a poll on human cloning?

[Natoma]

Please elaborate.

Are you saying that taking a just fertilized (not aged at all), is fair game for cloning then? If not, why not?

Indeed it is fair game. That's why you see the use of stem cells for creating new organs, i.e. therapeutic cloning.

This would be screened for.

No, you miss my point. Natural reproduction runs the risk of double negative recessive traits and other genetic defects. Why do you single out whole-sale cloning as a special case for genetic issues? It's not unique to clones.

The incidence in cloning of genetic errors is 100%. The incidence through sexual reproduction is not.

I never said there weren't issues with my stance on cloning. Why is this a point for you?

Mostly, because you seemed to make my stance on homosexuality a big issue.

Homosexuality is an outgrowth of human sexuality. Cloning is completely a man made creation. Big difference.

As for the rest of your post, I really don't think you want to get into what is natural/unnatural again.

Why, your VERY FIRST line in your previous post commented on the artificial nature of cloning vs. natural genesis of twins....

You're talking about levels of "naturalness" which is completely arbitrary. I'm talking about DNA degredation due to artificial cloning. There's the difference.

 

[Natoma]

If there were no problem with genetic stability in the cloning process, then there would be no discussion on this matter now would there?

I don't know...you tell us.

We're saying that even if genetic stability wasn't a problem with clones...we'd still be against it. You have offered the "genetic stability" argument, so presumably you wouldn't have a problem with cloning if genetic stability was ensured.

But then, you crossed into other objections like "preserving individuality" and such...so again, it's hard to get a feel for exactly why you object to clones....

You haven't been reading. That was my stance wrt scientific reasons. The part of my earlier post where I said "Not to mention the genetic......"

My stance wrt cloning, even without the scientific problems, has to do with my belief that each individual is unique and that should not be tread upon. I have my scientific proof and my not-so-scientific beliefs that influence me here.

 

[Natoma]

@natoma, its very frustrating talking to you, as youll pick to comment on a few words and not comment on the post's general thought. I will repeat once more that clonning if fine if you believe abortion is fine. Get it. Ill say it using other words. I believe cloning and abortion are basically the same issue in different forms. So if your for one you have to be for the other.

later,
epic

I don't believe they're related at all. I don't have an issue with abortion until the 3rd trimester. Does that automatically make me not have an issue with reproductive cloning? Not necessarily.

Some people are against abortion, but they don't have an issue with using placental stem cells for cloning purposes. They are two separate issues imo, as I stated earlier.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Indeed it is fair game. That's why you see the use of stem cells for creating new organs, i.e. therapeutic cloning.

Creating new organs is one thing. Creating a new life is something else.

So to be clear...you are perfectly fine with taking a brand new fertilized egg, and then artificially making 1000 clones from it, resulting in 1000 new lives?

It's only when using "aged" DNA for cloning that you have a problem?

The incidence in cloning of genetic errors is 100%. The incidence through sexual reproduction is not.

So? Depending on the make-up of a couple the incidence of a "genetically errored" offspring can be 100% for that couple. They should not conceieve then?

Homosexuality is an outgrowth of human sexuality. Cloning is completely a man made creation. Big difference.

Again, missed my point entirely.

We're talking morals here. We all know and agree that just because something occurs in nature or not, or if it's man made or not, doesn't by definition make it right or wrong.

You're talking about levels of "naturalness" which is completely arbitrary.

Yes, it is. That's the point.

I'm talking about DNA degredation due to artificial cloning. There's the difference.

Right...so if "technical issue" of DNA degredation is solved...you have no problems with cloning then, correct? That's all we're trying to have established here.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My stance wrt cloning, even without the scientific problems, has to do with my belief that each individual is unique and that should not be tread upon. I have my scientific proof and my not-so-scientific beliefs that influence me here.

OK...then lets FORGET about the scientific stuff...because that's irrelevant then. To you, it doesn't matter if it's scientifically feasible or not. Your "not-so-scientific beliefs" would look unfavorably on cloning regardless.

So...Individual "uniqueness" to you should not be "tread upon"...and that is your official moral stance against cloning then...right?

