The right to a replica. . . .

[Bird of Prey]

Breaking News: Human cloning done?


Posted on April 22nd, 2009 in Science & Technology (http://www.duniyalive.com/?cat=149)
Breaking News: London: A fertility doctor has claimed to have cloned 14 human embryos and transferred them to four women prepared to give birth to cloned babies.
http://www.duniyalive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/fertility-expert-ie28099ve-cloned-a-human-150x150.jpg
Panayiotis Zavos broke the sacred taboo of human individuality by doing the cloning act.
The cloning was recorded by an independent documentary film-maker who has testified to The Independent that the cloning had taken place.
Apparently, the breakthrough work was carried out at a secret lab-oratory, probably located in the Middle East where there is no cloning ban.
None of the embryo transfers led to a pregnancy but Zavos, a naturalised American who runs fertility clinics in Kentucky and Cyprus, where he was born, said that this was just the ”first chapter” in his serious attempts at producing a baby cloned from the skin cells of its ”parent”.
“There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen,” Zavos said in an interview yesterday with The Independent.
“If we intensify our efforts we can have a cloned baby within a year or two, but I don”t know whether we can intensify our efforts to that extent. We”re not really under pressure to deliver a cloned baby to this world. What we are under pressure to do is to deliver a cloned baby that is a healthy one,” he said.
Also Zavos revealed that he has produced cloned embryos of three dead people, including a 10-year-old child called Cady, who died in a car crash. He did so after being asked by grieving relatives if he could create biological clones of their loved ones. (ANI). . . .http://www.duniyalive.com/?p=18369

How do you feel about human cloning? Would you mind another "you" in the world? If you could raise "yourself" as an infant, do you think you could give yourself more understanding, and thus a better foundation for life?

I'm very curious as to what people think.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

While it will happen, it will be quickly outlawed in all civilized countries.

The world's major religions will also condem the practice, with some going so far as to anathematize both the practice and the practitioners.

CF: The Island (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/)

[billythrilly7th]

I'm gonna need another Mariano Rivera ASAP.

Please hurry.

[whistlelock]

Would I want to raise me?

No. I already exist, why would I want to put another me in the world? And, it wouldn't be me it would be someone sorta like me. We wouldn't have the same experiences growing up as a child, so we wouldn't be the same person. And, as my wife has said, "I don't think the world could handle two of you."

So, no I'd rather bring someone new into the world.

[Bird of Prey]

While it will happen, it will be quickly outlawed in all civilized countries.

The world's major religions will also condem the practice, with some going so far as to anathematize both the practice and the practitioners.

CF: The Island (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/)

I don't agree that it will be outlawed in "all civilized countries."

But regardless, that wasn't the question. I suspect you don't like the idea, Duncan. If you'd like to explain why, I'd like to read it.

[Don]

Every advancement of man sooner or later is turned to its awful destiny by some group of thugs who see it as giving them power over others, from fire to the atom.

Imagine any despot with the ability and power to clone entire divisions of strong and loyal troops, raised to honor their committment to the fatherland and knowing they are but the tools of his mighty vengence.

That doesn't give me warm fuzzies.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

Oh, lausy. Another me? No. Never. I was (and, some will say, am) an obnoxious li'l biotch. That fact alone was enough to make me swear off having children.

And there is no copy machine capable of producing an exact replica - looks and personality - of anyone, so what's the point? We have millions and millions of baby machines on the planet already... isn't it easier - not to mention more economical - to do it the ol' fashioned way? Nothing I could raise from skin cells or hair follicles or DNA at any level could take the place of Ol' Boy once he kicks the bucket... how sick would it be to try to duplicate a lover or a child for my own selfish interests? I can only imagine the psychological problems that would develop in the clone once it discovered its origins and reason for creation.

There's a novel in here somewhere, isn't there?

[Perks]

I've been down this road on AW before. As I recall, it wasn't pretty. But I'll keep my cool this time. I promise.

A clone of me would not be me. Not even close. There would be no reason even to expect her personality to be very like mine and her circumstances would necessarily be vastly different than the social/economic/practical framework that created me. She would not be able to stand in for me with anyone who knew or cared for me, because, very simply, she would be a different person.

We have no shortage of humans, so there is absolutely no need to clone them. I believe it is inevitable that it will be done, but I also believe that it will take a great deal to convince me that it is in any way beneficial to mankind to clone itself.

And if my child died in a car crash, I would mourn her. My heart would break and would never go back together the same way. Another child who looked just like her would be entirely creepy.

[Perks]

I do remember also the extreme end of that last conversation where talk of organ farming from brainless clones was argued.

The abominations and moral hurdles between now and then are more than my conscience could bear. Although scientists will do what they will do, it's an obscene proposition, and I'll not feel silly for calling it so.

[Contemplative]

Clones are not "copies" of a person. Unlike on sci-fi shows, they do not have the same memory or personality -- only the same genes. They're a completely different person who happens to look like you.

EDIT: Clones wouldn't even necessarily look like the DNA donor, unless they had an identical diet and exercise regimen, and other developmental influences, as well.

Even the nature-vs.-nurture argument plays down the chaos and growth involved. If a clone is fed a different kind of milk as a baby, for example, her hormone balance will change slightly and brain neurochemistry will develop differently as a consequence. It's a "butterfly effect" kind of deal.

Cloning is not a threat to human individuality. Clones would, themselves, be as much individuals in every discernible way as anyone else.

Traditional pregnancy presents an unavoidable biological gender inequality -- women must go through a process that incapacitates them, radically alters their emotional and hormonal balances and eventually causes them seriously intense pain (much more serious, IMO, than, say, waterboarding), in order to create offspring. Men, on the other hand, cannot create life on their own at all. This isn't just to anyone.

Cloning, when it arrives in earnest, will be a pivotal pillar of gay rights, since it will mean that homosexual couples can bear their own children without a necessary dependence of the heterosexual community for their reproductive ability.

I support cloning and artificial womb research.

[Perks]

Traditional pregnancy presents an unavoidable biological gender inequality -- women must go through a process that incapacitates them, radically alters their emotional and hormonal balances and eventually causes them seriously intense pain (much more serious, IMO, than, say, waterboarding), in order to create offspring.

The part of your statement I bolded is plainly untrue. I gave birth to a child without so much as an aspirin and did not cry out or yell. Not once.

You should see the fits and crying I do when I stub my toe.

I am not unique. Some women find childbirth very painful, but the factors that go into this experience are far more nuanced than anyone would want me to go into here. Many women have experiences like mine.

You can be intrigued by cloning and artificial wombs (which is repulsive in the extreme to me) but this particular line of reasoning for it is absurd.

[James81]

Bah, the story in the original post isn't cloning. I roll my eyes at stories like this, because it's essentially the same kind of thing ole Octomom had done. I'm not even remotely impressed.

Call me when they perfect it to the point of what they were doing in the movie The Sixth Day (with Ah-nold). THAT is cloning. This is just pregnancy in a lab tube.

[AMCrenshaw]

Could someone explain to me how different identical twins are from clones?


AMC

[Perks]

Huh? James, what are you talking about? He cloned embryos from skin cells.

How do you think it's done?

[AMCrenshaw]

Cloning, when it arrives in earnest, will be a pivotal pillar of gay rights, since it will mean that homosexual couples can bear their own children without a necessary dependence of the heterosexual community for their reproductive ability.


I asked my mentor about family. He said, the love between two men produces something other than children.

Of course, it'd be really good if gay or lesbian couples could have children of their own.

AMC

[WriteKnight]

Identical Twins ARE clones.

Some of my closest friends are clones.

[William Haskins]

Could someone explain to me how different identical twins are from clones?


AMC

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/6344-connections-between-twins-and-clones-video.htm?sort=most_watched&page=2

[AMCrenshaw]

Twins ARE clones.

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/...watched&page=2

Hm... be back soon!

[James81]

Huh? James, what are you talking about? He cloned embryos from skin cells.



Yeah, and it's going to take a lifetime for it to grow, and it also needs a female host to give birth to it.

Don't take my "it's not cloning" so literally. Of course, in a technical sense, it's "cloning." But in reality it's just a different way to make people.

Personally, I don't think that should be called cloning until they figure out a way to accelerate their growth and can do it without needing a surrogate mother to host it.

[Perks]

Identical twins aren't really clones. They're DNA is practically identical (there can be some difference in 'expressed' genetic traits - we still have much to learn about how that all works) but they are still the result of combined DNA from two parents.

A clone would be a replication of the DNA structure from only one person. Slight, but important difference.

[AMCrenshaw]

But in reality it's just a different way to make people.

Which is?

Personally, I don't think that should be called cloning until they figure out a way to accelerate their growth and can do it without needing a surrogate mother to host it.

Like Star Wars, James?

AMC

[WriteKnight]

The DNA structure of that one individual, would be constructed from the contributions of two different parents - hence 'twins'.

Slight but important distinction



Even 'clones' don't have identical DNA. Just as twins don't

----------

Reproductive cloning uses "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) to create animals that are genetically identical. This process entails the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult cell (somatic cell) to an egg which has no nucleus. If the egg begins to divide normally it is transferred into the uterus of the surrogate mother.

Such clones are not strictly identical since the somatic cells may contain mutations in their nuclear DNA. Additionally, the mitochondria in the cytoplasm also contains DNA and during SCNT this DNA is wholly from the donor egg, thus the mitochondrial genome is not the same as that of the nucleus donor cell from which it was produced. This may have important implications for cross-species nuclear transfer in which nuclear-mitochondrial incompatibilities may lead to death

[AMCrenshaw]

Identical twins aren't really clones. They're DNA is practically identical (there can be some difference in 'expressed' genetic traits - we still have much to learn about how that all works) but they are still the result of combined DNA from two parents.

A clone would be a replication of the DNA structure from only one person. Slight, but important difference.

The DNA structure of that one individual, would be constructed from the contributions of two different parents - hence 'twins'.

Slight but important distinction


Are you clones? Twins? I'm getting freaked out. Bye.


AMC

[Delhomeboy]

Just creepy. And wrong.

[James81]

Like Star Wars, James?

AMC

Yeah, or The Sixth Day.

[Perks]

It's a semantic discussion. Twins occur naturally from two sources of DNA. Clones are created in a petri dish from one.

The result is likely very much the same, except of course, your clone would not be the same age as you, whereas your twin would.

ETA - Obviously, some sets of twins are also created in test tubes and petri dishes. By 'naturally', I meant that the twinning occurs by the same natural mechanism as it would in unaided reproduction.

