Bush is speaking out against it right now, what do you think?

I guess I should have put in something for: It depends.  For research and the like.

I voted nay.
Seems wrong at this time, but, who knows?

It is going to happen. Might as well accept it. May have already happened somewhere.

Scott

I think we would be kinda of niave to think that it hasn't happened already.

Keving67

I don't understand what people have against this.  When you clone anything all you get is a identical twin of whatever you cloned. All it does is make a rare natural condition, identical twins, a controllable repeatable function. Its still a kid that has to be raised, its not like you can grow babies in vats you know, I swear that some of these people have watched [i]Boys from Brazil[/i] too many times.

Cloning human [i]cells[/i] to grow tissues is a definent must have technology, the ability to create new tissues and perhaps organs for people that will solve the doner shortage and permit the doing away with anti-rejection drugs can only be good. If the same technology can be used to create a human baby that is a clone of a adult- oh well. Perhaps it will be of use to someone who cant have children normally.

Just kidding below...
Damn, someone told me they would make excellent targets.  Clone a few people and stick them out on the range. Good for reactive targets. [;)][;)][;)][;)][;)]

I voted yes because it can help in research.  Plus like DScottHewitt said, it will happen anyway.

One problem with cloning research (at least in its current state) is that it tends to result in a high ratio of "defective" clones to healthy ones.  This raises the ethical problem of having to create dozens (at least) of diseased, deformed, and short-lived human beings in order to get the first "good" clone.

And then there is the problem of deciding who has parental responsibility for a cloned child.  The cell donor?  The lab director?  The surrogate mother?

Oh well... It's going to happen anyway. [%|]

there's a difference between cloning cells to create human tissues and cloning cells to create entirely autonomous, independent-thinking, feeling human beings.  (try explaining to your son or daughter that she wasn't conceived out of love, but you wanted another copy of a child you already had!)



yeah, and if those people were "meant" to have children, then they'd be able to.  period.  nature has a way of protecting its own.  there's a reason some people are infertile.  reminds me of that religious woman who couldn't have children and after repeated attempts ameliorated with fertility treatments, she gave birth to SEVEN kids.  her statement when asked why she didn't have some of them removed from the uterus to increase the chance of survival for the remaining: "This was a gift from God.  It was not for us to decide which should live and which should die.  It's was God's will to have seven babies."  bullshit.  it was God's will she have none.  she's the one that got selfish and wanted them at all costs.  (okay, down of that soapbox for now.)

medical technology is great for saving lives.  but i think it can go too far.  if all we ever need to do is pop in a replacement organ when the other one gets old, aren't we playing around with nature (or if you're the religious type, aren't we playing God?)?  there's a difference between saving lives and merely increasing life spans.  i'm all for the former, but can't really see anything good about the latter.

to sum up:  cloning humans serves no purpose other than selfish ones.  and since nothing ever done strictly for the pure science/research of it has ever remained strictly within the realm of science/research, i vote no!  way too much risk for dishonest/criminal purposes for my stomach.

besides, the last thing anybody wants its another ARlady walking this earth!  [:D]

oh, one final thought.  what's to prevent someone from cloning an individual without his/her permission?

I'm firmly of the belief that we must research cloning to the point where we can clone individual organs for a person. Bad ticker? Clone a new one. Therefore, one doesn't have to wait for someone to die to be an organ donor.

Otherwise...

[img]http://www.attackcartoons.com/cloneosama.GIF[/img]

Agreed.

If all we ever need to do is light a campfire when the weather turns cold, aren't we playing around with nature? [;)]

Using human intelligence to modify the environment to our advantage is the story of technology.  What criteria determine whether or not a given advance amounts to "playing God"?

Another possibility is in like the Movie Judge Dredd.  Crime is everywhere and we need to get more judges out there immediately. [;)]

I'd love a way to clone my pet.  She is getting old and I'd love another just like her. [:D]

ALREADY INPROGRESS

ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE A CLONING TEST IS ALREADY IN PROGRESS AND A WOMEN IS IN HER 8 WEEK PREGNANT WITH A KLONED EMBRIO. tHE HEAD OF THIS TEST IS AN ITALIAN SCIENTIST CALLED ANTINORI AND HE IS WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE Andrology Institute of America in Lexington.

