Cloning, are you for it, or not? Options

[imsofargone711]

im on the fence with this issue, because in certain cases i think its okay, but in others i dont. so it confuses me

[*disco infiltrator*]

....

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.

I was leading into that, giving background information, so people wouldn't jump on me right away for saying "cloning" and "embryos" in the same place. Clearing up that what we do right now, not even counting what could be done in the future from this, is not murder, since that would be someone's first response, had I not cleared that up.

[Mulder]

this kind of reminds me of a corny arnold schwarzenegger movie.

this man's son has a brain tumor. its untreatable. the son will die. the father is a scientist. he sees children with kidney failure get transplants. but you cant get a brain transplant. so he clones his son.

his wife's dying of cancer. no treatment. he clones her.


i see some of the possible benefits of cloning.

[megumint]

I'm against it.  Cloning is playing God which isn't cool.

Well, we're already doing plenty of things that could be considered "playing God"

Might as well do cloning too, as long as we get some laws about rights of clones.

I think it's inevitable... It's been in the movies for.. ever, so all the scientists want to try it and stuff. Besides, who knows if it'll help?

It'll probably end the world anyway. But eh, it's inevitable.

About unique-ness.. In this age, no one is really unique. Well, some people are. But if it's there decision to have a clone, then that should be.. well, their decision. In fact, it might make them more unique.

Bleh.

[Genuine_Essence]

against it! my problems then solutions

[Stephire]

Ever since I read "The Island" and saw the movie I've been strongly against cloning.
:/

[*disco infiltrator*]

Wow. So you're going to make a decision about a world issue, one that could affect millions, one that could bring many scientific advances, one that could improve the lives of billions, based on a book/movie?

Thank you for giving a wonderful example of the influences that the media has on our society. Why don't you try thinking for yourself, and not following a movie? (A bad one, at that.)

[Stephire]

I thought it was an amazing movie and book.
It made me think about and cloning, something I didn't really care about before.
Think for myself? I am thinking for myself, I was saying it's what influenced me on my opinion on cloning.
& Ofcourse the media influences me, so does everything else I'm surrounded with.
You can't say your not influenced by the media.
Anyway being a christian, I
A) Do not agree with the whole "playing god" bit.
B) Do not agree that if we clone people we could help people with deseases/problems/etc, because it was the time for them to go.
Also after reading The Island, I saw the clones side of view (no matter how warped it may have been) which made me disagree on that more because the clones had actual feelings.
To me it would be murdering to take a clones life to use it to help anothers life because by the time they are created (to me) they are human. It's almost like slavery.
Which is also the reason why I'm pro life.
Anway, all that I've just said has already been brought up in this thread so...gnar.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Whoever said that would be the use of clones? Scientists are not looking to harvest and grow people for the sole purpose of killing anything. That is not what cloning research is going for. No one aspires to murder others.

This is why you should not base your opinions on what is fed to you by the media. It's a fictional story; it wouldn't happen. That would not ever be allowed in our society. We do not condone murder of anyone, clone or not. That's not a goal for anyone.

[illumineering]

Wow. So you're going to make a decision about a world issue, one that could affect millions, one that could bring many scientific advances, one that could improve the lives of billions, based on a book/movie?

Thank you for giving a wonderful example of the influences that the media has on our society. Why don't you try thinking for yourself, and not following a movie? (A bad one, at that.)

What's wrong with that? Billions of people turn to the content of books to guide decisions. The bible is one obvious example.

You certaintly aren't thinking for yourself by not allowing anyone to post a contrary perspective that is just as valid as yours. Your use of "researched" facts is no more or less vaild than any other process of justification in this form.

Here's a few problems w/ cloning

1. There's a high rate of failure. Successful clones occur at the rate of 0.1% to 3% per thousand.

2. Problems during development. Animals are frequently born much larger than their natural counterparts. As a result, oversized organs lead to problems breathing and poor circulation.

3. Abnormal gene expression patterns. Clones have difficulty expressing the right genes at the right time.

4. Telomeric differences. In the case of Dolly, she aged faster than normal sheep. In other cases w/ cows, their telomeres were longer and they were unnaturally young.