[James81]

I think we should choose one person from here to clone.

I'll toss my vote out for Haskins.

[Perks]

I vote you, James. Because then I could strangle one of you and still not deprive the world of your existence.

(hate to do it, but probably should add the dreaded winky, so that everyone knows I'm not threatening James' life. So, here ;) )

[James81]

It's ok, I've got the neck of a greek god, so you probably wouldn't be able to get those old haggard fingers around it to do any damage anyway. ;)

(think Gaston, from Beauty and the Beast)

[Perks]

Is it bigger around than a length of piano wire?

[James81]

Is it bigger around than a length of piano wire?

No, but it's tougher than the hyde on a bull's butt.

[Perks]

No, but it's tougher than the hyde on a bull's butt.
Ah, I see. And that trait goes all the way up over your skull. It all makes sense now.

[Bird of Prey]

I think there are a lot of reasons why cloning shouldn't be viewed as some awful alternative to the "natural way." I actually think in many ways, given the direction of civilized society, it could make sense.

I'll venture a guess that many parents really, truly don't understand their children until their children are grown, and even then, their children can be a mystery. I tend to think that a parent that understood his/her child's proclivities right off the bat would be a better parent. Because of that, I think it's more likely that a cloned child could reach his/her full potential if raised by his/her genetic duplicate. Now of course, the two individuals are not identical in terms of experience, but that's what makes it likely for a better outcome for the offspring.

Secondly, we have - in the human species and in many domestic animals - eliminated natural selection. We are already designing life as we like it - dog breeds are a clear example. And human beings that should not have survived, do, and thus, have the potential for passing on their genetic weakness to another generation. Don't get me wrong. I think it is humane to nurture life and save it where we can, but I don't think I see human life in some kind of glaringly different light than other mammals.

I think species are driven to reproduce. . .to leave their genetic mark. So why involve another's dna if one's own would suffice in leaving that mark in another generation??

[Williebee]

First, I've got five on Perks. (If there are any takers, I'll run it up to $100 on her, real quick like.)

Second, the unfortunate overriding argument was mentioned earlier. We have enough humans on the planet as it is. I can't come up with a legitimate reason to add to the load, if all we're doing is adding a body.

[James81]

Ah, I see. And that trait goes all the way up over your skull. It all makes sense now.

Don't be jealous of my beauty.

[Perks]

Don't be jealous of my beauty.I'm sure you're very handsome. It was the thickness of the barrier between the world and your brain I was marveling at.

[William Haskins]

So why involve another's dna if one's own would suffice in leaving that mark in another generation??

because intellectual and physical enhancements occur from breeding, as do immunities that might counter an otherwise devastating vulnerability to disease.

[Bird of Prey]

First, I've got five on Perks. (If there are any takers, I'll run it up to $100 on her, real quick like.)

Second, the unfortunate overriding argument was mentioned earlier. We have enough humans on the planet as it is. I can't come up with a legitimate reason to add to the load, if all we're doing is adding a body.

Well that's simple. If a person could raise a clone in lieu of "the old fashioned you don't know what you'll be getting" way, why not? I actually think the birthrate could go down. I mean a direct descendent would be so direct, that it may preclude the need to keep reproducing two or three or four kids to insure one's future "mark."

[James81]

I'm sure you're very handsome. It was the thickness of the barrier between the world and your brain I was marveling at.

It's that thickness that makes me beautiful though.

[Perks]

I think there are a lot of reasons why cloning shouldn't be viewed as some awful alternative to the "natural way." Don't get me wrong, I'm not giddy about a great many of the results of 'the natural way' and I do realize that human cloning is inevitable.

If it is strictly for the purpose of replicating the awesome specimens, then I probably wouldn't expend too much energy fighting that.

It's a lot of the other applications that have been tossed around here and elsewhere that grind my gears, and frankly freak me out.

[Perks]

If a person could raise a clone in lieu of "the old fashioned you don't know what you'll be getting" way, why not?

Any sort of confidence in 'what you're getting' is an illusion.

[Perks]

I mean a direct descendent would be so direct, that it may preclude the need to keep reproducing two or three or four kids to insure one's future "mark."
As to this, I still don't know why you think people have children to recreate themselves, their 'mark'.

[Perks]

And as narcissistic as we undoubtedly are as a society, the notion that the world would be a better place if it was full of Perkses and BoPs raised on the best food, in the healthiest environment, and by people who know these faces better than anyone (their DNA donors) is going to be a hard sell, I think. You might get a fringe group to build a largish compound for the experiment and inevitable FBI shootout, but a great number of people, of those who think about it at all, look very forward to reproducing an entirely new person with the partner they chose. Really. It's part of the fun.

[William Haskins]

it's also how evolution happens.

[Perks]

fun = evolution

Everybody plays, everybody wins!

[Delhomeboy]

And the fact of the matter is, uniqueness is directly attributable to experience. If you're raising someone exactly like you to "reach they're full potential," then you ARE going to get someone exactly like you, which is creepy in all sorts of ways. And whose to say that you have reached your full potential?

There's something inherently "false" and "unreal" about cloning. I put those terms in quotations because its a very ethereal/philosophical concept, and those aren't exactly the right words. But I think they get the point of cross. The miracle of a human life should not be relegated to the whims of test-tube scientists. I think most people would agree. And, likewise, I would disgree that human cloning is "inevitable."

In the end, it comes down to an ethical or moral issue, which I know freaks some people out on here. But if we are to believe humans are special, and are unique, and, if you had the choice to save a human or an animal, you would save the human, then cloning needs to not become the norm.

[Perks]

And, likewise, I would disgree that human cloning is "inevitable."

I just believe if a scientist can, a scientist will. They can't help themselves. A fair bit of the time that's good news. But sometimes...

[Duncan J Macdonald]

How do you feel about human cloning? Would you mind another "you" in the world? If you could raise "yourself" as an infant, do you think you could give yourself more understanding, and thus a better foundation for life?

I'm very curious as to what people think.

I don't agree that it will be outlawed in "all civilized countries."

But regardless, that wasn't the question. I suspect you don't like the idea, Duncan. If you'd like to explain why, I'd like to read it.
I have no issues, one way or the other, with human cloning, as long as the rights of all persons involved are respected equally.

From the slant of your question(s), it would seem that you fall closer to the "nurture" end of the "nature vs nurture" argument. So, to avoid any possible misconstrual of my answers, I'll keep 'em short.

Q2) Would I mind another 'me' in the world?
A2) Yes.
Q3) If I could raise "myself" as an infant, do I think I could give myself more understanding, and thus a better foundation for life?
A3a) Don't want to.
A3b) B does not follow from A, so the question is invalid on its formation.

[dgiharris]

I'm not sure everyone understands the benefits of cloning from a medical perspective.

It would enable the treatment and curing of a whole HOST of medical conditions that we have no treatment or cure for.

that alone justifies it.

Mel...

[Perks]

I'm not sure everyone understands the benefits of cloning from a medical perspective.

It would enable the treatment and curing of a whole HOST of medical conditions that we have no treatment or cure for.

that alone justifies it.

Mel...Cloning entire people, or just stem cells?

[William Haskins]

it would also create an even greater disparity between the haves and have-nots.

[Susan Gable]

So, let's say that after a while, all we have are clones. Copies, if you will.

What happens when you make copies of copies? And on down a few more generations of copies.

What happens when the DNA gets a little fuzzy around the edges?

Susan G.

[dgiharris]

While it will happen, it will be quickly outlawed in all civilized countries.

THe same thing was said about organ transplants and some fertilization treatments. Why should it be outlawed? Can you give me one non-religious argument for outlawing it.

And after all those arguments, please not that each of those arguments apply to organ transplants or surogate mothers. Long story short, after you look at the 'logic' of what we are already doing, cloning is little different.

Every advancement of man sooner or later is turned to its awful destiny by some group of thugs who see it as giving them power over others, from fire to the atom.

Imagine any despot with the ability and power to clone entire divisions of strong and loyal troops, raised to honor their committment to the fatherland and knowing they are but the tools of his mighty vengence.


Ummm... people have this idea that cloning somehow produces a fully grown human being with implanted memories ready to march out and take over the world.

The situation you describe ALREADY exists, they are called children, child armies, etc. Despots have NO SHORTAGE of thugs. Likewise, it is way cheaper for them to go the traditional route, kidnappings, recruiting from the poor, etc. In short, these despots would not resort to cloning as cloning would be a factor of a MILLION more expensive than their normal recruiting methods. It is infinitely cheaper to just make people the old fashioned way and there is no shortage of poor to recruit from so your argument is not valid

We have no shortage of humans, so there is absolutely no need to clone them.

You could not be more wrong. The best benefit for clones is organ transplant, genetic treatment of diseases, and other medical treatments. The DIFFERENCE between what we currently have (organ transplants from donors) vs Cloning is HUGE. Rejection and infection are the #1 impediments to organ transplants. In fact, when you do a transplant you shorten the life expectancy of the transplantee because they have to take immuno supressant drugs for the rest of their lives. Cloning does away with that. Cloning also enables the treatment of COUNTLESS medical disorders that we currently have no treatment for.


Cloning is inevitable and other than senseless religious arguments, there is no reason not to do it.

ANd yes, those religious arguments are senseless because no where in the bible does it forbid it. The only thing that happens is our 'modern interpretation' of the bible. All those religious arguments against cloning were the SAME arguments against human transplants, interracial marriage, etc. etc. Come on people, don't you see a pattern.

50 years from now, religion will have no problem with cloning because it will be mainstream.

Mel...

[Bird of Prey]

As to this, I still don't know why you think people have children to recreate themselves, their 'mark'.

Why do they have children, Perks? You tell me. Do you really think the human motivation - to have children - is somehow loftier than a cow's sex drive or a snake's or a whale's or an alligator? Just because a person can articulate a reason doesn't make that reason any more profound, important or even more honest than what it is: an instinctual drive that is shared by nearly all species.

[Rarri]

I dislike the idea of human cloning (or any cloning for that matter) where the aim is to recreate a human that is deceased (for example), there may be the same DNA, that doesn't guarantee the same person, if that makes sense. What i find disturbing, is that in one of the case studies (or so we're led to believe) a parent has attempted to clone a child that has died, during grief people may become more vulnerable and it seems that cloning could end up exploiting people going through that.

