Why I think cloning is wrong

[wit>trope]

Let's say someone has a daughter or son (i.e. opposite sex) and they CLONE that daughter or son and when that CLONE is fully mature (like 20 or 30 years old or whatever) marries the CLONE and they have sex.

Would that be legally, morally and/or socially incest?

I think the answer to those questions proves that cloning is wrong. What are your answers and what implications do they have for ethics of cloning?

 

[IglooDame]

Legally, who knows? The laws aren't developed there yet.

Morally, who knows? The ethics regarding the status of clones aren't developed yet.

Socially, who knows? The social acceptance of clones' status haven't developed yet.

Since the first and the third answers bear little impact on whether cloning is 'wrong', we'll focus on the second one.

Since such a relationship would be mutually consensual and between competent adults, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Truronian]

It would be just like incest. But then the existance of (regular) incest does not make (regular) reproduction ethically wrong does it?

 

[jameson]

I think the answer to those questions proves that cloning is wrong. What are your answers and what implications do they have for ethics of cloning?

It doesn't prove cloning is wrong, it merely proves that the technique of cloning can be used to the wrong ends. There's a whole host of things that would be wrong by this logic.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Let's say someone has a daughter or son (i.e. opposite sex) and they CLONE that daughter or son and when that CLONE is fully mature (like 20 or 30 years old or whatever) marries the CLONE and they have sex.

Would that be legally, morally and/or socially incest?

I think the answer to those questions proves that cloning is wrong. What are your answers and what implications do they have for ethics of cloning?

Lets say someone has a son and a daughter, and one day when theyre fully mature, they get married? I think the answer to that question proves that having kids is wrong

Your logic is absurd.

 

[IglooDame]

Wow, I managed to answer the question without even seeing the massive logical fallacy staring me right in the clone.

 

[Scuffer]

This in no way shape or form proves cloning is wrong. We have laws about who you can and can't marry now, and would have different versions of the law if there was human cloning.

 

[Sophie 378]

Probably, probably and probably. But how does that prove that cloning is per se wrong? Let's say that someone clones their child and brings them up lovingly and never does any thing that anyone could complain about, and the cloned child grows up to be a happy, healthy, normal adult. Does that prove cloning is wrong?
Let's say someone clones their child and then shoots them instead. That proves that shooting is wrong, not that cloning is wrong.
I really don't get your logic: someone does A, and then, later, B, where B is accepted as wrong, and A is not required for B to occur. How does that prove that A is wrong?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Wow, I managed to answer the question without even seeing the massive logical fallacy staring me right in the clone.

As soon as I entered the thread, I couldnt escape ceirdans 800 lb pound gorilla of illogic, it tossed me around like Samsonite luggage.

 

[wit>trope]

It looks like Sophie is the smartest of the bunch here

I didn't spell out my logic because I guess I have a habit from math to "skip steps" ... some people need the math teacher to go through every step (like in algebra) while others can see it with one skipped step and others with like 10 skipped steps.

Also I wanted to see what everyone else thought before giving my opinion.

My logic for how it proves cloning is wrong is that the sexual relationship with the clone WOULD be wrong as most people acknowledge but there's no BASIS for it being wrong (the clone is not a daughter and is obviously not the same person as the daughter) OTHER THAN the fact that the underlying cloning is wrong etc.

It's interesting though that some people like IGLOO do NOT think it would be wrong ... which proves my point about cloning -- there's no reason to think this relationship would be wrong UNLESS the underlying cloning itself is wrong (and Igloo apparently doesn't think the underlying cloning is wrong)

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The only reason it would be 'wrong' for clones to have a sexual relationship is because theyre genetically identical, like twins. If you think incest is wrong, then youre lilkely to think this is wrong. It has no bearing on the procedure of cloning whatsoever.

 

[nonconformist]

Wait...this proves cloning wrong?

 

[Sophie 378]

The clone is ±genetically identical to the daughter, therefore it is still morally incest, no matter whether there's a law against it yet or not. Genetically, unless you can eliminate reccessive harmful mutations, incest is a bad idea. This is still not proof that cloning is wrong, just incest.

 

[Homie]

I don't condone cloning, but what you said were illogical, cierdan. There may be other reasons why it would be considered wrong though.

 

[Truronian]

My logic for how it proves cloning is wrong is that the sexual relationship with the clone WOULD be wrong as most people acknowledge but there's no BASIS for it being wrong (the clone is not a daughter and is obviously not the same person as the daughter) OTHER THAN the fact that the underlying cloning is wrong etc.

In what way would the clone not be a daughter?

 

[Renata]

Incest is wrong, by most people's definitions. Incest is defined as sexual intercourse with someone who is close genetic kin (or who has been raised within the same family, but that's not relevent here). You can't get any closer genetically than a clone. Ergo, having sex with your own clone is wrong, by most people's definitions.

Take a logic class, cierdan; you're making my head hurt.

Oh, and just to add some more absurdity to the thread: a clone is by definition the same sex as the original organism. Homosexual incest, aaarrghh!

 

[Sophie 378]

Renata - clone is of the kid, not yourself.

 

[Fifty]

What if someone has a dog and they own the dog and the dog has puppies and when the puppy grows up the person who owns the dog marries one of the dogs puppies

 

[Che Guava]

Hmmm, I guess this also proves that time-travelling is wrong, since there's a possibility that you could go back in time, marry yourself in Vegas and have sex with yourself: the mother of all incest.

Or maybe neither one has anything to do with sex, incest, or anything at all...

 

[Masquerouge]

Let's say someone has a daughter or son (i.e. opposite sex) and they CLONE that daughter or son and when that CLONE is fully mature (like 20 or 30 years old or whatever) marries the CLONE and they have sex.

Would that be legally, morally and/or socially incest?

I think the answer to those questions proves that cloning is wrong. What are your answers and what implications do they have for ethics of cloning?

That's pretty wicked and twisted. By your exact same logic, having kids is wrong, because what if someone have a kid, and then have sex with him/her ?

BTW, it's pretty funny you wrote "marries the CLONE and they have sex". Are you implying that even people intent on having sex with their cloned offspring will not do so before marriage ?

EDIT :

I didn't spell out my logic because I guess I have a habit from math to "skip steps" ... some people need the math teacher to go through every step (like in algebra) while others can see it with one skipped step and others with like 10 skipped steps.

That is one of the best comeback I've ever seen. I think I'll stop putting smart things in my post, because I have this habit from philosophy to "skip steps". People with sufficient intelligence will provide the missing intelligent links in my stead.