I want a clone!

[clydefo]

President Bush says that he thinks "cloning humans for spare parts
is wrong" but he didn't say why.

That is exactly what I want. In case I need a liver or whatever.

Naturally the clone will be lobotomized so it is incapable of ever
achieving consciousness or having any feeling or awareness.

Why in the world would anyone object to that?

[Demosthenes]

What is wrong with cloning?

From a pure scientific stand point, absolutely nothing.
From a moral aspect, somethings.
From a religious view, everything.

People claim we are altering what God intends for us. This translates into: we are altering fate, else if it were not fate, then we would not be changing everything. There are things to be said about this. Those who do not suffer from any maladies that might be solved by genetic research are most likely to be against it. They got dealt a fair hand, screw the rest. They do not say this, but all their actions clearly point at this. Give them a disability and see how many and how fast they turn coat. Those who do suffer want and sometimes need this research just to stay alive.

Are we changing what God intends. Probably, but so what? How does this differ from the past 1000 years of medicinal research? We have cured, prevented, innoculated, and even destroyed and created diseases. No one argues that CPR is tampering with the cycle of life. Those who argue this point of interferring with God's plans are idiots, plain and simple. Most everyone in the US has been so heavily medically modified that I doubt their God would even recognize them.

Next, the blood on our hands. Fact is, they remove the forerunner of the brain during the fetal stages (I will spare the Latin). This means the "thing" is a fully functional brain-dead entity (like most people I know). So, does hacking it up into pieces constitute as murder? Who knows? Do you remember Bravo? The United States deliberately used the people of the Marshall Islands to test the effects of nuclear radiation and fallout. Those islands are basically uninhabitable, radioactive sand, radioactive water, radioactive coconuts, and so on. We destroyed a whole country which was our protectorate and no one even celebrated. So, if hacking up braindead bodies to save others is the worst thing the human race has done, then it will be a surprise for me.

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[Tuf]

Farming Human Life for consumption? Seems to be a very alarming concept, One that I certainly hope I don't live long enough to see. Just my intial reaction anyway.

[mbossman2]

My issues with cloning are:

At what point is a developing human embryo imbued with a "soul" (or the essence that makes each of us unique)? Until this is truly defined and identified, we, as both a society and individuals, have no right to tamper with that life.

Also, I think that with cloning, we will develop second class citizens, those with the rights to those inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to quote a "minor" ;) document) and those that will never have those rights. Doesn't that undermine a major portion of the basis of our (The United States of America) nation?

Until both of these issues are addressed in such a way that protects the rights (both the secular and religious) of all involved, we really should steer clear of this area. The ability/techniques of cloning will still be there, waiting for discovery or development, after these issues have been resolved. Science and scientists need to understand that their developments do not occur in a tidy little vacuum and these developments can (and generally do) have serious social, religious and political ramifications that need to be addressed. We should not take the stance of "Lets do it and figure out the ramifications and how to deal with them later", that is poor planning and can end in disaster.

My final point is: Would you knowingly end another human being's life to preserve your own life, that was not directly being threatend by that other human being?

[LawyerRon]

Welcome back Clyde, we missed you.

[Jenni]

From a moral standpoint, I think that cloning is absolutely wrong, no doubt about it. Creating a life, just to destroy it for my own benefit? How could that ever possibly be right?

From other standpoints, I can see all sorts of problems. Who's gonna be in charge of these clones? Do you just go see your Dr. and have one made? Then what happens to it? Where does it go? Surely you don't want a braindead version of yourself at home with you. Do we put them in some sort of "nursing home"? And who's to say that someone couldn't make another clone of you, only not of the braindead variety? And take over your identity. After all, this clone would be "you", would it not?

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by Jenni
From a moral standpoint, I think that cloning is absolutely wrong, no doubt about it. Creating a life, just to destroy it for my own benefit? How could that ever possibly be right?

From other standpoints, I can see all sorts of problems. Who's gonna be in charge of these clones? Do you just go see your Dr. and have one made? Then what happens to it? Where does it go? Surely you don't want a braindead version of yourself at home with you. Do we put them in some sort of "nursing home"? And who's to say that someone couldn't make another clone of you, only not of the braindead variety? And take over your identity. After all, this clone would be "you", would it not?

Couldn't happen. First of all, the clone's brain would not have the years of input yours does. (S)he would not recognize your spouse, your kids, etc. although basically the brain is the same. When they can clone the knowledge in the human brain, then you have a problem.

Second, this clone will not have the "life defects" bodily that you have. If you are a mother, it will not have born children. If you have skin cancer from a life time of being in the sun, it won't have it. If you are obese, because of a lifetime of overeating, it won't be.

I don't know where I stand on this subject. I don't <B>think</B> the cloned material would have a spirit, so it should be okay to use it for what is intended. But what if I'm wrong, and using the material murders another human being, like abortion does. This question has to have a concrete answer before I would be willing to clone myself.


