a poll on human cloning?

[epicstruggle]

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.

why do you think that we have 10 year olds having sex now and not say 50-60 years ago. Could it have something to do with sex ed? How about TV shows that constantly have sexual content the whole day. How about all the screwed up ideas parents think of like beauty pagents for kids and such.

anyways we are going off topic. this topic could be discussed in another thread. if youd like to continue talking ab out it please start the thread and ill be there.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

How do you know 10yr old kids weren't sexing around 50-60 years ago? If I recall correctly, not much was said about sex in society during those times as it was more "taboo" than it is today.

They could have been engaging in just as much sex as kids do today (which btw is a very very low number. you just see it blown out of proportion in news outlets who like to sensationalize everything) and you'd never know because it was never reported or tracked officially.

 

[notAFanB]

er, shall I set up another Poll?

 

[jvd]

How do you know 10yr old kids weren't sexing around 50-60 years ago? If I recall correctly, not much was said about sex in society during those times as it was more "taboo" than it is today.

They could have been engaging in just as much sex as kids do today (which btw is a very very low number. you just see it blown out of proportion in news outlets who like to sensationalize everything) and you'd never know because it was never reported or tracked officially.

Yes it was more taboo back then .IT became taboo with victorian england. Before that no one cared and the only reason why people care now are the values that were brought down from that age. Now if thats a good thing or not is something else to arguee about . Now 28 years ago my parents got married and my mother was 18. Whe had my sister 26 years ago. My cousin got pregnat and had my second cousin (my god son) at 18 and married at 20. This just isn't the way things should be changing. Getting married and having children should be happening in your late 20s . That is why devorice is so high now . People do things and have easy outs. Abortion , devorce , welfare and other things are just easy outs . You'd see how quick kids would stop having sex if there was no magic pill to abort the child the morning after or an operation 3 months down the line. Sure kids would still have sex. But it be a lot less kids at an older age.

 

[evil]

What if you introduce a genetic defect, that is not discovered until generations later... what if this defect would threaten the whole human race. What if you had to terminate every descendent of a clone to save the human race?

Extreme example, I know, but not impossible.

Moral/Religious issues aside, it is far, far too dangerous.

 

[Althornin]

my stance:
Cloning is fine. Nothing unnatural about it, imo.
The only issues are how society will deal with clones. I fear that people that are religeous like Joe, et al. will attempt to not allow clones to be considered as human, where i would say, how can they not be human? As long as clones are treated as humans, then fine - clone away.

They are both methods of creating life by which nature never inteded to occur.

Joe, how do you know what nature intended? How do you know that human cloning isnt the inevitable natural result?

As for the genetic defect argument - this is a maybe issue now, but in the future, when better gene analysis is available, i bet that people will be analyzed for possible genetic problems their matings could produce before having children, and thus it will become a non issue - and then, i will see nothing wrong with incest either (but that is another topic altogether).

 

[Bigus Dickus]

What if you introduce a genetic defect, that is not discovered until generations later... what if this defect would threaten the whole human race. What if you had to terminate every descendent of a clone to save the human race?

Extreme example, I know, but not impossible.

Moral/Religious issues aside, it is far, far too dangerous.

What if you introduce a genetic defect, that is not discovered until generations later... what if this defect would threaten the whole human race. What if you had to terminate every descendent of a couple to save the human race?

Extreme example, I know, but not impossible.

Moral/Religious issues aside, sexual reproduction is far, far too dangerous.

If cloning were to have precisely the same chance and type distribution of genetic errors being introduced as sexual reproduction, then any arguments that apply to one apply to the other. In other words, it will no longer be "far far too dangerous" when it has the same error rate as sexual reproduction. I don't see that being in the too distant future... certainly within my lifetime.


I do have a problem with gays producing a chile by gene splicing... if it is indeed confirmed that genes have an impact on sexual orientation. If homosexuality is influenced by genetics, then I have no recourse but to classify homosexuality as a genetic defect, at least in part. And that being the case, intentionally introducing a genetic defect into the genes of a child through purposeful splicing of two sets of defective genes is morally vaccuous.

