[Zak Roy Yoballa]

One thing that bothers me is the Christian movement to stop cloning.  Other animals clone themselves (hydra, coral, sponges etc.).   Technology is continually developing and whoknows at some point in the next 50 years we may be able to take a persons DNA and clone an organ from it.  Or perhaps us a person's cord blood (saved from birth) to grow a replacement organ using cloning tech.  God has given man a brain to use and the idea of cloning, IMO, is neutral.  How we use the cloned individual or organ is where "good and evil" come into play.    I am for cloning research, federally funded, using anything that doesn't cause the loss of life of a fertilized egg. 

Once conception has occured, that's a different ball game.  The beauty of cloning is the need is for an unfertilized egg, injected with a persons DNA set and then grown. 

I'm for stem cell research too, with the same condition, no loss of life (fertilized egg).

My view is biased however.  There is a genetic disorder in my family, retinitus pigmentosa (sp?), that causes blindness.  My Grandfather, mother, brother and three male cousins are effected by it in various degrees.  Perhaps science could clone a new retina and optic nerve.  Perhaps stem cells could be activated to regenerate the existing cells.   Not sure but I'd like to see them try.

Another point is, those who have evil objectives at heart are not going to stop their research because the government said "no".  They are going to research anyway and do what they wish.  We might as well try to use it for the good of humankind.  Sort of the pandora's box situation....


ZRY

[Ghostlyguy90]

I'm not for cloning, after all the clone is a person and acts like one, just not the same atitude or personality for so I've heard from researchers, but either way, if you need a major organ your going to have to kill that person.

[Shadowborn]

Yes to both, although a full grown adult with a undeveloped brain would be a cruelty. People lately seem to find it really easy to discard the value of life,and cloning will just make it easier to do this.

So a collection of cells that can't exist outside of a woman's womb is a person? I'd disagree. It's potentially a person. Physically, it isn't even identifiably human except by genetic testing.

I'm of the belief that a person is the sum of their experiences. No experience, no person.

Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world.

Science has demonstrated that, immediately after conception, a unique DNA code is formed which will remain unchanged through the life of the foetus, and after birth. Scientists define this event as the start of a human organism - which is therefore a human life.

Almost everyone agrees that a newborn child is a human person. One can work backwards in time through the birth process, foetal development, embryo growth, pre-embryo stage, and finally end up at the zygote: the start of a human organism. Prior to that point, there was no human life. There was just an ovum and one very lucky sperm, neither of which is considered a form of life by most scientists. Conception is the first point where a single, living human organism exists that has a good chance to grow and become a newborn.

Logically, the zygote is simply the earliest stage of human development; it is what human persons look like about 9 months before we are born.

[Ghostlyguy90]

Yes to both, although a full grown adult with a undeveloped brain would be a cruelty. People lately seem to find it really easy to discard the value of life,and cloning will just make it easier to do this.

So a collection of cells that can't exist outside of a woman's womb is a person? I'd disagree. It's potentially a person. Physically, it isn't even identifiably human except by genetic testing.

I'm of the belief that a person is the sum of their experiences. No experience, no person.

If it looks like a person, talks like a person, and acts like a person its human. It is made from human cells, it goes through the same experiences and natural cycles of a human, its human.

[Necropolis]

So a collection of cells that can't exist outside of a woman's womb is a person? I'd disagree. It's potentially a person. Physically, it isn't even identifiably human except by genetic testing.

I'm of the belief that a person is the sum of their experiences. No experience, no person.

That is a rather creepy and unscientific standard.  Abortion is murder, that is a fact, but then again its an society acceptable murder like killing in war, or the Death Penatly.
But then again I eat murdered food, well I think its murdered its unlikely the chicken died of suicide or natural causes but with out a coroners report I'm never going to know.

[Zak Roy Yoballa]

So a collection of cells that can't exist outside of a woman's womb is a person? I'd disagree. It's potentially a person. Physically, it isn't even identifiably human except by genetic testing.

I'm of the belief that a person is the sum of their experiences. No experience, no person.

Given that line of logic...

if that group of human cells is experiencing growth, although its experiences may not be intelligible to our primitive measureing systems, then by your definition that collection of cells is a person.

ZRY

[Shadowborn]

That is a rather creepy and unscientific standard.  Abortion is murder, that is a fact, but then again its an society acceptable murder like killing in war, or the Death Penatly.
But then again I eat murdered food, well I think its murdered its unlikely the chicken died of suicide or natural causes but with out a coroners report I'm never going to know.

Creepy? Absolutely. Still, I find those that consider all human life to be "sacred" to be equally creepy.

