Human Cloning?

[IceBlaZe]

From believing in god to being god.
We have come a long distance, haven't we?
There are people who do not believe in god.
My dog was killed, I want to clone it, why shouldn't I?
We are not in a taliban regime.
God doesn't create and god doesn't kill for me.
I am the master of my own life.
So why shouldn't I clone my killed dog? My murdered son?
Ethics are a subset of the implementation of religion in human mind mostly.

 

[knowltok2]

You know, why hasn't anyone suggested a mass army of cloned super soldiers? That'd be kinda neat. We wouldn't even have to worry about making different sizes of uniforms. We could give them numbers instead of names for easy sorting. Then there could be massive battles against the rival clone army. It would look like a power struggle, but in reality it would just be a scientists experiment to see whether gene 3,455,664,433,454 should be an A or not.

Wow, must get more sleep.

I say, make us better, grow new organs, find out what we can, but no harvesting of a real human.

 

[MrPresident]

My dog was killed, I want to clone it, why shouldn't I?

Was is the point? The dog would have the same genetic make-up but it wouldn't be the same dog. You might as well just get a different dog that looked like your old one.

Even Dolly the sheep suffers problems from being a clone.

What do you mean "even"? Dolly was the first. I think the first of anything has a right to not be prefect. Do you think the first Spaceship made it to the moon? Do you think the first boat could cross the Pacific? Do you think the first plane could fly from London to New York? The reason cloning is unsafe at the moment is because of a lack of research. Cloning is like any other scientific procedure, human testing only happens in the final stages.

 

[IceBlaZe]

There is high probability the cloned dog will have same charectaristics (partially at least) as the dog that got killed.
Besides, you can't get any closer to the look and feel than actually cloning it.
The point is, why shouldn't I clone the dog? What's wrong with it?
On the same basis, whats wrong with cloning humans?
Don't bother with religious answers to my questions because I don't really give a crap about religion.
well, I do, but only because of tradition and not because of beliefe.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Cloning embryos so that their stem cells can be used to replaces organs and treat disease is not just morally right, it is morally necessary. Letting people die when the technology exists to save their lives verges on murder in my mind.
As to the cloning of people, that is, implanting those same embryos in a human surrogate mother, having them be born and grow up.....well I don't know. I'm not saying there should be a law against it, beacuse there shouldn't (I'm continually shocked at the number of people who can't separate the simple ideas of thinking something is wrong, and thinking it should be illegal) but I don't support the idea. Mainly because at this point I don't think it would be best for the well being of the clone (due to social stigmas and imperfections in the technology). Best to reproduce the old fashioned way if you ask me. The important thing to realize is that that is all cloning is. A different way of reproducing, that was actually around long before sexual reproduction, just not with complex organisms. You can forget about your clone armies, because someone still has to raise them. Clones start out infants just like the rest of us. Also, they wouldn't even necessarily have the same sized uniforms because height is not a particluarly hertiable trait. Diet has a far greater affect on it than genetic makeup. All in all not a very economical technique. Easier to just train the people that are already there.
As to the genetic engineering of human beings, to make them smarter, stronger, faster, well I son't see any big problem with it as long as the technology is uniformly available, so it doesn't create a separation between the genetic elite and the rest of the world. However, realize that unlike the technology of cloning, genetic engineering is still basically sci-fi. That is, cloning can be done now, genetic engineering will probably be possible soon. We just don't understand quite enough yet about the pathways leading from genotype to phenotype to say, make a person smarter through genetic manipulations (although the prospect of making a person stronger just took a huge step forward, as you know if you follow the news with the uncovering of the singaling pathways leadign to muscular development.).

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by knowltok2
You know, why hasn't anyone suggested a mass army of cloned super soldiers? That'd be kinda neat. We wouldn't even have to worry about making different sizes of uniforms. We could give them numbers instead of names for easy sorting.

*sigh*

I hope Star Wars: Episode II is worth it in other ways, because it's certainly going to set the pro-cloning argument back by a decade...

 

[basher]

Whether we want it or not, we can expect that cloning humans will become possible, sooner or later. Actually, the clone is already growing out there.

If Dr. Severino Antinori succeeds, the first cloned baby will be born in seven months. If he doesn't, it just takes a little longer.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
There is high probability the cloned dog will have same charectaristics (partially at least) as the dog that got killed.
Besides, you can't get any closer to the look and feel than actually cloning it.
The point is, why shouldn't I clone the dog? What's wrong with it?
On the same basis, whats wrong with cloning humans?
Don't bother with religious answers to my questions because I don't really give a crap about religion.
well, I do, but only because of tradition and not because of beliefe.

