View Full Version : Should Cloning Be legal in the U.S.
benothebeno
12-17-2006, 04:16 AM
Should cloning be legalized in the U.S. and should it be funded by the Govenment.
Cloning has many dangers and less than 1 percent of sucess should human cloning be allowed?
i say yes, reluctantly. There is a possibility of a great breakthrough, and i am all for scientific progress.
benothebeno
12-17-2006, 04:45 AM
i say yes, reluctantly. There is a possibility of a great breakthrough, and i am all for scientific progress.
But there could possibly many deaths from the failed attempts is more than 100 lives worth a scientific breakthough?
Mount Gay
12-17-2006, 05:24 AM
I think it should be allowed because you never know what could happen from it. Just with the possibility of it making something happen, I feel its worth it.
peacmaker
12-17-2006, 05:24 AM
I don't think cloning should be legal because you miss with God works and I seen enough scif movies tell things can go wrong. Also if would be use for all the wrong reasons, so it should never been done at all.
toxxin
12-17-2006, 04:08 PM
First off, there are many different kinds of cloning. If we are referring to the cloning of humans in its entirety, I am against it. There have been so many problems with the cloning of animals (approx 1 or 2 viable produced out of 100), leaving a huge opening for error with cloning a human.
Also, from an ethical standpoint (all science put aside), IF we were to successfully clone an entire human being, how would we exect this person to adapt to society? This individual would have no real parents, only a host. I believe it would be highly unethical to play the role of God and start trying to reproduce human beings for science experiments.
Atrias
12-17-2006, 04:14 PM
I am against the cloning of humans... it is playing God to many extents and would make a mockery of the circles of life and death of which we are all a part.
If however cloning was merely the construction and growth of PARTS of humans, say for transplants, repairs, replacements etc... then that would be ok... prolonging life is one of the aims of medical science.
HalfdeadBleach
12-17-2006, 06:06 PM
I have no problem with cloning because it would help ill people who need spare organs and would not have to wait for a person to donate their organs. all it would take is the time to grow them and with time that time would be cut drasticily. Pluss we aceleb could clone themselves and we could enjoy the terminators for generations to come.
Sal1981
12-18-2006, 01:31 PM
I don't think cloning should be legal because you miss with God works and I seen enough scif movies tell things can go wrong. Also if would be use for all the wrong reasons, so it should never been done at all.
You use fantasy movies to dictate how you would look at this? How ignorant we have become.
benothebeno
12-19-2006, 05:08 AM
Well i think cloning is to dangerous and when the clones do come out there gunna be defective. Thens someone crazy sience person is gunna make a creating thats gunna destory mankind XP
DJ StarScream
12-21-2006, 09:17 PM
Scifi movies are bs. They don't depect anything cloneing is something that can save and kill us. We should be wary when cloning a human as he might turn out evil.
There are many ways to approach this. Once we are able to clone animals with a high sucess rate, i think we should move on to humans. I am not religous, so the possibility of playing God excites me, instead of appaling me. I think that science should never stop evolving because of moral issues and religious beliefs.
We should be wary when cloning a human as he might turn out evil.
...really? and how is that relevant? A clone isn't gonna be made evil, people only turn evil by their lifestyles and the things that happen to them, and still, the word evil is not the right one to describe this.
DJ StarScream
12-21-2006, 11:05 PM
There are many ways to approach this. Once we are able to clone animals with a high sucess rate, i think we should move on to humans. I am not religous, so the possibility of playing God excites me, instead of appaling me. I think that science should never stop evolving because of moral issues and religious beliefs.
...really? and how is that relevant? A clone isn't gonna be made evil, people only turn evil by their lifestyles and the things that happen to them, and still, the word evil is not the right one to describe this.
I understand where you coming from but I never said he will become evil only as he might. Too clone someone we need a egg that is fertilaized If I am correct and isnt the dna of those people carried to the cloned human and if it is there characteristics too. So If that person shall be evil or have evil like tendency's I shall think that the cloned human shall have them If something strange occurs.
I understand where you coming from but I never said he will become evil only as he might. Too clone someone we need a egg that is fertilaized If I am correct and isnt the dna of those people carried to the cloned human and if it is there characteristics too. So If that person shall be evil or have evil like tendency's I shall think that the cloned human shall have them If something strange occurs.
I do not believe that there is any facts in modern science that tell us that traits such as good or evil are part of DNA. In fact, it is very highly doubtful. DNA is more about what the person will look like, what color hair and eyes and the kind. DNA does not really determine your personality, it is as ridiculous as saying: "Your father was a drunk, so, because of DNA, you will be the same". In fact, imagine this: there are two clones of a serial killer made. Of course they start out as infants. One is raised by an abusive single father in a bad neighborhood. Another is raised by an upper-middle class loving family. When they grow up, even if their origin is the same, they will be completely different personality-wise. DNA did not affect their mental and psychological development, just their physical traits.
