We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

	Subtopic	Started By	Posts
	Archive through Aug 23, 2001 Last Post: Aug 23, 2001, 01:58 pm		10
	Archive through Feb 12, 2004 Last Post: Feb 13, 2004, 08:55 am		20

Posted By: gypsychic Feb 12, 2004 - 12:50 pm

lol@iznardi

I tend to agree with Sindatur. At first, I was very gung ho for cloning - it is a neat concept, after all - but I do have fears about the abuses that could occur.

Posted By: Adam Feb 12, 2004 - 02:29 pm

Cloning isn't a problem in itself. It's not much different to having twins. The only real problem, it seems to me, is when idiot people start making idiot laws and regulations for idiot reasons. Insurance companies around the world are already trying to gets new laws introduced which will allow them to set premiums for people based on certain genetic stuff. To a great many people, cloning is just another way to make money, and another non-issue to talk crap about when elections are coming. Lobby groups will use it to score points. But that happened before cloning, and will happen after cloning. Cloning isn't a problem. If you wish to focus on something that IS a problem, figure out how to get rid of all those greedy morons who run the show.

Posted By: Bmat Feb 12, 2004 - 02:41 pm

I am worried about cloned babies being used for stem cells.

Posted By: Iznardi Feb 13, 2004 - 07:41 am

Yep, we already face that difficulty with unused embryos created for implantation in cases where a couple is having difficulty with a pregnancy. The United States accepts the principal that it is wrong to experiment with humans unless you have their consent. But we also seem to be accepting the idea that humans are without rights until they are actually birthed (leave the mother's body). So that means any "unborn" form of human falls outside law. And if you can keep a huge stockpile of humans in an unborn state, then you can argue that they have no constitutional, or even natural, protections. Sounds like "humans as property" to me, and I thought we finished with that issue in the Civil War.

Posted By: Aldan Feb 13, 2004 - 08:55 am

There's enough "number two" running around out there as it is!
I think that the most difficult parts of this concept of cloning are: 1)what's to keep people from abusing it? 2)do humans have souls? and if so, then WHEN DOES THE SOUL ENTER THE BODY? 3)if you believe that the soul enters when the sperm enters the egg, then, well, can you countenance using tissues from people who were slain to GET the tissues to help you out? 4)see the previous post.

Posted By: Sindatur Feb 13, 2004 - 09:45 am

? 3)if you believe that the soul enters when the sperm enters the egg, then, well, can you countenance using tissues from people who were slain to GET the tissues to help you out?

If a child is killed after being born (say a kidnap victim, such as Carlie Brucia in Florida this last week), it's the parents' choice to use the childs remains as an organ donor to help save another child's life, so the answer is yes, IMHO. If a fetus is aborted, I see no difference in using that fetus' remains to find cures and help another (or possibly millions of) other human beings. I don't support taking the fetus' life for that purpose, but if the life has been taken, what is the difference between this and organ doning?

Posted By: Iznardi Feb 13, 2004 - 11:44 am

Yikes, a sticky topic that I'll probably get slammed on; but I think the ethical distinction is this: in the case of a murder, presumably the parents are victims (had no part in the death) and the justice system is seeking to arrest and try the killer; hence, parents' choice in this matter could be seen as part of the healing process of coping with the death of a child. But if the parents have some complicity in the death, then should they still have a right to decide on disposal of the remains? In the case of abortion, it goes back to the matter of choice--do parents have the right to terminate the developing life of one of their offspring? The question would presumably be the same for a clone. Does a person have the right to end the life of a copy? If you believe people have this right, then they must also have the right to dispose of the remains as they see fit. But if you feel there is something immoral about stopping or ending a life, in any stage of development, then using the remains, even in a good cause, is exploiting or benefiting from a wrongful act.

For me, the whole issue of experimentation on tissue from humans who have no say in the matter is disturbingly like that of slavery. Basically, we are assuming there is a class of people (either the unborn or those created artifically) who are without rights, or at least have fewer rights than the rest of us. In either case, we are giving ourselves the right to determine what happens to them. I would say we are on very shaky ethical ground there.

Posted By: Aldan Feb 13, 2004 - 12:34 pm

Sindy, please be sure to notice that I did my best to leave my personal views out of those points. I was simply stating that each person who says 'this is okay' or 'this is not okay' should be sure to develop their opinions based upon their own moral codes, and not from what OTHER people have to say about the subject.

Posted By: Sindatur Feb 13, 2004 - 01:27 pm

My apologies Aldan, no offense to you was intended. You presented a moral question for people to answer for themselves, and I answered out loud, in a manner of speaking.

