Cloning
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Anything but Iraq...</div> Opening a can of worms that has only tangential connections to my favorite scumbags in the White House, I'd like to discuss cloning, or more precisely therapeutical cloning of fetuses, and the ongoing research on reproductive cloning.
Now, in my opinion, both techniques are currently in their infant stages and thus not yet practicable, especially reproductive cloning will take a long time to be stabilized far enough that it becomes viable, but assuming that these issues will be solved one day, I can't see binding reasons against either of the two practices.
To clarify, this does <i>not</i> mean that I'd want to clone myself, nor would it mean that I'd ask for a therapy that involves cloning a fetus, because I can't neglect the possibility that this conglomerate of cells has already human attributes. It means that I believe that there is no good objective reason to keep others from doing just this.
Why do I think so?
Because most of the anti-cloning arguments are derived from christian ethics. They're based on christian ideas like the soul and the creation of man after gods image, which implicates that cloning a human being would mean 'playing god'. These are, however, <i>christian</i> believes, and in our current world, with its multitudes of philosophies and religions which have other ideas of the human being and thus no problem with cloning, we can not be so arrogant to proclaim 'our lots' ideas superior to those of the others and base legislation and social standards on them.
Discuss.
Now, in my opinion, both techniques are currently in their infant stages and thus not yet practicable, especially reproductive cloning will take a long time to be stabilized far enough that it becomes viable, but assuming that these issues will be solved one day, I can't see binding reasons against either of the two practices.
To clarify, this does <i>not</i> mean that I'd want to clone myself, nor would it mean that I'd ask for a therapy that involves cloning a fetus, because I can't neglect the possibility that this conglomerate of cells has already human attributes. It means that I believe that there is no good objective reason to keep others from doing just this.
Why do I think so?
Because most of the anti-cloning arguments are derived from christian ethics. They're based on christian ideas like the soul and the creation of man after gods image, which implicates that cloning a human being would mean 'playing god'. These are, however, <i>christian</i> believes, and in our current world, with its multitudes of philosophies and religions which have other ideas of the human being and thus no problem with cloning, we can not be so arrogant to proclaim 'our lots' ideas superior to those of the others and base legislation and social standards on them.
Discuss.
Comments
It's not Christian ethics , it's a moral issue.
This idea is frightening me , it sounds like a step backwards in Evolution. Everyone will agree with me that Sex shouldn't be let down <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
See , the claim of "first human cloning" was propaganda from the Ra?l church.
Therapeutical cloning is a very touchy subject though. Having lifeforms without even a brain grow organs for you isn't that shocking , after all we already take stuff from the dead or from animals. Of course it makes us "vampires" as we eat our own babies somehow... but if they don't have a "soul" , we shouldn't restrain our fest as it's badly needed , to cure diseases like Alzheimer... I know what I'm speaking about , my mother has it and it's the worst extremely slow agony imaginable. Feeling her once brilliant brain being crushed... it's hardly bearable to see that happen.
An other problem is that cloning is terribly hard for now so it needs many , many ova to make one (viable ?) foetus. The women who gave them take very high risks doing so (hormones treatment) and the retrieving of them is actually so painfull... it's not like we could produce tons of flesh with ease.
It's not Christian ethics , it's a moral issue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, in Germany, people sometimes call their children "von meinem Fleisch und Blut", roughly translated: "of my flesh and blood". We often forget that we are the average out of two people - cloning wouldn't be <i>that</i> different.
Also, I can think of a whole bunch of people to which the 'natural' way of reproduction isn't exactely a viable one - unfruitful (?) or homosexual pairs who do however want a child that's 'part of them', as opposed to adoptions, for example.
Also, I can think of a whole bunch of people to which the 'natural' way of reproduction isn't exactely a viable one - unfruitful (?) or homosexual pairs who do however want a child that's 'part of them', as opposed to adoptions, for example.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I'm more inclined to believe that it <i>would</i> be very different.
Yes, we're all the average out of two people, but each of the two people are of a different sex. I'll admit I'm not exactly overly knowledgeable about genetics so I might be way off base, but I'd imagine that each parent in a 'typical' natural birth would be contributing certain genes only evident in that parent's particular sex. If this theory <i>is</i> actually true, wouldn't the child of a homosexual couple be lacking the genes from the absent sex?