That just doesn't make a convincing argument to me. I don't see clones as any less unique than an identical twin. It could even very rationally be argued that a clone is MORE unique than an identical twin, due to differences in embyrotic development. (Two identical twins developing in the same womb have much more similar exposure to nutrients / hormones / environment, than a newly formed clone embyro developing 30 years after the donor, in a different person altogether.)

EDIT: To be clear, my own "non scientific beliefs" also lead me to look unfavorably on cloning new life. But not treading on uniqueness isn't why.

 

[epicstruggle]

what will be funny is when scientists are able to manipulate the genes of people and when they find sections of genes that people might find undesiarable(sp?) such as (fatty, ugly, homosexual, dumb,...) and either change it so they get rid of it. What if they can do it while your pregnant on your fetus.

laugh,
later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

Indeed it is fair game. That's why you see the use of stem cells for creating new organs, i.e. therapeutic cloning.

Creating new organs is one thing. Creating a new life is something else.

So to be clear...you are perfectly fine with taking a brand new fertilized egg, and then artificially making 1000 clones from it, resulting in 1000 new lives?

It's only when using "aged" DNA for cloning that you have a problem?

I already said that I have an issue with cloning an individual outside the womb due to DNAs naturally replicating and compounding defects. If a set of parents wanted to have multiple kids then I wouldn't have an issue with that. I think the example of 1000 clones is a little overboard don't you? I know what you're getting at but it's a little much. There's a level of responsibility that comes with each of those lives, so I'd be against it, not because of the possibility of creating those clones from an egg is bad in and of itself, but because you'd be bringing 1000 lives into the world who don't necessarily have a way to be taken care of.

The incidence in cloning of genetic errors is 100%. The incidence through sexual reproduction is not.

So? Depending on the make-up of a couple the incidence of a "genetically errored" offspring can be 100% for that couple. They should not conceieve then?

Well unless you're talking about incest that 100% case is not true.

Homosexuality is an outgrowth of human sexuality. Cloning is completely a man made creation. Big difference.

Again, missed my point entirely.

We're talking morals here. We all know and agree that just because something occurs in nature or not, or if it's man made or not, doesn't by definition make it right or wrong.

I know what your point is.

You're talking about levels of "naturalness" which is completely arbitrary.

Yes, it is. That's the point.

I'm talking about DNA degredation due to artificial cloning. There's the difference.

Right...so if "technical issue" of DNA degredation is solved...you have no problems with cloning then, correct? That's all we're trying to have established here.

I already said that I did have issues with cloning. My issues with cloning are not predicated only on the scientific problems cloning presents, but the ethical problems it presents wrt making a copy of yourself (longevity, vanity, fear of dying, et al) or your lost pet or child (wanting to replace that entity). Is it fair to the clone? Is it fair to yourself? These are questions that I don't have an answer to, but as of now those are part of my moral objections. The scientific objections were merely a part of my objection, not the only definition of them.

To be sure, my moral objection to cloning may change in the future as the debate is fleshed out further, but as of now with my own preconceived ideas on the subject, I object to it on both scientific and moral grounds.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I think the example of 1000 clones is a little overboard don't you? I know what you're getting at but it's a little much. There's a level of responsibility that comes with each of those lives, so I'd be against it, not because of the possibility of creating those clones from an egg is bad in and of itself, but because you'd be bringing 1000 lives into the world who don't necessarily have a way to be taken care of.

First of all, where did I make the stipulation that the parents of the "original" fertilized egg would be the responsible parties of the 1000 clones? Just clone it 1000 times and pass the clones to other parents who for whatever reason want "their child" to be the genetic make up of the donor parents.

Second, even IF you are to assume that the donor parents are the reponsible parties, you wouldn't be making some arbitrary judgement call here on how many clones is too many, would you?

Well unless you're talking about incest that 100% case is not true.

That's wrong no matter how you look at it. Incestual couples are not 100% guaranteed to have problem offspring, and you can find pairs of couples who have a 100% chance of having a child with some genetic trait, including a genetic defect.