I don't think they can yet clone an adult. I don't think they will ever be able to but I could be wrong. Therefore to have organs available for transplant would take approx eighteen years if you want an adult organ. Someone would have to raise that clone and I don't think anyone would be able to take a liver from an eighteen year old human to put in a 60 year old human. If the clone grows so long that would indicate a spirit, a viable human being, that could not be killed for parts. Sorry, you don't get a clone as a repository for spare parts in this scenario. When you can so to the doctor and have him take a few good cells and clone you <B>as you are</B> I would think that then you would have all the spare parts you want. This is not available now, but it may be possible. Therefore, I support continued research of this subject.

[Paul Victorey]

One question which should be considered, given the current creation of embyros for research purposes, is where the dividing line between "living human being" and "living human cells" lies. Certainly, if you took a biopsy of any part of my body, you would obtain living human cells, but I don't think it's at all immoral to do research upon such a collection of cells.

So, is research on 6-cell embryos different, morally, from taking 6 cells from an adult and experimenting with them?

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
So, is research on 6-cell embryos different, morally, from taking 6 cells from an adult and experimenting with them?

I believe it does:

Cells taken from you via biopsy have no chance into developing into a human being as they are already differentiated and can only reproduce into like cells (striated muscle cells become striated muscle cells only etc, organs are composed of many different types of cells, not just "heart cells"), whereas a 6 cell embryo, will, given time, develop into a human being as the cells have not reached the point of differentiation.

its been a real long time since i took cellular biology so i can't remember when differentiation takes place in embryonic development.

What needs to occur in the cloning technology area is to "un-differentiate" cells and re-direct their development into needed tissue type/organ, that would bypass most of the moral issues (mine included) to the concept of cloning.

[Paul Victorey]

That is, in a way, what cloning is. You take a fertilized egg, remove its nucleus and inject the nucleus of any cell from the target creature. It is the cytoplasm and the cell membrane which determines cell differentiation -- and there is no known way, nor theoretical way to synthetically create the necessary environment within a cell to undifferentiate it. So they take a pluripotent cell (a fertilized egg) and replace its nucleus (and thus, its DNA) while keeping the rest of the cell intact.

And, it really doesn't address the issue you're concerned with, because if you took any cell, and if you could somehow "undifferentiate it" -- i.e. generate an embryonic stem cell from a normal cell without the use of a fertilized egg -- the new embryonic stem cell would have the capacity to become a fully-functional human if given the proper environment, too.

[mbossman2]

But the bulk of the cloning articles that I have seen (I admit that is very limited as I left biology for the wonderful world of computers), the drive has been to clone a complete and functioning individual being (dolly the sheep comes to mind), not the development of an organ.

Which brings me back to my original concern of: at what point does the "soul" get imbued into the developing organism. that has never been defined, and until it is, this is a ground that needs to be avoided due to the bigger picture implications of terminating a Life.

Like I said in a previous post, science and knowledge does not exist in a vacuum or ivory tower, the implications of end use of research need to be addressed, the techniques and key piece of information will still be waiting there (just like they are now) until the bigger picture issues are resolved.

[Computer Hobbyist]

If we are talking about growing clumps of liver, brain or heart cells, why not? If we are talking about full copies of people, why? I think we can grow all the humans we need the old fashioned way.

CH

[Demosthenes]

My final point is: Would you knowingly end another human being's life to preserve your own life, that was not directly being threatened by that other human being?Of course. What do you think war is? Two countries disagree, so they arm people with guns and send them off to fight other people who they have not met and really have no reason to shoot at. Battlefield psychology is an amazing thing. You shoot people only because you think they will shoot at you, but they are shooting at you only because they think you are trying to shoot them. No one is directly threatened. Our insanity makes us think we are so we kill them before they can directly threaten us. There is a quote from All Quiet on the Western Front that beautifully sums this up. I cannot do it justice.

Continuing on the war trend, that is eventually what cloning is leading toward. Everything is rooted in or eventually turns into an art of killing. The reason we stumble along with genetic research is to understand the human genome. Every little step brings us closer to understanding it. And what is the genome is but the end all API. It is a language of such utter simplicity which has had billions of years to evolve into the most complex system yet found. And the people who first discover how to write and modify it will have unimaginable power. Imagine its war implications, like custom tailored designer viruses. The point of war is not to kill, but to remove the enemies ability to retaliate. Killing usually does a good job of removing this ability, however. But, if you could create a genetic disease that, oh lets say, removes involuntary actions like breathing, heartbeat, blinking, etc, then how effective would an army be that has to stop and remember to breathe? That is the last thing on your mind in a foxhole. And that is just simple stuff. Once we learn more, we do much more interesting things. How about genetic Alzheimer's? If it could be done, we can make enemies forget why they are fighting, or better yet, make it so they forget which color uniforms they are supposed to shoot at. Unfortunately, I really do not think this is entirely impossible. The list goes on.

