating between themselves by means of inter-cellular and sub-atomic exchange of energy. We, ourselves, are just self-ruling, unique biological civilizations along with all other forms of life big and small hosting them, those invisible aliens, like our Earth which hosts us all in its turn. Light is a vehicle for their interplanetary migration. People're able to exterminate all life on this planet outside and inside it as it's been already done and not once, maybe. The process which is shaping our future can't be frozen, it moves ahead and we're to be not passive vitnesses, bystanders - we should unite our voices, forces against any form of criminal activity that would be destructive for human beings of the present days, future. The phenomenon of cloning should be explained and clearly understood with all its white and dark sides for clearing ways of non-agressive and not harmful nature, with all its possible destructive and progressive impacts, influences, irreversible changes, shouldn't it?

bulldog1
12/12/08

Cloning would its own pros and cons. I agree if it is used for a purpose as to treat some disease or helping infertile couples it is worthwhile. While on the other hand, there is a question of dealing with the identity crisis and people using it for unethical activities.

Thus, there should be strict regulations on the process for its beneficial use in the human society.

bonnieginter
12/13/08

I think the motives for undertaking cloning are generally honourable but the problem that would arise with cloning humans is the rights of the clone.

Many of the arguments so far have been based on referring to the clone as "the clone" whereas the clone does not think of him/herself as a clone but rather as the original.

Some films have been mentioned but I remember one Arnold Swartzernegger (spelling?) film (I think it was called "the 6th Day") where he was cloned without knowing it while he was unconscious.

The clone inherited all the thoughts and memories of the original Arnie and was insterted back into the family of the original Arnie. When the original Arnie found out and saw the clone with the rest of the family he wanted to kill him but stopped because he realised that the clone has no idea he was a clone. Hope I haven't lost anyone :)

I think the decision about whether it would be ethical to clone organisms/body parts etc would have to be based around the degree of self awareness.

From a religious angle, would the clone have a soul? Would the lack of this give it any more/less right to life?

rad489
9/24/09

We are currently debating a health care plan for the US that may include a government-run option. It has been matter-of-factly stated that health care would be rationed...in other words, some people or groups of people would not receive certain treatments because it would be too expensive. The issue would be, who decides whether a 75 year old should get a triple bypass?

In the case of a clone, we tend to think the clone is for the benefit of the original...in other words, if we need a kidney or a lung, the clone could provide it. But, in the rationing of health care, wouldn't it make sense to favor the undamaged clone over the damaged original. And where would the clone live...in a closet somewhere where we could have access to it when needed. What if the clone volunteered for some heroic work and was severely injured....would someone in power be able to rule that the original provide a vital organ for the survival of the clone?

theres22
9/17/09

I agree that non clone's are more accepting, that it is the creator above the clone itself that is responsible for any inethical or religious conflict and therefore unfair to blame the clone itself. The arguament for the existence of the clone is that it was definately planned/created the same as with gods creations...so maybe then from the non clone interest in its experiential path the arguament could then switch to the interest following the clone rather than the clone itself...???

tutanhamon
1/9/09

hey, I thingk that the Arni movie is just a anrealistic movie, it's fiction, and no matter what someone's minds and thoughts could never be transfered to another being, so it's an interesting idea but it's too fictional. so I too am opposing cloning becasue there is the possible result of deformation, or the obstrucion of individuality, or even the belief that god created humans, and by the doctors cloning humans, they are action as Gods, and it infurates them, escpecially the Roman catholic church.

thank you
Melanya

KriketMaster
1/19/09

I was wondering if 'the clone,' (as it were) would even know how to walk or talk, because 'the clone' would just be a DNA replica, and walking and talking is a learned ability. So if you cloned, say, a twenty year old, would you just have a identical shell of a person without memories or abilities.
Sorry. I know that's a little off topic but it's been bothering me.

scbrow
1//09

A cloned human would begin life as an embryo and would grow to adulthood at the same rate as the person who supplied the DNA.

