fafalone Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Not created naturally? Yeah, and in vitro fertilization is completely natural! One parent? Tons of kids grow up with one parent for other reasons, so what? "The people pushing this are ...rich nutters...grieving parents..." You're an idiot. Plain and simple. Ignorance. I'm neither and still support it, as do many many people I know who also neither of those. Problems like premature might be overcome through cell stell research, which involves cloning. We don't know the arthritis was related to the cloning process. Environmental factors influece many conditions. You don't support because you're ignorant to the facts. Not all people who oppose it are ignorant like this, but you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 What? Invitro at least involves the genetic material of two people, not making a copy of someone. And how can you support bringing life into this world in the just so they'll be used as organ doners or just to replace someone? Why should people feel free to create life to satisfy their own ends, your saying thats not selfish? This open the door to eugenics, which is something that should be banned outright. Prants should not have the option to choose childs characterisitcs - obviously things like genetic diseases can be detected and action taken but eugenics is a different and sinister ballpark. And what facts? Cloning people doesnt fill any need in society and its cruel to create life for the sake of it, before you call someone ignorant try imagining a world where profiteering biologists create slaves or children created not out of love but as a piece of flesh, as spare organs. Thats a horrible reality I dont support and so far I havent seen many pros for cloning in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 It's no more unnatural than in vitro fertilization, especially given the case of identical twins. Until you can explain why a cloned human is any different than an identical twin, you can't explain why doing it with a small needle and 2 cells is any different. Parents have the right to choose how their kids dress, they have the right to shape their personality, choose what they eat, basically control every aspect of their lives. Personally if my parents had chosen to make me lack the genes related to slow metabolism, I would have been better off. And if we can eliminate ignorance, well certainly you'd have benefitted Eugenics is not evil. Just because something is not natural doesn't mean its evil. It wouldn't even reduce variety, since peoples preferences are incredibly diverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED FIRE COW Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 I AM A CLONED HUMAN LOOK AT MY FACE ITS A REAL PICTURE! FOR GODS SAKE DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Personally if my parents had chosen to make me lack the genes related to slow metabolism, I would have been better off. Are you absolutely certain? Isn't it at least possible that with a higher metabolism, you may have developed along different lines with different interests and priorities, and ultimately, into a completely different person? If so, can you be that certain you would be any better off? Eugenics is not evil. Just because something is not natural doesn't mean its evil. It wouldn't even reduce variety, since peoples preferences are incredibly diverse. Saying eugenics is not evil is the same as saying guns are not evil. It's true in the most absolute sense, i.e. placed in a locked steel cabinet and left alone, neither will do any harm. However, history shows that these things in the hands of people do tend to do quite a lot of damage. So you're right, eugenics per seis not evil, but I'm still not keen to give small groups of people the power to implement it. Looking around, we can see what some people are prepared to do to their own bodies in their attempts to achieve 'perfection'. Whilst I think they are idiots (or at least people with problems that can't be solved through surgery), I do think that they can do what they like with their own bodies (as long as everybody else is not expected to pay for it, or to pay for long-term treatment if it all goes pants). However, I don't think they have the same right to impose their own values on other people, either surgically or genetically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Eugenics and eliminating genetic diseases ae different things and if you're seriously advocating eugenics you rank no higher than racists and nazis who started eugenics in the 30's. So you think parents should have have the right to choose their childs hair colour, eye colour, how inteligent he'll be, how sporty he'll be, make him more attractive than he would be, control his sex, that isnt a normal child thats a made to order kit-child. Ignorance is opening to the door to something that could lead to a reduction in the variation of the human gene pool, eliminate individuality and fulfilll Hitlers wish of a master race free of 'impurities' as he called it. Parents have the right to choose how you dress but are you seriously saying they also have the right to control you, shape you before your born and effectively make a child that will fulfill some ambition of theirs? Tell me one reason why scientists should be allowed to clone humans. What purpose would it serve? Stem cell research is important and should continue but the full cloning of a human is pointless, dangerous, serves no purpose other than a scientific exercise and is irresponsible. You're creating hundreds of ebryos in the knowledge most will die, and besides cloning is very