DJ StarScream
12-23-2006, 05:45 PM
Ahh but dna can affect everything. You just have to get to the root of dna. Dna as 24 chromosomes 12 froom the mother and father If I am correct. If those 12 bring the traits and habits the mother or father has what else do you think the child born with those 24 chromosomes 12 from the mother and father what traits would he have what habits?
Ahh but dna can affect everything. You just have to get to the root of dna. Dna as 24 chromosomes 12 froom the mother and father If I am correct. If those 12 bring the traits and habits the mother or father has what else do you think the child born with those 24 chromosomes 12 from the mother and father what traits would he have what habits?
Even if we assume that some personality traits are indeed transcended from the parents, it does not mean that DNA is the main source of the person's development. Our personalities and habits are shaped a lot more by our childhood experiences and major occurences than our DNA! Almost all of the psychological and moral development occurs after birth, obviously.
An analogy can go like this: let's say you are Christian. You are a christian not because you were born that way and DNA, but because you were raised in an atmosphere that has caused your development to incline towards christian ideals, therefore you accept christianity as your religion of choice.
DJ StarScream
12-23-2006, 06:09 PM
Religon is something to were you can be brought up not by experince but by your parents grandparents or your belief's
Religon is something to were you can be brought up not by experince but by your parents grandparents
The process of you getting brought up IS your experience. Everything in your life that affects you directly or inderectly can be considered an experience. These expereience shape us to who we are. This is why people's personalities get established when they are very young, that is the period of time when we are most susceptible to what we experience and the shaping of our character is easiest.
or your belief's
And where do those beliefs come from. Are you sying that we are born with a set of beliefs? That is impossible. If someone spends their entire life in a white room and has never seen people or anything, then it doesn't mattre if that person's parents were Buddhist or Christian, without experiences pertaining to a particular subject, like religion, that person cannot develop any beliefs on that subject.
DJ StarScream
12-24-2006, 06:07 AM
Hmm You are right but can you proof to me that belief's are not by experince but are
Learn from your parents.
Hmm You are right but can you proof to me that belief's are not by experince but are
Learn from your parents.
I WAS saying that beliefs are shaped by experiences. Also, the process of a person interacting with his/her parents is an experience in itself! Experiences shape people's beliefs, but there are many types of experiences. Your parents ingraving beliefs in you is an experience. So parents and experiences are equally important to shaping a child's beliefs, because parents = experiences.
_mike_
12-24-2006, 10:15 PM
think of it as a kage bunshin......u make it specialize in a certain area...be it a subject @ skl, send it to do the exams for you....etc.. XD
DJ StarScream
12-26-2006, 05:40 AM
How in Hades dose naruto have to do with science. Back to are disscussion Learning and experince are two diffrent things. Learning from an experince and learning to experince certain things are diffrent also.
Really? I didn't see any examples or evidence in your post. Think about it, learning from an experience and learning to experience are often the same. Example: I have never tried ice cream. I am taught how to eat icecream I try ice cream. Ice cream tastes delicious. I LEARNED from my experience that ice cream tastes good, and AT THE SAME TIME i learned how to experience it. When do you ever experiience something without simultaneously learning about it. If you get burnt by putting your hand in the fire, you are not going to do it again, will you. Also you never explained what you meant by "learning to experience". Without an explanation, it just sounds awkward. Please provide an example that refutes mine.
I also need to rephrase myself, since when i put an equal sign between learning and experience i might have been misunderstood. I do not think they are exactly the same, but they are simaltaneous. You learn from experience, there is hardly any other way to learn. They happen at the same time, so without experiences, there is no learning. Example#2: I wish to learn japanese. In order to do that i have to encounter the japanese language in some shape or form, like a textbook. Once i experience japanese, snippets are slowly piled up in my brain, so therefore i am learning.
DJ StarScream
12-26-2006, 07:40 AM
Ahh but not did you touch hand on stove hurt learn?
Ahh but not did you touch hand on stove hurt learn?
Whaaa? I am not sure what you just asked.
- SaDiSTiC -
12-26-2006, 08:36 AM
the world is falling apart with 1 j.w. bush around, i cant imagine what would be with 2 of them, 1 would terrorize the world at day time, the second would have the night job, hell probably reopen area 51 lol
Vampyrelord
12-26-2006, 01:02 PM
@mike, Sadistic and Taraqs:
Stop spamming now and I will not punish you.
Nicole
12-26-2006, 06:28 PM
Hmm. I'm bored, so I'm going to name off reasons why cloning a human being is bad.