I'm not sure what the gay/lesbian element of this arguement is. Assuming laws change appropriately, why can't these couples use a version of IVF? Where a donor egg has the genetic material removed and the genetic material from either two sperm or two eggs put in? OK, i realise it's not as simple that that, but looking at the principle.

Anyway, there's programme on Discovery about this tonight, so shall no doubt comment again after watching that!

[dgiharris]

it would also create an even greater disparity between the haves and have-nots.

Every technology does that.

Follow the bell curve. When a new technology comes out, it starts off being very expensive. Eventually there are manufacturing improvements, increased production, etc. etc. which bring the costs down.

Back in the 80s, CD players cost $1000s. Now, I can buy one for $10.

Cloning will be similar.

Mel...

[William Haskins]

something tells me the vast, impoverished segment of world population who won't have access to cloning techniques will have more than "cd player envy" when the upper crust has moved on from the inconveniences of disease and are not all that interested in providing ol' fashioned medication for the breeders.

[dgiharris]

What i find disturbing, is that in one of the case studies (or so we're led to believe) a parent has attempted to clone a child that has died, during grief people may become more vulnerable and it seems that cloning could end up exploiting people going through that

Why is this necessarily a bad thing? Seriously. If I lost a child and could clone him/her, why not? Sure, the child would not be the 'same' child, but the child would provide some form of comfort and security.

My big thing is rights. We should have the RIGHT to do or not do. I'm against someone else telling me what I should or shouldn't do when my action has no impact on their lives.

If some grieving parent wants to clone their dead child, what it is to me? Let them have their comfort.

something tells me the vast, impoverished segment of world population who won't have access to cloning techniques will have more than "cd player envy" when the upper crust has moved on from the inconveniences of disease and are not all that interested in providing ol' fashioned medication for the breeders.

William,

So your argument is, since the poor won't have it lets not do it?

Again, I have no idea how your argument is different that what already exists? The rich currently have (and will always have) superior health care. Again, this is the NORMAL progression of any new technology. Eventually cloning will go the way of the CD player, give it 20, 30, or 40 years.

Mel...

[Williebee]

If some grieving parent wants to clone their dead child, what it is to me? Let them have their comfort.

Why did the phrase "Pet Sematary Redux" just wander across my brain?

[Bird of Prey]

something tells me the vast, impoverished segment of world population who won't have access to cloning techniques will have more than "cd player envy" when the upper crust has moved on from the inconveniences of disease and are not all that interested in providing ol' fashioned medication for the breeders.

That's assuming a lot, including the idea that the "vast segment" will stay impoverished.

[James81]

Cloning is inevitable and other than senseless religious arguments, there is no reason not to do it.



Religious arguements aren't the only types of arguements against it. Just read this thread for several reasonable arguements against it.

the biggest reason, I think, would be the abuse of it. And then there is the arguement that it's morally reprehensible to clone someone just to use that clone for "spare parts." Bible or no bible, makes it no less ridiculous.

[Perks]

Religious arguements aren't the only types of arguements against it. Just read this thread for several reasonable arguements against it.

the biggest reason, I think, would be the abuse of it. And then there is the arguement that it's morally reprehensible to clone someone just to use that clone for "spare parts." Bible or no bible, makes it no less ridiculous.Holy shit. Stop the presses. I 100% agree with James81.

If you make people, they're people, in full rights. You cannot use them for body farms anymore than I could currently force a person with a good HLA tissue-type match into a cold storage coma for my eventual use when one of my systems konks out on me.

I recently read of cloning stem cells, and that could make sense for growing bio-identical organs and tissues for transplants. And it wouldn't be the lab-creation of a caste of prisoners.


Why do they have children, Perks? You tell me. Do you really think the human motivation - to have children - is somehow loftier than a cow's sex drive or a snake's or a whale's or an alligator? Just because a person can articulate a reason doesn't make that reason any more profound, important or even more honest than what it is: an instinctual drive that is shared by nearly all species. I did address that up thread. I don't think it's necessarily loftier than animal reproduction, but as our preferences, self-awareness, and understandings may not be profound, they are what drives us. It is what makes us different, and not always in noble ways.

In this case, like I said upthread, witnessing the combination of a mutually-selected pairing is part of the life-process in human beings. We like seeing the new, independent person that's made. It doesn't have to be important, although I think that William's points about immunities and evolution are valid. It's what we do.

[dgiharris]

Religious arguements aren't the only types of arguements against it. Just read this thread for several reasonable arguements against it.

the biggest reason, I think, would be the abuse of it. And then there is the arguement that it's morally reprehensible to clone someone just to use that clone for "spare parts." Bible or no bible, makes it no less ridiculous.

I have read the thread. THe arguments AGAINST cloning apply to organ transplants and some fertilization practices that are in use. In short, the arguments aren't valid.

In terms of cloning people for nefarious purposes. It is too cost prohibitive compared to having children the old fashioned way.

The cloning for 'spare parts' is a valid argument. But again, that was the EXACT same argument against organ transplant, namely you would set up factories in poor countries, cranking out children for the express purpose of cutting them up for organs/spare parts.

With cloning, it would be fairly simple to genetically alter the clone so that the brain is extremely primitive, no real consciousness, just enough brainstem to grow the required organs.

What I will grant is that we need to put together a consortium to come up with ethical guidelines for cloning.

Off the top of my head, I would have two categories of clones.

1st category: Complete clones (normal human)
complete clones would have all human rights

2nd category: Incomplete clones (subhuman organ donors)
Incomplete clones would have no rights or sentience

In a nutshell, for me, if the clone is sentient or has a degree of sentience, than it should have all human rights. But if it is not sentient than it is safe to use for medical treatments.

This may be a cold hearted way of looking at it, but I think it is fair. Or put another way, if your loved one is dying and you can save their life through cloning, would you do it?

I think most people answering no envision a scenario where it is a full human being that is 'killed'.

I envision a scenario where the subhuman clone is little more than a liver or a heart or a body that has no brain/sentience whatsoever.

Mel...

[James81]

1st category: Complete clones (normal human)
complete clones would have all human rights



What makes you think that we'll ever give clones complete human rights when we can't even give babies complete human rights?

[Zoombie]

I think pretty much what Mel said.

Just I'd...have been funnier about it.

[Perks]

With cloning, it would be fairly simple to genetically alter the clone so that the brain is extremely primitive, no real consciousness, just enough brainstem to grow the required organs. Fairly simple, eh? How's that?

This Frankenstein approach to avoiding mortality is terrible. The suffering we'd create in the attempt to get brainless, but functioning, bodies for our convenience is reprehensible. The crops of malformed, medical mistakes we'd engineer through the 'simple' trial and error to get to some sort of humane model would be, well, inhumane.

This, however, is extremely cool and definitely where we should be directing our energies. No horrors needed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7735696.stm

Surgeons in Spain have carried out the world's first tissue-engineered whole organ transplant - using a windpipe made with the patient's own stem cells.
The groundbreaking technology also means for the first time tissue transplants can be carried out without the need for anti-rejection drugs.

[dgiharris]

What makes you think that we'll ever give clones complete human rights when we can't even give babies complete human rights?

I'm sorry. Your argument is that since we can't currently give babies human rights than we shouldn't give clones human rights?

Or should we just stop having babies?

Whatever rights a 'normal' person has in whatever country should be the same rights that my category 1 has.

Fairly simple, eh? How's that?

This Frankenstein approach to avoiding mortality is terrible. The suffering we'd create in the attempt to get brainless, but functioning, bodies for our convenience is reprehensible. The crops of malformed, medical mistakes we'd engineer through the 'simple' trial and error to get to some sort of humane model would be, well, inhumane.

I agree, however, our medical field and progresses are the Frankenstein approach. We try to mitigate it as much as possible with computer modeling, research, animal studies, animal trials etc. etc. but there will still be some Frankenstein-like trials and errors and i don't think it is unaviodable.

For this moral conundrum I think you apply Utalitarian philosophy.

The Frankenstien approach will involve about 1,000 clones before we work all the kinks out.

So the cost is 1,000 clones.

The benefit is: Millions of human beings for the next 100 yrs.

I know math can be 'cold' but the benefit far outweighs the cost. Or put another way. How many human beings 'died' before we worked out the kinks in organ transplants. I would venture to say tens of thousands.

In fact, every medical treatment is develop by the deaths of thousands of unsuccessful treatments. That is the unfortunate nature of the beast. Again, your argument applies to what we are already doing.

However, the stem cell bit is a great way to go. but I suspect that there will still be benefits that we can only get from cloning.

Mel...

[James81]

I'm sorry. Your argument is that since we can't currently give babies human rights than we shouldn't give clones human rights?

Or should we just stop having babies?

Whatever rights a 'normal' person has in whatever country should be the same rights that my category 1 has.

Right.

And what I am saying is that we have a long way to go with normal human rights and getting that up to par, before we start adding clones into the mix.

[Perks]

Well, before that, we should make sure we tissue-type all the retards and get 'em while they're hot, while the powers that be perfect cloning. They they weren't really using their organs to the maximum potential anyway.

[Zoombie]

There's a difference between someone with mental retardation due to a genetic condition and some thing grown entirely to give us organs.

They would not be human. At all. They would have human organs we could donate to people, but they would not be human.

A mentally handicapped person is someone who was given the middle finger by chance and genetics and should be cared for. A clone designed for organ donations is...well, just a "Get Well For Free" ticket for the hundreds of people who need hearts, livers, kidneys...

[James81]

They would not be human. At all. They would have human organs we could donate to people, but they would not be human.

Of course they would be human. What the hell else would they be? Cows? Dogs? Apes?

The question here is the same question that faces abortion...not whether they are human or not (we all know that they are), but whether they are alive or dead, and what rights we have to invade a living (or dead) human with the potential for life.

[Zoombie]

I don't consider an unthinking bag of flesh and organs human.

I don't think just cause someone shares my DNA, they're human.

Heck, I don't think some humans are human...

[Perks]

I want somebody to tell me why they think it's easy to grow a body with out a brain, or one with reduced brain function.

With some sort of citation from something other than sci-fi would be helpful, too.

[Zoombie]

I don't think it'll be easy.

Heck, I don't even know if its POSSIBLE. But if it IS possible, then I want to do it.

[James81]

I don't think it'll be easy.

Heck, I don't even know if its POSSIBLE. But if it IS possible, then I want to do it.

It's easy. You grow them the same way you grow tupperware. By taking parts from existing, and planting them in the soil and watering them everyday and giving them plenty of sunlight.

[Perks]

I don't think it'll be easy.

