Cloning, are you for it, or not? Options

[EmeraldKnight]

Who said I was for it?  I was just saying, so that person would know we're not just making them for fun.

Hehehe
*waits for Minda once more*

[*Kathleen*]

Heh...Minda's too busy writing his tragic love story.

[ComradeRed]

Still.. why would you WANT to clone yourself? and how do we make sure ppl dont abduct someone and clone them?

I might WANT to clone myself because I can't reproduce naturally or something. We're discusising whehter people should be allowed to clone, not whether they'd want to.

To prevent abduction and cloning, we would pass laws against kidnapping.

Oh and Kathleen, that was just too good of an opportunity to pass up :).

[*Kathleen*]

Aren't there already laws about kidnapping? Also, what opportunity?

[ComradeRed]

Aren't there already laws about kidnapping? Also, what opportunity?

The opportunity to make fun of silly love stories where I personally believe the girl, whom teh author tried to portray as deep but is really incredibly superficial, should have been shot, which is what I made my story on.

[*Kathleen*]

Oh haha! Gotcha. Yeah, it was a pretty good opportunity.

[StupidLoserGuy]

I'm against cloning, because I don't believe that it is right for humans trying to play God. But that's just my opinion.

[ComradeRed]

I'm against cloning, because I don't believe that it is right for humans trying to play God. But that's just my opinion.

We've been playing God ever since we harnassed fire.

[murderous_though...]

I am 100% against it. Who are we to "play God"? Each person is unique, and when you make a clone you take that away. It also brings up the question "is the clone really alive?" If you make a clone for someone that is dying and needs an organ transplant, and that clone says no....is it right to then kill it? Would that be murder? Making clones to replace a lost pet or relative doesnt work either. That person or pet was who they were because of what they went through, and when you make that clone, its a whole different "being". Itll be totally different because it didnt go through any of the same things the human did. Yes, I said "it". Clones are not humans, they arent the real, original being, they are things...abominations that should never exist in the first place. You mess with the natural order of things when you make a clone. That person died, you have to deal with it and accept the fact that they are gone. It's immoral and unethical. End of story.

[WHOngos144]

^ agreed.

Cloning is gay

[*mipadi*]

^ agreed.

Cloning is gay

Wow, that's really deep...

[aznxdreamer]

we should keep human/animal reproduction the way god made it to be.

[Mulder]

Wow, that's really deep...

i love you michael..


honestly, i can see the good sides of it.

so many peoples lives can be saved by it. i mean by cloning stem cells and such.

a child with a kidney problem can get a kidney transplant. but what about a kid with a brain tumor? a child who if there was any way.. to... get a new brain, could live? you could use cloning to..rebuild the child.. so that he would live.

im against the full cloning of a person.

[sense.n.style]

i actually thought it was good for ppl who is in need of medical attention but after reading all this i dont kno... n this book called House of Scorpions by Nancy Farmer... it freaked me out n messed up my opinions... although it was a great book.... anywayz...

i havent a clu

[*disco infiltrator*]

Wow, that's really deep...

Eternal -age.

[toria66622]

I think cloning iznt that bad... im not saying I like it cause everyone being the same iznt really kool...but If someone WANTED to be cloned or have a clone that iz ALMOST exactly a clone then yea, sure, why not

[Joss-eh-lime]

well im against cloning people and animals.
things should go naturally. science is starting to mess with a bunch of stuff they dont need to be

[vash1530]

id clone myself multiple times so if i was ever in an accident id have my own perfect organs and extremities donors (reminiscent to an episode of sliders)

[Teesa]

We were learning about this and sort of had a little debate on cloning. Yes, I'm against it because I do think there are more harmful effects of cloning than benefits.

Like, there could be a lot of abnormalities and birth defects out of cloning and DNA can age quicker, causing the person to grow older quicker, therefore, dying quicker. I just don't think science should take that big of a risk.

[sheridan_whitesi...]

Let me tell you, without my clone, I would be seriously behind in my skills in EVE from getting podded.

SRSLY, though.
Cloning is an important technology. With cloning we can make cells that all have the same genetic code and are all uniform. This makes research and lab maintenance much, much easier. We can already do this with organisms that reproduce via binary fission, but being able to do this with cultured human cells will be incredibly useful for all kinds of research. Cloning individual organisms at this point is much too costly in terms of energy required. The main benefit of cloning is the creation of homogenous cultures in the lab. This will be an incredible boon to all types of bioscience and only a fool would want to stand in the way of it. However, this type of cloning is almost always lumped with "Brave New World" style reproductive cloning, a technology which isn't currently feasible right now for reasons already discussed. This is why I am opposed to any legislation banning human cloning.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Also, since stem cell research is tied into cloning (through the way it's being done) and I'm totally doing a research paper on that, I guess I should contribute.