1) Think how many failed attempts it took to successfully clone Dolly the sheep. I can't remember the number off the top of my head, but it was rather high and the success rate was low. It's pretty idiotic and immoral, IMO, to create potential life just to kill it for the sake of scientific research.
2) Now why would you want to clone a person? I can understand cloning organs to produce donors that would have a low rate of rejection. But a human? Sure, people's kids die, but they can always produce another one or adopt a kid. We all know there are plenty of kids around the world who are orphans who need loving homes.
3) As it is, we are not a very accepting group of people. Many people are still judged based on their differences, and after many years of trying to get a truly equal society, it's still failing. So why add cloned humans into that? Sure, we can try to produce the most intelligent being ever, or the most physical fit superhuman, but how do you think that person would feel, being ridiculed by those who disagree with cloning and expected to do super awesome things by those who agree with the process? Humans are weak. We can't bear such a heavy burden as this. So really, emotionally, cloning a human would be a bad idea. We already have issues with people in the US accepting different racial groups and GLBTQ folks. We don't need to add another 'group' into this.
But yeah, cloning of veggies and organs I'm totally for. Animals are an iffy subject to me.
Now. On to other stuff.
Although I don't agree with master_aizen's proposition to go forward with cloning (also notice that I didn't put 'playing God' as a reason as I'm, well, agnostic), I do agree with his arguments about a clone being not being initially "evil".
I understand where you coming from but I never said he will become evil only as he might. Too clone someone we need a egg that is fertilaized If I am correct and isnt the dna of those people carried to the cloned human and if it is there characteristics too. So If that person shall be evil or have evil like tendency's I shall think that the cloned human shall have them If something strange occurs.
Yes. DNA is carried on.
Let's look at normal sexual reproduction first. The DNA is always switched around through meiosis in the sperm and egg productions, producing in different offspring. If this didn't occur, you would have an identical sibling and you would look exactly like mom and dad. This is what cloning would produce. Now, notice how I'm focusing on the physical aspects and not the psychological ones.
The field of psychology and biology have a thin line between them. A VERY thin line. As most people should know, our brain functions by way of neurotransmitters and our neurons (AKA brain cells). Well, our brains aren't fully developed when we are born. It needs to fold more and such. But yeah, behavior, other than hard-wired instincts, is really a collaboration of our life experiences. Also, it is believed that a person's personality isn't completely hardwired until their early 20's.
Now, when it comes to something like a mental disorder or affections or anxiety, or anything that involves our endocrin system (adrenaline rushes and the such), we can say that these are more biological.
Now, we shall look at your common depressive disorder, caused by the the shortage of serotonin and norepinephrine. This causes people to have low self-esteem, be sad, etc. One can say that effects personality, but because it's caused by the shortage of thoses neurotransmitters, it's also biological. Now why would I bring this up in this discussion? Well, one could say that the way your neurotransmitters work can be linked with DNA.
Now, I will dumb down what I said so some people who believe we have 24 (it's 23 pairs by the way, 46 single chromosomes total. 22 code for our bodily functions and 1 pair for our sex chromosomes. XY makes a man, XX makes a woman. Any questions?) chromosomes in our body can understand this.
We have DNA in our body. It's this little double helix thing that codes in 3-sequences consisting of A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). Now, if these code for every biological function in our body in terms of amino acids and appearance, these can also determine the function of our neurotransmitters, too, right? Right.
So... DNA => appearance, bodily functions => neutransmitters => malfunctions cause mental disorders.
If it doesn't make sense, then I don't know what to say. =\
Now, this is to get into my next point here:
Sure, neurotransmitters can be genetic. It's even believed that depression is a hereditary disorder. But do they form a personality? No. I said earlier that your personality isn't fully developed until early 20's. As master_aizen said, we form our personalities through childhood experiences. Stuff like shyness, outgoingness, malignance, benevolence, etc. These aren't biological but strictly psychological. :P
Hmm You are right but can you proof to me that belief's are not by experince but are
Learn from your parents.
Um... both are experiences. Like me, for example. I was born in a christian household. Taught religion from my parents. Yet through my experiences, I became agnostic.
Yet some people still go by what their parents taught them.
Back to are disscussion Learning and experince are two diffrent things. Learning from an experince and learning to experince certain things are diffrent also.
Umm... learning IS an experience. You experience learning. You learn to experience stuff by experiencing. Life is experiencing. These are all the same things.
And burning your hand on a stove... you learned from the experience and that in itself is an experience.
There, I'm done. Please continue.