HER IS THE ACTUAL ARTICLE FROM WWW.KATH.NET IN GERMAN:


HERE IS A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY DOES HUMAN CLONING:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1477000/1477698.stm

http://www.sciam.com/2002/0402issue/0402profile.html

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/08/06/clone.doctor/


IT IS NOT JUST GOING TO HAPPEN ONE DAY - THAT WHOLE THING IS ALREADY IN FULL MOTION.

(from a previous thread)
[b]Jan. 18, 2002: [url=http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/18/academies.cloning/index.html]Nat'l. Academy of Sciences urges ban on human cloning[/b][/url]

[i]"The National Academy of Sciences recommended Friday that human reproductive cloning -- cloning to create a baby -- [b]be legally banned.[/b] "[b]Human reproductive cloning should not now be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail,[/b]" Dr. Irving Weissman, the chairman of the panel that made the recommendation, said while presenting the findings at a news conference."[/i]

The Nat'l Acad. Sci. apparently believes the risks are presently too great. Are they backwards-thinking religious anti-science kooks, or are they highly informed, conscientious and cautious researchers who know their own limitations? I'd say the latter.

In a strict sense, there NEVER has been a successful mammal cloned. NO ANIMAL CLONE created (mouse, sheep, ape etc.) has been an "identical" twin of the original.

Presently, ALL animal cloning attempts have produced very high rate of "disasterous" malformations many of which survive birth for at least some periods of time. Other outcomes have been less monsterous, yet still have severe metabolic and other disorders that render the surviving offspring very unhealthy.  

I would not want to engage in an activity that has a VERY HIGH CHANCE of producing many developmentally disasterous human offspring who would lead short yet (hopefully not) suffering-filled lives and many more doomed to severe metabolic disorders for the rest of their life.

We already have plenty of babies naturally concieved and born with crippling congenital disorders - I would not want create  who-knows-how-many-more of them just for the hope that we might learn from our mistakes.

If, during its development, in vitro fertilization had the same stillbirth/failure rate as present-day reproductive cloning does, it would not have been experimented on humans until the "bugs" were nearly completely eliminated, and very few people would be pushing to "ignore the failure rate, start on humans now".

[b]Limiting cloning for stem cell research seems a good balance between our research needs and the reducing risk of "experimental survivors".[/b]

To start with, I'd say lets be sure we can clone mammals/primates with virtually no unusual malformations or metabolic abnormalities. Until then, let's keep the "Island of Dr. Moreau" uninhabited for a while. [%|]

your analogy looks good on the face of it, but you make one fatal error, so to speak.  your example describes modifying the environment, adapting it to our needs.

human cloning creates human bodies.  we're not adapting anything.  we're creating things that naturally never would have existed.  i think there's a major difference.

the more i think about this, the more i think that it's absolutely the silliest argument i've ever heard for ANYTHING.

you must also be perfectly accepting of the following things, since the current trends indicate that, not only are they already happening, but are well on their way to becoming the way of things:

--homosexuality taught as perfectly okay, normal, and acceptable to our children; in addition, seminars on how to perform various homosexual acts wil be given

--infringement of basic liberties guaranteed to all men by virtue of being born;  let's see, there's the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments that i can think of right off the top of my head

--use of political office to further one's personal agenda

people, just because it's already happening doesn't make something right.  that argument has absolutely no merit. and anybody who uses it to justify anything should be ashamed of himself.

Delaying human cloning- or mass cloneing of animals- untill a FDA approved "safe and effective" method is established is fine.

But that is quite a bit different from what Bush wants, which is a ban on research that could be used to clone humans, even if the experiments are only actually done on animals.

It sounds the same when you read it fast, but the devil is in the details. Cloneing seems to be a matter of "garbage in garbage out", if you use defective cells to begin with, you get a defective featus. And its obvious that they don't know how to physicly handle the materials right, or else it would not have taken 275 tries to get one live lamb in the "Dolly" case.

But this cannot be solved without research and practice on animals which a blanket ban would stop. The arguments against cloneing seem to be based on theology not science and therefore I cannot support them.

No your post is the silliest argument for anything...