As for morality: They remove the forerunner of the brain when it is just a collection of cells. Modern medicine defines death by the lack of brainwaves since heartbeat can obviously be manipulated. So, if you remove the brain when it is a collection of cells, do you think those couple of dozen of cells are alive? That is the moral question. However, the fact is, the United States is the only one who follows the rules. I mean who really cared about the Geneva Convention except the US? If the US does not clone a human, other countries will. Simple as that. And if scientists go to third world countries to do research, then what keeps that information from falling into the wrong hands? Do you want the US to regulate it or would you rather see Mexico regulate it? The technology is upon us, and it will be done, if it has not been already through secret means.

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[Colonel Sanders]

I think what needs to be done is to work out a way to produce a clone that will never develope feelings, kinda like Data on Star Trek(anyone know who I'm talking about?). The big challenge is when you make that clone it is a baby, but you need parts older than baby parts.

"Is ending another life worth saving you own life?" While, technically your ending a zerox of your own life, which should at best not develop such a stron love to be alive as we do.

In my opinion, God(If you believe or want to believe in God) intended for us to discover cloning technology, and thus we should refine it some more and use it.

Logan

[Xayd]

Originally posted by mbossman2
Which brings me back to my original concern of: at what point does the "soul" get imbued into the developing organism. that has never been defined, and until it is, this is a ground that needs to be avoided due to the bigger picture implications of terminating a Life.


That's the argument right there. Cloning a human for medical purposes must be done with the assumption that there is no 'soul', no right to life, no afterlife, or anything that goes along with all that stuff for the clone-ee.

The technology exists, so it's only a matter of time before it's put to use. If you guys will remember your history, the Cathloic church imprisoned Galileo because they didn't like the fact that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Throwing him in jail didn't change that fact, and it didn't change people from finding out about it either.

The interesting question, at least for the United States, is how the anti-clone people will try to legislate the ban of human cloning. They can't put any religious belief into the law, or it will be summarily stricken down by the courts. Yet the religious arguments are the only arguments they have against it.

[mantapc]

People will create clones or cloned body parts for one reason: To Live Longer. But why do we avoid death at all costs? Are we afraid of where we are going? So we spend millions upon millions of dollars developing research that leads up to the cloning of human beings. Even if it is only a body part, it had to be grown from a human being. What gives us the right to take the life a another person in order to save our own life from our INEVITABLE death?!?!

[clydefo]

<b>mbossman2</b> suggests that we hold off on cloning until
“At what point a developing human embryo is imbued with a
‘soul’ …is truly defined and identified”.

Sorry, but I can’t wait that long, and I don’t think that we should hold up progress to accommodate the “supernaturalists”.

He, <b>Jenni</b> and <b>mantapc</b> say that using and destroying another
“person”, “human being” or a “life” in this way is wrong.

I argue that a mindless “spare-parts” clone is not a “person” or a “human being” and does not have a “life”.


Thanks for the welcome, <b>LawyerRon</b>. I’ve been wandering about raging against
Ralph Nader but 9/11 woke me up. Don’t mess with Texas!

[mantapc]

clydefo , you are approaching this issue in a very ingornant way....

[clydefo]

<b>mantapc</b>,
Thanks.

[LawyerRon]

mantapc,
clydefo may be a lot of things but ignorant isn't one of them. Trust me.

[troysvihl]

the Luddites always come out and object to pretty much every new scientific advancement. Usually with some sort of vague statement along the lines of "We're not ready yet" or "It's immoral."

The exact same arguements were used when the steam engine was first developed.


Speaking of Nader, he gave a talk at my school the other day. He's so ignorant, it's scary. So by all means, rage against him. Loonies like him and Buchanan are dangerous.

[SARGE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by clydefo
[
Sorry, but I can’t wait that long, and I don’t think that we should hold up progress to accommodate the “supernaturalists”.



Hold up "progress"? Depends on one's definition of progress. The atom bomb grew out of progress, as did learning how to make a bullet exit a barrel. Space exploration is considered progress, now we can drop a nuke down a smoke stack from around the world. Satellites were a progress, now we can use them to guide said nuke. Crude examples but we can trust mankind to put his dirty footprint on anything, to take a newly discovered "progress" and turn it into something stinky.

I'm unsure about the use of "supernaturalists". Might be a slam against those who believe in a soul and/or afterlife. They've been called worse...

[Xayd]

Originally posted by mantapc
What gives us the right to take the life a another person in order to save our own life from our INEVITABLE death?!?!

Because the more advances that we make in repairing and modifying the body, the closer we are to eliminating it and all of its shortcomings.

When the brain can be sustained outside of the body in an artificial frame...well, the quote goes something like...

