ShannonCT
Deity
Chould cloning be allowed? Only if we can find a gene for good spelling.
Cloning
- Thread starter kristopherb
- Start date
Chould cloning be allowed? Only if we can find a gene for good spelling.
But what exactly are you cloning? Are you cloning muscle cells to form new hearts? Or are you cloning fetuses in order to rip them apart to get embryonic stem cells? I have no problem with the former, but a huge problem with the latter.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
This sounds horribly like a horribly evil and unmoral thing to do....
I SUPPORT IT!
Swedishguy
Deity
For the sake of industrialism we should clone away!
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
When exactly has a fetus been cloned to do that?
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
I say we clone human tissue, curtain animals, and balloon animals. 
Swedishguy
Deity
You mean Whaloon (whale combined with baboon) animals?I say we clone human tissue, curtain animals, and baloon animals.
I didn't say one ever had been. You're suggesting that we use cloning for medical research purposes, and cloning fetuses, allowing them to grow, and then using them for "spare parts" has indeed been suggested before. (And if you accept that they aren't really human until they're 9 months old and properly born, it makes a certain kind of twisted sense) Should this sort of cloning be allowed, in your opinion?
If we get the technology to literally clone a fetus, then we wouldn't need to use a fetus in the first place to clone stem cells.
Since using our current technology, you need an egg to clone an organism in the first place, and it would be far more efficient to simply fertilize it then then go through the bother of cloning it.
If we perfect the technology, I don't see why it would be bad. All it is is just a twin of a younger age - it will certinatly help those who are infertile, or those egotistic enough to want an heir who looks like that person.
And by the time we'd perfect the technology anyway, a clone wouldn't be used as a whole as a sort of object - that would be completely unneccessary. By that time we'd be able to clone single body parts easily.
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
Certainly, go ahead, end up with another regular guy.
People have FAR too high expectations about cloning. While organs and certain cells might be usefull, there is simply no reason (legitimate anyway) why anyone should want to clone a person.
Genetic modification though, that's another story. This is a field that should be given upmost priority, even changing human beings.
People have FAR too high expectations about cloning. While organs and certain cells might be usefull, there is simply no reason (legitimate anyway) why anyone should want to clone a person.
Genetic modification though, that's another story. This is a field that should be given upmost priority, even changing human beings.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
No, Not in any curcumstances should we allow human cloning that reproduces another human being. I can tolerate organ cloning, but I cannot tolerate human cloning. Especially if it leads to asexual reproduction via human cloning.
Well, I sometimes bite my nails. If I could clone bits of finger, it might save me some pain (.... ewwww).
Oo oh! I have another one. A cloned El_Mac has everything needed (nutritionally) that a healthy Mac needs. I'd be excellent nutrition for myself!
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Just give me a sec to ask my other self. And his other self. And his other's other self. And.. . . .
No, never. A majority of the scientists who want permission to clone are actively requesting laws preventing (i.e., criminalising) the maturation of a cloned embryo past 14 days. Up until this point, an embryo (or a clonote, presumably) has not differentiated enough to be called (in any way) "a person". This is because natural twinning is very possible before this time. The embryo is clearly not "a person" because it might become "two people".
I would be horrified if someone let a clone get past this stage (on the route to personhood).
We don't need an egg, actually. Access to an embryonic stem cell line seems to be sufficient. Putatively, it would be easiest using an egg, but it's not necessary. This is why biology is so rough on 'cut and dry' ethics. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. With modern techniques, it really looks like you can transform a skin cell into a person. And nobody wants that to happen, though.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
Well, you need eggs to start an embryonic stem cell line - and that was my point.
Well, yeah. But on that reasoning, you need an egg to get a skin cell too; since the skin cell came from someone.
You need an embryo to start an ESC line, but you needn't destroy an embryo (or even ruin its ability to be implanted successfully) to generate this line. Once you have an ESC line, you should be able to use it to clone other cells into ESCs themselves.
And, without irony, you can turn an ESC into an embryo.
I find it sad that the biology SO outpaces the debate that the societal debate seems meaningless (and the society is still hindering the science). 99.9% of people's objections aren't even on topic.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Thats also my other objection to Cloning, is the use of ESCs
skadistic
Caomhanach
I believe the best quote comes from Galactic Civ II as an evil option. And I paraphrase:
I told you people are resources.
If it wasn't for the already over population I'd see no other good reason not to.
I told you people are resources.
If it wasn't for the already over population I'd see no other good reason not to.
Similar threads
