Marijuana.com

Trocisp

I really think that the legality of cloning should be dependent on just how advanced cloning becomes and what techniques of cloning we develop.

What I mean.... when cloning, do we have to clone a whole person? Or can we simply clone an independent parts (A liver, a whole leg? Connective tissue, etc)?

If we can clone individual parts, that should of course be fully legal. It could mean that things like Liver failure isn't fatal, so that even the few who do get lucky enough to get transplants are on meds for the rest of their lives.

However, if we can only clone whole human beings, I see no ethical problem with it. As long as the person whos DNA you want to use is fully educated about it (No reason for the government to ban it). If this is possible and the former scenario (about individual parts) is not you have the "Body farm" scenario. However, even if this is possible and individual part growing is not it may be possible to grow braindead clones.

 

IGemini

I'm used to looking at the cloning issue three steps ahead. The Battletech novel series made cloning commonplace...more than that, the backbone of a society was on genetic engineering of the perfect warrior.

The major argument against cloning is the theistic one: defiling the sanctity of human life.

I doubt true human cloning will take any strong hold. In response to the grossly overblown "we can clone, therefore cannot die and will live forever" view: each set of DNA has a rate of natural decomposition. A cloned 40-year old will still be 40, and will be living on a 40-year deficit. They won't be starting at year 0.

The human need for individuality is too strong to make cloning on a large scale viable...at least at this point. It would expend too much in the way of resources just to have any kind of so-called "backups." The way to go about it would be to have clones live their own life, which fundamentally would not be too different from the existence of identical siblings. Anyone ever met identical siblings? Physically, they have to make the difference between themselves cosmetic, because they are so similar to each other. Generally speaking, identical siblings will opt for their own path rather than being attached at the hip, metaphorically speaking. Even if they spend the majority of their time together, the phenomenological nature of their personality will still make them develop in different ways that make them unique in any degree.

Cloning at this point serves the purposes of medical research: genetics and psychology mostly. It would be great for those purposes; researchers love the concept of twin studies, since it's the easiest baseline one can ask for.

I don't think that the major problem of mainstream cloning would be moral or practical, but social. Cloning would breed (pun not intended) a new class of citizenry. Some of the responses of clones seen in this thread are prime examples, with clones being "soulless" or "unnatural." Naturalism would become a new divide in an already fractured social structure.

My major interest in cloning is for the biomedical branch and psych research. Being able to replicate tissues and organs has a lot of potential, but is at least two steps away from being viable in any form, at least in the sense of being able to produce them on an individual basis, as opposed to the less-than-appealing concept of "harvesting."

Bottom line: am I in favor of cloning? Of course. But I don't think humanity is ready for it. It has a lot of potential, but like any other advance, someone will make mistakes. It would not be possible to wrap our minds and views around the concept entirely, with it not having happened yet. It's really a scenario that needs to happen to understand it.

Viper420

With 1.7 billion Chinese and 1.1 billion Indians, why bother to clone humans? Aren't there enough people already?
Make a dinosaur or something neat like that. How about a Spider wasp? Or a dolphin that can REALLY talk? Or a chimp with a human brain ( Oh yea, thats been done....there's one in the White House now).

ilovealbertwalker

personally i think its wrong, you just dont screw with peoples DNA and clone them, they could be really screwed up, just likehow they are trying to make dinosaurs again, those things are supposed to be extinct for a reason. You dont not duplicate people. thats werid. its wil upset the balance of things.

__________________
life is like a bowl

Trocisp

who is trying to "make" dinosaurs again?

I think you're confusing the movie (Jurassic Park) with reality (The Real World... wait a minute... that's a goddamn TV show!).

Even if we could clone dinosaurs, why not? They most likely wouldn't be able to survive in the wild, so what's the harm of having a few lab specimens?

 

FunkySkunky

I chose yes, but with limits. I feel like there are going to be some gigantic ethical concerns over the issue. One of them is the possibility of creating two genetically identical human beings and having no way to tell them apart physiologically. (Does anyone know if their fingerprints would be the same or not...?) Likewise, what happens when we create a genetically skewed human being and it lives an awful life due to a scientists error? Sounds like there are too many problems, but hey... isn't that what science is all about... finding more questions to answer? haha

__________________

killian

What's to stop a bunch of stormtroopers from being created? Though I think science can be useful, it isn't always the right way to look at an issue. Many immoral acts, from Mengele to our own CIA, have been perpetrated in the name of science. For the sake of technological advancement just doesn't cut it sometimes, especially on a planet wired to explode.

__________________
The zipper displaces the button and a man lacks just that much time to think while dressing at dawn, a philosophical hour, and thus a melancholy hour.

Freedom_User

I choose yes. Only IF they have some written agreement not to clone Bush/Cheney...

Ler

I don't like the options so I didn't vote, but here are my thoughts on cloning. Clone all the human parts you want, I could care less. In fact there are a lot of benefits to growing new organs etc especially from your own tissue, there is no possibility for your body to reject it like in organ transplants. I think you should NEVER fully clone a person, once they've got a mind it's hands off.

__________________

yodia206

I actually read every single post in this thread. Its a very interesting subject with so many questions and issues raised as evidenced by the questions/opinions/concerns voiced in just this small forum alone.

After reading through everything and really thinking about if I have to stick with what I put on the poll to begin with: yes but with limits. I think cloning should be experimented with-but I do not think it is ok to clone an entire person. If they can make just a liver or eyeball or whatever in a petri dish than that is wonderful, not so much for the old people who's body parts are simply wearing out, but for the young who are born missing an important part or get in an accident, get sick. As was expressed by someone earlier I really dont want to live past 100 and this whole obsession with immortality is rediculious esp sine the only ones who could afford and want that are exactly the type of pompous pricks we DONT want to live forever. But if those old fucks having some sort of immortalility was the price to pay to allow young loves ones a second chance than its a price society should be willing to pay. If we could clone body parts we could allow the blind to see, the deaf to hear, we could grow back the limbs of those who loose them in war, accidents, due to disease and we could do 100 more things as well.

But I do no think we should be allowed to clone whole humans. Having a clone that lives a normal life but at any time can be slaughtered for body parts if their counterpart gets into trouble is just sick and immoral. Having a clone that was grown for certain tasks and took all the good jobs away from us because they were better at it is also wrong, we already have enough problems with outsourcing. having clones that were exactly like us is for one thing impossible, we can't even get along just being all natural but from different countries/different colors, and is pointless considering the overpopulation issues we already face that will be compounded if this global warming issue isn't dealt with.

Cloning will be like opening pandora's box: it seems almost inevitable but will surely raise as many issues as problems it solves even if we don't clone whole humans, and if we do it could surely lead to all out war.