A cloned child would be a younger copy of one person. No one knows how he could react to such a situation.
Besides , if gays and lesbians can adopt children , they don't really need more for now... not everyone accepts the idea that homosexuals can have children and breed them. We should wait and see how the present generation grows in homosexual families.
I agree that most of the objections to cloning for medical purposes are based primarily on Christian moral values. Being a Christian, I don't notice that sort of thing unless someone else points it out, but it's true. I personally don't share the opinion of many of my friends that cloning for any reason is morally wrong. I'm of the opinion that a few unformed lives are a small price to pay to secure the health and well-being of countless people. To me, this seems to go hand in hand with abortion... pro-lifers are anti-cloning, and pro-choicers are pro-cloning (although I personally haven't chosen a side on abortion). As for homosexuals having children "together" with the use of cloning... I don't think that's possible. I'll have to look into the procedure again, but IIRC it wouldn't work.
Nope. Males and Females differ in a single chromosome - aside from that, our DNS is comparable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We aren't just the "average" of our parents... brothers and sisters aren't your exact image unless you are twins , and you are completely different from each parent. Children are unique. The first use of sex is that it brings a new individual that has a random combination of his parent's genes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK. Gimme a second so I can surgically remove all the rethoric out of my brain before progressing.
...
...
...
Done. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Let's rephrase: We're all consisting out of genes from other people - our parents. This DNS is recombined, true, and an unidentified chance for random changes exists, so a child is never the copy of a parent.
What I was trying to make clear is that we all are of the flesh and blood of other people, just as a clone would be.
Her/his unique situation could pose a number of psychological questions we can not yet fully forsee, true. Does that mean that they would be unsolveable? No. Every child goes through a phase in its development in which it has to face the question where it came from.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides , if gays and lesbians can adopt children , they don't really need more for now... not everyone accepts the idea that homosexuals can have children and breed them. We should wait and see how the present generation grows in homosexual families. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, let's be homophobic-friendly and ignore the second example. Leaves the other one:
A perfectly normal couple, only that he happens to be impotent. They want to have a child, though, and so they decide that she's going to get pregnant with a clone of him/her.
Does that sound so bad?
Besides, im anti-everything-that-makes-you-live-longer. World is already over-populated place and, as this might sound awfull, I think if we have to choose who this world is going to support, I say the young people. I'd prefer world to have 5 young people who can live their lives at full and then die at the age of 50-60 than have 5 young and 3 old people who live their lives with little less food.
I know it sounds awfull and I know people still have lives after the age of 60, but it would solve a lot of problems if the highest age man could reach would be 60years or so.
Don't hit me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Reproductive cloning <i>will</i> happen one day. The Realians were nutjobs, but there are enough people who're doing things <i>because it is possible to do them</i>. The question isn't whether we want cloning (for whatever purpose) to happen, the question is how we - as a society - react.
must...resist....letting...personall...bias...overflow...into.....good..forums!
[semi rant]
Cloning is perfectly accptable, and will happen one day, if en0gh people say "we should clone stuff" eventually it will happen, the problem we have (aside from Bush) <------BIAS
is that people think cloning and they think genetic engineering, and they think of all the bad things that the almight TV <-------BIAS
tells them about how cloning is evil. Cloning that gives us fresh, new, easily transplantable organs and tissues that can help save countless lives will come in handy one day
[/semi rant]
[edit]
identified bias
[/edit]
that too
Does that sound so bad? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many couples are in this situation , but they don't want to have clones... they use artificial insemination to have a child despite being physically impotent.
Now , discussing the matter of a poor castrated male is quite far fetched.
And even then we wouldn't need to make a clone , merging the nucleus of a random cell and of his wife's ova would make it , and perhaps have better rates of success.