If my post makes you feel uncomfortable, I will be happy to edit it for you to remove the reference to your post.(or if I'm not available, since I don't often get on SpecVision over the weekend, you can request Bmat to do it)

Posted By: gypsychic Feb 13, 2004 - 01:33 pm

Um, can I change my vote? I'd like to have a clone if it would clean for me. Oh, wait, that's one of the abuse issues, isn't it? Dang!

Posted By: Aldan Feb 13, 2004 - 01:40 pm

nonononononono
That's not necessary at all, Sindy!
I just wanted to be sure that you understood the purpose of my post.
(no sexual connotations, please!)

Posted By: Iznardi Feb 14, 2004 - 08:20 am

Oh wait, I didn't know clones would do cleaning. Forget what I said above, I'm for cloning, too. Is it possible to get one for upstairs and one for downstairs? And will they do yard work?

One other nagging question. Apparently South Korea is the only country that has successfully cloned. So if I get a clone of myself, does that mean it will have a little "Made in Korea" label on its inside lapel? And does that mean I can only wash it in cold water?

Posted By: Jhen Shenobias_First King of Shenobias Feb 14, 2004 - 11:21 am

LOL at Iznardi, hmmm doing yard work...I think I may change my view too...."ponders while eating a pickle"

Jhen

Posted By: Odrade Feb 17, 2004 - 09:14 am

OKay here i go....

First thing i want to point out. If the soul enters when the sperm enters the egg, ...how do i explain this....

Actually, not all fertilized eggs even get to embed themselves in the lining of the uterus. Often, they naturally roll on out. That is why when a women gets invitro fertilization, doctors implant between 4 and 7 eggs. i think the percent of fertilized eggs the body naturally rejects is like between 40-60%. I mean, it depends on the woman's chemistry too, but that is just a natural body process. okay enough gross stuff.

I wouldn't want a clone of me though. But honestly, even if i was cloned, i don't think that person would be very much like me. i think enviroment plays a huge role in a person's development. And i don't think a clone would go through many of the things that have made me who i am. the situations in life, i mean. Heck though, they might not even look like me though. my clone could get in a car wreck, and get their face all scarred up and look totally different. who knows???

Posted By: Athalia Feb 17, 2004 - 09:56 am

the thought of clones creep me out. period. hasn't anyone seen Unviersal Soldier, and the 6th day - or what ever it is called? or those other movies about soldiers being cloned - oh how about the star troopers in Star wars - everybodies seen that.

I would like to have the chance to argue for my life - or at least kick real hard and make a lasting impression as a sort of memorial... but how can you do that if you are facing something that has been trained from... dare I say birth? to kill and be emotionless. or maybe be really into killing...

Yeah
.
.
.
that just gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Posted By: Iznardi Feb 17, 2004 - 01:22 pm

I'd like a clone of me that looks like Cary Grant. I mean, what's the point of getting one that looks like me. I want a good-looking one! So I think they really need to think through this whole cloning business. I mean, fifteen versions of Richard Simmons or Mike Tyson? One is bad enough!

Posted By: gypsychic Feb 17, 2004 - 01:31 pm

I'm not sure that's how it works, Iz....

Posted By: iamume Feb 17, 2004 - 03:04 pm

If cloning were to proceed I feel that they should be recognized as having distinct souls apart from their donors and granted equal rights as the originals. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED PROPERTY.

The removal of such incentives to cloning could help reduce the enthusiasm for continuation of this dangerous research.

As for peaple who would clone an ailing or dead loved one... They should let go and learn to enjoy the next chapter of their lives.

Posted By: Athalia Feb 17, 2004 - 03:12 pm

"As for peaple who would clone an ailing or dead loved one... They should let go and learn to enjoy the next chapter of their lives."

Letting can be hard though, but it is a part of life.


Random point - people are concerned with overpopulation.....

Posted By: iamume Feb 19, 2004 - 08:05 pm

Using the 6th day as an example.I found the rationale for cloning pets appaling.These children should not be exposed to death,they just couldn't understand.

While I had few pets as a child,there were plenty around the house.I didn't need any.I began burying these animals at an early age.I didn't mind.My older sisters dog frequently brought home kill which I also buried.As this dogs name was Charly I would silently refer to them as Charlies Angels. I still respectfully bury found roadkill.

I also toured the Loma Linda anatomy lab at 13 as a scout.This room was filled with cadavers in various stages of disection.The guide even plopped a brain in my hands.What a surprise.

I do have an aversion to killing.I neither hunt or fish,though I do feel that if one eats meat it would be better to kill it myself rather than eat what someone else has killed.

I digress.

Overpopulation and cloning.

If we are approaching WW3 or Armagedon then those who are planning this might be considering a clone workforce to replace the decimated regulars.

It's difficult to believe that anyone might actually plan this way.I hope no one is.