@Elocin: Thanks for highlighting the fact that Learning and experiencing happen at the same time and occur because of each other. Taraqs was not understanding what i was saying :)
Also, to answer your question of why you would want to clone humans. All the negative effects are true, i would think. But a lot of times the answer is simple: in the name of progression and science. People want to learn more to become more advanced as a species. Granted, the czuse of all the discoveries isn't always positive (A-bomb). Still, a lot of people, like myself, believe that scientific advancement should not be halted because the results might be negative. And I am not saying we should go out and try human cloning now, since the success rate is way too low. In fact, earlier in the thread, i said that we should wait until we perfected animal cloning, which should take a really long time.
Nicole
12-26-2006, 07:02 PM
No problem. :)
Hmm. It is human nature to want to explore and expand their horizons. It's been like that since the renaissance times. However, even though perfecting animal cloning (on sheep, for example) to a point of 5% error, that only applies to animals. To me, humans are much different from animals. Sure, you could get the digestive system, circulatory system, and respiratory systems down, but it's the nervous system I'm mainly worried about. Our processes are much more complicated than any other mammal including chimps who have only a 2% DNA difference from us, and that 2% makes quite the difference.
So say we do go along with cloning, we kill off thousands of physically deformed children. We finally find one without deformities. Then after much research, we form non-physically deformed children with 5% error. (Even if we perform cloning on animals and then work on humans with a start of a 5% error, this next part can hold true) Well, then we discover that all these kids have some sort of mental retardation or mental problems because we didn't get our nervous system right. So what then? Do we just keep making mentally unstable/retarded children in our search for a normal human being (perhaps a genius down the road)?
Sure, it's very risky, but toying with human life like that is too immoral for me to accept doing something like this.
Also, unless scientists have a way of predicting the mental state of the child right away before it's born, we have a live baby on our hands who may or may not have mental stabilities. Just too risky, IMO.
DJ StarScream
12-26-2006, 08:42 PM
lol you got me. captian comunist I will accept my last post to be spam but not my others. Master Aizen I understood you but I was trying to see how far you would go to defend your awnser and how far I would go to defend mine. But I should think that aslong as no one dose a bountu or trys to do a bountu then cloning should be legal. Who knows cloning might just lead to the clone wars.
lol, it is captain communism, not communist. I am not sure what you were saying in the 2nd to last sentence in your last post, but the statement about the clone wars is completely irrelevant and off topic.
So, i guess this debate is kinda settled, huh? I don't think elocin and myself can persuade each other, since our opinions on science are so different. :)
DJ StarScream
12-27-2006, 01:33 AM
I meant that as a pun or joke as the thread was talking about cloning clone wars get it. yea well the debate is over Winner Is master Aizen.
Bak3d on H1gh
12-27-2006, 01:43 AM
My opinion is it should be legal but strictly regulated. Last thing we need is a live version of six days.
The benifits of cloning outway the down of it, which only a few come to mind and with proper regulation would either probably never happen or would be rare cases. The rare cases would be defects when the organ or whatever it may be is a defect, and therefor would immiediatly be put to death. Preferably before it became aware.
We could solve many problems such as depleting fish stocks. Maybe even create a create a new polant that produces large amounts of oxygen to help solve our little global worming problems(after advances in DNA mapping and synthesis). Solve shortages in blood, organs.
On the point of cloning humans im against it, people need to die we already have 6 billion people 100 years earth can't support any more of us, though thats not to say that cloning would increase our life times drastically, you could basically replace every organ in your body every 10-20 years, no more worry about pickling that liver or heart attack from eating that jerky, and from that we could keep our great mind for much longer and hopefully find a way to get ourselves off this planet before its too late.
hobbes24
12-27-2006, 03:01 AM
didn't read every post but
how can anybody here understand everything that goes into forming a person/ a person's "personality"?
and if any of u want to make humans by a way other than sex.. go to town (what i think), but keep the whole civil rights thing in mind (which brings up civil rights involved in influence of other humans around u). do they have souls? What is a soul? are we only product of our actions to stimuli? other questions to ask urself maybe.
I'm sure there are positive effects i don't know about in human cloning, as well as animal/vegetable cloning, (animal/vegetable cloning makes sense already), but i think government should spend money on better things.. like better equipment for troops (if u don't want them over there, who does? nobody really wants war (arguable), terrorism, or genocide in the first place ) or u "disagree" with george bush (just addressing something i know someone would bring up) it doesn't really matter cuz they are over there.. tax dollars to better equipment would bring down the casualty rate even more
I'm sure gov't money goes to different things and we can place them on the scale with cloning on the other side and see which one would benefit each of us personally more..
heh nice bak3donh1gh
hope this helped in some way.. to anybody's understanding, if not i just made u all more stupid
I meant that as a pun or joke as the thread was talking about cloning clone wars get it. yea well the debate is over Winner Is master Aizen.
