Why I think cloning is wrong

[carlosMM]

sophie, I already made this clear in posts addressed to other people. But to sum up...

1. There's something wrong with the situation.
2. It can't be an issue of incest since the clone is not really the daughter (or son).
3. So there must be SOME OTHER REASON why it is wrong
4. The only other possible reason is that sex with clones is wrong.
5. If sex with clones is wrong then it's not fair to the clones to make them since then they wouldnt' be able to ethically have sex.
6. So it's wrong to make clones.

cierdan, you 2. is false. FIRST, you use a definition of 'incest' that does include the clone being the son/daughter ('it is wrong' - why is it wrong, if the clone isn't the offspring?), THEN you say it is not incest. Make up your mind!

thus, your 3., 4. etc are false.

Also, you 5. is wrong, too - it isn't ethical to 'make' people if you can't let them have sex??????


basically, you're trying to find a reason for cloning to be wrong because you want to find one.

and, btw, your constant bragging about your math understanding is a bit absurd, considering you constantly screw up your proofs and logic.

 

[wit>trope]

I do not believe DNA closeness makes sex wrong. I believe the actual genetic (definition 2) relationship of fatherhood, motherhood makes it wrong. So for example, I do not believe brother-sister marriage is wrong even thoug they are close in DNA-- because the genetic (definition 2) relationship is radically different -- brother-sister genetic relationship (family tree relationship if you have problems with the word "genetic") is vastly different from father-daughter genetic relationship.

Now please see post #59 where the rest of the blanks are filled in.

 

[Kayak]

I thought cloning was wrong long before I thought of this proof

And there is your problem. You are letting your desire for something to be true to get in the way of your logic. You are twisting your logic to fit your desire and not truly following logic to its conclusion.

@kayak, you understand me incorrectly. The second thing you are talking about would just fall under general abuse or generally unwise conduct. I consider sex between parent-child to be wrong due not to DNA similiarity but the "genetic relationship" -- i.e. GENETIC RELATIONSHIP and NOT GENETIC SIMILARITY:

SECOND DEFINITION OF GENETIC:
Of, relating to, or influenced by the origin or development of something.

So the incest between parent-child is wrong because the parent IS the originator, the generator, the father/mother of the child WITHOUT REGARD to any question of DNA similiarity. So it's not mere DNA similiarity but the actual RELATIONSHIP of being the physical progenitor that makes it wrong.

Ah I get it . But that is silly too. You are singling out 1 type of relationship by fiat without defining HOW it is wrong. If all of the other forms of incest are ok, what make this one so bad?

 

[carlosMM]

I do not believe DNA closeness makes sex wrong. I believe the actual genetic (definition 2) relationship of fatherhood, motherhood makes it wrong.

So, having kids is wrong, whatever way they are conceived


give up now, you have been led ad absurdum about a dozen times

 

[wit>trope]

And there is your problem. You are letting your desire for something to be true to get in the way of your logic. You are twisting your logic to fit your desire and not truly following logic to its conclusion.

Actually I thought of this scenario without any desire to prove cloning wrong but then after thinking of it I thought it could be a good proof that cloning is wrong ... it just kind of popped into my head. So it's not like I was brainstorming about how to prove cloning wrong.

Ah I get it

Good! You must be pretty smart

But that is silly too. You are singling out 1 type of relationship by fiat without defining HOW it is wrong. If all of the other forms of incest are ok, what make this one so bad?

Everyone is a brother or sister in some distant sense since we are all cousins descended from Adam and Eve. But only a minority of the human race will be our father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc. ... so there's something special about the ancestor-descendant relationship. I would say arguments that sexualizing the relationship is wrong would be similar to arguments that sexualizing relationship between same sex friends is wrong. Sexual relationships are meant to occur between opposite sex and between non-ancestor/non-descendant (this would mean that if there's sex in the afterlife, Adam is stuck with one woman like forever) ... let's not talk about homosexuality since that's offtopic. Why ancestor/descendant is out of bounds ISTM is because the ancestor-descendant spiritual relationship which arises out of the physical genetic (definition 2) relationship is incompatible with a romantic sexual relationship ... I'm not too sure WHY it is incompatible yet, but I'm guessing...

it's because it's like oil and water. They don't mix. I mean when you have sex with a girlfriend it wouldn't be right if the girlfriend called you "Father" or "Dad" right? You can't be both father and romantic companion -- it's either one or the other (or some third different thing). SO the only way to be a romantic companion would be to NOT be a father but being a father is something you can't change since it's a physical genetic (definition 2) thing ... the only thing you can do is PRETEND the reality of fatherhood doesn't exist and so psychologically ignore that part of reality ... or you could think the two things (fatherhood and romantic companionship) are compatible -- but my example with the girlfriend yelling "Father" or "Dad" during sex sounding very wrong shows that would be a wrong thought.

sorry for rambling but I have to go

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Why would anyone clone one of their kids so they could marry the clone? A person who would do that is probably a sicko who belongs in a mental institution. Anyway, the clone would count as a blood relation(ie. close family) in my book, and sex with blood relations is not good, for both genetic and moral reasons. Don't see how this proves cloning is wrong though.

