Cloning

[Freedan]

I was going to make this about just human cloning, but figured that there are other applications for cloning, so they could all be put here.

So, how about it? Is cloning a scientific breakthrough in the making, or is it going too far? Do the potential benefits outweigh the moral implications?

My thoughts:

Animal cloning is ok, but only under certain circumstances, such as where animals are necessary. In some of the poorest countries, animals are often their only source of income and/or food. If the thing dies, the family depending on them is up shit creek.

But animal cloning should not be used for someone who wants to bring their dead dog back to life. As much as I loved some of the pets I've had, unfortunately, their time is over now. They spent many happy years in a good home, and it had to come to an end. Not to mention there are already too many animals in need of adoption.

Human cloning should be limited to creating organs and such for people in need. Dying of kidney failure? Make some new kidneys.

But cloning humans? Unacceptable. That creates a whole host of problems, chief among them being the legal rights of the clone. That really applies more if a living person were cloned (for whatever reason). Suppose the clone was created for a certain reason; what if the clone says no?

Cloning a human would devalue life to the point that it would be worthless. One of me, that's unique; maybe even a bit special. But a second one? Maybe a third? If they can make a new one of me whenever they please, that diminishes the value of my life in ways I can't adequately put in to words.

We're mortal for a reason. We're only supposed to have one crack at life. And even if they made another one of you, would it really be 'you'? Personality and everything? Or an imposter living your life while you're still dead?

Discuss, damn it all.

[Manibrandr System]

Here's the beauty of it, morals change over time. In the future, there will be a use for cloning a whole human, perhaps to transfer the minds of the original over, or as a means of mitotic asexual reproduction.

Today, there are many aspects of technology that we take for granted that would have been deemed too morally distressing 50 years ago.

[Yet One More Idiot]

Hmm, those are interesting questions that you raise, Freedan. However, there are a couple of things that should be added to this:

A) If I am cloned, then the resultant clone is not me.

Genetically, it it would be identical to me, but I am 27 and it would develop at the normal physical rate, so it would be a physical copy of me as I was back in 1982. Secondly, in spite of my clone and I being genetically identical, we would be raised differently by different people, and in different times, and so behaviourally we would be quite quite different.

2) Stating again, I am 27. If cells were taken from me to use for cloning, the resulting clone would be physically a baby, but its cells would be 27 years old. Whatever life expectancy it had would be cut by 27 years.


I seem to remember something about this with Dolly the sheep. The original sheep was quite old when the cloning process was begun, and so the cells taken were from an old sheep. The cloned sheep, whilst only a newborn lamb, had a severely reduced lifespan as a result, and had barely reached adulthood when it died of old age.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Well the truth is there will always be the two sides of the issue- the side of the scientist, and the side of the human-rights (Or clone rights, if you prefer).

Cloning? We know it's possible. Is it morally and ethically wrong to use clones for genetic experimentation, or moreover, to use them, essentially, for spare parts?

It's the same as with abortion, because really, what would we need with clones other than to supply body parts to the original? Prehaps for genetic experimentation to elongate the lives of other human beings. The issue isn't whether or not we should clone human beings but more what will we being using these clones for.

Experimentation is what it comes down to. Do I agree with this? Well, I'm not sure. I mean, you could think of the possibilities- figuring out how diseases form and possibily eliminating them before they can even gestate. Curing cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons- I mean, the prospect is great, of course- but what do we as humans lose in the process? Our souls? Is it worth it?

I cannot take a stance on this one, I'm afraid. I don't agree that taking life to give life is good. There are just too many variables to be able to give a concrete answer.

[EverPhoenix]

i agree with freedan on this. it shouldnt be used to clone whole animals for any purpose other than a need for food. if you want your pet back, cloning wont bring your pet back. sure, itll look exactly like your pet, but unless they can clone memories (which as far as i know arent part of our genetic structure), the result will only look like your pet. not to mention the reduced lifespan, which will just result in the pet dying earlier anyway. so its just creating a creature only to have it die again. which is kinda cruel.

as for human cloning, i dont think humans should be cloned. not completely, anyway. cloning for organs? sure, its a medical breakthrough. and in some cases can save a life. heart not doing too well? clone it, transplant it, and then you get to continue your life. marrow transplant? duplicate some, and itll have a very slim (if not 0) chance of being rejected by your body. so yeah. for organ cloning, im in agreement.

cloning whole humans at a time? why would you want to? they may be genetically identical to you, but their personalities will be affected by the circumstances in which they are raised/grown. so they wont even be a 'clone' of you. theyll just look exactly like you. personality might be very different. plus then there is the whole issue of human rights, and a cloned human should have the same rights as a born human. and what if the clone meets you, and then finds out that he/she is a clone? that could cause a lot of grief

[Jason Tandro]

Animal Cloning is a great idea especially if the clones really are "perfect copies". This could be used mainly for food and restoring endangered species.