dangerous at the moment seeing as many cloned animals die early of birth abnormalities, arent born at all, live with defects or nevere make it past the embryo stage in the first place. Research can and should continue but you seem intent on advocating a ridiculous waste of biologists time - are you secretly a Raelian who thinks we all came from aliens on a the happy love planet and our glorious leader will take us away to paradise, providing we pay him a ridiculous amount for his collection of wives and spedboats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Stem cell research IS cloning humans. Parents who adopt kids choose the characteristics they want, why aren't they nazis? Parents already control their kids development to an extent, and when parents try forcing kids into things they can't or don't want to do, there are serious adverse consequences. And ignorance is also not realizing the diversity of prefences that would not result in a more narrow gene pool; assuming that even matters. Every time modern medicine saves a life using technology, it's going against the evolutionary principle of eliminating the weak. Remember, nature has no sympathy for the weak. If we didn't use technology to eliminate competition, if you broke a leg, theres a good chance you'd get eaten by something. If you got a bad disease your immune system couldn't handle, your weak immune system was eliminated from the gene pool. With a few exceptions, this is virtually eliminated. I'm not saying all this is a bad thing, just that all this "it's against nature" crap is hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Saying parents who adopt children are nazis is a simplification of the matter and has nothing to do with it. Choosing a childs specifications is different to giving an already living child a home, your effectively shaping the childs life before its had a chance to develop itself - ironing out natural diversity and creating a race of clones who are superhuman because they were all created with maximum specifications. Thats precisely what Hitlers aim was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Theraputic cloning I have no qualm with, but reproductive cloning is different in the sense your introducing a new type of person to society. I dont see why anyone would want to clone people for the sake of creating a clone - the dangers are too great and there doesnt seem to be any need in the first place. Theraputic cloning with a view to stem cell research is beneficial as is most medical research, here the ends justify the means in terms of embryos which never make it. its important to differentiate between these two things because I dont support reproductive cloning for the reason that its just not needed and is dangerous to both the clone and the impact it would have on society. poeple should have some respect for the life they bring into this world, cloning a dead relative wont bring that relative back because the clone will be a new person. All you'll have is someone with the same eye colour, characterisitcs etc. He wont be the same person the relative was because everyone is unique in the sense of what they experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 So you have yet to explain why clones are acceptable if nature does it, but it's evil if we reproduce that effect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Nature never gives us human clones, except instances of twins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 That's what I'm talking about, nice reading comprehension, can't wait to see your MCATs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 haha, I guess it'd help if i read the posts. Nature does not have a goal in mind when it gives us clones. At this point, our goals and intentions may be good, but good intentions only last so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 You still simplify the matter by saying nature clones humans. Twins are only effective clones of each other and have two natural parents. Nature never creates a clone of someone asexually, I dont know why you insist on saying it does. If humans cloned themselves they'd be going out of their way to create someone with no parents, just a master copy. I think its perfectly reasonable to question why someone would want to carry out reproductive cloning. Humans dont asexually reproduce and you still havent given a reason why there should be human reproductive cloning. What does anyon have to gain from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Actually, it is asexual. Identical twins come mitotic division after fertilization. And you can't call it wrong for us to create life in the test tube, that's what in vitro fertilization is. Now your argument is reduced to having 2 parents. The person that's being cloned had two parents. Single parents are everywhere. What if a person is completely incapable of making eggs that can be fertilization by sperm; should they not be allowed to use cloning to have a child? Since so many things are influenced by environmental factors (even appearance, see the cat cloning expermient), the child would still be distinct and varied. If you say no, then you're sliding down the slope that will bring us to fertility treatments are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Of course I can be against reproductive cloning and pro fertility treatment seeing as in vitro and human cloning are completely different. If someone is incapable of producing eggs then no I dont think they should be allowed to clone themselves to have a child, although they might live in a tragic situation that doesnt justify allowing human cloning to take