Meat as murder...yes, by definition I suppose it could be stretched there. In that case, by your definition, I'm perfectly okay with murder. Color me creepy.

[Shadowborn]

Given that line of logic...

if that group of human cells is experiencing growth, although its experiences may not be intelligible to our primitive measureing systems, then by your definition that collection of cells is a person.

ZRY

Fair enough. Let's tack this discussion in a different direction then.

Given that anything developing from a human zygote, including the zygote itself, is human, then let's move on to morality and ethics.

Is human life sacred? Is it inviolable? If abortion should be outlawed, then the death penalty should be universally banned and no war can be justified. All diseases must be cured, so as to not allow them to impinge upon human life. While we're at it, we need to locate the gene controlling aging and eliminate it; death is antithetical to life, including human life, and therefore must be eliminated.

Seriously though, let's take a hypothetical situation: A clone, a clone by our previously agreed upon definition, is made. It is in possession of a limited brain. The brain growth has been retarded so that only lower functions remain, allowing it to keep the bodily functions going, but nothing further. Is it wrong to allow harvesting of its organs as transplants for other human beings?

[Necropolis]

Creepy? Absolutely. Still, I find those that consider all human life to be "sacred" to be equally creepy.

Meat as murder...yes, by definition I suppose it could be stretched there. In that case, by your definition, I'm perfectly okay with murder. Color me creepy.

Its not the murder part I find creeepy, it is the dehumanization, or lack of respect for life.

Is human life sacred? Is it inviolable? If abortion should be outlawed, then the death penalty should be universally banned and no war can be justified. All diseases must be cured, so as to not allow them to impinge upon human life. While we're at it, we need to locate the gene controlling aging and eliminate it; death is antithetical to life, including human life, and therefore must be eliminated.

Seriously though, let's take a hypothetical situation: A clone, a clone by our previously agreed upon definition, is made. It is in possession of a limited brain. The brain growth has been retarded so that only lower functions remain, allowing it to keep the bodily functions going, but nothing further. Is it wrong to allow harvesting of its organs as transplants for other human beings?

To do that to anything would be a crime against it and all living things, it would be a parody and a joke of everything it should and could be.

I believe that all life is sacred, and if that is true then this statement is also true, for life all life to be sacred some must die. It is a matter of honouring and respecting that which you kill as having an equal right to live, or for it making an unwilling sacrifice so that you may continue to do so.
I dont agree with the death penalty, it would be wrong to cure all diseases and also to cure old age, but it be far worse to create something that is a torture to its own existance.

Also it would not be cost effective.

[Zak Roy Yoballa]

Fair enough. Let's tack this discussion in a different direction then.

Given that anything developing from a human zygote, including the zygote itself, is human, then let's move on to morality and ethics.

Is human life sacred? Is it inviolable? If abortion should be outlawed, then the death penalty should be universally banned and no war can be justified. All diseases must be cured, so as to not allow them to impinge upon human life. While we're at it, we need to locate the gene controlling aging and eliminate it; death is antithetical to life, including human life, and therefore must be eliminated.

Seriously though, let's take a hypothetical situation: A clone, a clone by our previously agreed upon definition, is made. It is in possession of a limited brain. The brain growth has been retarded so that only lower functions remain, allowing it to keep the bodily functions going, but nothing further. Is it wrong to allow harvesting of its organs as transplants for other human beings?

First, moving the arguement to morality and ethics is a tricky step.  At that point you must establish what your standards are, eg the morals of Communist China are quite a bit different than the states.  Based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, the death penalty is required under certain circumstances.  War is also justified in rare circumstances.  I agree with you that all diseases must be cured and that we should use our bountiful resources to that end.  I'm not certain that a gene controls aging?  I always thought that the Entropy law of thermodynamics controled that BUT I may be wrong. 

All kidding aside.....

Is the clone engineered to have this brain?  Even if it is I think it is wrong.   I don't think that cloning a whole human is necessary from a medical stand point.

The beauty of stem cells, also found in cord blood btw, are cells that have not had the opportunity to become a "heart cell" or a "skin cell" yet.   Learning what causes that switch, be it a chemical, enzyme, electro-shock (jk) signal, is the key to growing a new what ever.  So if we can figure that out then new organs can be grown from this batch of stem cells OR better yet, what if we we can turn off the "skin cell" switch and turn on the "liver cell" switch on a healthy skin cell and then get it to grow we wouldn't need stem cells. 


Taking the medical repair idea away from cloning, lets look at some other uses for a clone.  Lets say Shadowborn (SB) doesn't want to have children.  He grows up to be a finicially independent person who after 45 years on the earth with out a spouse, wants to continue his family name.  What better way then to clone himself.  SB2 is born and SB1 raises him, until SB2 is 18 and out on his own.  Where is the benefit? 