However humans are a whole different story. God gave humans the means to create other humans with the gift of reproduction. That's fair. But "test tube babies" goes too far.

You've all pretty much covered the legal and moral ramifications, and so I won't step on anybody's toes here, but I would like to present (as I have done so before) an incredibly poignant joke that relates to this.
---
A scientist is talking to God. He challenges God to create a human.

"God," the scientist says. "Without your help, humans are now able to create other human lives. They are just as good as the ones that you create."

"Okay," says God. "Then show me what you can do."

The scientist gathers his chemistry set and God takes it away.

"Ah ah ah!" God says. "Use your own materials."

[EverPhoenix]

However humans are a whole different story. God gave humans the means to create other humans with the gift of reproduction. That's fair. But "test tube babies" goes too far.

i generally cant agree with people on something like this. if God didnt want us to artificially create life, He wouldnt have made us capable of that in the first place. but we are now, so (my atheism aside), since we currently have the means to clone, God must either have wanted us to be able to do this, or He is watching us and laughing at us finding alternatives to sex.

[Jason Tandro]

However humans are a whole different story. God gave humans the means to create other humans with the gift of reproduction. That's fair. But "test tube babies" goes too far.

i generally cant agree with people on something like this. if God didnt want us to artificially create life, He wouldnt have made us capable of that in the first place. but we are now, so (my atheism aside), since we currently have the means to clone, God must either have wanted us to be able to do this, or He is watching us and laughing at us finding alternatives to sex.

Fair enough, but by that same logic you must also believe that God intended his children to freely sin, create weapons of mass destruction, actively destroy the planet he created for us, and blaspheme his name. Yes, God gave man the tools necessary to do great good and great evil and the gift of free agency to make those choices for ourselves. That does not mean we always choose the right one.

[EverPhoenix]

However humans are a whole different story. God gave humans the means to create other humans with the gift of reproduction. That's fair. But "test tube babies" goes too far.

i generally cant agree with people on something like this. if God didnt want us to artificially create life, He wouldnt have made us capable of that in the first place. but we are now, so (my atheism aside), since we currently have the means to clone, God must either have wanted us to be able to do this, or He is watching us and laughing at us finding alternatives to sex.

Fair enough, but by that same logic you must also believe that God intended his children to freely sin, create weapons of mass destruction, actively destroy the planet he created for us, and blaspheme his name. Yes, God gave man the tools necessary to do great good and great evil and the gift of free agency to make those choices for ourselves. That does not mean we always choose the right one.

yeah, i agree with that. God gave us free will, and the means to do a damn lot. and look at us, we decided to blow stuff up... typical

[Yet One More Idiot]

Do we have to invoke god? I thought this was an ethical debate, not a religious one.

I say, animals are no different than humans. Or rather, that should be the other way around - humans are no different than other animals. If it's okay to clone animals for food purposes (which is, btw, a good idea in my books), then cloning humans should be allowed.

HOWEVER, cloning humans for extra free body parts is not a good idea. Having children, or cloning, because you want children (or in the case of clones, children genetically identical to you) is one thing, but having a child to harvest them to repair someone else is not something I've ever agreed with. You know what I mean, like when parents have a second child to act as a donor for their sickly first child, I don't agree with that; the second child isn't getting a choice about whether or not they wish to act as donor (See the film "My Sister's Keeper"....I've been meaning to go watch that at the cinema).
Similarly, cloning yourself in order to use your own clone as nothing more than "spare parts" is a rather grisly way to go about things, imho. The clone isn't just an organ farm, it's a person, and should be accorded the same human rights as anybody else, just like test-tube babies aren't treated any differently from those conceived in a 100% natural way.

[EverPhoenix]

Do we have to invoke god? I thought this was an ethical debate, not a religious one.

I say, animals are no different than humans. Or rather, that should be the other way around - humans are no different than other animals. If it's okay to clone animals for food purposes (which is, btw, a good idea in my books), then cloning humans should be allowed.

HOWEVER, cloning humans for extra free body parts is not a good idea. Having children, or cloning, because you want children (or in the case of clones, children genetically identical to you) is one thing, but having a child to harvest them to repair someone else is not something I've ever agreed with. You know what I mean, like when parents have a second child to act as a donor for their sickly first child, I don't agree with that; the second child isn't getting a choice about whether or not they wish to act as donor (See the film "My Sister's Keeper"....I've been meaning to go watch that at the cinema).
Similarly, cloning yourself in order to use your own clone as nothing more than "spare parts" is a rather grisly way to go about things, imho. The clone isn't just an organ farm, it's a person, and should be accorded the same human rights as anybody else, just like test-tube babies aren't treated any differently from those conceived in a 100% natural way.

cloning can be used to just grow organs, it doesnt have to be an entire individual. or at least i thought it could.