 

[Natoma]

what will be funny is when scientists are able to manipulate the genes of people and when they find sections of genes that people might find undesiarable(sp?) such as (fatty, ugly, homosexual, dumb,...) and either change it so they get rid of it. What if they can do it while your pregnant on your fetus.

There really is no gene for ugliness (eye of the beholder and all that) nor homosexuality (outgrowth of myriad factors including genetics). There are genes that make one susceptible to gaining more weight than other people, but should that be changed necessarily? I don't think so. What if that gene also has to do with your frame? For instance, I gain weight faster than my bf if we eat the same amount of food. His metabolism is simply faster than mine and he burns it off before it sets . However, lets say that my genes were altered so that I wouldn't gain weight as fast. I might not have the same frame or bone density that I have now. I might not even be as tall.

Intelligence is a factor that we simply have no control over, save for preventing genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome or Tay-Sachs or Autism (yes yes I know tay-sachs patients don't normally live past infancy, but the ones that do can suffer degraded intelligence because of it).

 

[Natoma]

First of all, where did I make the stipulation that the parents of the "original" fertilized egg would be the responsible parties of the 1000 clones? Just clone it 1000 times and pass the clones to other parents who for whatever reason want "their child" to be the genetic make up of the donor parents.

If the parents want to do that then so be it. It already occurs today with parents who donate their left over fertilized eggs for stem cell research into therapeutic cloning.

Second, even IF you are to assume that the donor parents are the reponsible parties, you wouldn't be making some arbitrary judgement call here on how many clones is too many, would you?

I just said the 1000 number was excessive given the example and the assumption that it was the original parents caring for that many children. Never did I make a judgement on what arbitrary number should be used for someone having "too many" kids.

Well unless you're talking about incest that 100% case is not true.

That's wrong no matter how you look at it. Incestual couples are not 100% guaranteed to have problem offspring, and you can find pairs of couples who have a 100% chance of having a child with some genetic trait, including a genetic defect.

Even if the 100% chance of non-incestual couples having a child with a particular genetic defect is true (my genetics regarding autosomal dominance is rusty), then it depends on what the defect is. Some can be repaired and the child can live a normal life (Spina Bifida for example can be repaired in the womb). Others will simply die a terrible death (Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs, Muscular Dystrophy, etc). Is it right to bring a life into the world when you know they're going to die painfully and quickly? Personally I'd say no. Others would say that denying the right to life of any being is wrong. Of course there are shades of gray on this topic.

My personal decision would be to have children with donor DNA in order to avoid the more deadly genetic diseases that cannot be cured.

 

[Silent_One]

natoma wrote:

Not if people use cloning instead of sexual reproduction, which was part of the statement I made that you forget to add, i.e. en masse. Of course evolution would occur if sexual reproduction continued and cloning was not used by and large. But that was not the point of my statement was it?

I wrote:

Your objections are based on an extreme, unjustified extrapolation. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. It will be decades before the total number of human clones even approaches one million people in the entire world. On a percentage basis they would what-1/6,000,000? A fraction of the worlds popualtion. I would even argue that a some remote future date humans will not chose cloning "en masse to create identical copies of themselves as offspring" over sex. Sex is more fun

I did not forget your statement regarding "en masse". Again, your objections are based on extreme, unjustified extrapolation.

Natoma wrote:

Even if the 100% chance of non-incestual couples having a child with a particular genetic defect is true (my genetics regarding autosomal dominance is rusty), then it depends on what the defect is. Some can be repaired and the child can live a normal life (Spina Bifida for example can be repaired in the womb). Others will simply die a terrible death (Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs, Muscular Dystrophy, etc). Is it right to bring a life into the world when you know they're going to die painfully and quickly? Personally I'd say no. Others would say that denying the right to life of any being is wrong. Of course there are shades of gray on this topic.

Personally I'd agree with you when when you know they're going to die painfully and quickly. If you read my pervious post you would have seen that (you don't seem to read everything very well ). But since you seem to agree that there are gray areas on the topics of right to life and types of genetic problems in some instances, why not with cloning?

