greg1917 Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 identical twins occur naturally in humans. A fully grown adult or even a dead person are never cloned, I said that in an earlier post.
fafalone Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 There is still no reason to believe a clone would be treated any differently than an identical twin, just as in vitro people are not treated differently from everyone else.
T_FLeX Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 it would be identical to a normal human being, physiologically. Emotionally for the clone, he would feel different as i said in an earlier post about emotional stress. he would also be (wrongly) classified by society as some kind of sub class in the same way children who were born through artificial insemination are unfairly treated by the right wing press. I meant different in the sense of what hed experience, not he himself. I wasnt very clear before If I was a clone I would feel special. As for the emotional problems, it sounds like nothing a few episodes of Dr. Phill coudn't put a stop to.
Glider Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone There is still no reason to believe a clone would be treated any differently than an identical twin, just as in vitro people are not treated differently from everyone else. Most people know that invitro babies are the product of two biological parents. Feelings on genetics and cloning are running much higher than they are on invitro fertilization. You only have to view the threads on those topics here to see that. The idea of genetic modification and cloning scares many people (rightly or wrongly). Can you imagine the publicity surrounding the first human clone? Look at the international buzz those raelian dipwits caused, and that was in the absence of any evidence that they were even telling the truth! Can you imagine what this person would (for example) read about themselves in some of the tabloids? This wouldn't be a result of deliberate publicity seeking like some sad z-list celebrity, this would be inflicted on some poor sod simply as a result of his or her being. Attempts to protect the individual from this kind of thing would result in their being constantly surrounded by protective adults and closeted from reality. It might even be thought best if they weren't told that they were clones, and then they would have to live surrounded by people who knew more about them than they did, and who were constantly shielding them from the truth concerning their origins and censoring the information to which they had access. More likely, they wouldn't know peace. They would be followed and monitored and judged. They may be considered an abomination by some, they may be considered a triumph of human ingenuity by others, but I doubt they would be considerd a private individual with the same rights to privacy and free choice as everybody else. I think a key question is: Can we guarantee a human clone a normal life (for better or worse, but at least one that would be their own)? If we have any doubts that we can, I can't see how we can justify cloning a human.
fafalone Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 Would you be able to tell a clone from a normal human being? Nope. It's unlikely the parent would opt to publicize their child being a clone. By your logic, if a person cannot be ensured of a normal life, we shouldn't use medical technology to give them life? Where's the ethics in that.
Glider Posted March 6, 2003 Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Would you be able to tell a clone from a normal human being? Nope. It's unlikely the parent would opt to publicize their child being a clone. What gives you the idea it would be up to the parents? Do you think the successful production of the first human clone would go unnoticed or unmentioned? Would I be able to tell a human clone from a normal human being? (you think the clone wouldn't be a 'normal' human being? A very telling use of language there). I guess I'd just look for the poor sod surrounded by the media circus. By your logic, if a person cannot be ensured of a normal life, we shouldn't use medical technology to give them life? Where's the ethics in that. Think about the phrase "...we shouldn't use medical technology to give them life". Give who life? Who are you talking about? We are not talking about giving life to an existing individual. That would be more akin to resuscitating an RTA victim who would otherwise die. We are talking about creating an entirely new life through entirely artificial means. Cloning a human being is not like pulling somebody out of a smashed car and resuscitating them. In this instance, their life was their own to begin with and the decision to resuscitate them was driven by an ethical principle; to preserve life. If the victim suffers as a result of that decision, we can at least justify it as the only alternative was to stand by and let them die (the victim may prefer that alternative, but at least they are alive to make that decision). Human cloning on the other hand, is not about preserving life, it is about creating a life where, without technological intervention, there would not have been a life. In this case we are not acting out of an ethical imperitive. Where is the ethics? Quite simply if we create a human being through entirely artificial means (unlike invitro fertilisation), then we have to take full responsibility for the consequences of our actions. If our rationale for creating that human being is no better than "because we could", then we have absolutely no justification for any suffering that person undergoes as a result of their being a clone. The alternative to cloning (unlike resuscitating a badly smashed person) is not to allow somebody to die, or even to deny somebody life. The alternative to cloning is simply not cloning. Thus cloning cannot even be said to be the lesser of two evils. So, if creating a human clone is not the lesser of two evils, nor the result of an ethical imperative, nor the result of any significant need, why the hell do it? If we create a human clone without being able to provide a solid rationale for doing so, then we are responsible (and should be held accountable) should that person suffer in any way as a direct or indirect result of their being a clone. Would you be prepared to take that responsibility?
DocBill Posted March 30, 2003 Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ I voted yes. OK. NOW....who decided what "Usefull" means?
fafalone Posted March 30, 2003 Posted March 30, 2003 Yeah, I know plenty of useless non-clones, but we keep them around =/
DocBill Posted March 30, 2003 Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Ethics is subjective. To me, there's nothing unethical about it. The question is, should the government impose its ethics on science, provided that the process is no more dangerous than currently used artificial reproduction techniques? EXACTLLY. Subjective based on Bias. Now, I would vote yes for the same reason my mechanic keeps a spare 1998 Jag in his shop. The hood is crushed, and the frame is bent. BUT..great source of spare parts. Bill
Sayonara Posted March 30, 2003 Posted March 30, 2003 Is there an ethical parallel involved in the use of parts from an old car? I suppose the nearest analagous situation would be keeping the elderly or crippled alive for use as organ banks.
fafalone Posted March 30, 2003 Posted March 30, 2003 For me using clones as a spare part bank would only be ethical if the clone was always brain dead... I believe that sentience defines life.
