blike Posted March 3, 2003 Posted March 3, 2003 Yes. As you said: We do everything in our power It is within our power to STOP cloning and STOP messing with people's lives.
fafalone Posted March 3, 2003 Posted March 3, 2003 We also have the power to perfect the process and use the knowledge it gives us to pre-emptively check and repair DNA and eliminate naturally occuring defects.
Dudde Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 but that world would surely be a boring one, and there wouldn't be many scientific advances if there was nothing to research, and so random new things would not be discovered?
Sayonara Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone We also have the power to perfect the process and use the knowledge it gives us to pre-emptively check and repair DNA and eliminate naturally occuring defects. This is just going in circles now. The question is not if we can, but whether we should. 'Some justification' doesn't look like it's going to be enough here. Most people in this thread are looking for a damned good reason why we should clone humans.
Glider Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ This is just going in circles now. The question is not if we can, but whether we should. Exactly. And I believe the answer to that particular question is at least suggested by the title of this forum "What use will cloned humans serve?" and of this particular poll "Are cloned humans going to be of any practical use?". Are cloned humans to be considered commodities? Are they to be thought of as resources? Is the only rationale for cloning humans that they must be of some practical use to non-clones? What the hell are we talking about here?...pit ponies? For a principle or standard to be ethical, it must be applicable to all, equally. Therefore the questions above should apply equally to all of us: What use do we serve? Are we of any practical use? If any one of us feels that nobody has the right to ask us to justify our own existance by being of some practical use to somebody, then we cannot expect the right to use these criteria to rationalise the existence of clones. Human clones would be human and when it comes to existance, to apply different criteria to them (i.e. that they must be of some practical use) than we do to non-clones would be completely unethical unless we could demonstrate that every non-clone is of some practical use. So, like Sayonara says, we need a damned good reason why we should clone humans. "Because we can" is not a reason. The ability to do something does not mean we should. The criteron "they would be of some practical use" is completely unethical because it would mean applying double standards as we don't apply it to non-clones. Thus, an argument for cloning humans based on their being of some practical use is as reasonable as an argument for gassing all those who are of no practical use (shaddap Fafalone! ).
blike Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 argument for gassing all those who are of no practical use (shaddap Fafalone! ). if you ask faf, sub 120 IQs should be gassed
Sayonara Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by blike if you ask faf, sub 120 IQs should be gassed Does the fact that IQ tests give varying results, or that they are marked up differently based on national average get factored in there?
fafalone Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 The better IQ tests are already designed for the culture of the person being tested. The better tests do not vary much over time (reliability, a key criteria in intelligence tests).
T_FLeX Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 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? Ignorance is opening the door to something that could lead to a reduction in the variation of the gene pool? The end of individuality? Did you read "A Brave New World" too many times? Sounds like you slipped in the gene pool when the life guard wasn't looking. Seems to me the world is overflowing with ignorance already. You goody two shoes bible thumping haters, need to open your eyes!
greg1917 Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 I have a perfectly reasonable objection to human cloning and you call me a bible thumping hater? So your completely oblivious to the perfectly valid ethical argument surrounding cloning? I dont support human reproductive cloning but I recognise that there are differences of opinion for understandable, valid reasons many of which have been mentioned in this thread. And anyway Ive been to church....... 3 times in my life? None of which were by choice. I may be a Rangers fan but i dont pretend to be a protestant, or even a Chrisitan. What is this almost purile hatred of religion anyway? Not all people who propose ethical questions have any religous tendencies, I certainly dont. Did I mention God in a single thread? No. You dont just need to open your eyes, learning to read seems like a plus. I happen to believe that the US governemnt is being too over zealous in an outright ban on cloning considering the medical implications it could lead to. My grandmother was one of the leading female psychiatrists in Scotland and for years lamented the unfair red tape and limitations of trying to carry out stem cell research so Im very aware of the advantages. I found some comfort in religion when she died in November but that didnt change my opinions, it just helped me through a difficult period in my life which science did sweet FA to address. So next time you lambast people for merely having religous views why dont you try looking at the situation rather than blindly following your own blinkered views, somewhat similar to the zealots who want an outright ban on cloning regardless of the research implications.