For those saying the way of getting stem cells is killing something, you are so far wrong. It's not even potentially living. There is no way these cells could grow into something, a human being, because the cells that form the placenta are not used. I can't happen. It won't happen. No matter how long the stem cells sat in a petri dish, no matter how long they were incubated, no baby would grow out of them. So, really, what is so ethically wrong with using them?

Also, currently, most stem cells come from embryos that would have been discarded anyway. At artificial insemination labs, embryos are formed for people who are not able to conceive themselves. Many embryos are made because there is only a chance that even one will take to the womb and develop into a baby. Most of the time, there are so many as 12 unused embryos left from one couple. A study done in 2003 estimated that artificial insemination clinics stored (and will most likely eventually discard) about 400,000 embryos. Why in the world should we simply throw them away, instead of putting them into good use to help save MILLIONS of lives? Why can you not use something that has never been, will never be living to save so many other living things? If saving lives and preventing destruction of lives is the number one priority, stem cell research should be the first thing on peoples' minds.

Do you all remember when Dolly the sheep was cloned, a couple years ago? This was done using an existing cell off of a sheep, emptying out an egg, and fushing the cell with the egg. There is potential in this type of process with stem cells. Getting this to work correctly in humans (it's already been done with mice) could eventually open doors such as creating new organs for those who need them, instead of transplanting from others. It could create limbs for those who have lost them. People with physical abnormalities could live a life of normality with this type of assistance.

There is absolutely no reason to put a ban on this research, other than simply having something to be against. To think...those who support this research are the ones branded with rebellion as their motive. \



Um yea OK so my paper's like gonna RULE.

[*not_your_average*]

Do you all remember when Dolly the sheep was cloned, a couple years ago? This was done using an existing cell off of a sheep, emptying out an egg, and fushing the cell with the egg.

As a matter of fact, I do. I also remember Dolly having numerous medical problems and being frequently sick. Ever since she was cloned, scientists have had to watch over her 24/7 to make sure she didn't die.

[Mulder]

Do you all remember when Dolly the sheep was cloned, a couple years ago? This was done using an existing cell off of a sheep, emptying out an egg, and fushing the cell with the egg. There is potential in this type of process with stem cells. Getting this to work correctly in humans (it's already been done with mice) could eventually open doors such as creating new organs for those who need them, instead of transplanting from others. It could create limbs for those who have lost them. People with physical abnormalities could live a life of normality with this type of assistance.

yes, they've been cloned, but it hasnt been successful.

dolly (the cloned one, not the original) aged rapidly and suffered many medical problems.

and i dont support animal testing.



however..i see the potential in cloning cells. not a full being..just stem cells.

i support stem cell research.
not multiple me's.
or animal testing.


and sammi, itll be a kick-@ss paper.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, I was merely using that as a basis for what stem cells can potentially do, and what would let them do it. It would be the same kind of process, but not exactly, seeing as it wouldn't turn out to be a child.

We all know perfectly well that cloning isn't perfected yet, which is why we shouldn't stop researching it till it is.

[sheridan_whitesi...]

Also, currently, most stem cells come from embryos that would have been discarded anyway. At artificial insemination labs, embryos are formed for people who are not able to conceive themselves. Many embryos are made because there is only a chance that even one will take to the womb and develop into a baby. Most of the time, there are so many as 12 unused embryos left from one couple. A study done in 2003 estimated that artificial insemination clinics stored (and will most likely eventually discard) about 400,000 embryos. Why in the world should we simply throw them away, instead of putting them into good use to help save MILLIONS of lives? Why can you not use something that has never been, will never be living to save so many other living things? If saving lives and preventing destruction of lives is the number one priority, stem cell research should be the first thing on peoples' minds.

I don't know why this paragraph is even here. This is a thread about cloning. For your "stem cell" argument (shudder), cloned stem cells would be the best, not the trash from the fertility clinic. As you know, the sperm comes from donors and the eggs from infertile women. These aren't the best genetic traits for doing any kind of research. In the lab, a homogenous genetic code is EXTREMELY important. With this we can see the effects of each individual allele, we can be sure that any changes done aren't due to genetic differences, we can cut down on poor genetic code. Most fertility clinic embryos would be of limited use anyway. Genetic contamination and the traumas of freezing and defrosting don't leave these embryos in a prime state for research. With cloning, a lab can acquire one genetic code and then create stem cells at will, primary cells which are easy to culture, and don't have to be damaged by taking them out of freezing. Legislation which seeks to ban this important tool, much less actual research on embryonic stem cells (it's sad there's even an argument about it), consists of no foresight and is another reason the rest of the world is laughing at the sorry state of American science. Although the UK has its share of problems, where animal rights groups are performing acts of terror against laboratories which use animal testing (read: any lab performing bioscience).