Heck, I don't even know if its POSSIBLE. But if it IS possible, then I want to do it.

And how do we get from is it possible? to hey, presto! look at that!- ?

Your conscience is willing to do (or condone) what it takes in between those two states?

Honestly, a meat bag full of new Perks' parts is awesome. Sign me up. But not at the expense of generations of abominations. Really. As afraid as I am to die, I'll take my chances.

[Zoombie]

I'm not fully qualified to say what the intermediary states would be.

Someone who IS qualified should tell us what would happen, THEN I'll decide.

Really, I don't know if its possible to go from where we are to bang presto without any intermediary stages. If we can, awesome.

If we can't...well, then we figure that out then.

I just don't think that we should throw the cloning idea in the bin when we can solve so many problems!

[Devil Ledbetter]

Cloning, when it arrives in earnest, will be a pivotal pillar of gay rights, since it will mean that homosexual couples can bear their own children without a necessary dependence of the heterosexual community for their reproductive ability.
I know plenty of gays and lesbians and not a one of them got here by way of a homosexual parent. So I guess gays are always going to have some inherent reproductive dependence on the heterosexual community anyway. BTW, my SIL conceived her own child via artificial insemination and I don't recall her grousing about the sexual orientation of the people who ran the fertility clinic. But she's pretty cool, not prejudiced against people who aren't also lesbians.

Something you're overlooking is that a cloned child would still have only the genetic material of one of her parents, so your same-sex spouse's child would be no more blood related to you than if the child was conceived with donated sperm.

[James81]

I'm not fully qualified to say what the intermediary states would be.

Someone who IS qualified should tell us what would happen, THEN I'll decide.

Really, I don't know if its possible to go from where we are to bang presto without any intermediary stages. If we can, awesome.

If we can't...well, then we figure that out then.

I just don't think that we should throw the cloning idea in the bin when we can solve so many problems!

The problem is that you are talking about different stages of LIFE, not different stages of being "human."

A human is a human is a human. And a human is anything that falls under the category of "homo sapien."

[Perks]

I just don't think that we should throw the cloning idea in the bin when we can solve so many problems!

I'm sorry, what problems can cloning solve again?

[Zoombie]

Um...do you know how many people die because they are on organ transplant lists and there are just not enough organs to go around?

[Perks]

Um...do you know how many people die because they are on organ transplant lists and there are just not enough organs to go around?
So, we're back to cloning people for parts. And you'll do what about their rights?

[Zoombie]

I've already said I don't think a mindless bag of organs has rights.

[James81]

I've already said I don't think a mindless bag of organs has rights.

Hmmm...

Two words:

Terri Schiavo

Yeah, I went there.

[Zoombie]

Huge huge difference: She WAS human, she had a husband, a family, a LIFE that was taken from her by an accident.

These would be creatures cloned in a tube, with NO chance of ever being anything but what we need them to be: Bags of organs.

[Perks]

I've already said I don't think a mindless bag of organs has rights.
Honestly Zoombie, I'm not trying to be an ass. Here's what we've got:

-we are probably pretty close to being able to clone a human being, a regular, fully-functioning human being.

-we'd like to have brain-stem-only exact replicas to keep on life support at exorbitant costs (remember, people on life-support need round-the-clock nursing care. Wouldn't want your meat-bad to rot away from bedsores, would you?)

-but we can't even make the plain old way work just yet, so it's guaranteed that we'll have to do a lot of fiddling around to figure out how to do that

-that will produce tragedies of defective people (unless you somehow think we'll get it right on the first try)

-and what do we do with them? Apologize? Kill them? Genetically rehabilitate them?

There are serious, non-religious ethical dilemmas to using parts from clones.

[James81]

Huge huge difference: She WAS human, she had a husband, a family, a LIFE that was taken from her by an accident.

These would be creatures cloned in a tube, with NO chance of ever being anything but what we need them to be: Bags of organs.

This is how Webster's dictionary defines "Humans"


Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
Date: circa 1533
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man ; broadly : hominid
— hu·man·like \-mən-ˌlīk\ adjective


A bipedal, primate mammal.

It says nothing about life, family, friends, etc.

Like I said, a human is a human is a human. I'm talking semantics here, btw. I'm not attacking your arguement.

But you need to stop calling them "bags of flesh" because they are no more or less human than you are, and need to start recognizing that your arguement is hinging on the degree of "life" and what rights we assign to those degrees of life.

[Bird of Prey]

I have read the thread. THe arguments AGAINST cloning apply to organ transplants and some fertilization practices that are in use. In short, the arguments aren't valid.

In terms of cloning people for nefarious purposes. It is too cost prohibitive compared to having children the old fashioned way.

The cloning for 'spare parts' is a valid argument. But again, that was the EXACT same argument against organ transplant, namely you would set up factories in poor countries, cranking out children for the express purpose of cutting them up for organs/spare parts.

With cloning, it would be fairly simple to genetically alter the clone so that the brain is extremely primitive, no real consciousness, just enough brainstem to grow the required organs.

What I will grant is that we need to put together a consortium to come up with ethical guidelines for cloning.

Off the top of my head, I would have two categories of clones.

1st category: Complete clones (normal human)
complete clones would have all human rights

2nd category: Incomplete clones (subhuman organ donors)
Incomplete clones would have no rights or sentience

In a nutshell, for me, if the clone is sentient or has a degree of sentience, than it should have all human rights. But if it is not sentient than it is safe to use for medical treatments.

This may be a cold hearted way of looking at it, but I think it is fair. Or put another way, if your loved one is dying and you can save their life through cloning, would you do it?

I think most people answering no envision a scenario where it is a full human being that is 'killed'.

I envision a scenario where the subhuman clone is little more than a liver or a heart or a body that has no brain/sentience whatsoever.

Mel...

Actually, Mel, we are already separating out organs on a basic level, meaning a skin cell can be altered to grow a liver. . .and just a liver. Doesn't need the whole being.

[Zoombie]

I don't know, Perks.

I'm not a geneticist, I don't know if its possible to get it right off the first bat.

But I still say...its worth investigating more, and its better to try something and fail than to never try and stagnate.

And James, I'm sorry, but MY personal definition of human is NOT just a bipedal animal and the creatures I'm talking about ARE just bags of flesh and organs.

[Perks]

From what I know of the discussions I've had with doctors, this discussion is ridiculous anyway. No one in the scientific community is admitting to wanting clones for part-farming. Primarily because it's unethical.

[Perks]

I don't know, Perks.

I'm not a geneticist, I don't know if its possible to get it right off the first bat.

But I still say...its worth investigating more, and its better to try something and fail than to never try and stagnate.

Then I have to say that I'm very, very glad you're not a geneticist. 'Trying' at the cost of great suffering is unethical.

[James81]

And James, I'm sorry, but MY personal definition of human is NOT just a bipedal animal and the creatures I'm talking about ARE just bags of flesh and organs.

Fair enough. Just know that your definition is delusional and wrong. Everybody has their own definition for everything anymore. It's maddening. We are writers, don't you think we, of all people, should cling to the dictionary definition and select our words more carefully?

(I'm bad for this too, btw, but I don't try to intentionally redefine words to fit my beliefs. Most of the time I scramble to find the correct words to define my beliefs)

[Zoombie]

Its still a discussion that we should have.

And, really, the growing fleshbags is a less than ideal solution.

I'd really prefer to just...clone organs independently without all the extraneous junk around them.

[Zoombie]

Fair enough. Just know that your definition is delusional and wrong. Everybody has their own definition for everything anymore. It's maddening. We are writers, don't you think we, of all people, should cling to the dictionary definition and select our words more carefully?

(I'm bad for this too, btw, but I don't try to intentionally redefine words to fit my beliefs. Most of the time I scramble to find the correct words to define my beliefs)

All right, I'm delusional when I say that humanity is more than just our organs and our DNA.

I get cha.

[Perks]

And, really, the growing fleshbags is a less than ideal solution.

If by 'not ideal' you mean impractical and immoral, I'm right there with you.

[Bird of Prey]

Holy shit. Stop the presses. I 100% agree with James81.

If you make people, they're people, in full rights. You cannot use them for body farms anymore than I could currently force a person with a good HLA tissue-type match into a cold storage coma for my eventual use when one of my systems konks out on me.

Yup. I agree. But making compatible organs doesn't involve making a whole person.


I recently read of cloning stem cells, and that could make sense for growing bio-identical organs and tissues for transplants. And it wouldn't be the lab-creation of a caste of prisoners.


Yup. Exactly.



In this case, like I said upthread, witnessing the combination of a mutually-selected pairing is part of the life-process in human beings. We like seeing the new, independent person that's made. It doesn't have to be important, although I think that William's points about immunities and evolution are valid. It's what we do.


Well, you like to see the new independent person made. Personally I don't need "new" but then I'm more comfortable with the devil I know. . . .

[Zoombie]

Really, though, I should never have opened my mouth. I don't know the REAL facts...I just know supposition, ideas, and some random bits of knowledge that I picked up from reading too much sci-fi.

[James81]

All right, I'm delusional when I say that humanity is more than just our organs and our DNA.

I get cha.

You are being delusional when you say that. Cliche definitions of humanity agree with you, but a good, cold, hard, leafy dictionary says you are wrong and that perhaps you should select a different word than try to redefine a word that isn't meant to encompass all the crap that we try to throw into it for dramatic purposes.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I'm sorry, what problems can cloning solve again?

1. Makes it easier for people to indulge in the douchbaggery of having a child exactly like themselves.

2. Makes it easier for the grieving to replace a love one, thereby devaluing all existing human life (who cares if I murder you, your loved ones can just grow another one!)

2. Provides everyone with their own juicy harvest of spare parts.

[Perks]

1. Makes it easier for people to indulge in the douchbaggery of having a child exactly like themselves.

2. Makes it easier for the grieving to replace a love one, thereby devaluing all existing human life (who cares if I murder you, your loved ones can just grow another one!)

2. Provides everyone with their own juicy harvest of spare parts.I love it when you talk dirty.

[dgiharris]

I want somebody to tell me why they think it's easy to grow a body with out a brain, or one with reduced brain function.

With some sort of citation from something other than sci-fi would be helpful, too.

Logically, this shouldn't be so difficult.

The human Genome project is mapping out the entire spectrum of human DNA.

It should be fairly straightforward to identify the markers responsible for brain growth and then just omit those markers.