And in strange aeons, even death may die

;)

[HAL9000]

OK, if it is possible to "kill death", think about this, do you really want to live forever?

[troysvihl]

I do

[HAL9000]

And what would you do after 100, 200, 300 years? Personally, I think you would actually welcome death when boredom sets in.

[troysvihl]

Well, I doubt I would get bored after just a couple of hundred years. But I'd sure like the option of finding out.

[Paul Victorey]

Hey, I could go for a few centuries of life. Especially in the current times, with the rapid changes of culture and technology; new things happen every day, and the world can drastically change in the space of years, not centuries.

[clydefo]

<b>SARGE</b>,
Some claim that nuclear weapons are a godsend. Without them, the Soviet Union and USA might have
very likely fought a disastrous conventional war after WWII. Given the concept of Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD), the possession of nukes by Pakistan and India may well force them to resolve
their differences peacefully. I don’t disagree that mankind can screw things up, but we can straighten
things out also. Our air and water are cleaner than they used to be, for instance.

By “supernaturalist”, I mean someone who claims that events in the rational, physical world are controlled or influenced by supernatural forces or entities such as voodoo, gods and goddesses, spirits and ghosts,etc.
They never offer any coherent explanation of how such things work, or any proof of their claims beyond
their own “faith” in their correctness. If they had their way, mankind would still be mired in the
Middle Ages.

[Nuclear Krusader]

At the pace we're going, I hardly believe that the world lasts another 100 years.

Living forever, not really my first choice. Well, I do believe in God, and He is my final and ultimate goal. Life is nothing but a chance to earn my own ticket to Heaven. And when I think that after dying I'll meet God in all His glory, well to me death is not that bad.
I'm not saying that I have death wishes (in fact, if I blow my head off I'll never see God, all I'll ever get will be a fiery ocean of lava), only that, to me, life is just a journey not a destination.

Which brings me back to my original concern of: at what point does the "soul" get imbued into the developing organism. that has never been defined, and until it is, this is a ground that needs to be avoided due to the bigger picture implications of terminating a Life.

Perhaps from now on I will be called a "supernaturalist" by some of you, but I think that from the very moment in which those two haploid cells unite, a soul is imbued and a new human being is born. He is brainless, heartless and whatever "less" you want, but he sure is already a human being. Killing him is a murder.

Of course. What do you think war is?

Just remember that in war the other soldiers can shoot back (unless you nuke them, of course). And these poor beings, oh pardon me, this "fully functional brain-dead entities", cannot even defend themselves.

If we are talking about growing clumps of liver, brain or heart cells, why not? If we are talking about full copies of people, why? I think we can grow all the humans we need the old fashioned way.

I agree completely, because I'm not against progress. If men colonize the galaxy, Excellent! If men cure most of today's deadly diseases using genetic engineering, That's wonderful! But discretion is adviced too.

IMHO we men can do a lot of wonderful (and useful) things, but there is a limit.

The goal can never be justified by the means. If the means are wrong, the goal will be corrupted by them.

[Polymorphus]

The Human Race are evolving, from the cave man types we used to be, our differences were fought with violence. Now, armed with the knowledge we have slowly attained over the many years, we are becoming the free thinking indivuals you see today. For once the Human race have in my opinion, a common goal, that is to learn. No one can take that away from us, and we will continue to better ourselves by learning as much as possible in our lifetime for knowledge is power. The race is on to learn everything about everything, and those who know something that others don't, no matter how big or small, will have an edge, it is more a question of how far we are willing to go in our pursuit of knowledge, the answer to which I think is infite. No governing body can stop or prevent individuals from seeking knowledge regardless of what scale it is on and I have to agree with Demosthenes that unless a responsible group or government take control of the situation now, Third World countries could very well become the target for "Mad Scientists" to carry out their cloning techniques. As for how the rest of the world responds, religious, government etc, amongst the many things I have already learned, one in particular springs to mind now and that is that you can't please everyone all the time, you can only please some people some of the time. A compromise needs to be reached between religious groups and governments and the public in general. There is no give and take in the matter at all, Religion says no, Governments want to probably try it to give them the edge over others (But back down since public opinion is undecided on whether the scientific advances outweigh the moral issues), people as a whole probably don't want to go ahead with it as they don't see any benefit to them personally (Other than those who it may save the lives of, who I am sure would openly welcome such research). Until those who disagree with the whole process are placed in a situation which might see cloning save their lives, or at the least see things from the perspective of those dieing and the pain they are suffering, will public opinion remain in the stalemate it is today. The one thing flawed about Democracy is that it rely's on the decisions that people make, and lets face it, people as a whole are unpredictable, we have conflicting ideas as individuals, We don't think the same, We don't act the same, and as a whole this will not change. One thing I do suggest trying, is taking a step back and looking at the whole picture, look at where the Human Race have come from, and try to predict where we are going. Everything happens for a reason, and advances in science such as cloning is one of them. If God created all these wonderful things for us, why can't we use them to better ourselves and learn from them? Sorry for the long post, but I had to get my 2c worth in on this topic :)

[mbossman2]

In response to some of the past comments:

"If we are talking about growing clumps of liver, brain or heart cells, why not?"