Ryoken Posted March 30, 2003 Posted March 30, 2003 I think that we, humanity, are not ready for this technology, mostly through ignorance. If there was a vote to be held to allow/disallow the breeding of 'perfect' clones for 'spare parts' would most certainly fail. People do not accept themselves as complex mechanisms but as mythical beings with souls, in that way cloning is some ways off. Also, ime not sure if it has been mentioned, but what about the risk of creating more devastating genetic deseases?
fafalone Posted March 30, 2003 Posted March 30, 2003 Something else to consider... Human cloning WILL happen. The US congress can pass all the laws it wants, it will still happen in secret and in other countries. The question is, should we allow cloning to take place in an unregulated environment where the technology will be alot less safe and inevitably produce alot more errors, or carefully regulate it in an advanced setting that will minimize problems?
Glider Posted March 30, 2003 Posted March 30, 2003 Unfortunately, this is a possibility. The problem here though is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. To make it legal and perform it under controlled and regulated conditions, doesn't necessarily mean it won't be performed elsewhere under less controlled or regulated conditions. It would most likely simply degenerate into a race to copyright the first sucessful technique (full speed ahead and damn the consequences!). I think that to make it legal would also undermine your ability to prosecute those who screwed it up, as the argument wouldn't be simply that they broke the law by doing it, but would revolve around procedural issues (e.g. "We're not saying you shouldn't have done it, we're saying you did it wrong!" countered by "As it's not against the law to do it, who are you to say HOW it should be done, particularly as you haven't got it right yet either?".) This would get nowhere and serve only to keep lawers rich for decades . At least if it was illegal those who did it could be penalised under law, and all said and done, it would be extremely difficult for them to keep their activities secret, especially if they ever succeeded. In light of this, I believe that making it illegal would act as an effective deterrent, because I can't imagine that anybody would want to invest the unbelievable amounts of man-hours, money and resources into attempting to develop something they knew they could never reveal and from which they would never benefit (or even recover their initial investment). Bear in mind that (as has been pointed out) ethics are subjective and fluid. I'm not saying reproductive cloning is and will always be wrong. I am saying that at this point in time, we do not have a rationale for reproductive cloning beyond "it can be done" (and even that is not strictly true), and as I've said before, that argument justifies nothing. We have no compelling reason to clone, therefore any suffering by anybody resulting from it would be for nothing. My argument is (and always has been) that before going down that road, we need a rationale that at least counters (and prefereably outweighs) any negative impacts of reproductive cloning and the (many) reasons for not doing it.
Kylon Posted May 3, 2003 Posted May 3, 2003 Cloning- I think cloning should be used in the future, or at least developed. Sci-fi writers, deep thinkers, many others and many diifferent religions say there will be an age when humans blow themselves to shreads. So we should develop the technology, then if the world ever goes kaboom! We can repopulate without all being inbreeded. I also think we are not evolving as fast, and the way we should. We will need cloning to further human evolution.
Kbzon59 Posted July 4, 2004 Posted July 4, 2004 Clones will be used for spare parts. While it's is shocking that everyone will have a clone of one self for such purposes, the truth is that people wont' be cloned: organs will be cloned and used in surgery
Aardvark Posted July 5, 2004 Posted July 5, 2004 I'm curious as to how cloning could be used to 'further human evolution'. Surely making exact replicals of individuals would have no effect at all on evolution?
Sayonara Posted July 5, 2004 Posted July 5, 2004 Theoretically you could clone many copies of someone with desirable attributes and let them loose in the gene pool, as it were. This would however imply a much more advanced knowledge of selection and genetic interaction (as they pertain to humanity) than we currently posses.
Aardvark Posted July 5, 2004 Posted July 5, 2004 A sort of selective breeding, like prize cattle? A possiblilty, i'm not sure how attractive people would find it.
Sayonara Posted July 5, 2004 Posted July 5, 2004 I was thinking a bit less Huxlean (gotta love cross-thread themes). More of a "quick but potent injection occasionally" sort of dealy. The technical and social requirements for a selective breeding program that used cloning as its mainstay would be incredible.
Skye Posted July 5, 2004 Posted July 5, 2004 It depends what you mean, if it is using techniques from reproductive cloning within an IVF format to ensure that children are born without certain inherited diseases then I can see it becoming quite widespread. This will naturally, but somewhat inadvertantly, have some evolutionary effect.
Aardvark Posted July 5, 2004 Posted July 5, 2004 Would you need cloning to achieve those results? Minor genetic tweeking, for instance removing a gene for haemophilia, might be possible in an IVF situation without the need for cloning in order to deal with inherited disorders.
Sayonara Posted July 5, 2004 Posted July 5, 2004 It depends what you mean, if it is using techniques from reproductive cloning within an IVF format to ensure that children are born without certain inherited diseases then I can see it becoming quite widespread. This will naturally, but somewhat inadvertantly, have some evolutionary effect. In keeping with the thread, I am assuming a scenario whereby humans with desirable genetic traits are cloned as a means of ensuring that their material can be passed on more widely in the next generation through tried and trusted old-fashioned human reproduction. Of course this would be a rather silly way of doing things, but hey - it's a "wooooo human clones are the evil" thread anyway.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now