Not really. This isn't judged debates, there is no winner or anything, just a battle of opinions. :)
@hobbes: well, the point that you made has some weight. If we are talking about cloning in the states, then yes you are right in some regard, even though i would still support cloning. But overall, i think that it is important for the human race to gain scientific knowldge on every subject possible to grow more sofisticated as humans. That is my opinion since my belief is that the ultimate goal in people's lives is acquiring knowledge. But isn't really a persuading statement or anything, since it is just a belief, and beliefs can't be defended with facts.
hobbes24
12-27-2006, 04:03 AM
i saw that reply taraqs made, but he commented on this thread i started and that quote prolly isn't very... finalizing (i guess best word of which i can think)
i think there was another guy who supported his opinions intelligently
from what i remember u both made good arguments
i think taraqs was finalizing fact from opinion.. o dang... thats what u were saying wasn't it lol
sry bout that
nice job tho and ty for the reply
hobbes24
12-27-2006, 04:08 AM
scifi and fantasy are different
what she speaks of is consequences
ah.. thought i was replying to what someone else had said
DJ StarScream
12-27-2006, 04:13 AM
Thank you hobbes but don't double post. Now cloning could also depend on the states as this is a democracy and not a communist goverment. So unless the people like that bill that is preposed I don't think it will be legalized at all.
Yvese
12-27-2006, 04:31 AM
I'm against it. It's bad enough that the human population is increasing dramatically, and now we're thinking about cloning? Come on. We should worry about the real issues at hand first; global warming.
DJ StarScream
12-27-2006, 04:32 AM
To tell you the truth by the time people care about global warming is the time when everybody's arses are on fire.
ROFL.
Well, global warning is important but people do not worry about it that much because no one in this or next generayion will be that affected by it.
Not all science is going to be directed at one problem at a time you know, just beacause cloning is researched doesn't mean that no one will work on solving global warning. :)
Jenova
12-27-2006, 07:29 AM
In my views cloning is an absolute no-no and should not be legal.
Human cloning defies the laws of nature and we do not need a world of 'degenerates'.
But in stances of animal cloning, I don't think is a good idea.
BUT, there is however, trying to bring back the animals that have become instinct.
There have been rumours that Australian scientists are trying to bring back the extinct Tasmanian Tiger or also known as, the Thilacine.
In this act, it should be made legal to try and bring back an animal that no longer exists.
To sum it up:
No human or animal cloning should be legal but extinct animals should be allowed to be tried.
Or is that still bad? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Xkavanger/Emots/Poh.gif
Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinions of course. Since human cloning is not in effect, there is no way one side (me) or the other side (everyone else here, lol) can be proven wrong. All we can do is argue the possible effects and pluses and minuses of cloning, which is what we have been doing. :)
Jenova
12-27-2006, 07:40 AM
Yesh, I s'pose you're right. Dolly the sheep was failure, hopefully if the Tassie Tiger is reborn, it would not have the same circumstances
Bak3d on H1gh
12-27-2006, 10:25 AM
bringing back extinct speceis may not be a good thing in all cases because the enviroment that has now lost the animals is adapting possibly has adapted to the loss of that animal, bringing back that animal all of a sudden may throw thing even further out of wack. Though that isn't saying that it would alwaysbe bad.
It could also be used a preventative measure to extinction, such as the cheetah whos genome has become compromised because they're are so few left and the problem of inbreeding has become a factor causing cheetahs to have
low sperm counts, which is worsing the problem. We could introduce new fresh DNa back into the genome while fixing the low sperm count in the process. This goes for other animal(not sperm count but fresh DNA) such as elephants, ect ,ect.
The whole global warming "at the rate were going were all going to die in 50 years" sounds like bull shit to me, first it was 100 years, which i do believe! Then some green group comes out and says wait cut that in half, sounds fishy to me. Though we really need to do something now.
There are plenty of things in normal day life that "defy the laws of nature". It's basically one persones, or peoples being afraid of the consequences, we shouldn't just listen to these people or else we would all still be back in the middle ages listening blindly to the church. Take it this way if God didn't want us to be able to do the things we do then why let us?
thousand sakuras
12-27-2006, 04:53 PM
although many of you speculate that it is possible and that we may get it down right the problem is...who would want to be parrallel to someone? individuality is what makes us...us. i support the technological and biological side of it yet i cant say yes or no because of individuality.
hobbes24
12-27-2006, 09:18 PM
i don't think cloning is making an exact copy of someone
i think its just the same genetic information (like twins?)
and human cloning is wanted so their organs can be used for other "real" people
correct me if im wrong plz
elven
12-27-2006, 09:37 PM
well... saku stresses a really good point. why would anyone not want to be unique. but hobbes, even if someone would clone someone's organ it would take about the same time to clone it as it would if i were to grow in the mother womb.
hobbes24
12-27-2006, 10:23 PM
wait.. so u can just clone the organ without the human?