I have no problem with that, however this is the hard road to take and many people feel "why take the hard road when there is an easy road to take?". The easy road might not be the right one (and with human lives in the balance, I believe that we should err on the side of caution).

"Of course. What do you think war is? Two countries disagree, so they arm people with guns and send them off....."

In this case your life is being directly threatened by an armed adversary who is out to kill you...how does that equate to an individual knowingly killing a completely self denfenseless person?

"Yet the religious arguments are the only arguments they have against it."

Yet, they are valid arguments and you are quick to dismiss them. While you may not agree with them, they have the right to voice their concerns.

"I argue that a mindless “spare-parts” clone is not a “person” or a “human being” and does not have a “life”."

They started out that way and someone went in to terminate that life in its nascent stages...That, I beleive, is wrong.

"the Luddites always come out and object to pretty much every new scientific advancement. Usually with some sort of vague statement along the lines of "We're not ready yet" or "It's immoral."

All I am saying is that we, as a society, need to take a good hard look at the ramifications of research and not charge into something without a deep understanding of what we are getting into. How many times have you (non-specific you) acted and then regretted that action because its out come?

"I do (want to life forever)"

What kind of ramifications are there if, all of a sudden, you have a large population that has (previously) abnormally long life spans? Instead of having X number of deaths, being replaced by Y number of births, you have a population that is growing much more quickly than it is now. Where will that leave us in say, 200 years? Remember, many wars are fought due to populational pressures (which are the basis of scarcity of resources, another reason wars are fought).

I am personally not against research or progress in any way, what I am against is willy nilly actions that have no thought in them other than the immediate goal. This type of resrearch (cloning) needs to be examined and all reasonable points should be heard, all reasonable ramifications examined and addressed. It is very difficult, as it has been pointed out in the past, to put the genie back in the bottle. Knowing that the genie is there and what can happen when the genie is released and be prepared for the end result is all I am advocating...

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by troysvihl
I do

Trust me, You don't want to live forever. My paternal greatgrandmother drove that point home to me. When your left with nothing to do but eat, sleep, and daydream live itself becomes unbearable. I remember seeing that poor woman sitting on the porch every pretty day that we had. We actually became pretty close. She used to decry that she was healthy and useless, and she used to pray for death.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Carl

Your greatgrandmother wasn't useless. She became your friend and taught you some important lessons.

CH

[Reedimus]

wow, what a fun topic. here's what I think: cloning may be right or wrong and everyone's got an opinion about it. what's nice about this debate is that no one is arguing that everyone must participate in cloning. if you don't like it and you think it is wrong, don't do it. no one is saying you must clone yourself. I can't stand it when people set their mind on something they absolutely believe is right or wrong and then get off thinking that it needs to be legislated for everyone else.

cloning may be right or wrong (I personally think it is wrong), but banning it for everyone is *definitely* wrong. who other than a complete control freak could object to what I do with my own resources in my own home?

[troysvihl]

All I am saying is that we, as a society, need to take a good hard look at the ramifications of research and not charge into something without a deep understanding of what we are getting into. How many times have you (non-specific you) acted and then regretted that action because its out come?

Well that's really just a variation on the "we're not ready" arguement. I just have a real problem with it because of the "we're" phraseology. It's a tad bit too authoritarian and collectivist for me. So that's why I'm not persuaded by that type of arguement. If you don't care for this type of research, (the nonspecific you) then great! Don't use the fruits of the research and don't support it in any way.

But it's a whole different story when "society" claims to have the right to stop all research.


What kind of ramifications are there if, all of a sudden, you have a large population that has (previously) abnormally long life spans? Instead of having X number of deaths, being replaced by Y number of births, you have a population that is growing much more quickly than it is now. Where will that leave us in say, 200 years? Remember, many wars are fought due to populational pressures (which are the basis of scarcity of resources, another reason wars are fought).

You can see exactly what would happen by looking at every developed country in the world today. (and in quite a few developing countries) The same phenomena is happing to a smaller degree. People are living longer than they ever did. Guess what's happeneing in every developed country? Populations are shrinking. The birth rate in each of them is smaller than the replacement rate.

Populations are self-regulating, so don't believe the alarmists that claim there is a popultion problem. They're the same crowd that wrote best-selling books in the 60's claiming we'd be having wide-spread famine by the early 80's.


She used to decry that she was healthy and useless, and she used to pray for death.

Well, sorry to hear that she was such a killjoy. But I know plenty of old people that feel quite the opposite.

And I had more than a few young friends that got sick of life and decided to eat a gun barrel. So I don't think the being tired of life has much to do with age.