The question of the characteristics is not cleared (yet?). That would be indeed one of the few good things coming along with cloning complete humans, the question of nature and nurture could be answered.

Whether you favour creation or evolution there is one basic thing in common (or was until now). Nature (or God) decided which individual would live or not. If humans get the opportunity to decide that (and unfortunately they do) they will use it.
Then you have to ask: Who decides what is worth living and what is not? Who can be cloned and who doesn't?
I don't trust the human race enough to be happy with the thought of them answering these questions.

And actually I don't see a point in cloning complete human beings (or dogs). What should be the sense of that? They can't be exchanged for the individual they were cloned from in terms of character and expirience. They may be exchanged in physical terms, that actually is a very scary thought, as it opens the door for the production of humans for practical reasons, which is highly immoral imo.

 

[LordAzreal]

Originally posted by MrPresident

What do you mean "even"? Dolly was the first. I think the first of anything has a right to not be prefect. Do you think the first Spaceship made it to the moon? Do you think the first boat could cross the Pacific? Do you think the first plane could fly from London to New York? The reason cloning is unsafe at the moment is because of a lack of research. Cloning is like any other scientific procedure, human testing only happens in the final stages.

I'm well aware of that, but where I am, there was quite a bit of hype about Dolly being healthy, though I knew it to be a sham, quite a few didn't.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

I agree with what Hitro said. He sumed it up well.

 

[polymath]

The other thing about cloning is the opportunities it affords to master criminals:
You clone some people immediately at birth or even before.
Twenty years later (or whenever) the legitimate person is at a very prominent party, whilst the other is robbing a bank. It wouldn't matter if there were witnesses, CCTV, etc. The person was at party and can prove it. Or make ten clones of the same person, how could you prove anyone did anything? There would ALWAYS be reasonable doubt.
Tricky, no?

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by polymath
The other thing about cloning is the opportunities it affords to master criminals:
You clone some people immediately at birth or even before.
Twenty years later (or whenever) the legitimate person is at a very prominent party, whilst the other is robbing a bank. It wouldn't matter if there were witnesses, CCTV, etc. The person was at party and can prove it. Or make ten clones of the same person, how could you prove anyone did anything? There would ALWAYS be reasonable doubt.
Tricky, no?

By your logic there is always reasonable doubt now. After all, it could be somone's identical twin separated at birth. Far fetched sure, but no more so than a clone made by an eveil genius. There is absolutely no difference between a clone and an identical twin.

This is also why the idea of human cloning "ending the nature-nurture debate" is in error. This is only true if you accept that the numerous twin studies that have been and are being done are enough to end it.

Also, to Hitro:
How does cloning give humans power over who lives and who dies? It does no such thing. If I am cloned, that clone is not me.
Making a clone of me does not make me immortal. It makes an identical twin who is 25 years younger than I am. Ask an identical twin if they are the same person as their siblling. Most will tell you that they are not.
In fact, one of the practical uses for complete human cloning that I can see if for couples who have problems with one of the few remaining untreatable forms of infertility. They might decide to clone one or the other of them and raise the child.
The only problem that I can see there is that the child might be treated differently
A: by others, because he/she is a clone, and
B: by his/her parents because they unreasonably expect that the clone will be the same person that they were cloned from. "I got an A in math son, so I KNOW you can too."

 

[polymath]

"After all, it could be somone's identical twin separated at birth"
Not quite, because in my scenario, no-one is aware of any of the clones existence - they are raised in captivity to be evil crooks with no identity.
Yes, it is far-fetched but at the same time obvious. I can guarantee that someone somewhere will try it, if cloning becomes acceptable (big if).

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by polymath
"After all, it could be somone's identical twin separated at birth"
Not quite, because in my scenario, no-one is aware of any of the clones existence - they are raised in captivity to be evil crooks with no identity.
Yes, it is far-fetched but at the same time obvious. I can guarantee that someone somewhere will try it, if cloning becomes acceptable (big if).

Actually, IMHO your scenario is more likely if cloning remains unacceptable.
Take the idea you described, wherein a video tape of a criminal contradicts an air tight alibi. If there is no cloning it is a bizarre mystery. If cloning is widespresd, well then it's obviously a clone made without permission.