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

Even if the 100% chance of non-incestual couples having a child with a particular genetic defect is true (my genetics regarding autosomal dominance is rusty), then it depends on what the defect is. Some can be repaired and the child can live a normal life (Spina Bifida for example can be repaired in the womb). Others will simply die a terrible death (Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs, Muscular Dystrophy, etc). Is it right to bring a life into the world when you know they're going to die painfully and quickly? Personally I'd say no. Others would say that denying the right to life of any being is wrong. Of course there are shades of gray on this topic.

Personally I'd agree with you when when you know they're going to die painfully and quickly. If you read my pervious post you would have seen that (you don't seem to read everything very well ). But since you seem to agree that there are gray areas on the topics of right to life and types of genetic problems in some instances, why not with cloning?

Well first off my response was to Joe, not you. So it's not a case of me reading or not reading your posts.

As for cloning,

I already said that I did have issues with cloning. My issues with cloning are not predicated only on the scientific problems cloning presents, but the ethical problems it presents wrt making a copy of yourself (longevity, vanity, fear of dying, et al) or your lost pet or child (wanting to replace that entity). Is it fair to the clone? Is it fair to yourself? These are questions that I don't have an answer to, but as of now those are part of my moral objections. The scientific objections were merely a part of my objection, not the only definition of them.

To be sure, my moral objection to cloning may change in the future as the debate is fleshed out further, but as of now with my own preconceived ideas on the subject, I object to it on both scientific and moral grounds.

 

[Natoma]

natoma wrote:

Not if people use cloning instead of sexual reproduction, which was part of the statement I made that you forget to add, i.e. en masse. Of course evolution would occur if sexual reproduction continued and cloning was not used by and large. But that was not the point of my statement was it?

I wrote:

Your objections are based on an extreme, unjustified extrapolation. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. It will be decades before the total number of human clones even approaches one million people in the entire world. On a percentage basis they would what-1/6,000,000? A fraction of the worlds popualtion. I would even argue that a some remote future date humans will not chose cloning "en masse to create identical copies of themselves as offspring" over sex. Sex is more fun

I did not forget your statement regarding "en masse". Again, your objections are based on extreme, unjustified extrapolation.

The point was that there are genetic problems with cloning that make a species more susceptible to transmissible diseases, i.e. viral and bacterial. At the very least, that line of clones. You say sex is too much fun for it to ever disappear. There's no way for you to say that with any certainty in my scenario 1000 years from now.

I wasn't referring to non-transmissable diseases.

One of the reasons why species in general propagate through sexual reproduction rather than asexual reproduction is the introduction of new genetic material into a gene pool. There are people that are born with genetic resistance to HIV. They can get HIV but never contract the disease due to the way in which their DNA instructs their cells to create the markers on the surface of those cells that act as the "doorway" into the cell. In a perfect evolutionary world, they would survive while those who did not have the HIV resistance would die off after a few generations. The only way to ensure your genetic viability would be to breed into the gene pool that contains that resistance.

If you start breeding clones, and all of those clones do not contain the genetic resistance to HIV for instance, they would all die if they came in contact with the disease.

There may not be a disease today that the human species has to worry about. But what about a millenia from now. What happens if people start using cloning technology en masse to create identical copies of themselves as offspring. A new disease pops up that no one has genetic protection against. Voila, population decimation. In many ways, sexual reproduction protects against this. Some portions of the population will die off, others will survive, due to genetic drift in the species. This would not necessarily be the case if mass cloning came into vogue. We'd cease to evolve as a species.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

This is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in and of itself immoral or unethical about cloning an entire human being to reproduce another human being. The only ethical considerations should be to evaluate the repercussions of doing so on a case by case basis dependant on the current state of cloning technology and the current state of the laws which are relevant.

For example, it would probably be unethical to clone a human if there were a significant (i.e., still a low number) chance that defects would occur resulting in developmental problems... unethical because it wouldn't be "fair" to the clone.

For example, it would be unethical to clone a human if the laws didn't grant full and undeniable rights to that clone, the same as to any newborn baby.