Sayonara Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone The better IQ tests are already designed for the culture of the person being tested. The better tests do not vary much over time (reliability, a key criteria in intelligence tests). Well just so long as there's some sort of regulatory system at work and ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE SYSTEM MISTER you've got my vote. Not that I can actually vote for anything in the US, of course.
fafalone Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 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?
greg1917 Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 The government should make the decision, not anyone else. They have scientific advisers for a reason, and if for arguments sake cloning was as safe as currently used artificial reproduction techniques (which at this stage it most definitely is not) there are still the implications on cloning to society, the clone himself, the possibilities of where cloning could lead given inadequate monitoring and legislation and the long term effects of it on all these things. If these are taken into account then so must the advantages of course. If these are classed as ethics or morality then to me thats all it is; a classification. I still think they're valid arguments for or against cloning. If it actually were made as safe as currently used artificial reproduction Id reassess my opinion based on literature at the time and my own views. Im not blindly following an anti cloning theme as T_flex seems to think.
fafalone Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 The Pope is not a valid scientific advisor. He's the one who Bush asked what to do about cloning.
greg1917 Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but his administration will surely have consulted more than the Pope, who only stands for Catholocism not Christianity in General. I dont know much about US politics but Id certainly hope this is the case. If the public as a whole was better educated theyd be able to make their own decision instead of blindly following what their priest/minister said, and for that matter professor as well. Maybe of people spent less time watching transvestite nazis beat each other up on Jerry Springer they could make an informed decision. And i do agree the outright ban on cloning is over zealous as I said. I think he was right to consult the Pope, but it should have only been consultation, not a simple yes or no question. Religion is an easy political tool to use to scare people but it this problem should be addressed, not wiped out.
fafalone Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 It's not the case. Bush and other members of the government (i.e. Ashcroft) are being highly criticized for letting their policy be heavily influenced by religious ideals. And last time I checked, a majority of scientists supported cloning... even here on scienceforums Should the ideals of the minority be applied to the majority?
T_FLeX Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 I have a perfectly reasonable objection to human cloning and you call me a bible thumping hater? So your completely oblivious to the perfectly valid ethical argument surrounding cloning? I dont support human reproductive cloning but I recognise that there are differences of opinion for understandable, valid reasons many of which have been mentioned in this thread. And anyway Ive been to church....... 3 times in my life? None of which were by choice. I may be a Rangers fan but i dont pretend to be a protestant, or even a Chrisitan. What is this almost purile hatred of religion anyway? Not all people who propose ethical questions have any religous tendencies, I certainly dont. Did I mention God in a single thread? No. You dont just need to open your eyes, learning to read seems like a plus. I happen to believe that the US governemnt is being too over zealous in an outright ban on cloning considering the medical implications it could lead to. My grandmother was one of the leading female psychiatrists in Scotland and for years lamented the unfair red tape and limitations of trying to carry out stem cell research so Im very aware of the advantages. I found some comfort in religion when she died in November but that didnt change my opinions, it just helped me through a difficult period in my life which science did sweet FA to address. So next time you lambast people for merely having religous views why dont you try looking at the situation rather than blindly following your own blinkered views, somewhat similar to the zealots who want an outright ban on cloning regardless of the research implications. I'm sorry if i offended you. It's just that when I read your post it brought back horrid memories of "A Brave New World"(The worst book I've ever read). Like faf said ethics are subjective, and I tend to be really laid back in my ethics. I think we could learn a lot from trying to perfect cloning, and that information, to me, just might be worth the "mistakes". This is just a phase in my opinion, when people first starting cutting up dead bodies to learn about human physiology it was viewed as very unethical, but now we don't even think about it as bad. (At least I don't)
fafalone Posted March 4, 2003 Posted March 4, 2003 You also get into the question of freedom. It's my body and who is the government to say I can't take one part of it and put it somewhere else?
greg1917 Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 Firstly no offense taken, and secondly some of my early posts in this forum were either poorly articulated, porrly constructed or both so yes it did sound like i was quoting that book (what a load of pish that was). From what it sounds like Bush places too much emphasis on religion in his polcies but it should still be a factor in government policy due to its huge impact on society. More reasoned arguments are needed where the pros and cons of decions, and not just cloning, are decided in a more transparent manner. The public should be able to understand any governemnt decison and follow the argument (regardless of their particular orientation) clearly, otherwise yes it does become a decision for the minority which in this case it was.
greg1917 Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 Well just how liberal do you want to be? I would say freedom is being alowed to do what you want to your body, drugs being an example. But here your not really putting it somewhere else, your creating a new life which has its own freedom to consider. And also no one ever replied to my question, or if you did i didnt notice, apologies. what ever happened to the cloning comapny? Clonaid or whatever it was called.
fafalone Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 Drugs are putting an external substance into your body. Cloning is taking the nucleus from one cell and putting it in another cell. And you still have not explained how a clone would be any different from a normal human being, especially an identical twin, assuming we perfected the process for no defects.
T_FLeX Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 If the public as a whole was better educated theyd be able to make their own decision instead of blindly following what their priest/minister said, and for that matter professor as well. Sadly this is the case, at least in my city. As a whole, people are pretty stupid. These types of decisions should not in my opinion be decided by the masses. Please don't get me started on bush. I hate that man.
greg1917 Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 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
fafalone Posted March 5, 2003 Posted March 5, 2003 Why isn't this the case with identical twins? Or identical twins resulting from an in vitro fertilization?
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