If we can not do it at the genetic level (which we should be able to), then we can use chemicals during pregnacy to limit brain growth and this is well within our abilities, hell millions do it unintentionally with drugs / alcohol. In short, we have this ability. Hell, seems silly that we would be able to clone but then 'not' have the ability to alter the clone don't you think?

In terms of what makes something human. My definition is sentience. If it cannot think or has no self awareness, than it is not sentient and if it is not sentient it should not have rights and will not even 'miss' its own existence.

The benefits are just TOO huge.

92,000 per YEAR are waiting for organs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/opinion/15satel.html

The way I see this, if it is my daughter, brother, wife, etc. dying and there is a way to save them (cloning an organ) then I would want to do it. It would be 'our' genetic material and we would make sure it is not sentient so given those conditions I don't see what the problem is.

Mel...

[James81]

1. Makes it easier for people to indulge in the douchbaggery of having a child exactly like themselves.

2. Makes it easier for the grieving to replace a love one, thereby devaluing all existing human life (who cares if I murder you, your loved ones can just grow another one!)

2. Provides everyone with their own juicy harvest of spare parts.

This reminds me of when Buzz was making a list of reasons why Kevin being home alone wasn't a big deal...

a. blah blah

2. blah blah

c. blah blah

[Perks]

Well, you like to see the new independent person made. Personally I don't need "new" but then I'm more comfortable with the devil I know. . . .That could be a difference.

I really like my husband. He's smart and kind and mellow. And he's pretty good-looking too. Didn't mind throwing him into the mix one bit.

I'm entirely honest when I say that it would be quite creepy knowing that the baby in my arms is genetically identical to me. It would diminish the enjoyment of the rest of my life trying to noodle out why she turned out better, worse, or just differently than me.

[Rarri]

I don't consider an unthinking bag of flesh and organs human.

I don't think just cause someone shares my DNA, they're human.

Heck, I don't think some humans are human...

Zoombie, for what it's worth, what about babies (that usually don't survive pregnancy or birth, but that aside) that develop without a brain (like anencephaly)? We would consider them human, they could have a funeral, but by your logic, they would be good subjects for organ harvesting.

That isn't meant to be an attack, but just trying to throw a different perspective into the idea.

[Zoombie]

Logically, this shouldn't be so difficult.

The human Genome project is mapping out the entire spectrum of human DNA.

It should be fairly straightforward to identify the markers responsible for brain growth and then just omit those markers.

If we can not do it at the genetic level (which we should be able to), then we can use chemicals during pregnacy to limit brain growth and this is well within our abilities, hell millions do it unintentionally with drugs / alcohol. In short, we have this ability. Hell, seems silly that we would be able to clone but then 'not' have the ability to alter the clone don't you think?

In terms of what makes something human. My definition is sentience. If it cannot think or has no self awareness, than it is not sentient and if it is not sentient it should not have rights and will not even 'miss' its own existence.

The benefits are just TOO huge.

92,000 per YEAR are waiting for organs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/opinion/15satel.html

The way I see this, if it is my daughter, brother, wife, etc. dying and there is a way to save them (cloning an organ) then I would want to do it. It would be 'our' genetic material and we would make sure it is not sentient so given those conditions I don't see what the problem is.

Mel...

See!

That's why I should have stayed shut up, so someone who actually knows what he's talking about can argue for me...

I'm bad at this arguing thing...

[Cranky]

I'm with BoP on this one, as far as cloning individual organs, and not an entire person for organ harvesting. I think that would save a lot of lives, reduce the need for anti-rejection drugs for transplant reciepients and all of that.

Cloning an actual human being, though, I find unbearably creepy. A clone is not going to be an exact replica, and to pretend that it is is just wrong, imo. IMO. I want to emphasize that part heavily.

[Perks]

Logically, this shouldn't be so difficult.

The human Genome project is mapping out the entire spectrum of human DNA.

It should be fairly straightforward to identify the markers responsible for brain growth and then just omit those markers.

If we can not do it at the genetic level (which we should be able to), then we can use chemicals during pregnacy to limit brain growth and this is well within our abilities, hell millions do it unintentionally with drugs / alcohol.

Mel, unless you're a geneticist, or at least a doctor, I'm gonna need more than your say so that it's gonna be relatively easy.

They can't even get the whole embryos to take. It's not easy and I've never read a single line in any reputable article on cloning that makes it sound so.

Now, if it were 'easy' to turn off these markers, it would make a hella lot more sense to turn off the markers that make us prone to disease, than to figure out how to turn off brain development in embryos.

They already know they can grow the individual organs. They've done it and I linked to it upthread.

[Perks]

I'm with BoP on this one, as far as cloning individual organs, and not an entire person for organ harvesting. I think that would save a lot of lives, reduce the need for anti-rejection drugs for transplant reciepients and all of that.

Cloning an actual human being, though, I find unbearably creepy. A clone is not going to be an exact replica, and to pretend that it is is just wrong, imo. IMO. I want to emphasize that part heavily.In the interest of complete disclosure, BoP is very much in favor of cloning whole people. Just not for spare parts.

[Bird of Prey]

1. Makes it easier for people to indulge in the douchbaggery of having a child exactly like themselves.

2. Makes it easier for the grieving to replace a love one, thereby devaluing all existing human life (who cares if I murder you, your loved ones can just grow another one!)

2. Provides everyone with their own juicy harvest of spare parts.


I don't think it devalues human life at all. Quite the contrary. I think it would enhance the value of human life and life in general. There are several reasons for this, the primary being that we are I believe fundamentally self-absorbed, and it's natural. I can't help but smile when people tell me how much they do for their children or how much they love their children, as if that somehow makes them more noble. Well, they love their children because they are genetic derivatives. They also love their arms. So, I maintain that a child that is a full copy as opposed to a half is going to be valued even more by the parent and therefore, by society, which, as we know, is made up of parents.

And I'm sure now we get to the part about how it takes two parents. . . . Well, the divorce rate in the US is indicating that it's not necessarily so, and no only that, but a goodly amount of those divorced parents that love those kids so much, are still willing to split households and do parenting part-time.

[WriteKnight]

I think the ability to clone AN organ, is a great idea. I also think, if we're talking about 'cost effectiveness' - then focussing on growing a single organ or tissue for transplant purposes, is far more efficient and cost effective a goal to be researching for. Rather than grow up whole human bodies on the chance a part might be needed (all ethical concerns aside) it just seems cheaper to take a cell and grow up a single 'part' that might be needed.

Heart, kidney, replacement nerves... whatever. Less maintenance, less 'material' to grow and nuture. We're already growing skin grafts - so I think the science and 'maintenance' models for similar programs would already be in place.

Hey, if they could grow a replacement part, or a replacement 'patch' from my own tissues??? Absolutely! THAT'S where I think the value of cloning research lies.

[Cranky]

In the interest of complete disclosure, BoP is very much in favor of cloning whole people. Just not for spare parts.

Hence my caveat about individual organs. :)

[Perks]

The benefits are just TOO huge.

92,000 per YEAR are waiting for organs.

And can you imagine what it would cost to keep entire crops of contingency clones alive and healthy enough to be of any use?

How much do you think it costs to keep a person in, say, a coma alive? I found one reference (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1198538) that says Medicaid will reimburse up to $150 a day, but that it will often cost more.

So, if you had one of these things grow to maturity, and your own liver failed you at, say, age 56, your clone would have cost someone about $3,066,000. And that doesn't include the cost of cloning it and getting it 'birthed' in the first place.

It's a ludicrous solution.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I don't think it devalues human life at all. Quite the contrary. I think it would enhance the value of human life and life in general. There are several reasons for this, the primary being that we are I believe fundamentally self-absorbed, and it's natural. I can't help but smile when people tell me how much they do for their children or how much they love their children, as if that somehow makes them more noble. Well, they love their children because they are genetic derivatives. They also love their arms. So, I maintain that a child that is a full copy as opposed to a half is going to be valued even more by the parent and therefore, by society, which, as we know, is made up of parents.Does this mean you believe adoptive parents and step-parents love and value their children less, because they aren't genetically related? Or that parents love their children who look like them more than they love their children who look like other relatives or in-laws?

You must know some really shallow parents.

The reality is, anything that's easily replaced is valued less. The easier we make it to replace individuals, the less value the individual will have.

Furthermore, I don't love my arms because they're mine genetically; I love them because they make it possible for me to function easily.



ETA: Did you add this? I didn't see it the first time.

And I'm sure now we get to the part about how it takes two parents. . . . Well, the divorce rate in the US is indicating that it's not necessarily so, and no only that, but a goodly amount of those divorced parents that love those kids so much, are still willing to split households and do parenting part-time.Just think! Parents won't have to split custody anymore. They can just have the original kids cloned, then abandon them to the other parent. What a perfect solution to protracted custody battles. /sarcasm

[Perks]

I don't think it devalues human life at all. Quite the contrary. I think it would enhance the value of human life and life in general. There are several reasons for this, the primary being that we are I believe fundamentally self-absorbed, and it's natural. I can't help but smile when people tell me how much they do for their children or how much they love their children, as if that somehow makes them more noble. Well, they love their children because they are genetic derivatives. They also love their arms. So, I maintain that a child that is a full copy as opposed to a half is going to be valued even more by the parent and therefore, by society, which, as we know, is made up of parents.

Wow. I just completely disagree with this. But I'm not flipping out, so I'm good-Perks today. See?

My affection for my children in no way ennobles me, but I've seen what you're talking about. I think this is more an issue of people wanting to feel good about their respectability than of any overt of subliminal recognition of self in their progeny.

Most people are very keenly aware of how very different and separate their children are from them, and most people don't mind it.

You won't get the two-parent clamor from me. I think it's nice. I think three parents might be even handier. Scheduling is a bitch. But at least one will do. If it's a good one.

[dgiharris]

And can you imagine what it would cost to keep entire crops of contingency clones alive and healthy enough to be of any use?

How much do you think it costs to keep a person in, say, a coma alive? I found one reference (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1198538) that says Medicaid will reimburse up to $150 a day, but that it will often cost more.

So, if you had one of these things grow to maturity, and your own liver failed you at, say, age 56, your clone would have cost someone about $3,066,000. And that doesn't include the cost of cloning it and getting it 'birthed' in the first place.

It's a ludicrous solution.

Sorry, we have a problem with semantics. When I say cloning, I mean either or. Cloning an organ, cloning a person, same semantic as far as I'm concerned.

In terms of cloning an entire person and just having them 'sit' around waiting to be used. You are right, that is not very cost effective. The better way to go is to just clone an organ. However, there may be instances where it is cost effective to just clone the entire person minus the brain (illnesses that ravage the entire body).