Aelix
12-27-2006, 10:33 PM
Yes, its called oh no, for got it. ARG Theve talked about this on the news......its where you take the emberyo and just grow part of it, not the whole human. Like the Pancreas for Diabetes people. STIM CELL REASEARCH!!!!!!! THATS IT!!
well, i think it depends on what is being cloned. If we do clone humans, we should se what they turn out like. We need to have the original person and then compare them to the clone.
I would suggest taking an emberyo and cloning it, then putting the two children on diff sides of the US, one in NY and one in LA, and compare them every year when they go to their yearly check-ups at the doctors. They woulnt suspect a thing, because the doctor would do lots of tests on them (more than on a usual person) and they would consider that normal, when really the docs are just gathering info to compare. They would also have to fill out survies about their personality, see if thats similar.
This debate, if you want to get down to the basics, is nothing more than the old "The scientists are trying to play God" thing. I support cloning, and think it should be legal, but only for scientific purposes. Untill we know more about it i think it sould be legal.
@Bak3: I like your argument but..
It is a test... in my opinion at least.. I dunno T.T
Well, you can't use religion as an overall argument against cloning, since religion is based on faith and science is based on fact. We don't know what God wants us to do or if he even exists, therefore we cannot derive a logical conclusion from such an argument.
cloned humans are known to be alienated from the public
Give me an example of a cloned human who was alienated from the public. You cannot, because there are not any cloned humans. What is the point of just assuming things? I mean, sure if cloning became popular, there would be some people disliking clones and there might be some tension. But it would not be something unique to the cloning situation, though. Go back 50 years, and there was a LOT of tension between white people and African-Americans in the US, and there still is. There is always a little bit of alienation any time there is a difference in people, be it heritage, religion, etc. Clones would not really experience anything non-white or non-christians haven't.
hobbes24
12-28-2006, 05:06 PM
genetically like twins
what i meant neway
master aizen: when i read ur post i was wondering what ur definition of faith was.. not as an attack on ur argument, it was very sound, but just curiousity.
Well, my definition of faith is any kind of belief that cannot be supported factually or scientifically. Basically, anything that a person believes that is just based on faith - unsupported by any facts or laws.
elven
12-28-2006, 08:35 PM
Yes, its called oh no, for got it. ARG Theve talked about this on the news......its where you take the emberyo and just grow part of it, not the whole human. Like the Pancreas for Diabetes people. STIM CELL REASEARCH!!!!!!! THATS IT!!
well, i think it depends on what is being cloned. If we do clone humans, we should se what they turn out like. We need to have the original person and then compare them to the clone.
I would suggest taking an emberyo and cloning it, then putting the two children on diff sides of the US, one in NY and one in LA, and compare them every year when they go to their yearly check-ups at the doctors. They woulnt suspect a thing, because the doctor would do lots of tests on them (more than on a usual person) and they would consider that normal, when really the docs are just gathering info to compare. They would also have to fill out survies about their personality, see if thats similar.
This debate, if you want to get down to the basics, is nothing more than the old "The scientists are trying to play God" thing. I support cloning, and think it should be legal, but only for scientific purposes. Untill we know more about it i think it sould be legal.
thats right. so if you would want to clone someones organ it would take like 9 months to get it fully matured. the person would probably die in the process of waiting.
Bak3d on H1gh
12-28-2006, 09:20 PM
Yes but if we can clone the organs, we can be making them constantly and stockpile them
thought this would be interesting seeing how were talking about cloning
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20061228%2fcloning_food_06122 8&showbyline=True
benothebeno
12-29-2006, 07:51 AM
To me cloning is useless unless used for medical purposes. Clone my infulence a copy of you but there is a chance that it might not be the same as the original due to the 2 setd of dna recived from the mother and the father. One this lady had her dead cat cloned for alot of money and it looked similar but the personality of it was totaly off. Well the point is cloning makes same appearence but as we made clear the character and how there emotions work is based on the things around them. :D i want a clone in case i need a bone marrow or blood transplant :D it could save you life and many people will die trying to save you. By the time they make a clone for your, your already dead. lol
Bak3d on H1gh
12-30-2006, 11:48 PM
While it is true that your surrounding do affect your personality to a degree, twins(aka clones) have been found to have very similair personalities, likes dislikes, ect. Even if they weren't raised by the same people. Think if it this way they hear with the same ears, see with the same eyes, feel with the same hands, ect, ect. Though that isn't saying that growing up in different enviroments won't end up with two different people.
What are you talking about beno? If they clone you it is an EXACT COPY, unless they alter the DNA at some point in the line.