But it won't be for <i>them</i>, and as I said in my initial post, it's not <i>our</i> descision.
ticktockticktock
ticktockticktock <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
me waits as well
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Next:
Cloning is a viable way for us as a human race to eliminate certain problems, illnesses and injuries, as Nem mentioned above the only arguments that are made against cloning are based in religion, which in my opinion has no merrit in the face of since or medicine. Furthermore, the USA supposedly belives in the separation of church and state, and yet we can not allocate public funds for cloning research because the voting majority in the country is religious.
I am first in line for a new pair of lungs (augmented for performance of course <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and any other cool goodies that might come out of the whole cloning feild. Also peole need to realize that clonign doesnt mean making a human copy, it could be used for growing skin on slabs of glass, or growing organs and other such stuff.
Also as with everything else thats contreversial there is a minority that never gets heard, people who are majorly disabled that can benifit from cloning research and development
* NEWSFLASH * Human cloning has been accomplished and is happening all over the country!
its called twins.
The only appreciable difference is in the disparity of ages. Most identical twins end up being fairly different people. Some even become so physically different that its hard to tell that they are twins. Add in the age difference, and it is virtually assured that the clone and the parent won't be inordinately similar.
The only problems I can see would be a result of the terminology and the culture surrounding the idea, rather than the state itself.
* NEWSFLASH * Human cloning has been accomplished and is happening all over the country!
its called twins.
The only appreciable difference is in the disparity of ages. Most identical twins end up being fairly different people. Some even become so physically different that its hard to tell that they are twins. Add in the age difference, and it is virtually assured that the clone and the parent won't be inordinately similar.
The only problems I can see would be a result of the terminology and the culture surrounding the idea, rather than the state itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but can you imagine having to go through elementary school with all the kids whispering at you saying "look at him, he's a test tube baby!" in hushed awe? That would probably mess me up for good.
Newsflash 2!!
There are plenty "test tube babies" out there already. Mostly doing ok afaik..
Besides, kids = generally mean.
I don't suppose "omg he's one of them genetic clone dudes" is much more psychologically damaging than "omg! a black kid in a mostly white school!!" , " omg! look at her! she's fat!" or "omg!! he has strange trousers!!"
There are plenty "test tube babies" out there already. Mostly doing ok afaik..
Besides, kids = generally mean.
I don't suppose "omg he's one of them genetic clone dudes" is much more psychologically damaging than "omg! a black kid in a mostly white school!!" , " omg! look at her! she's fat!" or "omg!! he has strange trousers!!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, and look at where it's gotten. Just because it may not be more damaging than what some people already get isn't an excuse to put them through it.
ticktockticktock <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
heh, last week of classes = mad rush of assignments and beer. hence the delay.
The main problem i see with true cloning is the incredible amounts of broken-heart religious types we will have to deal with when they find out that the concept of the soul is not as they had imagined it. I'd hate to make them feel bad (and i'm sure i would have somewhat of a crisis myself).
As i see it, there are two types of reproductive cloning which differ quite a bit in terms of moral touchiness. The first and less inflammatory is that of modifying or multiplying gametes to simulate natural fertilization. Gibson introduced this in one of his novel's as a way to modify a gamete from one sex the other to enact fertilization for homosexuals. A great idea and can hardly be scorned at all for messing about with the principles of life. I'm not really up to date on this stuff, but i think there has been quite a bit of progress in creating artificial zygotes made from two same-sex gametes.
The second is true cloning, the copying of one individual as a reproductive act. (if you've never heard of the Forever War, go read it. excellent sci-fi and deals a bit with cloning and STL societal effects.) This is where the moral questions come in. Will this clone have a soul of his/her own? Or will s/he share with his/her parent?
Doesn't matter, we'll find out soon enough. No matter how much we may question if it is right, someone out there will do it because they can before they are stopped. I do agree with Nem's reference to the fact that other religions/belief systems do not have as much difficulty with the problems raised by cloning, but there is the indisputible fact of the self contained in every person that i think may transcend religion. a violation or questioning of where that self ends might be difficult for all peoples.