The benefit comes from SB1 has a "child".  SB1 has also given the psycology world a dream come true.  To see if some behaviour is innate, or everything has to be learned.  Lets say that SB1 at the age of 70 starts to have kidney failure.  SB2, as any clone would be, is a perfect donor match.  Assuming that SB2 is a healthy person and not completely pissed at SB1 for not letting him go to that rock concert at the age of 16, like any good son would freely give his Pops a Kidney. 

I think it is too easy to look at clones as non-sentient beings used like a farm.  They can be just like you and me...literally!

ZRY 

[Shadowborn]

Its not the murder part I find creeepy, it is the dehumanization, or lack of respect for life.

Lack of respect? I don't think that's the case. I'm simply looking at things from a more detached point of view.

I believe that all life is sacred, and if that is true then this statement is also true, for life all life to be sacred some must die. It is a matter of honouring and respecting that which you kill as having an equal right to live, or for it making an unwilling sacrifice so that you may continue to do so.
I dont agree with the death penalty, it would be wrong to cure all diseases and also to cure old age, but it be far worse to create something that is a torture to its own existance.

That's some pretty noble thinking. Tell me, if you're outside and notice a mosquito on your arm, does anything of the sort that's quoted above go through your head, or do you just slap the little bloodsucker? Perhaps you realize she's simply taking the required sustenance necessary for herself to spawn more progeny and let her drink her fill and go on her merry way...or apologize before crushing the life out of her, but that seems doubtful to me.

Also it would not be cost effective.

How so?

[Shadowborn]

[I'm not certain that a gene controls aging?  I always thought that the Entropy law of thermodynamics controled that BUT I may be wrong.

I wish I were kidding about this, but there are people in the scientific community that view death by old age as just another medical hurdle to leap. Obviously, no one taught these folks the definition of the word hubris...

http://www.curingdeath.com/

The beauty of stem cells, also found in cord blood btw, are cells that have not had the opportunity to become a "heart cell" or a "skin cell" yet.   Learning what causes that switch, be it a chemical, enzyme, electro-shock (jk) signal, is the key to growing a new what ever.  So if we can figure that out then new organs can be grown from this batch of stem cells OR better yet, what if we we can turn off the "skin cell" switch and turn on the "liver cell" switch on a healthy skin cell and then get it to grow we wouldn't need stem cells. 

I'd really like to see stem cell research take off. Here in the U.S. at the moment though, we've got an idiot for a president that isn't so much concerned with the life of embryos as he is his standing with certain folk that vote.

The idea that he vetoed the stem cell research bill on the grounds that he cares for the life of the embryos that would be destroyed for the research is ludicrous. We're talking about frozen embryos that are not wanted; if not used for research, they're going to be dumped as biological waste. If he's so concerned about their lives, why not push a bill through congress that says they all have to be adopted out to surrogate parents and brought to term? Idiot.

[/rant]

Taking the medical repair idea away from cloning, lets look at some other uses for a clone.  Lets say Shadowborn (SB) doesn't want to have children.  He grows up to be a finicially independent person who after 45 years on the earth with out a spouse, wants to continue his family name.  What better way then to clone himself.  SB2 is born and SB1 raises him, until SB2 is 18 and out on his own.  Where is the benefit? 

The benefit comes from SB1 has a "child".  SB1 has also given the psycology world a dream come true.  To see if some behaviour is innate, or everything has to be learned.  Lets say that SB1 at the age of 70 starts to have kidney failure.  SB2, as any clone would be, is a perfect donor match.  Assuming that SB2 is a healthy person and not completely pissed at SB1 for not letting him go to that rock concert at the age of 16, like any good son would freely give his Pops a Kidney.

Yes, that's all well and good, but the real reason SB1 needs the clone is so that his brain can be transplanted into SB2 so as to continue living and working toward his ultimate goal of world domination...  

I think it is too easy to look at clones as non-sentient beings used like a farm.  They can be just like you and me...literally!

True, and I'm not altogether in agreement with the whole "clone farm" idea myself...I just took that side of the argument to argue. 

[Moloch]

.

[Shadowborn]

Remember, before Copernicus came along the Earth was the center of the Universe.

Well, the ancient Greeks may have realized this wasn't true, if they'd actually had the instruments to measure stellar parallax...we're constant victims of our ignorance, until we develop the technology that lets us break the meager confines of our senses.

As for PETA members, I'm inclined to annoy them at every turn...  I just find them silly.