Either way I seriously doubt anyone would ever try this. Arre you telling me that somone is going to go to all the trouble and expense of raising a child just to frame their double for a crime? Especially since, as you said, the cells to make the clone would have to be taken when the child was extremely young or your ruse would be foiled by an obvious age difference.
Who has a strong enough grudge against a baby to clone them for the soul purpose of framing them for armed robbery 20 years later?
And if the soul motive is the bank robbery itself... well, I never heard of any bank robbery where the payoff was worth the time and expense of raising one or more children solely to do the job. Why not just hire some thugs that vaguely resemble someone else. Surrveillance cameras aren't exactly known for their crystal clear picture.

 

[polymath]

Well, how about if someone like Saddam had a bunch of clones, or Osama bin Laden? Just send one out to Jakarta, spark a wild goose chase, or fake an assassination - there are plenty of possibilities - but I think I'm drifting further away from the topic at hand with every post I make.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by polymath
Well, how about if someone like Saddam had a bunch of clones, or Osama bin Laden? Just send one out to Jakarta, spark a wild goose chase, or fake an assassination - there are plenty of possibilities - but I think I'm drifting further away from the topic at hand with every post I make.

You seem to be forgetting two things.
1) clones start out as embryos just like the rest of us. Any clone that Saddam or Osama made of themselves would be a baby, and hence not fooling anyone. Or are you suggesting that as a baby, some evil villain, realizing that when he grows up he will be evil, has himself cloned for just such a prupose?

2)clones are people too. Human beings with minds and wills of their own. Why would osama's clone let himself get assassinated or thrown in the slammer just to get his "brother" off the hook? The clone wouldn't necessarily be evil too.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

NO!
Cloning is bad!
Haven't y'all learnt anything from "The Boys from Brazil"?
Allow stem cell research, and it's just a slippery slope from there to Gregory Peck trying to clone Adolf Hitler!
And Laurence Olivier isn't around anymore to stop him!
Think of the consequences!

 

[MrPresident]

Well, how about if someone like Saddam had a bunch of clones, or Osama bin Laden? Just send one out to Jakarta, spark a wild goose chase, or fake an assassination - there are plenty of possibilities - but I think I'm drifting further away from the topic at hand with every post I make.

That is an example of how the public don't understand cloning and are way too influenced by sci-fic movies.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by Hitro
.Nature (or God) decided which individual would live or not. If humans get the opportunity to decide that (and unfortunately they do) they will use it.
Then you have to ask: Who decides what is worth living and what is not? .

This is a moot point. We decide such things already, through medical procedures ranging from abortion to screening fetuses for any number of physical and genetic defects. Not to mention the simple use of drugs and other treatments on people already born, thus 'deciding' that someone will live despite the fact that 'Nature' has chosen to given them a massive heart attack topped by a debilitating stroke.

By your argument we should simply get rid of medicine altogether, because Nature or God chooses more wisely than we do.

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond


But why?

Look around you. We're already superhuman by the standards of even 500 years ago (which is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things). We're taller, healthier, stronger, live longer lives and are more educated. We can reverse the natural effects of aging (plastic surgery, Viagra), attach artificial limbs to ourselves, communicate over incredible distances, examine parts of our galaxy which are too far away to fully comprehend. Hell, we can even fly, calculate the speed of light, and blow apart atoms.

Why shouldn't we be able to continue to improve ourselves? Why do we need to stop with simply regrowing a lost limb? Why can't we grow a limb that is 10 or 100 times stronger? Why is it okay to regenerate the memory of an Alzheimer's patient but not to give ourselves perfect recall?

This "we shouldn't mess with our humanity" argument holds very little water for me. We shouldn't mess with what we don't fully understand, YES. That is why we should continue to try to understand everything. We don't need to clone babies *just because we can*. I fully support this perspective. That Italian doctor needs to get his licence revoked, and perhaps get violated in a dark alley. Absolutely.

But my body is my own, and if I choose to grow wings, and if this doesn't interfere with your right not to, why shouldn't I?

Damn good point. Your right. I'm just a weary about bringing a sort of evolved human type into existance because they will definately get rid of us 'obsolete' humans. Its simply human nature and nature period to want to advance your kind by killing the weaker people if you can. We could program that out of them, but then whats the point?

I guess we'll get lined up and systematically destroyed. Or work as slaves... Either way its gonna suck unless theres some way to improve people who have already been born or fully developed.