If the "gay genes" could be isolated and prevented from being transferred to the child, my viewpoint would have to be re-evaluated.

 

[Natoma]

Sexual orientation is heavily influenced by hormonal levels in the womb which deal with the masculinization of the fetus. There is no "gay gene" anymore than there is a "straight gene".

 

[Bigus Dickus]

"Gene" is typically used in singular form as an expression, when in fact it might well reference a large number of individual interacting genes.

I presume from your comment that you have changed your mind, and don't believe genes have an effect on our sexual orientation?

 

[epicstruggle]

Sexual orientation is heavily influenced by hormonal levels in the womb which deal with the masculinization of the fetus. There is no "gay gene" anymore than there is a "straight gene".

This part of science is quite boring/tedious to me. So i have not kept up with all the breakthroughs and what nots. Has your claim been validated by a majority of scientists in this field? I didnt think we knew every secret of our DNA yet, so how can you make such a bold statement (or who ever you got that info from). Didnt we just complete the genetic map this year or last? It seems to me that it will be years before anyone can be 100% sure of that claim. Like i said I dont keep up with genetics in general so I could be wrong.

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I fear that people that are religeous like Joe, et al. will attempt to not allow clones to be considered as human, where i would say, how can they not be human?

Who said I wouldn't consider clones human?

And who says my objection is a religious one?

Joe, how do you know what nature intended?

There is definitely a blurred line between "science" and "nature". As I've said before, cloning just crosses that line for me. "Natural" reproduction and propagation of the human species is via the combination of a sperm and egg. And I happen to believe it is this way for a reason.

 

[Natoma]

"Gene" is typically used in singular form as an expression, when in fact it might well reference a large number of individual interacting genes.

I presume from your comment that you have changed your mind, and don't believe genes have an effect on our sexual orientation?

I've always said there wasn't a "gay gene" or a "straight gene". I've said that there were many different factors involved that affected the expression of sexuality. One huge factor is the levels of testosterone the female fetus (because we all start off female) is exposed to in the womb.

Genes don't automatically make you do something. They merely provide a blueprint which is affected by the release of hormones in the womb and during puberty, not to mention other environmental factors such as sunlight which can destroy DNA if overexposed to UV radiation or alter it. That's one of the theories behind why you have different skinned peoples even when they're in the same latitude. DNA has been altered to produce a certain level of melanin by the amount of sunlight in a certain latitude.

 

[epicstruggle]

I've always said there wasn't a "gay gene" or a "straight gene". I've said that there were many different factors involved that affected the expression of sexuality. One huge factor is the levels of testosterone the female fetus (because we all start off female) is exposed to in the womb.

Is this an opinion or fact?
later,
epic

 

[Don't Ask]

I think it could be a great thing. But I think having a newborn clone is pointless. I don't care how many elvises you can get some fat lonely desperate woman to shit out. If it's not the REAL elvis, why should it have to have the burden of it's original doners past drag behing it? It is better off being concieved normally. Growth acceleration should be payed more attention to --
If we can't find a cure for mental retardation or some other bullshit disability then at least a part of the person being cloned can have a chance at a normal life and be happy. Hopefully soon after we can find a fix for those things through cloning we will also have some understanding of how to duplicate consciousness.

 

[Natoma]

I've always said there wasn't a "gay gene" or a "straight gene". I've said that there were many different factors involved that affected the expression of sexuality. One huge factor is the levels of testosterone the female fetus (because we all start off female) is exposed to in the womb.

Is this an opinion or fact?
later,
epic

Fact based on quite a few scientific studies in the 90s which all stated that there is no "gay gene". There was on study in 1993 that believed it had found a corrolating "gay gene" in twins, but the incidence was around 50%, which would preclude a genetic factor as being the sole determinant of sexual orientation.

 

[Legion]

from an emotional standpoint i think human cloning could be exploited to the detriment of inviduals (ie baby Joey dies - clone baby Joey - joey 002 created). I have to ask myself; would allowing individuals to live outside of reality benefit them? How would this affect the value of human life? If we no longer want a clone can we simple terminate it in process of its developement?