We shouldn't hold back on the possible gains from this research but, Dread put it best
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*Dread*: It seems somewhat ridicilous to me, that rich western countries are cloning children and organs for themselves when we still have thirdworld countries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The future of therapeutic cloning doesnt seem to bright to me. There probably wont be a need to grow an entire body when growing just a portion will do. And hey, if you're growing me a new arm. Am i really gonna care about the moral ramifications? Does this arm have a soul? Doubt it. Unless you're Harry the Intergalactic Hero you'll probably deal with having a new arm just fine. They already can make stem cells start differentiating into the various tissue types. They can clone local tissues and graft it with ease (i've seen some crazy pictures of rats with a living human ear on their backs. just the flesh though). Therapeutic cloning is just complicated tissue culture. I dont think it will ever see the opposition that reproductive cloning will. Also, i think it's more likely that the rich who dont wish to die will endorse it sooner than making new kids they have to pay for.
However, the question was really how we as a society will react to reproductive cloning, so i should probably answer it.
Well, how do we deal with everything else? We always start with fear, that good ol emotion that lets us suss out the situation a bit before we have to deal with it fully. I think we're going to see a lot more fear when it becomes more widespread and to far greater degrees than the pro-life/choice debate. Which is unfortunate to say the least since aggression simply slows the resolution of conflict. This fear will probably take a very long time to die down.
[I'm mostly dealing with the true cloning here, i dont think alteration of gametes should see too much prejudice. at least i'd hope we can be reasonable enough to allow technology to exist to let those who cannot have children reproduce by other methods using their own genes. Although from an evolutionary sense doing this is counter-productive by introducing more reproductively malignant genes into the population. Not that this applies to homosexuals who could reproduce by normal means if they so chose.]
But then again, maybe we wont see as much fear at all. There was a lot of concern about in vitro babies seeing prejudice (where do you think babylon 5 got the idea?) and there has been essentially none since they are humans through and through. Clones would be too.
I'm hoping the fear doesnt last too long, because i think it would be in our best interests to be able to reproduce individuals who we found valuable. God forbid the development of a caste society based upon the worth of clones but the advantages can be more than just creating an image of oneself.
Really? is the last part of that statement true?
I cannot think of any good reason why we should at present create clones of ourselves other than to show we can.
So it is probable that society will just be afraid of cloning until we either lose interest in it or find a good reason why it should be done.
The following in brief, i apologize if it comes off tertly. i have a take home exam to do yet
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Greypaws: so that would mean that a screaming wiggling babything that only cares about sucking on a **** and pooping is not human. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sounds like freud to me. and i think freud did too much coke.
i personally see cloning as very different from organ-growing and gene-therapy which you seem to be referring to.
and dont worry about the states not being able to fund cloning due to religious ties. there are plenty of ways that uncle sam can funnel money into a 'less-moral' country in order for them to get research done that they want.
moultano, i dont think the problem of cloning arises from the fact that people are genetically identical. it is the act of creating that we see as difficult. be it by 'playing God', (which i think is an insult to Her to even presume we could ever come close) or by the questions concerning the nature of the self and the soul.
if you saw a cloned person, how would you know? are we gonna give them some big goofy tattoo on their forehead? the secrecy surrounding their existence will be helpful to avoid prejudice until they are accepted. thank goodness, i'd hate to give humans another source of irrational hate for each other.
monse, i must be getting old. i cant think of anything else to write ~; )
That argument seems to imply that we shouldn't let anyone abnormal reproduce.
I don't really understand that attitude either, but it is undeniably common. To me its all machinery anyways. Making babies the traditional way is just as intentional as doing it in test tubes, the former is just more enjoyable and more efficient <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. It seems like a bit of a logical fallacy to say that what we do with the sex organs god gave us is more holy than what we do with the brain that god gave us.
I think most of the philosophical questions about cloning only exist because of the mystery that surrounds it. Its new and seems wierd, and for that reason we think that it's fundamentally different.
I'd say genetic engineering has a lot more that needs to be discussed than cloning. Imagine the escalation of class conflict when the rich keep getting smarter and more capable with every generation. I wouldn't be suprised if we ended up reverting to feudalism.
Good for you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
That argument seems to imply that we shouldn't let anyone abnormal reproduce. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We inform people when they have MS (multiple sclerosis) and a number of genetically inherited diseases when they go for counseling about having children. I just don't understand the need for cloning. Growing organs, fine. Whole people? That's something I don't care to get into.