Maybe a bit, since suicide statistics show that the elderly are the most likely to kill themselves. But I have a feeling the majority of those are because of health reasons, and if they were able to maintian their health through gene therapy, they may decide to keep living.


Reedimus - exactly. But by that reasoning, then you should be against any governmental funded research. After all, using tax dollars is just another way of forcing someone to support it.

[Paul Victorey]

Well, most people who are talking about cloning for organs are talking about a process like:

1) Take a cell sample from the patient.
2) Take a fertilized egg, and replace its nucleus with one from a cell of the patient.
4) Take the cell, which is an embryonic stem cell (a master cell, that can generate any or all of a human).
5) Give the cell the appropriate environment, and chemical signals, to cause the cell to grow into an entire organ.

The object is NOT to create a whole human, and remove organs, although that is the only way we could do it with the current level of technology.

The real pitfall to the above process is that we cannot figure out how to do #5 quite yet. The machinery is present to do what we want, but we can't yet figure out exactly how to control it.

One other possible factor to consider is that we don't necessarily need to use a HUMAN fertilized egg. The genetic material is replaced by the patient's DNA, so all future cells are identical to the patient's own. If humans and other animals have similar enough stem cell composition, it's theoretically possible to avoid the issue of using a fertilized human egg, by using something like a chimp for the egg. Assuming the chimp's cell (which is 99% human, DNA-wise) is similar enough to a human cell in terms of the proteins, membrane, etc., it could certainly work to clone human cells from an adult human cell plus another species' fertilized egg. It may even have been done (cloning with 2 different animal species), I can't recall.

[Reedimus]

quote: troysvihl: "...by that reasoning, then you should be against any governmental funded research"

yep. I am. ;)

[troysvihl]

Reedimus, i completely agree

[SARGE]

Didn't they take specimen from a mosquito and mix it with a frog's DNA and create dinosaurs? I think that's the way it was.

[clydefo]

Spare parts cloning will probably become popular. Even those with some moral qualms will no doubt be happy to get new eyeballs when they need them. In order to ensure that the technology isn’t only available to the affluent, a new entitlement under a Bureau of Cloning should be established. Or maybe it can be included in Medicare or Health and Human Services. Minor details.

[Demosthenes]

Personally, I cannot stand religious arguments. They mean well, but ultimately translate in unbearable human arrogance. Most religions are self-centered on people, with no thoughts given to animals. Ironic since many biologists will tell you humans are considered animals. Many religions even all but damn other religions. In fact, most wars are not fought due to population constraints (very few are actually, I cannot think of any), but over religion. This is not meant to start a theological debate, but to set up an argument.

As Mr. Victorey stated, how would people's views of cloning change if say humans were not the species in question. Perhaps cloning a monkey could net the desired results. What about cloning cows for harvest? How now do your opinions change? Yes, clone a sheep and it is a cheap parlor trick. Resurrecting dinosaurs is amusing. But, replicate a human and there is hell to pay.

We need to make this plunge and we will inevitably, one way or another. I see prenatal gene therapy a real possibility in the relative future, and I would prefer that scientists have a firm background in it before they start altering humans. Our biomed knowledge is nothing as it was even 10 years ago, yet our knowledge of the human being is sadly ridiculous. The two major disciplines of science on which I am putting all my hope into is Quantum Theory and Mechanics and Genetic Research. With a full understanding of these two fields we will reshape our world and hopefully take to the stars.

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[Alan]

Some have said that cloning a life and destroying it for the sake of extending another's life is wrong. I guess that breeding livestock such as cows and chicken the old fashion way for the sole purpose of turning them into dinner thus extending our lives is OK? Just think about it.
Not being a religious person the "soul" arguement doesn't mean a whole lot to me but somewhere deep inside my "soul" I know I wouldn't want to be the one to cut into a clone for extracting organs.
I am more worried about scientists experimenting with genetics and elimininating some obscure gene that we do not realize the importance until it's too late. Say science creates clones (either organs or whole bodies) but there is some undetected defect in the clone. They blend in with the general population as commonplace either as organ transplants or whole humans. After 20, 30 or even 100 generations the defect is fully integrated into the human genetic structure and destroys mankind's immunity from the common cold. The sniffles could then become a fatal disease.
I am probably leaning on the anti-cloning side but more due to practicality than any moral or religious view.

[HAL9000]

The heck with worrying about a defect, how about somebody looking to create a superior race, hasn't the world been through that already?

[Alan]

Well if they keep genetically creating superior babes like Max (played by Jessica Alba) on the TV show Dark Angel then I'm OK for!!

[Demosthenes]

What if there is already a dormant defect in the human genome already, just lying around unexpressed? The hope is that even if we do accidently induce errors into the gene pool, the benefits produced by such research will allow us to find, isolate, and fix said defects. In fact, we probably would have to screw up some genes intentionally just to see what they are doing.