 

[Sophie 378]

So, you say it is wrong because you think cloning is wrong, therefore cloning is wrong because this is wrong? Circular reasoning. I think your definitions of "related" and "incest" differ from the mainstream. If you say the clone isn't your daughter, and you aren't bothered by DNA closeness, where do you logically get the "wrong" from apart from a gut feeling that cloning is wrong? We all think it is wrong because it's incest, you say that it isn't incest because the clone wasn't produced as a direct result of you having sex. Do I sense jealousy? I think if a clone was created of your daughter, she would (as well as being genetically identical to) think of the daughter as her sister and you as her father, hence might call you dad and not want to have sex with you. And if you saw someone who looked exactly like your daughter, might you not subconsciously think of them as at least similar enough to your daughter than sex is off-limits?

So, you are trying to prove: "cloning is wrong" based on the assumptions:
1) incest is wrong (most of us agree)
2) sex with a clone of your daughter is not incest (most of us disagree)
Therefore cloning is wrong.

Your proof that cloning is wrong rests soley on your definition of incest, which none of us (that I can see) agree with.

OK, new way of thinking about it. You have a daughter. She gets married and whatever, and has a daughter by some bloke, cloning not involved. Is it wrong for you to have sex with her daughter, who would be less related to you than the hypothetical clone of your daughter? If no (alright), why not? The granddaughter is less closely related than a sibling to you, so by your definition it's not incest, and the granddaughter is not a clone. If yes (wrong), why is it wrong? Because it's incest? Do you have a logical reason for it to be wrong, or is it just a gut feeling? By gut feeling I mean to include anything from religious certainty that it is an abomination unto the Lord, to just a vague feeling it's yucky, etc.

Sorry to ruin what remains of your impression of me but I still don't see how you saying "having sex with a clone of your daughter is bad but isn't incest therefore is OK therefore cloning is wrong" actually makes logical sense, even allowing for our different definitions of incest.

Hey, I know! Let's have a new word: intercest. This is sex with one genetically close enough to you that it's yucky/bad genetics/immoral/wrong. That catches sex with a clone of your daughter! (Or should that be intracest, oh ye [multiple non-specific] of much etymological knowledge?)

 

[blackheart]

sophie, I already made this clear in posts addressed to other people. But to sum up...

1. There's something wrong with the situation.
2. It can't be an issue of incest since the clone is not really the daughter (or son).
3. So there must be SOME OTHER REASON why it is wrong
4. The only other possible reason is that sex with clones is wrong.
5. If sex with clones is wrong then it's not fair to the clones to make them since then they wouldnt' be able to ethically have sex.
6. So it's wrong to make clones.

This makes very little sense in terms of logic. You first deem the situation is wrong, but your original assumption of why the situation is wrong proves to be false, yet you still claim the situation is wrong without knowing why or how it is wrong, so therefore the situation is still wrong even though the reason you provided was nullified.

 

[newfangle]

Everyone is a brother or sister in some distant sense since we are all cousins descended from Adam and Eve.

So that means that the children of Adam and Eve either had sex with each other or sex with their parents in order to have more kids. Since God made Adam and Eve, and God cannot perform wrong acts, one could conclude within the framework of your logic that incest could not possibly be wrong. (unless God is so mind numbingly stupid that he couldn't foresee incest between closely related kin).

 

[carlosMM]

Everyone is a brother or sister in some distant sense since we are all cousins descended from Adam and Eve. [snip]

sorry for rambling but I have to go

good to see you're in full retreat. Happy running

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Zealots don't stand a chance in these forums. And I don't really care.

 

[Stapel]

I would too. But the key word there is SPERM. The clone would not involve any of your sperm in making here.

I don't see the difference. Who cares if a baby is 'created' by sperm or by whatever technology?



Whatever kind of drugs you are using, Cierdan, I advise you to stop it.

 

[Stapel]

Everyone is a brother or sister in some distant sense since we are all cousins descended from Adam and Eve.

And I was thinking this was a serious discussion....

 

[Stapel]

Actually I thought of this scenario without any desire to prove cloning wrong but then after thinking of it I thought it could be a good proof that cloning is wrong ... it just kind of popped into my head. So it's not like I was brainstorming about how to prove cloning wrong.

It is my opinion you are simply lying here.
Of course you were looking for ways to prove your opinion to be true.

You can't seriously deny this.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

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.<snip>

Nope. The Wehrmarck experiments showed that one develops taboos towards relationships that one has been raised with.

 

[Stapel]

Nope. The Wehrmarck experiments showed that one develops taboos towards relationships that one has been raised with.

Some do, some don't....

Anyway, how does your statement deny Bozo's?

 

[wit>trope]

So that means that the children of Adam and Eve either had sex with each other or sex with their parents in order to have more kids. Since God made Adam and Eve, and God cannot perform wrong acts, one could conclude within the framework of your logic that incest could not possibly be wrong. (unless God is so mind numbingly stupid that he couldn't foresee incest between closely related kin).

