Why I think cloning is wrong

[farting bob]

I think it would be treated like incest. Howevr, by your rather patehtic "proof", any sex is wrong, since you could then go have sex with your offspring. So should we ban reproduction because some sick people would do that? no. should cloning be any different? no.

 

[Stapel]

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?

If you think this proves anything, there is something wrong with your defenition of proof.......

First:
How is this any different with regular brothers or sisters (no cloning involved) having sex?

Oh wait, this proofs having a daughter, while already having a son is wrong. Yup, now I get what you mean!
We are wrong, totally wrong!


Second:
Is sex between relatives wrong, if both are willing to do so?


And, who is marrying whom in your example?

 

[wit>trope]

Renata - clone is of the kid, not yourself.

I knew you were the smartest of the bunch here

Everyone PLEASE read my second post where I explain the logic that Sophie asked me to explain.

@Bozo... read what I quoted from Sophie -- you seem to have been confused just like Renata was. But if you WEREN'T, then read on:

Spoiler :

if you want to say the reason why incest is wrong is due to DNA similiarity as opposed to actually being the daughter or son (or brother or sister or whatever else you might deem morally wrong incest), then you have a problem because it's possible for someone who is NOT cloned and NOT closely related to just by CHANCE on a super super super rare rare rare occasion be quite similar in DNA to you ... so by that logic even this unrelated, uncloned person would be someone a relationship with would be morally wrong incest which is absurd.

@Tru

Yours is the only intelligent way to refute my proof that I can see at least. If you want to claim the clone of the daughter is also herself a daughter, then my proof fails ... but I don't see how the clone would be a daughter since no sperm was donated to make her (or for a son, no egg was donated)

 

[nonconformist]

No....

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.

Wouldn't that ben incest?

Therefore, sex is immoral.

 

[Homie]

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 ?

Masquerouge, that exact point has already been mentioned. No need for ridicule.

 

[IglooDame]

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)

You must be hell on your math teacher, Cierdan.

The only way that you could get cloning=wrong out of this is if everyone thought that non-cloning sibling incest was right, but cloning sibling incest is wrong.

 

[Sophie 378]

I knew you were the smartest of the bunch here

Thanks

if you want to say the reason why incest is wrong is due to DNA similiarity as opposed to actually being the daughter or son (or brother or sister or whatever else you might deem morally wrong incest), then you have a problem because it's possible for someone who is NOT cloned and NOT closely related to just by CHANCE on a super super super rare rare rare occasion be quite similar in DNA to you ... so by that logic even this unrelated, uncloned person would be someone a relationship with would be morally wrong incest which is absurd.

Yes, but this so remote as to be negligable. Do you condemn the tiny blond community somewhere in S America where they're all very closely related for incest? Do you want all marrying couples to have their genomes sequenced for similarity to check that they aren't going to be collecting recessives?
AFAIK clones are still made by injecting a nucleus from one of the donor's cells into an egg (often from someone else), or in new research it may be possible to turn a non-egg cell into an egg. But the clone is genetically identical to your daughter; they are like a twin born at a different time. Even if the egg-donor and the surrogate mother aren't genetically related to the son/daughter, the clone is still genetically identical to the son/daughter, therefore sex with the clone would be incest same as sex with the son/daughter would be incest. I still don't see how this means cloning in itself is wrong. Are twins, IV and surrogate mothers wrong? Cloning is just a scientifically induced method of getting an identical twin of someone.

 

[jameson]

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.

Really now, you're using Sophie's deconstruction of the logical flaws of your argument to somehow back up your argument ?

You're a class act.

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

Given that most of us don't have an IQ of 170, it is obviously impossible for our opinions to somehow be superior to yours. As such, inviting us to opine first is effectively equivalent to asking us to star in your own personal freak show. Nice.

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.

Same logical flaw as I pointed out in my initial response (which, evidently, must be wrong by necessity, which is likely why you ignored it ) - the fact that the technique of cloning can - but does not have to - be used to nefarious ends doesn't necessarily mean that it is inherently wrong.

 

[Scuffer]

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.

Something new that requires a rethink of moral behaviour does not prove that thing to be wrong. It proves it to be new.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

if you want to say the reason why incest is wrong is due to DNA similiarity as opposed to actually being the daughter or son (or brother or sister or whatever else you might deem morally wrong incest), then you have a problem because it's possible for someone who is NOT cloned and NOT closely related to just by CHANCE on a super super super rare rare rare occasion be quite similar in DNA to you ... so by that logic even this unrelated, uncloned person would be someone a relationship with would be morally wrong incest which is absurd.

Sex between siblings is generally considered to be 'morally wrong', regardless of peoples religious beliefs. The fact that theres a much higher chance of birth defects associated with incest is probably where this cultural taboo came from in the first place. Two complete strangers who are unrelated who nonetheless have almost identical DNA wouldnt be violating the incest taboo in any way shape or form. A sexual relationship wouldnt be morally wrong in their case, merely unwise, untill theyd been checked for dangerous recessives.

None of this by the way has anything to with the morality or immorality of cloning.

 

[Che Guava]

...sexual relationship wouldnt be morally wrong in their case, merely unwise, untill theyd been checked for dangerous recessives.

None of this by the way has anything to with the morality or immorality of cloning.

Especially since clones are going to be of the same sex, and incapable of having children.

The lesson learned: it is immoral to clone hermaphradites, force them to have intercourse and bear children. In the unlikely chance that thismight happen, I will be the first on the picket lines to protest.

 

[Stapel]

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.

The clone IS a daughter..............
You make an assumption here, that's simply wrong. Or at least debatable.
You claim there is no other basis than the cloning, whereas there is: regarding the clone of your daughter as a daughter too.
I don't know about you, but I would most certainly regard the clone of my daughter as my daughter.