What does acceptance of homosexuality have to do with depriving people of their rights?

You seem to be listing a bunch of your pet grevinces as "right and wrong", with a definent slant to litteral Christianity. That is your narrow world view, that doesn't make things right or wrong.

are we talking about government funded research of just the existence of said research in general.

i'm fundamentally opposed to tax dollars being used for this type of research.  but i wouldn't be against cloning research per se, with the caveat that human cloning be a big no-no.  

It is fine if used for organs an tissue for someone but to clone an entire person is wrong.

She listed three items:
* Teaching homosexuality
* Infringement of basic liberties
* Use of political office to further one's personal agenda

THIS is a Christian slant???? Sheesh!

Your latent Christaphobia is showing.

Why?

I would agree that it is irresponsible for someone to clone a human NOW, but after another ten years of animal research?

How about cloning Tatjana?

One for each of us![}:)]

I dont have latent Christiphobia, I have OPEN Christiphobia. I WORRY about the US becoming a Christian equivilant of Taliban run Afghanistan.

And yes she posted three topics- but they did not go togeather, in fact one was completely contridictory to the other two. She talks about freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms, but then goes around and wants government and/or society dictating who people can and cannot sleep with? That is quite a inconsistancy, bordering on doublespeak.

Cloning would lead to people SELECTING "perfect" babies and discarding the "rejects".

I mean, suppose an error occured and a cloned baby turned out to be a deaf lesbian... who would actually WANT that???? [:|]

I take it you are opposed to abortion then?

Actually as we have seen recently, there are people that would. But so what. Selection over children is just fine as long as its the PARENTS who do the selecting and NOT the State or Church.

A persons Genome and reproducitive cells are their OWN property. No one can else can use them without the individuals informed consent. And its the individuals right to do with those cells what he or she wants. And when somone dies that control passes to their next of kin. Its not the place of third parties, including the Government to tell them what they can and cannot do. If what they want to do is create a identical twin of themsleves- although I don't know why they would want such a thing- that is their business, so long as there are, again "safe and effective" methods available to acheve that end.

I am pretty sure the new Star Wars movie will address these issues, and resolve the problem once and for all.

[b]ArmdLbrl[/b] - You DO know I was only being facetious, right?

As far as abortion, it's off the topic but suffice to say - yes I'm against abortion. But that's another thread.

And though a person's genome and cells ARE their property, there are NO absolute rights. Example:

1) Currently I can sell you my house, car and guns, but I can't [u]legally[/u] sell you my kidney.

2) I may be wrong about this but, I do think it is [u]illegal[/u] for a brother and sister to artificially concieve a baby.

3) In a criminal investigation, you can be compelled [u]under law[/u] to produce a blood sample (or other DNA evidence) if you are a suspect in a case.

I'm sure there are many other examples where you don't have an absolute right to do ANYTHING you want with your cells.

Regardless, I think we're close to the same side on this issue - reproductive cloning experiments with animals is okay, not humans.

Actually, I wasn't arguing for or against anything with that statement.  I was just giving myself an excuse for not getting upset over it.  

Cloning is just another technological advancement.  We have finally achieved the level of intelligence and technology to make this possible, why prevent it.  What would have happened if society had decided that the advent of flying machines was too dangerous?  Or doctors came to the conclusion that operating on the brain of a human being could lead to more harm than good and banned all brain operations, same thing for hearts.  Cloning will save more lives than it will destroy, eventually.  I say let it happen.

You're right in one sense.

Then again, since a clone is, by definition, a copy, cloning only recreates something that has already existed.  E.g., DaMan exists.  If we clone DaMan, are we unleashing some new, unnatural horror upon the world?  No, we're just getting more of what we already had.

And people are creating new people all the time.
[sex]

Besides that, though, almost all human artifacts would naturally never have existed.  Would nature have created DVD players?  Big Macs?  Space shuttles?  

And I suppose you take offense to words like "God bless America" because it is part of a vast Christian conspiracy to take over the country.[rolleyes]  Your fears might have been warranted a couple hundred years ago, but Christians are clearly on the run, politically speaking, from the PC.  If your greatest fear is Christians you should pull your head out of your arse and take a look around.

