|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jun 22, 2005 8:19:52 GMT -5
I know, but if we don't allow one of them to have a life at all, then technically it's life would have been the same as the other's life.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Jun 22, 2005 10:57:07 GMT -5
THe point is is that a clone is a seperate consious being, a new human just with someone elses DNA, if you are against abortion you should be against the killing of clones as it is the same thing, now im all for cloning of specific body parts but not an entire human just to harvest their organs.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jun 22, 2005 11:06:59 GMT -5
As long as there are two (that's 2) of the same person (that is to say, they are identical both physically and mentally) we can kill one because there is still one more left. We don't need two of one person.
Abortion is different because there's only one individual in question. One unique person.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Jun 22, 2005 11:10:23 GMT -5
But the mind depends upon how u are brought up, clones dont think alike or anything they are seperate in mind, they just look the same, like twins.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jun 22, 2005 11:18:36 GMT -5
which is why you don't kill a clone once it's been brought up. That's not what I want. I only want the clone to be killed if it's been frozen all it's life or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Jun 22, 2005 11:23:57 GMT -5
ahh ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. I can agree with that but its still easier to just clone the specific part you want in a test tube.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jun 22, 2005 11:38:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure, I think for that you need stem cells from aborted fetuses.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Jun 22, 2005 11:39:46 GMT -5
Hmm you might, but im not sure either.
|
|
EvilTrigun
Silver Member
"The man who wants nothing is invincible"
Posts: 260
|
Post by EvilTrigun on Jun 22, 2005 21:10:40 GMT -5
without reading every post in the thread, here's my take:
While cloning for scientific research to end diseases and such is ok, we cannot let it get out of hand. I believe that for the above reason, cloning should definitely be allowed, and I cannot see why anyone has a problem with that (sorry).
In my humble opinion, life isn't the ability to breath or have a heartbeat. Life is what we experience. Since the cloning that scientists are working on does not involve the clones actually experiencing anything, how can they be killing it?
To avoid flames from anti-abortion, I'll elaborate. Abortion is different because in many cases the unborn child has been living in it's mother for months. I support early abortion, let's say the first month, but after that I think it's wrong. If a mother has to think for more than a month on whether she really wants her child, then why the hell did she get pregnant?
Back to the topic: As I said before, the minor cloning that scientists work on now is perfectly acceptable. Creating fully grown human clones I cannot support. If this began, then everyone would be cloning the best of the best over and over again. Soon we'd have a basketball team full of Michael Jordans (he's the best) or 100 years of -insert a president's name here-. Although I'm sure everyone would get a kick out of an army of Arnolds, our beloved Governor of California. From there it would even escalate into trying to create the perfect human specimen, smart, athletic, and charismatic. The sense of individuality would vanish into nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jun 22, 2005 22:36:57 GMT -5
I think you have cloning confused with genetic engineering. Just because we create humans for whatever purposes does not mean we have to create the best.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Jun 22, 2005 23:06:20 GMT -5
i think his point is that it could get out of hand and lead to genetic engineering
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jun 22, 2005 23:11:00 GMT -5
If that was his point, it's a pretty weak one. All we have to do is clone people, freeze em, and use them for experiments (while still frozen) and maybe cut em up and use their body parts. We wouldn't need the greatest athletes for that.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 2, 2005 23:34:17 GMT -5
yes but like everything we humans do we get carried away and if only one guy from new york can figure a way to make a super basketball team more than likely if we allow cloning it will happen. I am for the cloning of organs and stuff but if we have this much debate on whether it is a real human or not I just say forget the whole thing. when we clone we are trying to be god and that is just not quite right. but still to be able to harvest livers and hearts and kidneys and to be able to give them to people who need them it would be a wonderful idea.
whats the difference between cloning and genetic engineering?
|
|
EvilTrigun
Silver Member
"The man who wants nothing is invincible"
Posts: 260
|
Post by EvilTrigun on Jul 4, 2005 1:51:10 GMT -5
((A few days ago I typed something much longer and better than this, but my computer decided to kill it before I could post. Arg.....))
Cloning is taking someone's DNA and making a 'copy' of them. Genetic Engineering is changing DNA for various purposes. And if you think about it, cloning would logically lead to genetic engineering. It is not a weak point at all.
Suppose we finally do clone a whole human. What would be the next step? Cloning a human again, but this time changing the DNA one 'piece' at a time to see what each 'piece' does physically for a human. In this way, we would eventually have the knowledge the whole human genome. It's only a matter of time. Now, in the process of learning the secrets of our DNA, we would most likely come across different 'pieces' that could help prevent physical defects, raise resistance to various diseases, maybe even help prevent cancer, ensuring a longer and happier life. If we ever came to possess this knowledge, what would be the next logical step?
Of course, parents everywhere would be clamoring to have genetically altered children. They would all want to give birth artificially rather than naturally (in vitro (sp?)), in order to promote the well-being of their unborn child. Well, of course this is a good thing, but as history shows us, we can never have enough. It would only be a matter of time until parents began wanting even more for their children. Faster, smarter, stronger children would be desired in every home. Individuality will be a thing of the past.
And that was just domestic events. Now look at the future government and armed forces. Think Star Wars Clone Wars: we would begin to breed our own soldiers, genetically altered to do more physically and take orders without question. Even more disturbing, we could begin to breed our own leaders. These are things to think about.
I am sorry this post lacks in the quality and length of my first attempted post (I hate my computer).
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 5, 2005 19:17:17 GMT -5
Okay, the soldiers and leaders thing is an interesting point I will have to think about (right now I'm not entirely sure if that's really as bad as you make it sound) but the other stuff you said, about individuality, I will have to make a comment about that.
As a conservative, I am a strong supporter of individuality (yes that's right. The conservatives support individuality).What you're saying about all the GE children being created. There is a possibility that it might lead to the loss of individuality, but I doubt it. Just because the GE children are faster, stronger, healthier, or whatever else their parents want them to be, doesn't necesarily mean they will all be the same. In fact, with GE, maybe the parents will be able to choose their child's personality type as well, and I don't think they will all pick the same type. Even if they did, a future in which all people are the same is a very distant future indeed.
|
|