Even better, I would regard an adopted daughter as my daughter, and not consider a sexaul relationship with her.



Apart from that, I don't think a sexual relationship between relatives would be wrong per se, to start with.
Not my business what others do in their bedrooms!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Especially since clones are going to be of the same sex, and incapable of having children.

I dont think it would be all that difficult to change the sex of a clone in the test tube, before implantation.

 

[wit>trope]

Thanks

Yes, but this so remote as to be negligable.

Yes but the fact that it can rarely rarely happen is a fact your moral theory would have to deal with. As it stands your moral theory (if it's just based on DNA similiarity) cannot.

Do you condemn the tiny blond community somewhere in S America where they're all very closely related for incest?

Well actually the only incest I think is wrong is between a parent and child (or grandparent and child). I'm fine with cousins marrying each other. Look at www.cousincouples.com to dispel myths about cousin marriages (Did you know for instance that Mary and Joseph were first cousins?) Brothers and sisters marrying I would be OK with too but I think it should be discouraged for practical reasons. I am not alone in my views on CFC.

But the clone is genetically identical to your daughter; they are like a twin born at a different time.

They may be genetically identical but they are not sisters. To be sisters they have to have the same father and for the clone to have the man as the father, the man's sperm has to be involved in the creation of her.

Even if the egg-donor and the surrogate mother aren't genetically related to the son/daughter, the clone is still genetically identical to the son/daughter, therefore sex with the clone would be incest same as sex with the son/daughter would be incest. I still don't see how this means cloning in itself is wrong.

As I said at the top, even a fact that is only a remote possibility a "negligible" possibility is a fact your theory has to deal with. If the theory is true, it has to be true for the whole world, not just all of the world except a tiny tiny part of it.

Are twins, IV and surrogate mothers wrong? Cloning is just a scientifically induced method of getting an identical twin of someone.

Are you saying then that the clone would be a true daughter of the father? If so, then your argument is the same as Tru's and it may be a fine argument. If not and you still don't see how it proves cloning wrong -- then it's because if the relationship is wrong it has to be wrong for some reason -- some fact must make it wrong; well the only relevant fact would be the cloning if the clone is not actually a daughter -- it is the cloning that is wrong and which causes these morally repulsive situations to emerge.

I believe IV and surrogacy is wrong, but that's another topic

@Stapel and everyone

Don't assume the clone of the daughter would be raised by the father of the daughter The clone of the daughter could be raised by someone else and have no relationship with the father of the daughter until at age 20, 30 or whatever they meet. So Stapel your "adopted" thingy doesn't apply.

 

[Truronian]

but I don't see how the clone would be a daughter since no sperm was donated to make her (or for a son, no egg was donated)

It all comes down to your definition of daughter. I've always taken it to mean someone who inherites your half of your DNA. Your definition leads to problems (siamese twins only come from one egg/sperm, are they half daughters?)

 

[Che Guava]

I dont think it would be all that difficult to change the sex of a clone in the test tube, before implantation.

But since the X and Y both carry genetic info unrelated to sex, they wouldn't be identical clones per se.

cierdan: are you really saying that you see nothing wrong with brother-sister sexual relationships other than the risk of recessive diseases?

 

[Stapel]

Yours is the only intelligent way to refute my proof that I can see at least. If you want to claim the clone of the daughter is also herself a daughter, then my proof fails ... but I don't see how the clone would be a daughter since no sperm was donated to make her (or for a son, no egg was donated)

To make my point again:
Fathers with adopted daughters usually do regard them as..... daughters.

Your point about sperm is a technicality anyway: off spring is merely about genes, and not about sperm cells, who happen to have a history of being the only gene-thru-passers for 1000s of years. However, their monopoly is over.

 

[Truronian]

They may be genetically identical but they are not sisters. To be sisters they have to have the same father and for the clone to have the man as the father, the man's sperm has to be involved in the creation of her.

But the sperm was involved, as its genetic material lies in the cell you use to make the clone. Think of its as identical twins, one of whom has split off later than usual.

Also, on your logic:

You are assuming that the only morals that count are those that exist today. Whats to stop new morals coming into being that dictate clone sex is wrong? All morals have to come from somewhere.

 

[Sophie 378]

IMO clone = genetically identical, => (that's meant to be a therefore) related => sex is incest. Put me down for Truronian's argument.
Yes, sister as commonly used means with same parent/s, but that presupposes the genetics of being closely related. FYI a child= half "identical" to one parent, half "identical" to the other parent (leaving aside crossovers, mutations, copy errors etc). But clone = 100% identical to the sister, so this is still incest.
BTW, why do you not count sibling-sibling sex as incest? Siblings can be more closely related to each other than to parents and grandparents. And what about aunt/uncle to neice/nephew?
As to negligable etc - I'm more or less aligned with Bozo Erectus here, but am thinking about it: I think it's
- genetically "incest" if they're more closely related than cousins (yes, that could happen between strangers, however unlikely)
- socially/morally incest if they're brought up together thinking of each other as relatives whatever the degree of relationship
- legally incest if they're more closely related than cousins AND socially related. (i.e. if both genetically and morally incestous)
An old thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130463 seems to be about definition of incest and siblings, people may find this interesting.

 

[Stapel]

@Stapel and everyone

Don't assume the clone of the daughter would be raised by the father of the daughter The clone of the daughter could be raised by someone else and have no relationship with the father of the daughter until at age 20, 30 or whatever they meet. So Stapel your "adopted" thingy doesn't apply.

I would also regard the female off-spring of my sperm-bank donations as...... daughters!