On a side note...since every thread seems to degenerate into a debate on homosexuality or israel, maybe we should get rid of this forum and create a seperate general discussion for people who believe in good and evil and another for those who don't (ie, "nothing wrong with homothexuality" and "israel is oppressing the poor palestinians").

Well yes, you cant do absolutely anything you want with anything, including your cells. However it does require due process, and that laws be in place to stop you. I am saying that there is no need to place laws to stop people [i]a priori[/i]. Its ok to stop people from trying to clone humans when cloneing anything is as hit and miss as it is right now. But once we have found a reliable method through animal testing it should be ok for voluntary trials on humans. Just like with any other new procedure, like transplants at one time. Got to go in baby steps.

I think that these efforts to regulate human cloneing right now are going to backfire. Its going to cause people to rush ahead and try it when the technology isn't ready, thinking its now or never and hoping that they get lucky. This should be handled by the FDA in the same manner as they would any other new drug or medical procedure.  I feel that if it weren't for the theological views of some people this would be a non-issue.

I take it you are for abortion then?  Even when it is just to allow parents to choose from a menu?  "This one isn't turning out how we hoped, honey, let's kill it and try again."

I have another poll for you:
Do you support removing guns from all civilian hands?
Yes
No

Point by point
It is going to happen at some time in the future.
Give your guns up now and accept it, avoid a lot of fighting.
Yes, complete removal of civilian firearms has already happened somewhere.
Guess I'll put you down for a yes.

I am personally opposed to cloning and "playing
God" (no offense to the Christophobes [;)]).  The ideas of "cloning farms" and "designer children" are indeed disturbing, and not all that unrealistic, of course.  

But when it comes to public policy...it gets tough for me.  I think we all should wait for the process to be [u]perfected[/u] before we try it on humans.  And even then, I'm undecided.  Tough decision.

Going forward with cloning of ANY living creature is dangerous, as well as inhumane.
If they were even able to get the devience rate down to 1 good in very batch of 10, that is still too high. To much killing would be required (and 1 unnecessary death is too many).
Sure , cloning sounds good, but there is WAY too much room for error and misuse of it to make it prudent to go forward.
Amd that isn't even touching on the moral issue.
The moral issue is even bigger.
How many of us are pissed about the sico lesbians who are TRYING to have ANOTHER deaf child in DC??
Cloning is playing God. Pure and simple.
just think what would have happened if Hitler had been able to utilize clones?
Or even worse, Bill and Hitlery??
No thanks.
As it is, we have too many doctors playing God right now with abortion and infertility treatments.

actually, cloning implies more than just a copy.  it also encompasses the process, the mechanism, the method of creating that copy.



yeah, but are people creating copies of those newbies all the time?  i said i had a problem with creating that which wouldn't have existed naturally.  if a copy of me existed naturally, i would have a twin.  it wouldn't be called a clone, it would be called a twin.  likewise, should human cloning be the norm, a copy of me created that way would be called a clone, not a twin.  



and most of those things would be considered tools to some extent or another.  i fail to see how creating a copy of a living human being can be considered a tool.

i understand the points you're trying to make.  but i don't think the comparisons you're making hold any water.  i think there's a fundamental difference between inanimate objectst that humans create and breathing, thinking, feeling humans that we merely copy.  

Yes that is right. People should not be saddled with a child they do not want. It is not for the Government or the Church or even the rest of society to decide but the parents.  Even the doctors can only provide advice.

oh, bullshit.  [rolleyes] i never proposed limiting who other people slept with.  i said TEACHING HOMOSEXUALITY, dumbass, teaching.  

i tried explaining my point to you, but you obviously want to ignore it.  so let me give you the remedial version.  maybe pointing it a little bit more simply would help.

some have justified human cloning by stating that "it's going to happen anyway."

i say that's a ludicrious justification because it's too generic and not based on the pros or cons of the issue at hand.

i further go on to say that should anyone actually subscribe to that kind of rationale, they also have to turn a blind eye to other things.  because, hey, they're going to happen anyway, right?

then i proceed to give examples.  the whole point was to apply the "it's going to happen anyway" justification to the following examples in an effort to show how absolutely ridiculous that justification actually is.