Also to increase the speed at which clones "grow" they could alter the metabolism of the clone making them grow faster, then say an organ was tranplanted into yourself it would work on your metabolism. Also they could make it so the cells divide faster (aka grow faster) until a certain point.
toxxin
12-31-2006, 09:55 PM
I suppose it depends on what boundaries you place on "cloning humans". I find there is a fine line between cloning just parts, rather than cloning an entire human being. If it were cloning parts to stockpile and use to medical purposes, then yes I am for cloning.
However, if its for cloning an entire human that I am fully against.
benothebeno
01-06-2007, 05:47 AM
What are you talking about beno? If they clone you it is an EXACT COPY, unless they alter the DNA at some point in the line.
When i human being is created it has 2 sets of Genetic Material from Both Parents and your parents recive genetic material from your grandparents and so there is a slight chance that outcome of the child will be difference due to the chance that insead of being identical twins they can be Fraternal where the clones are not even the same sex. Thats not the difference here cause that can happen. But ive seen twins with differnt color eyes and hair so anything could happen.
Also The Surrounding so influence alot. I know a pair of twins with divorced parents and one goes with the other and the other with the other parent. They act real differently (one is more of a jerk) But it is quite interesting how they act by learning from there surrounding.
Rihaku
01-06-2007, 05:50 AM
ROFL.
Well, global warning is important but people do not worry about it that much because no one in this or next generayion will be that affected by it.
Actually untrue. If the Antarctic ice caps continue to break up exponentially (they have), we would lose all major port cities (San Francisco, NY, Shanghai, Beijing, Calcutta, etc) to flooding as well as 35-70% of Florida. Worst Case Scenario: 10 years. More likely to be 20-40, unless we change our habits.
Should cloning be legal? Are we really arrogant enough to tell other people what to do or not to do with their genes?
hobbes24
01-11-2007, 04:49 AM
something new to think about:
my friend's mom and i were talking and cloning in food products was brought up and from what she was saying, it's bad for u..(she's really big on nutrition) and (the diet) has been linked to mental problems (like ADD) in (more prevalently) younger generations because we eat genetically altered food so often or from an early age..
just a new topic/argument to think about if it hasn't already been brought up
Cloning organs is ok, but cloning humans? If the gene is messed up, wouldn't that individual be messed up as well? Also, we need LESS people on earth, not more.
Genetically altereed food sounds good...
SO many people are talking about the risks that human cloning presents, and how ig there is a mess-up, then the person will be messed up as well. That is why we need to PERFECT cloning on animals, so that we can do it safely on humans. Over population should not be a problem if cloning is not free to the public. What i mean is i would not want the government to let people order or buy clones. Too many implications and problems can be caused by that.
benothebeno
01-14-2007, 12:46 AM
Genetically altereed food sounds good...
rofl lol i wants a pig morphed with a cow to make a baconsteak :D
Genetically altereed food sounds good...
rofl lol i wants a pig morphed with a cow to make a baconsteak :D
cloning and morphing species together is different. But yes, baconsteak would be great.
Genetically altereed food sounds good...
SO many people are talking about the risks that human cloning presents, and how ig there is a mess-up, then the person will be messed up as well. That is why we need to PERFECT cloning on animals, so that we can do it safely on humans. Over population should not be a problem if cloning is not free to the public. What i mean is i would not want the government to let people order or buy clones. Too many implications and problems can be caused by that.
Wait, so who should we clone, then? People like Bill Gates? And just how long will it take to "perfect" cloning? And when we perfect cloning, are you saying we will NEVER make a mistake?
Mistakes might be made, but if we perfect it, it should be less than .01%
Who should we clone? I never thought about this, and here is why. I am all for science and the evloution of it. If cloning is possible, i want humans to master it, even if usage is limited. I don't see why Bill Gates should be cloned, since the clone will probably be very different personality-wise depending on his experiences, he would just look the same.
BrokenImage
01-14-2007, 01:55 AM
I voted no.
When they can successfully clone 10 of the same sheep in a row. Then i might change my mind. So far all we have heard about cloning is that they have cloned one sheep, big deal coulda been a fluke. Now a good way for them to test it on human cloning is to get the DNA of a deceased person and practice replicating on that.
Mistakes might be made, but if we perfect it, it should be less than .01%
Who should we clone? I never thought about this, and here is why. I am all for science and the evloution of it. If cloning is possible, i want humans to master it, even if usage is limited. I don't see why Bill Gates should be cloned, since the clone will probably be very different personality-wise depending on his experiences, he would just look the same.
Okay, here's a thought, you may ban cloning to the public. But even if that's the case, people will clone themselves down in dark alleys or with unlicensed doctors. Hey, people get uncertified piercings nowadays, who is to say that they will not clone themselves with uncertified surgeons once cloning technologies are good enough. Also, the terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda can also clone people like Osama Bin Laden.