In terms of me being a geneticist and providing a link detailing our ability to alter clones.

http://books.google.com/books?id=aVHCDTWyc74C&pg=PA504&lpg=PA504&dq=techniques+for+altering+dna&source=bl&ots=D_aA_EiB9H&sig=YHe12HvODH3Z0pslQJYIfXJKkcA&hl=en&ei=Y4jvSceREIWQtAOE45HyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

Recombinant DNA technology is a set of molecular techniques for locating, isolating, altering, and studying DNA segments. The term recombinant is used

In short, we have the ability to alter DNA.

Mel...

[Bird of Prey]

Does this mean you believe adoptive parents and step-parents love and value their children less, because they aren't genetically related? Or that parents love their children who look like them more than they love their children who look like other relatives or in-laws?

You must know some really shallow parents.

The reality is, anything that's easily replaced is valued less. The easier we make it to replace individuals, the less value the individual will have.

Furthermore, I don't love my arms because they're mine genetically; I love them because they make it possible for me to function easily.



ETA: Did you add this? I didn't see it the first time.

Just think! Parents won't have to split custody anymore. They can just have the original kids cloned, then abandon them to the other parent. What a perfect solution to protracted custody battles. /sarcasm

I think it's very easy to replace any kid today, much easier than it is to have a kid. It's called adoption. And yet kids languish in foster homes right into adulthood and aren't adopted. Can you tell me why?

And with regard to your other point: the parents. . . .I'm not sure marriage is for everybody. And I suspect that we're not monogomous - men or women - by nature, although it works for some. Monogamy is a western societal code that was probably instituted for raising young. I think that with the advancement of women's rights, specifically financial independence, it has lost a great deal of social importance. If people started having their own children in every sense of the word, marriage might actually work better. If you love your spouse, you're probably more inclined to love his/her cloned kid, rather than the kid dragged in from a previous marriage that looks and acts "just like the ex. . . ."

[Perks]

Sorry, we have a problem with semantics. When I say cloning, I mean either or. Cloning an organ, cloning a person, same semantic as far as I'm concerned.


Oh yeah, then. Our only problem is that I see a big difference between the two. I think being able to grow individual organs, especially in the way that it was shown to work recently in Spain, is wonderful technology. Really exciting. So no argument from me there - at all.

And yes, I know we have some present capability to alter DNA, but that's a cool link anyway.

[benbradley]

Identical twins aren't really clones. They're DNA is practically identical (there can be some difference in 'expressed' genetic traits - we still have much to learn about how that all works) but they are still the result of combined DNA from two parents.

A clone would be a replication of the DNA structure from only one person. Slight, but important difference.
I don't see that. Paternal twins are basically "clones" of each other. Both twins have identical DNA just as a parent/clone pair have identical DNA (and yes the genes will get expressed differently due to differences in diet and such). You can think of both the parent and the clone as receiving the combined DNA from the parent's parents (I'm carefully punctuating that), just as twins get combined DNA from THEIR parents. It's just like twins, only one of the twins is born many years after the other.

But again, the differences are many, and like twins, the result will be two people who look identical (or almost so) but that's where the similarity may end. The differences (in personality and "personhood") between the parent and clone are bound to be even greater than between twins. Not only do (most) twins grow up in near-identical environments, they grow up in the same culture. A clone grows up both in a different family and a later culture. So unless one ONLY wants to clone one's physical body and looks, cloning just won't work to make a "clone" (as in duplicate) of someone.

[Contemplative]

People here assuming that trying to produce brainless human clones would lead to mistakes with humans are failing to account for sequential testing.

First we would try to produce gene-manipulated tapeworms. Then tapeworms without scolexes. Then starfish without nerve rings. Then insects without brains, then cattle, then dogs, and probably finally chimpanzees. And only after we've vivisected a whole lot of brainless chimps and results have been peer-reviewed at hundreds of university medical centers all across the world and Congresses and Politburos have carefully scrutinized the results would we start producing humans without brains for organ-harvesting purposes. And we would be very very careful to get it right when doing so, because we'd know that there's lots of people with outlooks like Perks running activist groups waiting to alert the media if we fuck up the bioethics in any way.

That's how I think it's likely to play out in practice.

I'm not blindly in favor of all possible uses of cloning. Haskins raised an incredibly good point about disease and genetic homogenity, which is a primary reason why I think, as a good rule, a healthy society should have as many people created by mixing two peoples' DNA (whether through natural reproduction, IVF, a natural conception brought to term in a cloned womb or even, when our gene-manipulating technology improves, cloning based on hybridizing the DNA of two people) as traditional clones.

Regarding homosexuality and cloning, the IVF solution mentioned for lesbians a bit back in this thread doesn't work so great for gay men.

Cloning for "spare parts" would be incredibly resource-intensive and inevitably classist is we assume that we need one clone for every person. But if a hospital maintaining a bank of, say, 200 clones can serve the organ needs of a large city with a million or more people in a compatible manner, it could be cost effective and available for everyone given some socialized health system, or even a charitable private one.

Cloning could also help to amelorate and deconstruct racism, in the sense that a couple of one or two races could request a child of a completely different race. This would very quickly serve to demolish the existing association between visible race traits and culture.

I think making a sapient clone to try to "recreate" a person (or "replicate" themselves) is tremendously unethical, and tantamount to child abuse if the people desiring the replica are allowed to raise the resulting clone -- not so much because of the cloning itself, but because of what it implies about how they'll treat the child afterward. But I don't think this would happen much in practice, because by the time we get the technology and get it legal, understanding of it will have permeated the media so that everyone but the hopelessly ignorant understand that it isn't a way to "copy people", and isn't a threat to identity or a means of reincarnation.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I think it's very easy to replace any kid today, much easier than it is to have a kid. It's called adoption. And yet kids languish in foster homes right into adulthood and aren't adopted. Can you tell me why? Only a fraction of foster care children are even available for adoption. 59% will be returned to their birth parents. 16% WILL be adopted, usually by a foster parent or relative and another 10% will be cared for by a relative. Only 7% will remain in foster care until emancipation, and that statistic does not reveal how old they were when they arrived. Reference. (http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html)

ETA: About 60% of foster kids are in need of "special services" for physical and psychological problems, which means not just anyone should be running out and adopting them. If you're not emotionally and financially equipped to meet their special needs you'll be doing them no favors by adopting them.

Your use of the word "languish" is an insult to the legions of dedicated families who open their homes and hearts to children in need of foster care.

And with regard to your other point: the parents. . . .I'm not sure marriage is for everybody. And I suspect that we're not monogomous - men or women - by nature, although it works for some. Monogamy is a western societal code that was probably instituted for raising young. I think that with the advancement of women's rights, specifically financial independence, it has lost a great deal of social importance. If people started having their own children in every sense of the word, marriage might actually work better. If you love your spouse, you're probably more inclined to love his/her cloned kid, rather than the kid dragged in from a previous marriage that looks and acts "just like the ex. . . ."I'm not sure what "point" of mine you're referring to. I never attempted to make an argument about the viability of monogamy. At any rate, an attempt to "improve" marriage by cloning children is just, well, assanine.

[Perks]

Cloning for "spare parts" would be incredibly resource-intensive and inevitably classist is we assume that we need one clone for every person. But if a hospital maintaining a bank of, say, 200 clones can serve the organ needs of a large city with a million or more people in a compatible manner, it could be cost effective and available for everyone given some socialized health system, or even a charitable private one.

Are you thinking there'd be a way to overcome tissue-typing issues with 'generic' clones? Because the biggest problems with organ shortages are a) not enough donors and b) HLA types not matching at the moment of crisis.

[bettielee]

I'm gonna need another Mariano Rivera ASAP.

Please hurry.

You monster... I saw what he did to the A's today. Right there - why cloning should be banned!!

But seriously, I don't understand the parents wanting to clone a dead child. You aren't getting your child back - that child is gone. It's like when people lose a dog or cat and can't bother to give it a new name - just call if rover II or fluffy III. It's an insult to the human condition to suggest we can be copied and reproduced like a document.

I'm all for stem cells, I'm all for cloning to replace organs or tissue (which the legitimate doctors want to find a way to do WITHOUT creating a living, breathing being to be a spare parts store) but the thing with the children kills me. And I am the least maternal woman on the planet.

[Delhomeboy]

I don't think it devalues human life at all. Quite the contrary. I think it would enhance the value of human life and life in general. There are several reasons for this, the primary being that we are I believe fundamentally self-absorbed, and it's natural. I can't help but smile when people tell me how much they do for their children or how much they love their children, as if that somehow makes them more noble. Well, they love their children because they are genetic derivatives. They also love their arms. So, I maintain that a child that is a full copy as opposed to a half is going to be valued even more by the parent and therefore, by society, which, as we know, is made up of parents.


Not gonna lie, Bird of Prey. This is a disturbing post. I'm sure most parents would give up their arms if it meant their kids safety, security and happiness. those that wouldn't don't need to be parents.

And it doesn't make them more noble, but the way you talk, you sound like you don't believe them when they say they love their children. Do you not?

[Devil Ledbetter]

Regarding homosexuality and cloning, the IVF solution mentioned for lesbians a bit back in this thread doesn't work so great for gay men.
And it's unfair that they can't gestate and experience the wonders of labor and breastfeeding too. Sometimes, who we are* means we don't get to have certain life experiences. I lack the genes that would give me the long legs and facial structure of a supermodel and therefore I don't get to have that career. Oh, poor me. I wasn't born to have a great deal of athletic prowess, therefore I don't get to be an Olympian no matter how hard I might try. I wasn't born male which means I never get to experience the joys of sex from the male perspective, or the freedom from menstruation (unless I take massive amounts of male hormones which may not be good for me). I'm not black so I'll never have the option of growing a glorious afro even though frankly I'd absolutely love one.

Uh, so what? Since when does everyone have a right to experience anything and everything they wish regardless of who they are? Does a gay man wanting to have a genetically related kid and also not wanting to have a woman involved in that process in any way shape or form really make it okay to produce a human clone? But I waaaaaaaaaaant it really doesn't justify anything.






*and note I am NOT saying "who we choose to be."

[Bird of Prey]

Only a fraction of foster care children are even available for adoption. 59% will be returned to their birth parents. 16% WILL be adopted, usually by a foster parent or relative and another 10% will be cared for by a relative. Only 7% will remain in foster care until emancipation, and that statistic does not reveal how old they were when they arrived. Reference. (http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html)

ETA: About 60% of foster kids are in need of "special services" for physical and psychological problems, which means not just anyone should be running out and adopting them. If you're not emotionally and financially equipped to meet their special needs you'll be doing them no favors by adopting them.

