For the past few years the media has been expressing the opinion that cloning is bad. What's the deal? I know some people think that a Clone has no soul. It's man-made afterall, not made by God. They said the same thing about "Test tube babies" years back. That is now very common. Are there teenagers running around today that don't have a Soul becuase they were a "test tube baby"? Do identical twins share one soul between them? Were the kids responsible for Colimbine High School shooting "test tube" children? Did they do this evil because they have no Soul? (Assuming they are "test tube" children.) As I see it, the real issues about Cloning is who is going to be responsible for raising the child. Unlike Cloning in bad Sci-Fi, a real Clone is a baby. It craps it's diaper. It needs to be taught to walk, speak, go to school, get laid, get a job and all of the other things people do. Can a corporation own a person? Regardless of the method of conception and DNA, a Clone is a person and should have the same rights as any other. They are not inherantly evil. All of these negative attitudes distract from the real issues about human rights. We should never allow the method of conception become an excuse for enslaving human beings.
"some people think that a Clone has no soul. " Some people are ignorant. Sure, it might be most people, but that is only because of the slipping hold of the church over a large portion of society. "It's man-made afterall, not made by God." Any human was made by the collective effort of their parents, be it the father who provided the sperm, or the mother that provided some DNA and the egg (and had to carry the baby). Cloning would just mean that the mother and father wouldn't need to provide DNA, the DNA would be a copy of somebody elses. I see no problem here. "As I see it, the real issues about Cloning is who is going to be responsible for raising the child" Well, somebody will still have to carry the egg while it developes. If all else fails either that person or foster parents can have the child. The issue of child responsibilities is not new and should have nothing to do with wether cloning is allowed or not. "get laid," Sadly enough, most people don't see that as a need Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "..enslaving human beings." Even some animals are near human rights. I don't see this as a problem in the near future. I don't see any need for this sort of cloning however. There are too many people as it is. And since cloning is a different way of conception it is possible to talk about it in this way. (as opposed to me saying people shouldnt have children because the population is too high anyways.) Cloning organs seems like it would make more sense. There are already enough children, but not always enough organs for the sick. ...Clones are just as evil as atheists!
I think the argument is that there are simply too many people on the planet to. We don't really need clones at the moment, do we?
If population is a problem, stop breeding for the next 20 years....sterilize the planet with a bio active flu virus that mutates to a harmless virus after a few years so as to control the sterility of the planet.
There are plenty of infertile couples out there that want a baby, but cannot conceive one themselves. Then there are people who would want a Clone of themselves as a matter of ego. Similarly, have you ever thought: "If I could re-live my life, I would do -X- differently?" All kinds of variations of motive for having children are out there.
Sure... send a chill up my spine before I've finished my first cup of coffee. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
"...sterilize the planet with a bio active flu virus that mutates to a harmless virus after a few years..." Unfortuently, there are some problems with this. To cut down on random mutations, you'd basically need to have enough flu virus for every single human on the planet. Otherwise a random mutation may occur that negates the 'harmless virus' effect. If that happened, humans would be doomed. Cloning would be our only way out Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But a more difficult method of cloning, because a sterile females can't have children right? (I'm sure as to what exactly sterilizing a female does... kills the eggs? etc..)
Well, would YOU like to be a clone? I can at least have the comfort of knowing I am somewhat unique. Nobody else has my fingerprints. Living with the fact that I am just some carbon copy of somebody else would... well... suck.
Why don't you ask some twins, triplets etc... I'm sure they find anit-clone sentiment somewhat insulting.
Well, let's ask Francis Fukuyama what HIS beef is; He's a pretty good example of the breed. (Cloning opponents, I mean, not clones.) "I am opposed to human cloning for two reasons. The first is that human reproductive cloning, if and when it becomes possible, will constitute a highly unnatural form of reproduction, one that interferes with the normal process of conception and establishes a very abnormal relationship between parent and child. I believe that human nature is a valid standard for establishing human rights, and that technological procedures that interfere egregiously with normal human functioning should be viewed very skeptically in the absence of very powerful reasons to do so. I do not have time today to defend this position at greater length, but would be happy to provide the subcommittee with further materials at a later time. The second reason that I am opposed to human cloning, and in support of legislation to curtail it, is that cloning represents the opening wedge for a series of future technologies that will permit us to alter the human germline and ultimately to design people genetically. I believe that we must proceed extremely cautiously in this direction because such a capability of altering human nature has extremely grave political, social, and moral implications. It is therefore extremely important that Congress act legislatively at this point to establish the principle that our democratic political community is sovereign and has the power to control the pace and scope of such technological developments." That's the general justification for opposing cloning from intellectuals, though the more Francis explains himself, the harder I find it to regard him as an intellectual. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Frankly, the first reason is dreck, in vitro fertilization has proven that in practice. I think it's the second reason that's decisive. Virtually everyone who opposes cloning is a religionist, and a believer in some form of divine origin for humans, whether or not they believe in evolution for most species. Cloning is the "opening wedge", as Francis says, for all those things man was not meant to know. It's an absolutely key technology for enabling human germ line genetic engineering, which in their view usurps a divine right. If we allow cloning, eventually we won't be human anymore. Which is true, and good riddance!
Interesting link. So, cloning is up there with the other great evils in the world: abortion and bussing.
The reason people thought that cloning (And still think) is an abomination is because the reality was that a Cloned impregnated Embreo wouldn't be allowed to move to a stage of development of a fully formed Fetis. In other words people aren't cloning whole human beings, but just the first period of cellular growth, which can then be seperated into cells that would become organs etc. Those cells can then be grown in laboratories or implanted into a person to re-constitute cellular growth. (Take for instance a person with brain damage could have new younger generating cells cloned with such a technique and then implanted into the region to regrow) The concern was just the fact that if these Embreo's were left within a womb that would form a child. Of course the impregnation is on a petry dish, which means the Embreo has already been extracted and if left to develop, would not develop any further than some cellular growth for lack of a mother womb. (Also note that Women produce Embreo's readily, which if not impregnated the body "removes" in a way that only women dare talk about. Which means such embreo's are constantly being naturally destroyed.) Also on the subject of cloning, Dolly the sheep was a proven success that a clone could be established but their were hundreds of Embreo's that either didn't grow or mutated. There is also the possibility that "Old" samples of DNA (In this case a sample from a middle aged sheep) might cause the clone to age differently from it's original due to certain changes in DNA structuring from prolonged UV bombardment (Which causes chemistry changes).