I voted no.
When they can successfully clone 10 of the same sheep in a row. Then i might change my mind. So far all we have heard about cloning is that they have cloned one sheep, big deal coulda been a fluke. Now a good way for them to test it on human cloning is to get the DNA of a deceased person and practice replicating on that.
I voted yes, but i agree. I have said it a million times in this thread, that it should be perfected on animals first.
@ guyklc - i find the notion of someone cloning themselves very unlikly. It is probably a long procedure with expensive equipment. And again, cloning does not mean that the personality of the clone will be the same as the original person. You might clone Bin Laden, but it does not mean that the clone will be a terrorist. To see more about this, check ack in the thread when i was debating Taraqs.
II Xion II
01-14-2007, 02:45 AM
I think cloning (in all aspects) should be illegal. Just because science thinks that it knows of all of the possible implications of cloning, that does not mean that it does. Cloning, with respect to animals, has a very low success rate and is a fairly expensive process that requires much research and resources. Cloning humans has significant ethical and moral considerations that would make it an extremely detrimental thing to attempt. Think about how many lives may be lost and deformed beings created before such a process would yield success. There are also many philosophical questions related to the cognition and life of the clone, as well as questions regarding the clone's psychological health.
Delta
01-23-2007, 12:57 PM
I think cloning (in all aspects) should be illegal. Just because science thinks that it knows of all of the possible implications of cloning, that does not mean that it does. Cloning, with respect to animals, has a very low success rate and is a fairly expensive process that requires much research and resources.
Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars per year research new methods and drugs. Initially they might have "low success rates" and be "fairly expensive", but thats why they are researching it, to see if the possible benefits of it could be made cheaper and more efficient. Cloning in this respect is no different.
Cloning humans has significant ethical and moral considerations that would make it an extremely detrimental thing to attempt. Think about how many lives may be lost and deformed beings created before such a process would yield success.
More research could solve this problem, outlawing it now would pretty much halt any progress in the methods used to make clones.
There are also many philosophical questions related to the cognition and life of the clone, as well as questions regarding the clone's psychological health.
What questions about the clone's psychological health? I remember that myth about rapid aging in clones, but that turned out to be untrue, and that wasnt even a psychological issue.
itsupthere
01-23-2007, 01:09 PM
Cloning needs to be improved before I can make a rational decision about it. The concept of it is great, and I see no problem with it in that sense. For the moment, I am completely for cloning. All of good it could do outweighs the negative effect it may have on our population. I for one would not mind being able to grow something in my fashion to take blood, marrow, or any bodily substance from.
Would you? We have no idea what cloning is capable of until it has more support. The only thing preventing cloning research is human morality. It's kind of like thinking homosexuality is morally wrong(It's completely acceptable). People just need to open their eyes, and think about it.
Kuro-Chan
01-23-2007, 01:29 PM
Cloning of humans simply means destroying tha natural cycle of humans reproduction cycle..by destroying it,people will simply be the same again..and the dna doesn't change either..
Ichigo1543
04-02-2007, 01:17 AM
Cloning of humans simply means destroying tha natural cycle of humans reproduction cycle..by destroying it,people will simply be the same again..and the dna doesn't change either..
I think that this is right. The scientific fact is that we reproduce by merging two different individuals DNA to create a new individual who is totally differnet in that they are a new life that is seperate from the first two. The whole point of this type of reproduction is so that we are individuals. If we all looked the same we would have no way of knowing who did what and if a crime occurs, who commited it. these are just some reasons why cloning should not be legal.
II Xion II
04-03-2007, 06:40 AM
What questions about the clone's psychological health? I remember that myth about rapid aging in clones, but that turned out to be untrue, and that wasnt even a psychological issue.
I don't know, maybe a little issue about how they're A CLONE!!! Imagine what that would do to one's sense of individuality and purpose. For this reason alone I am against all forms of cloning, from the microcellular to the macrocellular levels. Just because you think you know what you're doing does not mean that you do. Just because I think that getting a little scratch from a piece of jagged metal isn't bad, doesn't mean that tetanus won't kill me a week later.
The controversy surrounding cloning is enormous and anything with so much controversy surrounding it should not be simply treated as a non issue.
Kyouka Suigetsu
04-04-2007, 02:09 PM
I'm against human cloning. There's just far too much room for abuse with such a radical application of the technology. This isn't to say that I'm completely against human cloning on a limited scale. Replicating limbs and organs is perfectly fine in my opinion. The problem is the human impact of cloning. A clone, due to the circumstances in their creation, is far more likely of living an unhappy life. The way they and others would look upon themselves most likely wouldn't be positive as well. I just don't think it's ethical to bring a human into such a situation.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.