For example, it would be unethical to clone a human if your sole intention (as a mad scientist or otherwise) was to use it as a slave, servant, soldier, source or organs, etc.


Otherwise, cloning is no different than sexual reproduction. It is simply a means of producing another human life, and if there are no greater chances for error in reproducing in that manner vs. reproducing sexually, then I see no reasons to make any arguments against cloning on those grounds. Sure, the technology might not be here yet, and it may never be, but the ethics of cloning should be based on that state of technology and not on some supposed "natural" order of things. It is right or wrong only in the context of how it affects the clone.

History will repeat itself, referencing invitro fertilization. The same arguments were raised decades ago, and the same answers apply to cloning as they did to that technology. The technology is never bad, but rather how it is used. If there are possible ethical uses (and there certainly are) that balance the possible unethical uses (as there are for practically any technology), then it isn't the technology we should outlaw but rather the specific applications that are questionable.

Human cloning, in itself, simply isn't.

 

[jvd]

Cloning organs = good

Cloning full humans = bad

Splicing men's dna together = bad

Splicing women's dna together = bad

Abortion unless the baby was concivied by rape or the baby is so defective it can never lead anything close to a normal life = bad

Gays = fine

The pope's hat = bad

 

[epicstruggle]

Cloning organs = good

always bad. since the laws of slippery slope will eventually apply to this.

Cloning full humans = bad

bad

Splicing men's dna together = bad

bad

Splicing women's dna together = bad

bad

Abortion unless the baby was concivied by rape or the baby is so defective it can never lead anything close to a normal life = bad

rape abortions= im so-so on it. I rather they give all rape victims the 24 hours pill or whatever they call it.
and abortions on defective baby=a BIG NO. who decideds what a non defective baby is, the parents, the doctors, insurance companies??? again slippery slope.

Gays = fine

gays=ok, unless they force children to learn about gay lifestyle in school. I would rather schools just teach reading, writing, math, social studies and science. Leave sex(of any kind) and related subjects for parents to deal with. Or have VOLUNTARY classes on the weekends for these subjects, without public funding.

The pope's hat = bad

I believe catholisism has abstracted itself from regular people. Its all pomp and no substance. IMO. What im interested in is finding out more about the small group of catholics like mel gibson. Who either dont believe in the pope or who dont go for the convention of 1967 (right year?). Anyone know more about athat group ?

later,
epic

 

[jvd]

I was talking purely about the hat. It just doesn't look good on him. ALso my thoughts go out to him since his health is failing and I wish him happiness when he finally passes on .

 

[Humus]

Leave sex(of any kind) and related subjects for parents to deal with.

The problem with that though is that many parents simply don't talk with their kids about sex. So many kids learn about it from TV, friends and porn mags. Would everyone take responsibility for teaching their kids about it, then that would be fine, but since that's far from the case I think school sex education is neccesary.

 

[epicstruggle]

Leave sex(of any kind) and related subjects for parents to deal with.

The problem with that though is that many parents simply don't talk with their kids about sex. So many kids learn about it from TV, friends and porn mags. Would everyone take responsibility for teaching their kids about it, then that would be fine, but since that's far from the case I think school sex education is neccesary.

Yes because having sex education is so good that it has lead to younger and younger kids having sex. Also kids no longer think that oral sex is sex at all. Its no longer a suprise or a shock when 12 or 13 years are having sex. Isnt that a great progress for humanity. There was a special show on HBO called middle school confessions here is a quote from a girl who was between 11-13

"When I like suck a guys dick, its nice, because its like, you know, you're in control and stuff".

Yeah, sex education has really helped.

later,
epic

 

[zurich]

Yes because having sex education is so good that it has lead to younger and younger kids having sex. Also kids no longer think that oral sex is sex at all. Its no longer a suprise or a shock when 12 or 13 years are having sex. Isnt that a great progress for humanity. There was a special show on HBO called middle school confessions here is a quote from a girl who was between 11-13

The point is that kids will screw regardless, so better that they be educated about it safely.

And better that girl be only sucking a guys dick then getting seed shot up her, sans rubber.