The clone would therefore learn to walk and talk in the same manner as a normal child.

theres22
9/17/09

This is quite a basic point..and just physiological..what if the religious and ethical society rejected it and heeded the additional problem of physcological trauma. that may be deemed as cruel..although possible.

theres22
10/21/09

PSYCOLOGICAL.....Psychological..Psychology..however you spell it. you are all discussing a physical organism that has been created to resemble the human form, whether that be cloning for medical components or complete cloned humans..unquestionably there must be infinate uses and out comes for this level of scientific potential but does anybody actually think that whatever some of the physical results may be, would they ever be able to compare to what what came before them...I don't !

profcraig
2/11/09

Only if genes and "nature" were 100% the answer to development would a clone grow into adulthood at the same rate as the person who supplied the DNA. The environment or "nurturing" of the embryo/fetus/child would be totally different than the original. It would be next to impossible to duplicate the environment of the original person in order to guarantee "normal" development. Within certain boundaries, development does indeed proceed along a "normal" course but genes are not the sole reason for our development. Unless, of course, you take a radical view of growth, that is, a maturational view or an "unfolding" of the genotype into the phenotype. The environment plays a substantial role in the outcome of every human being. So, development can be predicted within limits, but no child walks and talks at exactly the time we expect they will.

KriketMaster
1/22/09

Oh, I get it. The clone would start off as a baby, not a 20 year old, right? So it could learn to walk and talk like a normal person.

efe122
2/1/09

well people say that clones could be used for organ transplants and such

but the sad fact remains that clones would be like people themselves, with feelings and personalities ( much like the original person i suppose)

so the idea of creating an organ farm out of real people seems barbarous to many

scbrow
2/2/09

Yes, "organ farms" comprised of cloned humans would be immoral and illegal. Cloned humans would have all of the legal rights granted to non clones.

It may be possible in the near future, however, to modify the genome of cloned humans to only allow certain the portions of the brain to develop - only the brain structures responsible for breathing, heart functions, and other basic functions. These clones would not be conscious and would (in theory) not be human.

DiSiLLuZioN
2/6/09

Tell that to a republican!

scbrow
2/7/09

We republicans are not all closed minded Christian fundamentalists. Some of us are pragmatists who view human cloning and stem cell research as sciences that can improve the quality of life for all of God's creatures.

shiregirl91
2/4/09

We has humans should not be able to take the lives of our own kind, once a child is conceived now matter how many weeks, days, or minutes old they have life, to take this away for any purpose, be it to save another persons life, would in itself be a form of murder, an illegal act by the laws of nations. Just because the 'clone' would be made artificially it would still contain human DNA. They intend to make 'clones', from what has been said i would assume that the word clone would mean
'exact replica', if this is so they would have human feelings, emotions, and rights,
This discussion is in many ways as controversial as the 'abortion' debate, it all comes down to where you draw the lines of life.
We as humans have been given the gift of being able to create life, where does it say that we can take it away.

stephenking1
5//09

Like many new innovations, there are a lot of new moral challenges that have to be thought through carefully.

ulthuannl
6/30/09

I think cloning is some sort of ''forced twins''
- only one part of the twins is like 30 years older or so. Clones should have the same rights as all other beings: they are humans, however you look at it.
I mean when twins are born they both have the same birth rights. Well same should apply to clones.

about the organ farm thing: it's possible to clone just one part of the body. For example the liver. You just need some liver cells from the original subject, cultivate them and they'll become a liver themselves, which can them be transplanted into the subject (if needed). They already do that with skin on people with severe burns. But I do think it would be bad to create some sort of ''personal organ bank'', so that everyone would have a ''reserve'' organ set.

Streona
8/5/09

There are two kinds of cloning here- therapeutic cloning whereby one's liver is propagated for possible transplantation which seems unobjectionable and the creation of a whole individual which is an entirely different question. From animal cloning it seems that the risk is that the holistic clone may have congenital weaknesses that the original subject did not have and a lesser lifespan, which would be unacceptable for humans. But what would be the point for society as a whole, as opposed to the personal vanity of rich individuals since human beings are collectively perfectly capable of reproducing by the traditional method ?

nsmkhattak
9/15/09

The production of human clone is just like interfering to GOD matters AND ALSO THE TISSUE ORGANIZATION IS NOT POSSIBLE