Should we ever get around to cloning a human, I doubt it will be anytime soon that such a clone would be let loose in the "wild." That is why I am for cloning to be done before someone else decides to take their experiment outside of a conrolled arena. Weirder things have happened. I think cloning has a terrible public image. No one knows much about DNA outside of what "Mr. DNA" taught us in Jurassic Park. And the only thing we know about cloning, is that we can make two Schwarzeneggers. I think there needs to be some cloning public announcement to kill some of these ridiculous myths. It is science, not magic.

Through this all will be an even stranger faction of people: the extremists. Those who think killing a human soul is such a heinous crime that they will bomb research facilities, killing not only the clones they wish to "liberate" but probably innocents as well. And, as we all know, killing innocents seems to be the trend of the time.

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[troysvihl]

No one knows much about DNA outside of what "Mr. DNA" taught us in Jurassic Park.

Exactly. Pleople need to realize that the process of cloning is the tweeking of the genome. But guess what? That's been going on for eons in the processes of natural selection and species differentiation. So why people get all worried about it it beyond me. I guess they've seen too many movies.

You see that same fear-factor occuring when people get all worried about genetically modified food. They fail to realize that humans have been geneticly modifying their food for millenia. The wheat and corn that we have been using for centuries are not natually occuring plants. They only exist because humans, over the course of millenia, cultivated them in order to increase yields.

BTW, If a clone gets out in the "wild," so what? "Clones" walk among us all the time, and it's no big deal. They're called identical twins.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Demosthenes


It is science, not magic.

To quote a famous science fiction writer "science sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." For many people cloning is magic.

Actually the word "cloning" is emotionally charged. When most people describe cloning they are describe the process of replicating identical individuals without sex. Sort of a 1960's science fiction image. Maybe we would be better able to discuss the issue if we discarded the word "cloning."

CH

[troysvihl]

Here's somthing a bit off-point. It talks about fears nano-technology, rather than cloning. But I think there are many similarities.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,48738,00.html

Some have drawn attention to a widely read essay by Bill Joy that appeared in Wired magazine last year. It painted a bleak picture, and Joy fretted that self-replicating nanobots were more dangerous than nuclear weapons and that nanotech research should be abandoned.

lol. I think that's a pretty good example of how irrational these fears can be.



BTW, the guy quoted in the article, Glenn Reynolds, is a professor here at my school and something of a mentor to me.

[troysvihl]

Here's another article, more on point, about the cloned embryo:


http://www.reason.com/hod/vp120501.shtml


It's only a couple of pages long, and it's from a great magazine: Reason.

[Computer Hobbyist]

troysvihl

Those are two really outstanding articles. I hope everybody takes the time to read them, especially the cloning article. Way to go.

CH

[pcoopers]

Before one approves, or disapproves, of cloning, one should look at human nature.

Stroll into any locker room. Obscenity, crudity, conversation is at the basest of base levels. Got a CB radio? Same. Visit most chat rooms, more of the same. I hear terms like "quality of life", "quality time", What do those terms mean?

I love my fellow man enough that I became an EMT 21 years ago, and have done what I could, where I could, without compensation, reward, or even thanks. But, I also despise my fellow man for showing me repeatedly just how crude life can be.
(why do most people need emergency medical treatment, after all?)

Now I may be a cynical old fool, but given a new toy to play with, it will be dragged through the mud, broken, folded, spindled, mutilated, into something far more disgusting than any of us can imagine.

Irregardless of Government control, there are people who will want a real live sentient replica of themselves, just to have someone around to torture.

You say no one can be that low? Visit the battered women's shelter in your area. Children are less and less abused, it seems, ( I don't have empirical data to back that up, just subjective) but women are used and abused by sickos just as much as ever.

Cloning scares me on moral, ethical, and religious grounds.

[troysvihl]

yeah, and a lot of vehicular homicides are committed every year too. Maybe we shoudl ban cars.

[Computer Hobbyist]

It is amazing how this discussion has morphed into a general conversation about the moral and ethical uses of new technology. I almost think its an irrelevant conversation because I can't think of a single instance of a real technological advance not being used as soon as it became economically viable. Can you?

I suspect the same thing will happen with theraputic cloning. If it has real merit and economic viability, it will be employed somewhere by somebody and the societies that for social, or religious reasons flatly refuse to employ the technology will be left behind. The same can be said for nanotechnology.

This is not to say that we don't have the power to restrict or control the employment of a technology. We do. We just don't have the power to stop technology everywhere in the world.
CH

[pcoopers]

Actually Troysvihl, I have an opinion along that line:

This country is in the grip of a mass hysteria to outlaw, ban, and destroy the tobacco industry. In the name of Safety and Health, it has become a crime to supply a minor child with tobacco, and in fact, the state of New York arrested me for seating myself in a public restaurant, in the smoking section, with my 12 year old son.