What is the actual definition of clone? Is it some one who is simply genetically identical to another invididual? If so couldn't this be seen more as created their monozygotic twin? Obviously two different people with identical genetic backgrounds may not be at any one point in their cellular development identical to their genetic partner. That is why i ask this question.

 

[Legion]

How do you know 10yr old kids weren't sexing around 50-60 years ago? If I recall correctly, not much was said about sex in society during those times as it was more "taboo" than it is today.

over 1000 years ago arab/jewish men were allowed to marry and have sexual intercourse with a girl around the age of 9. Men and women were often married before birth and could engage in sexual intercourse as early as 13 or 14.

ask yourself is this behavior wrong? Were they some how loveless bonds forced on unkowning immature individuals? The rate of emotional maturation during those times were many times higher then those now, now that we have become accustomed to babying children as old as 25. Love was not something these people were without. Lets put the exploitation arguments aside; people today are more than willing to sell themselves off to the highest bitter only finding they've been used in the end. IF you ask me you are more than likely to be used in our more a-moral leaning societies.

They could have been engaging in just as much sex as kids do today (which btw is a very very low number. you just see it blown out of proportion in news outlets who like to sensationalize everything) and you'd never know because it was never reported or tracked officially.

Well the practically all of many of the pedophiles we have today (those that are shown the in news) are ones who have raped/malested and often brutalized or murdered a child. The affect on our children verse those in the past i would argue is quite different. Children today are not required to have the same amount of emotional fortitude. Do to the nature of our society i wouldn't suggest a 10 year old is at all ready for sex in any fashion aside from rape and malestation. The term child doesn't accurately apply to the young individuals you may read about in the bible, perhaps. They were exposed to a great deal more responsibility and matured at faster rates, as i have prior mentioned. I would rather refer to them as young adults.

Do the the differences in ancient jewish societies and our i would be more likely to shrug off a younger legal age. Families were often more closely knitted; it would be difficult to escape taking responsibility for fathering a child when your behavior is being constantly monitored by your fiance's father.

 

[Legion]

Fact based on quite a few scientific studies in the 90s which all stated that there is no "gay gene". There was on study in 1993 that believed it had found a corrolating "gay gene" in twins, but the incidence was around 50%, which would preclude a genetic factor as being the sole determinant of sexual orientation.

50% makes lilteraly no sense when you accept that monozygotic twins are genetically identical. IF there was a gay gene they both should have it. WHy is this 50/50?

twins whom were dizygotic had less than 25% chance of being both gay though they are 50% genetically identical. This category should be closer to 50/50 but is ~22/78. Why?

half brothers and whole brothers were about 10% (50% genetically identical) while adoptive brothers were around or over 10% (O% genetically identical). WTF?

There is no evidence of a "gay gene" here. How do you know that some of the behavioral contributors to these inviduals didn't lead to their choice of being gay based on their life experiences and not some genetic predisposition? Gary and Pillard's test was anything but objective. They took brothers from the same backgrounds and compared them, knowing good and well if there was an enviromental reason they'd both share it, and presented their findings as though they had selectively picked invididuals in such a way that the only conclusion could be a genetic predisposition.

 

[Althornin]

Who said I wouldn't consider clones human?

And who says my objection is a religious one?

Note the words "i fear Joe, et al. will take such and thus stance..blah blah blah" - meaning i think, based on your religeous convictions which you demonstrate here regularly, that you might take a clone as an "abomination" or sub human being. You base your feelings on sexuality on religeon, i dont see why i would assume differently, especially given your responses in this thread.

There is definitely a blurred line between "science" and "nature". As I've said before, cloning just crosses that line for me. "Natural" reproduction and propagation of the human species is via the combination of a sperm and egg. And I happen to believe it is this way for a reason.

But what reason, and why do you believe this? Sure, you say it crosses the line for you, but i was asking "how do you KNOW" - IE, if you think something, i wanted a reason for it.

 

[Natoma]

Legion,

I wasn't arguing for the existence of a gay gene. Re-read my last post, including the quotes and the part that epic bolded. You missed some important parts in your haste to write that long-winded diatribe.