Well that is almost right. What one can conclude and what I DO conclude as I've already stated in this thread and the other thread is that brother-sister sex is not immoral. So it's not the close DNA similiarity that makes it immoral, but the actual genetic (definition 2) relationship of fatherhood/motherhood that makes it immoral as opposed to the collateral relationships of brother/cousin/etc

 

[wit>trope]

So, you say it is wrong because you think cloning is wrong, therefore cloning is wrong because this is wrong? Circular reasoning.

No no no no no.

What I'm saying is:

1. The situation (sex with the clone of the daughter) must be wrong SOMEHOW.

2. It can't be wrong due to it being incest since it is NOT incest.

3. Ergo, it must be wrong SOME OTHER WAY i.e. for SOME OTHER REASON.

4. The only OTHER possible reason, the only OTHER possible way it could be wrong is that having sex with a clone is wrong.

5. If having sex with a clone is wrong, then it's unfair to a clone to make him since the clone wouldn't be able to morally have sex with anyone.

6. Ergo, cloning is wrong.

If you say the clone isn't your daughter, and you aren't bothered by DNA closeness, where do you logically get the "wrong" from apart from a gut feeling that cloning is wrong?

Well one can know something is wrong without knowing exactly why it is wrong. But upon further exploration, one can sometimes determine the exact reason why it is wrong. There are many examples of this.

We all think it is wrong because it's incest, you say that it isn't incest because the clone wasn't produced as a direct result of you having sex. Do I sense jealousy? I think if a clone was created of your daughter, she would (as well as being genetically identical to) think of the daughter as her sister and you as her father, hence might call you dad and not want to have sex with you. And if you saw someone who looked exactly like your daughter, might you not subconsciously think of them as at least similar enough to your daughter than sex is off-limits?

These are all very good points.

So, you are trying to prove: "cloning is wrong" based on the assumptions:
1) incest is wrong (most of us agree)
2) sex with a clone of your daughter is not incest (most of us disagree)

Technically #1 isn't an assumption necessary for the proof. The only assumptions necessary are:

1) sex with clone of your daughter is wrong

2) the only possible reasons it could be wrong are a) it is incest b) sex with a clone is wrong

3) it is not incest

So this means (b) is the only alternative. It's like Sherlock Holmes -- when you rule everything else out then no matter how unlikely it may have seemed initially, it's got to be true.

Your proof that cloning is wrong rests soley on your definition of incest, which none of us (that I can see) agree with.

Someone named Will (he has a sunglass smiley face for an avatar) agrees with me at least on that brother-sister sex is not wrong. He posted in the thread you linked to.

OK, new way of thinking about it. You have a daughter. She gets married and whatever, and has a daughter by some bloke, cloning not involved. Is it wrong for you to have sex with her daughter, who would be less related to you than the hypothetical clone of your daughter? If no (alright), why not? The granddaughter is less closely related than a sibling to you, so by your definition it's not incest, and the granddaughter is not a clone. If yes (wrong), why is it wrong? Because it's incest? Do you have a logical reason for it to be wrong, or is it just a gut feeling?

Yes I do have a logical reason. What I believe to be wrong is any parent-child sex (i.e. ancestor-descendant) -- so that includes grandparent-grandchild or greatgrandparent-greatgrandchild, etc. I've already stated this including in the earlier thread. So it's not an "ad hoc" thing.

Sorry to ruin what remains of your impression of me but I still don't see how you saying "having sex with a clone of your daughter is bad but isn't incest therefore is OK therefore cloning is wrong" actually makes logical sense, even allowing for our different definitions of incest.

My impression of you won't change just because you disagree with me.

Hey, I know! Let's have a new word: intercest. This is sex with one genetically close enough to you that it's yucky/bad genetics/immoral/wrong. That catches sex with a clone of your daughter! (Or should that be intracest, oh ye [multiple non-specific] of much etymological knowledge?)

Here's an enlightening question.

What if someone totally unrelated and totally different DNA wise, gets plastic surgery and is made to look EXACTLY LIKE your close relation? (adult son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother -- whatever would be considered wrong incest by you)

Would you say THAT would be wrong and if so why?

I'm interested to see your response to this question Sophie (or anyone else). I believe it will shed light on the clone situation -- maybe it will reveal that what's wrong about it is not DNA similiarity since there's no DNA similarity in this plastic surgery situation.

 

[Sophie 378]

Quick reply before I go to a lecture - if someone completely unrelated to you was cloned, does everyone posting here think sex with THAT clone would be wrong? If yes then I presume it's because you've managed to follow Cierdan that clone sex is wrong (therefore cloning is wrong), if no, then I kind of think it means you disagree with Cierdan's conclusion that sex with clones is wrong. I say it all comes back to your definition of incest, which since I don't agree with, I don't agree with your logical chain.

 

[marshal zhukov]

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.

@ cierdan

Bozo's argument blew you away...