Your use of the word "languish" is an insult to the legions of dedicated families who open their homes and hearts to children in need of foster care.

Sorry for that but I have known and know - now adults - children that were never adopted, and their foster homes were no week in Paris.


I'm not sure what "point" of mine you're referring to. I never attempted to make an argument about the viability of monogamy. At any rate, an attempt to "improve" marriage by cloning children is just, well, assanine

In your opinion. And it's possible that it could improve marriage - asinine or not, but I'm not attempting to do that. Just throwing it out as a viable possibility.

[Bird of Prey]

Not gonna lie, Bird of Prey. This is a disturbing post. I'm sure most parents would give up their arms if it meant their kids safety, security and happiness. those that wouldn't don't need to be parents.

And it doesn't make them more noble, but the way you talk, you sound like you don't believe them when they say they love their children. Do you not?

Of course they love their children. I just think that that love is born of instinct, much the same way as a mare loves a foal, a lioness her cubs. I respect it and I'm appreciative of it, but I think there's a greater demonstration of love, a truer demonstration of it, that's not born of instinct.

[Perks]

...but I think there's a greater demonstration of love, a truer demonstration of it, that's not born of instinct.

And it's necessarily absent from any relationship with an instinctual obligation or advantage?

Will you elaborate?

[Bird of Prey]

So unless one ONLY wants to clone one's physical body and looks, cloning just won't work to make a "clone" (as in duplicate) of someone.

Precisely. And that's the point. The child will not be a duplicate of the parent, but as the parent is likely to understand the cloned child's predispositions, the parent is likely to nurture the child in a way the child needs, so that ultimately, the child can reach his/her full potential. But yes, the child would very much be his/her own person.

[Bird of Prey]

And it's necessarily absent from any relationship with an instinctual obligation or advantage?

Will you elaborate?

I think most people who have made painful and substantial sacrifices for those that they don't know or owe nothing to have transcended basic instincts and thus have experienced actual love: love of life, love of mankind, love of beauty, perhaps love of nature but love on a very different, highly cerebral plane, and a love that's markedly different than instinctual ardor.

[Perks]

Precisely. And that's the point. The child will not be a duplicate of the parent, but as the parent is likely to understand the cloned child's predispositions, the parent is likely to nuture the child in a way the child needs, so that ultimately, the child can reach his/her full potential. But yes, the child would very much be his/her own person.

I really don't think so. Since there's no consensus on how the balance of nature/nurture influence is divided, I would propose that the relationship you describe would be more burdened with headfuckery than regular parent/child relations. On both ends.

The child would be constantly subjected to pressures to conform to what the donor/parent 'knows' of him, or always defending his positions and opinions that fall outside the lines of genetic certainty. And the donor/parent would swing between overconfidence and despair at not 'knowing' when if feels like they should do. 'What Would I Have Done' is a very shortsighted parenting motto.

Good parenting involves watching, listening, discussing, and asserting parental experience over foolishness. We don't live in our children's heads. Nor should we. For their own protection, and for ours.

[Bird of Prey]

I really don't think so. Since there's no consensus on how the balance of nature/nurture influence is divided, I would propose that the relationship you describe would be more burdened with headfuckery than regular parent/child relations. On both ends.

The child would be constantly subjected to pressures to conform to what the donor/parent 'knows' of him, or always defending his positions and opinions that fall outside the lines of genetic certainty. And the donor/parent would swing between overconfidence and despair at not 'knowing' when if feels like they should do. 'What Would I Have Done' is a very shortsighted parenting motto.

Good parenting involves watching, listening, discussing, and asserting parental experience over foolishness. We don't live in our children's heads. Nor should we. For their own protection, and for ours.

I simply don't believe that, Perks. Not at all. I think a cloned child would get exactly the same treatment as any other child that's adored by a thinking parent. I believe you're projecting an extreme that has no basis.

[Perks]

Not at all. I think a cloned child would get exactly the same treatment as any other child that's adored by a thinking parent.
No, you said that a clone child would get better nurturing because the parent would 'know' them from a more intimate perspective.

If the parenting process is altered at all from having a clone for a pet, which I think it would be, I believe it would be a negative influence.

I don't think I'm alone as a parent to say that children will confound you when they do things contrary to your express directions, your implied wishes, and just plain common sense. Sometimes your only refuge as a parent is to remember that, hey, she's not me.

It is not only a blessing that this be true, it's a wonderful tool for personal growth on the parents' part, a chance to learn from another, unique, person.

[Delhomeboy]

I think most people who have made painful and substantial sacrifices for those that they don't know or owe nothing to have transcended basic instincts and thus have experienced actual love: love of life, love of mankind, love of beauty, perhaps love of nature but love on a very different, highly cerebral plane, and a love that's markedly different than instinctual ardor.

But what about parents who don't love their children? Love is not instinctual. Maybe at first there's a feeling of amazement or "faux-love", or ardor if you wish, but not after the first month or so.

Raising a child requires the exact same sacrifices you're talking about here. Love of life, love of mankind, love of nature are all wrapped up in true love of a child.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

THe same thing was said about organ transplants and some fertilization treatments. Why should it be outlawed? Can you give me one non-religious argument for outlawing it.


Since, from reading the rest of your screed, you've already made up your mind, I won't waste my typing on you, it would be futile.

[William Haskins]

one of the additional benefits of having cloned children is that they will get to die along with you if you're stricken by a fatal communicable disease.

a better bonding moment, i can't imagine.

[Bird of Prey]

No, you said that a clone child would get better nurturing because the parent would 'know' them from a more intimate perspective.

If the parenting process is altered at all from having a clone for a pet, which I think it would be, I believe it would be a negative influence.

I don't think I'm alone as a parent to say that children will confound you when they do things contrary to your express directions, your implied wishes, and just plain common sense. Sometimes your only refuge as a parent is to remember that, hey, she's not me.

It is not only a blessing that this be true, it's a wonderful tool for personal growth on the parents' part, a chance to learn from another, unique, person.

A cloned child is likely to get better nurturing, yes - not psycho nurturing. There's no reason to believe what you're suggesting. I just flat out disagree with you, Perks. I think you're projecting an extreme. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Bird of Prey]

one of the additional benefits of having cloned children is that they will get to die along with you if you're stricken by a fatal communicable disease.

a better bonding moment, i can't imagine.

Can you name a fatal communicable disease that would be specific to a cloned child versus a noncloned child?

[William Haskins]

i am saying if a flu pandemic hit and your immune system was ill-equipped to survive it, the lil' BoPper would be as dead as fried chicken, whereas a child born of breeding has a chance at an integrated and perhaps more robust immune system.

[Zoombie]

Since, from reading the rest of your screed, you've already made up your mind, I won't waste my typing on you, it would be futile.

I haven't made up my mind! Type at me, please, I want to hear your side.

[princessvessna]

A cloned child is likely to get better nurturing, yes - not psycho nurturing. There's no reason to believe what you're suggesting. I just flat out disagree with you, Perks. I think you're projecting an extreme. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

What if the original child was kind, gentle, interested in bugs, a singer, etc etc etc....and the new child wasn't? You don't think that at least some parents would try way too hard to fit the clone child into the mold of the child they knew and loved?

[Bird of Prey]

But what about parents who don't love their children? Love is not instinctual. Maybe at first there's a feeling of amazement or "faux-love", or ardor if you wish, but not after the first month or so.



We'll just have to disagree on that. The bond between parent and child is largely instinctual, and yes, it's love. I think parents that don't "love" their children, meaning bond with them, are rare.

[Bird of Prey]

What if the original child was kind, gentle, interested in bugs, a singer, etc etc etc....and the new child wasn't? You don't think that at least some parents would try way too hard to fit the clone child into the mold of the child they knew and loved?

I don't think you're giving the parent enough credit.

[Bird of Prey]

i am saying if a flu pandemic hit and your immune system was ill-equipped to survive it, the lil' BoPper would be as dead as fried chicken, whereas a child born of breeding has a chance at an integrated and perhaps more robust immune system.

Well, that's not very likely. First of all, a fatal flu is a real rarity, and although I know you're citing a possibility as an example, I think it's more likely that a cloned child would enjoy better health by virtue of understanding the parent's strengths and weaknesses. Obviously, a person would have to think long and hard about cloning if -for example - he/she knew of a genetic deficiency. But I don't think the average person would take advantage of cloning knowing of a serious defect. People are rarely that stupid nor THAT selfish, and my guess is that there would be a DNA "screening" prior to cloning.

[princessvessna]

I don't think you're giving the parent enough credit.

But if they loved kids overall, why do they have to have the specific kid back? Why not have a new kid the old fashioned way? I guess I'm just against the idea of having cloned kids to replace a lost child.

[Bird of Prey]

But if they loved kids overall, why do they have to have the specific kid back? Why not have a new kid the old fashioned way? I guess I'm just against the idea of having cloned kids to replace a lost child.
Oh. I didn't know you were talking about the lost kid, but O.K. Let's talk about that.

I can't think of a better way to honor, to cherish somebody than re-establishing their DNA. That child's life may be taken, but his/her genetic attributes are not wasted. And I suppose it depends on your belief about spirit or soul. I don't think any "soul" can be replicated. The soul - the essence - is unique, beyond what mankind can capture. Although, the cloned baby will have most of the predispositions of what came before, it will forge a new personality - a new essence - regardless. In the mean time, the grieving parents have both a new baby and the relief or comfort of knowing that the other child hasn't entirely been left behind. I don't know what's wrong with that, but perhaps you can tell me.

[Perks]

A cloned child is likely to get better nurturing, yes - not psycho nurturing. There's no reason to believe what you're suggesting. I just flat out disagree with you, Perks. I think you're projecting an extreme. We'll just have to agree to disagree.I'm fine with that, because there's every bit as much reason to believe what I'm suggesting as what you're suggesting.

[Perks]

I think it's more likely that a cloned child would enjoy better health by virtue of understanding the parent's strengths and weaknesses.

Understanding your parents' limitations makes you physically healthier? And I'm the one making great 'psycho' leaps?

[Bird of Prey]

I'm fine with that, because there's every bit as much reason to believe what I'm suggesting as what you're suggesting.