Now, personally, I have never known a minor child to have died from the use of tobacco.

However, my 3 sons and I did personally know 3 young people who have died on school buses, and I read from time to time of accidents involving school buses.
The casualty figures range from 1 or 2, to dozens.

I really would like to see school buses outlawed, since so many children die on them, and ease up on the tobacco hysteria.

[clydefo]

<b>pcoopers</b>,
My hat is off to you and other public servants who have to deal with the mayhem and madness of our society. But surely, I must believe, you also have seen
the altruism, and love that people feel for each other, especially in times of crisis. Most reproductive clones would be treasured; since, as <b>troysvihl</b> has pointed out, they are essentially the same as identical twins.
If my spare-parts clone ever, through mistake, gained a mind and limped away, blindly, from the slab on his own, I would welcome him as a brother and give him a kidney if needed (or obtain one from one of the other clones stashed around the world).

[Demosthenes]

The whole point of cloning (as I see it) is not to replicate a human. It can be done. It is to further biomed technology. Why would they want a full human? There are billions of them here. Take a homeless person off the street and sacrifice him to science. Then we could solve homelessness and cancer at the same time. Excuse me for being Swift-y, but I do not think cloning will ever get to the point of the 6-hour photo hut, where one could take a leak into a cup and a clone will jump out. Nor do I think that a wife-beater is going to clone his wife so he can beat with both hands. I know you did not mean this literally, and neither do I, put the point still stands.

This is for increasing quality of life. When people think of cloning they think only of themselves. "Oh, how neat, I could have a clone to go to work for me," or "Oh, no, they are messing with my god's or gods' will" (depending upon your religion or religions). Think how it can help others first. An EMT will surely understand that one.

As an aside, tobacco does not kill minors. Its effects are gradual over a prolonged period of time, but most people start smoking when they are minors and those ads are so blatantly targeted towards them. So get them hooked young, let them die old. Perfect marketing. They can always quit right? :) I have seen many people try to stop. It is humorous to watch, but none to humorous to go through, I would imagine. Personally, I could care less what a minor decides to smoke/drink/snort/shoot/huff/etc or to who the tobacco company advertises. All I know is, if I had but 5% of the money they wasted on those cases, I could retire 3 times over.

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[lovitz]

talking about Clones...

has anybody seen that messed up IBM commerical?

[pcoopers]

Sorry I gave the wrong impression:

I'm not an active public servant. I was certified as an EMT in 1980, and have used my training to help when/where I could. I cannot, will not work as an EMT, especially in a capacity where I might be called into domestic dispute situations. Were I to be called in to tend a young child who was battered to the point of death, I am quite apt to pick up a weapon and deal with the person who battered the child. Then I'd be sitting in prison, doing no one any good at all!

Maybe I should describe myself as "EMT at large"?

[clydefo]

In another thread, <b>Web Gecko</b> said:
<b>“I think Xeroxing people
tampers with something which intrinsically defines who and what we are. Again it is like cheapening and devaluing an individual human life.”</b>

What is the “something” referred to?

Rather than a “cheapening and devaluing” does not all the effort and expense expended to create another useful individual or to cure disease signify that life is highly valued?

Having been deliberately created for the good purpose of maintaining another person’s (me) quality of life, my spare-parts clone in a sense has a greater nobility than I do.

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by clydefo
In another thread, <b>Web Gecko</b> said:
<b>“I think Xeroxing people
tampers with something which intrinsically defines who and what we are. Again it is like cheapening and devaluing an individual human life.”</b>

What is the “something” referred to?

Rather than a “cheapening and devaluing” does not all the effort and expense expended to create another useful individual or to cure disease signify that life is highly valued?

Having been deliberately created for the good purpose of maintaining another person’s (me) quality of life, my spare-parts clone in a sense has a greater nobility than I do.

Unless you can clone a full adult and then kill it after parts removal, or can specify which parts you want, someone is going to be responsible for the upkeep of this clone. Shouldn't you be this person?

I like the idea of cloning full adults with full knowledge from that adult's brain. (Heck, if you are wishing you might as well wish for what you want). Then you just kill the original and let the clone step in and lead his life, only with a new body. That way no one really ever dies. Of course we would have to outlaw babies to keep the world from overpopulation.

Think about it, your brain with all your knowledge lives on forever, and with a little genetic engineering while producing the adult clone, flaws can be eliminated. Every time the body wears out, clone another. Works for me, I'm too old for frequent sex anyway.

[EVERYTHING ABOVE WAS SAID TONGUE IN CHEEK. I DON'T REALLY MEAN IT.]

[clydefo]

<b>Carl Price,</b>

I suppose I would be willing to pay for it myself if pressed, that’s fair. But since such a program would do so much to promulgate a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, the expenses incurred should, like the home mortgage interest deduction, be a tax write-off.