the teaching of homosexuality to children and brainwashing them into accepting it as normal and okay.  i am opposed to this.  it's not a school's business to be teaching my child anything but reading, writing, and arithmetic.  however, according to the argument, i shouldn't worry about it because it's going to happen anyway.

second example:  infringement of basic liberties.  obviously something we all have problems with and yet, according to the argument, we shoudn't oppose it or fight it because it's going to happen anyway.

third example:  people holding political office for personal gain.  again, i hate this.  selfish people who couldn't care less about the People and want the power and prestige of political office for personal gain rather than for protecting liberites of the People.  and yet, accoridng to the argument, i shouldn't worry about it because it's going to happen anyway.

i don't know what the heck you thought i was trying to say, but you were wrong.  i never related those three topics together EXCEPT to put them under the umbrella of "already happening or going to happen" to show that such a rationale for justification of them is ludicrous.

get it?  

let me ask you this then.  and no, i don't know the answer, and no, i'm not trying to set you up.

say i clone myself.  who does the genome belong to then?  my or my clone?  if me, then my clone must be less than human since it isn't afforded the same basic liberties as me.  if my clone, then someone else has access to and rights to MY genome.

either way there's some serious hypocrisy and infringement of liberties going on, isn't there?

could you explain that to ArmdLbrl?  apparently he doesn't get it?

That WOULD be a nasty probate battle if you died without a will stating what you wanted done with your genome after your death.

However nothing changes. You have control of your Genome, your clone has control of his. The fact that they are chemically identical is irrelevant. However, your clone would probably be your next of kin, and after you died, he would have control of it all unless your will stated otherwise.

How do you think natural identical twins would handle this after all? Cloning introduces nothing new, just makes twins more common. Natural "identical" twins don't have the same fingerprints, and are usually different by a cm or so in highth, and have other differences. Mirror image identical twins have even been recorded, that are left handed when the other is right, gay when the other is strait ect. "Identical twin" is a old term coined when doctors had only the naked eye to examine patients and before things like fingerprints and blood types were discovered. At the level of resolution modern medical sensors have, NOTHING is truely identical. And that would include your clone.

You are an idiot. Plain and simple.
If you don't want children, don't have sex, or get yourself spayed/neutered.

yes, my clone would have control and ownership over the physical genome in her body.  however, since it isn't about the physical genome, but the information derived from it, wouldn't my clone also be utilizing my information as well should she decided to play around with it.

would i not have a right to prevent MY genome from being used in ways i disapproved?

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that homosexuality is acceptable behvior.

Homosexuality is acceptable behavior. If people choose to be homosexual- and especially if it turns out that there is genetic proclivity toward it- there is nothing wrong with it. The sex acts of two gay people dosen't harm you or me.

Teaching kids in school that homosexuality is acceptable behavior cuts down on gay bashing and other acts of discrimination, just like teaching kids in school that there was no difference between whites and people of color brought down acts of violence toward minorities.

Teaching kids that homosexuality is wrong wont keep them from becoming homosexual, just make them extremely upset and conflicted. If teaching that homosexuality is wrong stopped homosexuality why are there so many clergy being arrested for buggering boys?

This is why this topic was out of place in the original post. The other two I agreed with.  You assumed that your dislike for homosexuals was as much of a shared belief as the other two topics. I called you on that assumption.

No it isnt about the information. She has every right to do what she wants, you have every right to do what you want. You don't have joint ownership, the two of you could not be forced to agree on any decision because that could only result in one becoming the slave of the other.

The fact that you two are chemicly identical cannot have any relevance in law, as far as the law is concerned your clone is a individual person. Just as if she was your identical twin born at the same time.

And in your case, since you are a woman, you could also concievably be the birth mother of your identical twin. Legally however, your twinness would be irrelevant, she would still be your daughter and your legal rights and responsiblity toward her till her majority would be the same as if she were your daughter by a normal sexual relationship.

If human cloning means livers, hearts, kidneys, lungs and the like for people who need them I vote yes. If it means another Billy Bob Clinton or the like, shit can it now.

Glad to see you tihnk I should be dead. Using this logic, ALL transplants that are being done now are bad also. And what IS the idfference between saving a life, and increasing lifespans? When you save someone's life, I'd say that you just increased their lifespan.