No there isn't. That's like me suggesting that all two parent male/female families run a higher risk of incest. Well I suppose that's possible but it's ludicrous. Likewise, just because a child is cloned, doesn't make the parent immediately suspect of neurotic smothering or excessive frustration.

[Bird of Prey]

Understanding your parents' limitations makes you physically healthier? And I'm the one making great 'psycho' leaps?

Yes, it's as clear as day. How can you not get that? We know that NOW. If both your parents are allergic to peanut butter, well, if you have trouble breathing after eating a jar of Skippy, at least you can point a pretty accurate finger at why.

[Perks]

No there isn't. That's like me suggesting that all two parent male/female families run a higher risk of incest. Well I suppose that's possible but it's ludicrous. Likewise, just because a child is cloned, doesn't make the parent immediately suspect of neurotic smothering or excessive frustration.All parents have a buffet of potential mistakes laid out for them at the arrival of their spawn. What you're suggesting needlessly adds to selection.

But, at any rate, my reach is at least based on some model of normal human foibles. Your fantasy seems to be spun from pure hallucinogenic air.

[Perks]

Yes, it's as clear as day. How can you not get that? We know that NOW. If both your parents are allergic to peanut butter, well, if you have trouble breathing after eating a jar of Skippy, at least you can point a pretty accurate finger at why.

Okay, when you said 'strengths and weakness', I didn't read that as physical characteristics, as immunities and medical conditions.

[princessvessna]

Oh. I didn't know you were talking about the lost kid, but O.K. Let's talk about that.

I can't think of a better way to honor, to cherish somebody than re-establishing their DNA. That child's life may be taken, but his/her genetic attributes are not wasted. And I suppose it depends on your belief about spirit or soul. I don't think any "soul" can be replicated. The soul - the essence - is unique, beyond what mankind can capture. Although, the cloned baby will have most of the predispositions of what came before, it will forge a new personality - a new essence - regardless. In the mean time, the grieving parents have both a new baby and the relief or comfort of knowing that the other child hasn't entirely been left behind. I don't know what's wrong with that, but perhaps you can tell me.

I believe someone is more than their genetic attributes. I'd prefer to incorporate aspects that they embodied in my own life and honor them that way. If your child was kind, let their light live on by treating people kinder. If they gave service, do that yourself. Etc. I just find it strange that what is important in this circumstance is their specific DNA, not who they actually were.

[Bird of Prey]

All parents have a buffet of potential mistakes laid out for them at the arrival of their spawn. What you're suggesting needlessly adds to selection.

But, at any rate, my reach is at least based on some model of normal human foibles. Your fantasy seems to be spun from pure hallucinogenic air.

It's based on no model at all since suddenly human foibles can only be recklessly demonstrated in nontraditional parentage. And my "fantasy spun from pure hallucinogenic air" doesn't make it less valid because you are simply not happy with the idea. Sorry. Oh well.

Good night.

[Perks]

It's based on no model at all since suddenly human foibles can only be recklessly demonstrated in nontraditional parentage. I never intimated at anything of the sort. There are all sorts of parenting situations that yield every hue of result. And good parents in all scenarios have my respect.

It's not that I don't like your suggestion that people would be better parents to clones of themselves then they'd be to children grown the old-fashioned way . Like has nothing to do with it. It just doesn't make any sense. Outside narcissistic disorders, there's nothing in the current catalog of human behavior that would justify such a theory.

[William Haskins]

Well, that's not very likely. First of all, a fatal flu is a real rarity, and although I know you're citing a possibility as an example, I think it's more likely that a cloned child would enjoy better health by virtue of understanding the parent's strengths and weaknesses. Obviously, a person would have to think long and hard about cloning if -for example - he/she knew of a genetic deficiency. But I don't think the average person would take advantage of cloning knowing of a serious defect. People are rarely that stupid nor THAT selfish, and my guess is that there would be a DNA "screening" prior to cloning.

A species of tropical ant appears to have done away with sex altogether. Instead, the ants now only produce females through a process of cloning.
These Mycocepurus smithii ant species have been discovered as the first ever to reproduce without sex, said researchers in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Anna Himler, a biologist from the University of Arizona’s Center for Insect Science led the study in which researchers used “fingerprinting” DNA to show that each ant was in fact a female clone of the queen.

<snip>

"If we're more diverse, we're more resistant to parasites and disease," Laurent Keller, an expert in social insects from the University of Lausanne, told BBC News.

"In a colony of clones, if one ant is susceptible to a parasite, they will all be susceptible. So if you're asexual, you normally don't last very long.


http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1671343/scientists_discover_asexual_female_ant_colony/

[dgiharris]

Since, from reading the rest of your screed, you've already made up your mind, I won't waste my typing on you, it would be futile.

I have been known to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence/argument. Ask anyone, I will admit when i'm wrong.

As for non-religious arguments. My points are mostly that whatever the arguments, they typically apply to organ transplants as well. And usually the person arguing against one is in favor of the other and thus even by their own system of logic they are inconsistent.

If you have an argument that doesn't suffer from this problem I'd love to hear it.

Mel...

[James81]

As for non-religious arguments. My points are mostly that whatever the arguments, they typically apply to organ transplants as well. And usually the person arguing against one is in favor of the other and thus even by their own system of logic they are inconsistent.

Could you explain what you mean by this? (I wanna be sure I'm understanding right...you are saying that people in favor of cloning are against organ transplants or vice versa???)

And could you explain why one is inconsistent with the other?

[Bird of Prey]

I never intimated at anything of the sort. There are all sorts of parenting situations that yield every hue of result. And good parents in all scenarios have my respect.

It's not that I don't like your suggestion that people would be better parents to clones of themselves then they'd be to children grown the old-fashioned way . Like has nothing to do with it. It just doesn't make any sense. Outside narcissistic disorders, there's nothing in the current catalog of human behavior that would justify such a theory.

Well I think cloning is as justifiable as anything else. And frankly, whether you like the logic or not, having children could be viewed as narcissistic any way they are produced, particularly on a planet choking with over six billion.

[Bird of Prey]

A species of tropical ant appears to have done away with sex altogether. Instead, the ants now only produce females through a process of cloning.
These Mycocepurus smithii ant species have been discovered as the first ever to reproduce without sex, said researchers in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Anna Himler, a biologist from the University of Arizona’s Center for Insect Science led the study in which researchers used “fingerprinting” DNA to show that each ant was in fact a female clone of the queen.

<snip>

"If we're more diverse, we're more resistant to parasites and disease," Laurent Keller, an expert in social insects from the University of Lausanne, told BBC News.

"In a colony of clones, if one ant is susceptible to a parasite, they will all be susceptible. So if you're asexual, you normally don't last very long.


http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1671343/scientists_discover_asexual_female_ant_colony/



Well, so far they're alive, aren't they?? And this person's comments fly in the face of Darwinisim.

I might add that North American bees, with all their genetic "normalcy" are having an awful time of it, thanks -probably- to what human made pesticides are throwing at them.

[William Haskins]

and stagnating the gene pool and freezing evolution due to making copies of copies of copies doesn't "fly in the face of darwinism"?

[Bird of Prey]

and stagnating the gene pool and freezing evolution due to making copies of copies of copies doesn't "fly in the face of darwinism"?

No. I refer you to your own post. By your own admission, DNA gets frayed around the edges in a couple of generations. Mutations occur randomly. And if sharks can have offspring spontaneously without mating, I have no doubt, that an individual in a cloned species will have DNA spontaneously alter to survive a plague.

Virgin Shark Gives Birth

http://i.livescience.com/images/070329_hammerhead_01.jpg (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=animals&c=technovelgy&l=on&pic=070329_hammerhead_02.jpg&cap=A+hammerhead+shark.+Credit%3A+dreamstime.&title=)

Female sharks may not need males around anymore, because they can reproduce without having sex, surprised scientists have found.
The startling discovery, announced today, has a long history. It was initially made after the unexpected birth of a baby hammerhead shark (http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=sharkweek_hammerhead_00.jpg&cat=sharkweek) in the aquarium of Nebraska’s Henry Doorly Zoo in December 2001. The birth surprised zookeepers because the tank only contained female hammerheads, none of which had ever even been exposed to a male during their time in captivity, much less mated with one.

The females had all been caught off the coast of Florida as babies themselves.

Scientists thought that perhaps the mother had mated with a male before her capture and somehow stored the sperm (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060616_big_sperm.html) over the three years, before finally fertilizing her eggs or that she had mated with the male of another species (http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/?cat=sharkweek) in the tank.

DNA profiling now showsed that neither of these possibilities was the answer; the baby shark’s DNA only matched up with it’s mother’s—there was no paternal DNA in the baby at all. The mother had become pregnant asexually, or without ever having sex. . . .http://www.livescience.com/animals/070522_asexual_sharks.html

[Don]

OMG, BoP, it's the second coming, and the messiah is a SHARK! :roll:

That fits in nicely with some people's view of religion, I suppose.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

I have been known to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence/argument. Ask anyone, I will admit when i'm wrong.

As for non-religious arguments. My points are mostly that whatever the arguments, they typically apply to organ transplants as well. And usually the person arguing against one is in favor of the other and thus even by their own system of logic they are inconsistent.

If you have an argument that doesn't suffer from this problem I'd love to hear it.

Mel...
Will you agree that arguments regarding organ transplants are separate from and immaterial to arguments regarding the legality of cloning human beings?

[James81]

Will you agree that arguments regarding organ transplants are separate from and immaterial to arguments regarding the legality of cloning human beings?

No he won't, that was the whole point of what he was saying. :D

(Heh, at least that's the way I read his post, and why I asked for clarification)

[Duncan J Macdonald]

No he won't, that was the whole point of what he was saying. :D

(Heh, at least that's the way I read his post, and why I asked for clarification)
I'll wait for his answer, but I suspect that you're correct. Unfortunately, the two concepts are connected only ephemerally.

[James81]

I'll wait for his answer, but I suspect that you're correct. Unfortunately, the two concepts are connected only ephemerally.

Until he gets here, I can pretend to be him and put words in his mouth if you want. :tongue

[dclary]

OMG, BoP, it's the second coming, and the messiah is a SHARK! :roll:

That fits in nicely with some people's view of religion, I suppose.

KNOCK KNOCK

Who is it?

Jehovah's Witness.

No thanks.

Latter, latter day saints.

I'm not interested.

Hare Krishna.

Wait a minute! You're that land shark! You have your own religion now, don't you!?!

I'm... I'm really just a scientologist.

Really?

/opens door.

/gets eaten