Cloning

[warmonger]

Clonig Jesus from the DNA on the shroud of Turin - maybe that will be the way of acheiving the second coming predicted in the Gospels.

Seriously, though, can we seperate science fiction from science fact. The technolgy is available now to clone humans but it is just not very successful. Most cloned higher mamal embrioes don't survive, those that reach full gestation are mostly born with gross defects and die shortly after birth. This is the sole reason human cloning has not been tried to date. The risks are too high to be considered ethical. Once the technology progresses to the point that it is routine in higher primates, all sensible ethical questions disappear. All that is left is the hysteria of the religous groups that have opposed almost all scientific advances.

There is no chance of cloning a slave race. All a clone is is a genetically identical individual. It would not be a lesser human, or more prone to abuse than one produced by sexual reproduction. A person produced by cloning would be indistinguishable from the rest of the population - much the same way a a person born by IVF now is indistinguishable from the general population.

Humans have been cloning other species for about 10,000 years - since the early beginnings of agriculture. It has only been in the last 40 years that we could do clone animals instead of plants

 

[Akka]

The problem is not with the clone being a somewhat different human than the rest of us.
The problem is that cloning someone is part of an industrial/scientific process that consider the clone a "product", contrary to "natural" conception that consider the child as "a person".

Cloning is considering a human an object. It is the reason why it should be forbidden.

 

[warmonger]

Originally posted by Akka

Cloning is considering a human an object. It is the reason why it should be forbidden.

Sorry, but I think this is a load of rubbish. Cloning is no different from IVF just starting at a different point in the process. Instead of taking half the DNA from a women and half from a man, cloning would take all the DNA from one person, either male or female. What's the big deal?

We are not talking about artificial uteruses a la 1984 here. Any clone has to be fully gestated in a woman just like an artifically conceived human in the current IVF methods.

The only difference at the moment is that the success rate of live births in higher animal species is nothing like that achieved in animal IVF techniques before Louise Brown was born over twenty years ago. When it is the same, humans will be cloned.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by WillJ
I'm confused. Do you or don't you consider identical twins less "valuable" than others? First you point out that identical twins only have identical genetics, not life experiences, then say that if you take one away he/she is devauled. So do you think identical twins are devauled?

Identical twins shouldn't be devalued, but by society's standards often are. Though not intentionally, I am guilty of this myself.

Originally posted by WillJ
Oh, clones can be created at full physical maturity? Oops, I never knew that... Has that ever been done before? What exactly is it like; how does it work? You just have an embryo sitting in a Petri dish and all of a sudden BAM! you have a full grown human? Or a woman gives birth to a full grown human? Or it technically "grows," but in the sense of new cells being formed specifically to immediately get an adult, instead of going through the normal, lengthy growth (puberty, etc.) process? But you're right, if they were cloned to be immediately physically mature, it could be abused.

Suggesting that clones were created initially at full physical maturity was a dastardly error on my part, and I thank you for pointing it out. However, animals cloned thus far do age and die faster.

This I believe, heightens the risk of exploitation of clone labor. If cloning were done enough to lower the overhead, it could easily reach a level where clones could become a renewable resource.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by warmonger
There is no chance of cloning a slave race. All a clone is is a genetically identical individual. It would not be a lesser human, or more prone to abuse than one produced by sexual reproduction. A person produced by cloning would be indistinguishable from the rest of the population - much the same way a a person born by IVF now is indistinguishable from the general population.

Physically indistinguishable, perhaps. But a clone is only going to be able to participate in normal society unnoticed as something different if they receive similar education and life experiences as the rest of us. While the education is certainly possible, the experiences are much tougher, and both would be very reliant on who creates the clones.

Originally posted by warmonger
Humans have been cloning other species for about 10,000 years - since the early beginnings of agriculture. It has only been in the last 40 years that we could do clone animals instead of plants

You're confusing selective breeding with cloning, when the two are very different things.

 

[warmonger]

Originally posted by superslug

You're confusing selective breeding with cloning, when the two are very different things.

I am definitley not confusing selective bredding with cloning. I know a hell of al ot more science than that. Every cutting from a plant that is rooted or grafted is a clone of the the original. Humans have been doing that for millenia. We can now take cuttings at the cellular level for plants - it's called tissue culture and it is how many important vegetable crops are propagated. Every single plant in the field is genetically identical.

 

[warmonger]

Originally posted by superslug



However, animals cloned thus far do age and die faster.

This has been hypothesised but not yet conclusively proven AFAIK. The theory is that there is premature unravelling of the telemeres at the ends of the chromozomes which leads to replication errors on cell division which is a classic effect of aging. The data is based on the health of "Dolly" the sheep that is claimed by the lay media to be the first cloned mammal. Dolly was the first to be cloned from an adult donor nucleus not the first to be cloned - A small but very significant difference.