place, the ends dont justify the means. Why should a parent like that be allowed to endanger a child's life who hasnt even been born yet by undergoing a dangerous and almost always unsuccessful process? Sometimes life deals you a crappy hand, that doesnt mean you can subject a child to the vast array of problems experienced by cloned animals, whether thats premature ageing or whatever. Obviously one has to be sympathetic to the infertile woman but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hopefully cloning will be completely fazed out for stem cell research anyway, as adult stem cell research becomes more and more successful. Bone marrow stem cells from an adult male can form healthy brain tissue, so with any luck soon we can leave the ethically unsound process of creating hundreds of cloned embryos then throwing the vast majority away. It could take years and years before cloning humans could be deemed safe enough to be carried out for rerproduction and even if it eventually is there are still many many ethical objections to doing something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 You still haven't answered my main point. Why identical twins aren't wrong just because it's natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Why identical twins aren't wrong just because it's natural. He has, indirectly. 1) Identical twins in nature are often born without any major complications. Human cloning would hardly be as successful. 2) We can't control what nature gives us; we can control what we do. Why should a parent like that be allowed to endanger a child's life who hasnt even been born yet by undergoing a dangerous and almost always unsuccessful process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Yes, and also because of the life the clone would be born into. The reasons for this are partly the emotional stress on the clone, growing up knowing his/her 'parent' isnt that at all but his twin. His effective parents, those of the person who was cloned, may have already died which puts our clone in a strange place as he tries to find out his origins and identity. he can still grow up in a loving environment but in strange, odd circumstances. Also people trying to clone a dead child are putting their chld through a lot of emotional stress, the child will grow up and find out he was created as a replacement, and in any case you can never bring the dead back to life. I just dont agree with the thought of creating life and subjecting it to conditions like that. Twins occur in nature with no adverse effects, but an adult male/female being cloned obviously doesnt ever occur. I disagree with the concept of reproductive cloning not because it doesnt occur in nature, but because of the reasons outlined above. I wasnt very clear before. Incidentally has anything happened about that the clone that was supposedly created by the company in Canada? it hasnt been in the news much since all the initial media frenzy died down and I was wondering if there actually was a clone, or legal action was taken against the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 that brings up several good points. The parents may want their child (maybe back), but that would hardly be thinking of what's best for the kid, emotional stress and being made fun of probably throughout their lives, who knows how other people would react to a clone (they already think that having different colored skin or being a male/female is a bad thing, what happens when the person isn't natural?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_FLeX Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Originally posted by Dudde that brings up several good points. The parents may want their child (maybe back), but that would hardly be thinking of what's best for the kid, emotional stress and being made fun of probably throughout their lives, who knows how other people would react to a clone (they already think that having different colored skin or being a male/female is a bad thing, what happens when the person isn't natural?) What's best for the kid? Extremely ugly people have kids all the time. A lot of people still think fat people gluttonize, but for the most part it's in your genes. If two grossly overweight parents want to have a genetically superior stud of a child like myself, I think they should be able to have one. Which brings up another good point.......If a cloning experiment were to go horribly wrong, and the baby came out deformed, would you terminate it, or would you be allowed to terminate it? What's the difference in that and having a deformed retarded kid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 That question is not related to cloning. People give birth naturally to deformed and retarded children. We do everything in our power to keep them alive, and the question if we should be doing so is the same for clones and natural births. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 That question is not related to cloning. Yes it is What do we do with all the mess-ups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Same thing we do with all the naturally occuring messups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 the same thing we do with normal deformed children, allow to live out their lives and giv them whatever treatment possible. Although if cloning was so unreliable that the risk was substantially higher than non assisted conception you have to question if its worth risking it by carrying out reproductive cloning in the first place with dangers like these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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