[Yet One More Idiot]

cloning can be used to just grow organs, it doesnt have to be an entire individual. or at least i thought it could.

Well yes, but I was only talking about the ethical considerations of cloning complete creatures. I see nothing wrong at all with cloning individual organs/tissues/limbs/etc; as it is a far more preferable and efficient alternative to any artificial replacements that could be built by us.

[Jason Tandro]

Do we have to invoke god? I thought this was an ethical debate, not a religious one.

I share your hesitance to involve religion in debate, but when we are talking about any moral or ethical dilemma, those of us that are religious will (sooner or later) bring up the Almighty. In a debate about the nature of creating life, the man upstairs has some expertise in that area.

Frankly if we eliminate God from the debate (and in the same swoop destroy the soul), the ethical complications are much less significant.

[Freedan]

Fair enough, but by that same logic you must also believe that God intended his children to freely sin, create weapons of mass destruction, actively destroy the planet he created for us, and blaspheme his name.

Not necessarily. He was saying that free will gives us the option to do something morally questionable. That's a far cry from saying God intended for us to do wrong.

That's a fallacious line of thought: "if you believe this, then you must believe this". Not always.

Yes, God gave man the tools necessary to do great good and great evil and the gift of free agency to make those choices for ourselves. That does not mean we always choose the right one.

And this seems to contradict what you said just before it. Maybe I misunderstood, but the first quote seemed to boil down to "God intended for us to do wrong because he gave us the freedom to do so", and in the second, you agree that he gave us the freedom to do so.

And EP, I'd also disagree that God wants something to happen just because it's possible. The whole idea of free will is that we create our own circumstances. God gave us freedom, and then he backs away and lets us use it; he's no longer involved.

Incidentally, free will also covers God's ass when something bad happens. War breaks out, it's our own fault.

If it's okay to clone animals for food purposes (which is, btw, a good idea in my books), then cloning humans should be allowed.

HOWEVER, cloning humans for extra free body parts is not a good idea.

There's a big difference between those two, though. One is a matter of necessity, and the other isn't (since you've dismissed cloning a human for spare parts).

Using cloning to make a human child seems unnecessary to me. If two parents can't conceive (that is, sterile), adoption seems a better alternative. I realize a good number of people may want their 'own' child with their genes and such, but with so many children in need of a home, something about that just doesn't sit right.

[Jason Tandro]

Fair enough, but by that same logic you must also believe that God intended his children to freely sin, create weapons of mass destruction, actively destroy the planet he created for us, and blaspheme his name.

Not necessarily. He was saying that free will gives us the option to do something morally questionable. That's a far cry from saying God intended for us to do wrong.

That's a fallacious line of thought: "if you believe this, then you must believe this". Not always.

Yes, God gave man the tools necessary to do great good and great evil and the gift of free agency to make those choices for ourselves. That does not mean we always choose the right one.

And this seems to contradict what you said just before it. Maybe I misunderstood, but the first quote seemed to boil down to "God intended for us to do wrong because he gave us the freedom to do so", and in the second, you agree that he gave us the freedom to do so.

And EP, I'd also disagree that God wants something to happen just because it's possible. The whole idea of free will is that we create our own circumstances. God gave us freedom, and then he backs away and lets us use it; he's no longer involved.

Incidentally, free will also covers God's ass when something bad happens. War breaks out, it's our own fault.

If it's okay to clone animals for food purposes (which is, btw, a good idea in my books), then cloning humans should be allowed.

HOWEVER, cloning humans for extra free body parts is not a good idea.

There's a big difference between those two, though. One is a matter of necessity, and the other isn't (since you've dismissed cloning a human for spare parts).

Using cloning to make a human child seems unnecessary to me. If two parents can't conceive (that is, sterile), adoption seems a better alternative. I realize a good number of people may want their 'own' child with their genes and such, but with so many children in need of a home, something about that just doesn't sit right.

The first line was my assumption of what EverPhoenix presumed, not my own opinion. My belief is that God gave us the capability to do wrong, but wants us to do right. I am simply using this to decry the belief that

"Since we CAN do this, then that must make it OKAY for us to do it."

EverPhoenix said that God gave us the ability to create life and therefore it must be okay to do so, and therein lies the flaw.