But there has been data that contradicts Dolly's experience from other species. The jury is still out.

 

[Speedo]

I don't see what religion has to do with it. The potential abuses/problems from cloning are some many its just frightening.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by warmonger


I am definitley not confusing selective bredding with cloning. I know a hell of al ot more science than that. Every cutting from a plant that is rooted or grafted is a clone of the the original. Humans have been doing that for millenia. We can now take cuttings at the cellular level for plants - it's called tissue culture and it is how many important vegetable crops are propagated. Every single plant in the field is genetically identical.

By the scientific definitions of cloning, you're absolutely right. I do hope you'll forgive the misunderstanding.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Akka
The problem is not with the clone being a somewhat different human than the rest of us.
The problem is that cloning someone is part of an industrial/scientific process that consider the clone a "product", contrary to "natural" conception that consider the child as "a person".

Cloning is considering a human an object. It is the reason why it should be forbidden.

As warmonger asked, how in the world is cloning considering humans an object? Instead of getting a sperm cell to fertilize an egg, you're simply fertilizing the egg with the mother's DNA (if I'm not mistaken).

Or are you saying that clones aren't really objects, but many people will consider them as such? Possibly, but I doubt it.

 

[RoddyVR]

if i could get a child that has my own dna, i would NOT do it.

if i could get a copy of myself, grown up, and maybe even remembering/knowing everything i do, then OFCOURSE i would want one.
if you've seen the movie the governor of California made a while back (cant remember the name now....) about cloning.... THAT is the type of clone i want.

EDIT: as for cloning Christ and other dead celebreties (napoleon, king arthur and the like), that would be cool if the technology was good enough and if their cloning could be hidden from the world for a little while, untill they get their bearings and so on.

 

[Suki]

wow,

try to remember that clones are juse individuals with the same genotype, if cloning people devalues them because it makes them somehow less unique then why are twins normal?
and you can't just produce A fully frown person, a clone takes just as long to grow up as anyone else, they also need a mother to carry them to term, and between different conditions in the woumb, growing up in a different place years later and living a completly seperate life i would think in most cases a clone would end up more different you than an identical twin.
second class cityones? what are you talking about? there's no no way to tell the differnece between a good quality clone and a normal peoson unless you also have the person they were cloned from

 

[Shadylookin]

Originally posted by Pikachu

What makes you think that there is any difference between clones and 'real' humans. I thought the whole idea of cloning was to make an exact copy of the original. The clone will be identical to the 'real' human, and will therefore be a real human itself. And as WillJ pointed out, clones don't instantly become adults. They have to be grown from one single cell, just like other humans. Maybe it will be possible to speed up the growing process in the future, but then it will be possible to fast-grow all humans, not just clones.

I don't see any reason to clone humans anyway. The genetic diversity of humanity is too small already. Restricting it even more by creating clones is just stupid. Cloning organs for medical use is another question. I am currently a little against that too, but I guess I will support it if I ever would need such treatment.


Jesus was naked when he died, so the question is absurd. I guess you mean the cloth he was buried in, but it is very unlikely that this piece of cloth exists anymore. Even if we found some of Jesus' genetic material, and were able to clone him, the clone would not be Jesus. It would just be an ordinary human who looked exactly like Jesus. It is however very likely that somebody would mess up his life because of his genetic connection to Jesus. I think it is simply evil to artificially create a human just because we think it is cool, and then abuse him for (anti-) religious purposes.

what makes me think they are different from real humans is that they are different. The whole purpose of using 2 different peoples genes is so that they get a better chance at getting better genes and better chance of survival. A clone is a copy so does that mean they are the originals property, what about using them for scrap parts when you need it, IF thats why you created him in a science lab why should you be stopped? well it is believed by some that clones grow faster, but either way do you think there are no slaves under the age of 18 or whatever you deam a mature adult.

The moral and ethical questions for you guys might be all black and white but for many i imagine(myself included) its kind of a grey area and people have the potential to abuse it and i think it should stay outlawed(as far as entire human clones)

btw please edit your post i am not the one that ask about the cloning of jesus.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Shadylookin
what makes me think they are different from real humans is that they are different. The whole purpose of using 2 different peoples genes is so that they get a better chance at getting better genes and better chance of survival.

That doesn't make any sense, as far as I can tell.

The purpose in having two different people's genes is genetic variation. It doesn't help the individual survive (in fact, it probably hurts it, because if it were identical you'd know there's a good chance of survival, considering the parent survived), but instead helps the species. If every single human were the same, for example, if every single human could not tolerate temperatures above 95 degrees, if something happened and the temperature rose that high we'd all be dead. However, with genetic variation, only some of us will die. (Probably not the best example.)

So anyway, yes, clones are produced differently than normal, but so what? It itself is no different... Heck, it's a freakin' clone! But whatever the case, as Pikachu said, there's probably no need to clone entire humans. It may or may not be a bad thing to do, but it's certainly not a good thing (AFAIK).

 

[Shadylookin]

Originally posted by WillJ
That doesn't make any sense, as far as I can tell.

The purpose in having two different people's genes is genetic variation. It doesn't help the individual survive (in fact, it probably hurts it, because if it were identical you'd know there's a good chance of survival, considering the parent survived), but instead helps the species. If every single human were the same, for example, if every single human could not tolerate temperatures above 95 degrees, if something happened and the temperature rose that high we'd all be dead. However, with genetic variation, only some of us will die. (Probably not the best example.)

So anyway, yes, clones are produced differently than normal, but so what? It itself is no different... Heck, it's a freakin' clone! But whatever the case, as Pikachu said, there's probably no need to clone entire humans. It may or may not be a bad thing to do, but it's certainly not a good thing (AFAIK).

how do you think we get genetic variation(well it's not by cloning oneself because that causes no variation)? The more variations you'll get more helpful ones, so it does by no means hurt your survival chances. Most purebreed animals die earlier then mix because all the genetic problems will be passed on since a good deal of the population have them. Of course there is no need nor real want outside of recognition to clone a human right now, but just like computers were once slow, weighing tons, and had no practical use, but now millions have one and it has many pratical applications cloning could also have some.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Shadylookin
how do you think we get genetic variation(well it's not by cloning oneself because that causes no variation)?

Of course not cloning, but I don't think anyone's going to want to clone people for the purpose of genetic variation anyway...

Originally posted by Shadylookin
The more variations you'll get more helpful ones, so it does by no means hurt your survival chances.

Sure it can. One parent with one recessive genetic disorder allele (making him a carrier, but not a victim) has a kid with another parent with one recessive genetic disorder allele. There's a 1/4 chance of the kid getting the bad allele from both parents, giving him/her the disorder. If you simply cloned one of the parents, the kid would be all right. Not to metion that there are such things as harmful genetic variations, not just helpful ones.

Originally posted by Shadylookin
Of course there is no need nor real want outside of recognition to clone a human right now, but just like computers were once slow, weighing tons, and had no practical use, but now millions have one and it has many pratical applications cloning could also have some.

Computers compute. I'm sure most people could see the potential in that when computers were useless. But creating human clones? How can having an extra few copies of me or you better humanity? I guess if we were able to make it so that you can clone an adult and ~voila~ another adult, but with the way it would be done now (even with perfect success rates), I can't see one little iota of promise in the usefulness (to humans) of human cloning. Why not just have sex and get some enjoyment out of it?

 

[Shadylookin]

Originally posted by WillJ
Of course not cloning, but I don't think anyone's going to want to clone people for the purpose of genetic variation anyway...Sure it can. One parent with one recessive genetic disorder allele (making him a carrier, but not a victim) has a kid with another parent with one recessive genetic disorder allele. There's a 1/4 chance of the kid getting the bad allele from both parents, giving him/her the disorder. If you simply cloned one of the parents, the kid would be all right. Not to metion that there are such things as harmful genetic variations, not just helpful ones.Computers compute. I'm sure most people could see the potential in that when computers were useless. But creating human clones? How can having an extra few copies of me or you better humanity? I guess if we were able to make it so that you can clone an adult and ~voila~ another adult, but with the way it would be done now (even with perfect success rates), I can't see one little iota of promise in the usefulness (to humans) of human cloning. Why not just have sex and get some enjoyment out of it?

yes you get the chance to get a bad disorder if BOTH parents are carriers, but you also have a higher possibility of not getting some disorder your mother/father has because you increase your gene pool.(enough of the biology lesson) I see no use of cloning now either, but i can't predict the future and who knows if it will have potential use

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Shadylookin
yes you get the chance to get a bad disorder if BOTH parents are carriers, but you also have a higher possibility of not getting some disorder your mother/father has because you increase your gene pool.

You mean if the disorder is dominant and both parents are homozygous? Yeah, I guess that's true, but it's less likely (especially since most disorders are recessive), if I'm not mistaken. But eh, whatever.

Originally posted by Shadylookin
I see no use of cloning now either, but i can't predict the future and who knows if it will have potential use

Yeah, I guess you're right.