Cloning is far from delivering a better quality of life for anyone.



Here's a few questions that might add to this debate. I'm not posting them for/against any view. They are, in my view worthy of healthy discussion.

1. Who has the right to have children, no matter how they are created? Who doesn't?

2. Does cloning to create stem cells, also called therapeutic cloning, justify destroying a human embryo?

3. If a clone originates from an existing person, who is the parent?

4. What are some of the social challenges a cloned child might face?

5. Do the benefits of human cloning outweigh the costs of human dignity?

[Stephire]

Whoever said that would be the use of clones? Scientists are not looking to harvest and grow people for the sole purpose of killing anything. That is not what cloning research is going for. No one aspires to murder others.

This is why you should not base your opinions on what is fed to you by the media. It's a fictional story; it wouldn't happen. That would not ever be allowed in our society. We do not condone murder of anyone, clone or not. That's not a goal for anyone.

You didn't read what I said right at all.
The clones might die faster and have many difficulties, like illumineering said. (Also like I said, many people will want to use the clones to better themselves. The world is a selfish place.)
That to me is like murdering.
Also, our society DOES condone murder. What rock do you live under? Killing is a goal for many people.
Did you just forget about mobs, gangs, war, and etc?
Ofcourse it would happen. A clone would be an exact replica of us, would it not?
It would have feelings. Real human feelings.

[*mipadi*]

1.  There's a high rate of failure.  Successful clones occur at the rate of 0.1% to 3% per thousand.

What does that figure mean? Percents are by the hundreds, not thousands.

[illumineering]

What does that figure mean? Percents are by the hundreds, not thousands.

Huh? My decimal place is correct. That means the highest rate of success is 30 per 1000.

[*mipadi*]

Huh?  My decimal place is correct.  That means the highest rate of success is 30 per 1000.

You put percentage signs after your figures, which would literally mean a success rate of .1 to 3 per hundred per thousand, then. It didn't make a lot of sense.

[illumineering]

You put percentage signs after your figures, which would literally mean a success rate of .1 to 3 per hundred per thousand, then. It didn't make a lot of sense.

How is it that a percentage of 1000 doesn't make sense? It's correct.

[*mipadi*]

How is it that a percentage of 1000 doesn't make sense.  It's correct.

What is a percentage of 1000, then? A percentage is based on one hundred, i.e. "4%" means "4 out of a hundred". If you mean "4 out of a thousand", then the percentage becomes ".4%". But "4% out of a 1000" doesn't make much sense, since 4% is already "4 out of a hundred."

[illumineering]

What is a percentage of 1000, then? A percentage is based on one hundred. "%" is just a fancy way of writing "1/100". When you say "1%", you are saying "1 over 100", or "1 out of 100." So, if you say ".1% of 1000", you are saying "1 out of a 100 out of a thousand." So, your quote of ".3% to 1% of 1000" means that clones fail ".3 to 1 time out of every hundred out of a thousand." Explain to me exactly what that means, and I'll concede that you are correct.

If you are basing your statistic on 1000, you have to divide the base number by 10. ".3 to 1 out of a thousand" is ".03% to .1%."

First, convert the % to a decimal by moving the decimal two places to the left.

3% equals 0.03

0.1% equals 0.001

Then multiply by 1000.

1000 x 0.03 = 30

1000 x 0.001 = 1

Converting a percent to a decimal, the first operation, is not tied to the number you wish to determine the percentage of. The two step process of converting the % to a decimal and them multiplying can be done with any number and remain the same process.

Yes, the conversion process is always two to the left which is based on 100, but you still have to multiply the decimal by the number you wish to determine the %age of.

[*mipadi*]

Such a statistic is generally quoted out of "30 out of a thousand" or "30 of every thousand," not "3% out of a thousand," to avoid confusion as noted here. I'm not trying to be an ass; I'm just trying to figure out what the figure meant to avoid confusion.

[illumineering]

Such a statistic is generally quoted out of "30 out of a thousand" or "30 of every thousand," not "3% out of a thousand," to avoid confusion as noted here. I'm not trying to be an ass; I'm just trying to figure out what the figure meant to avoid confusion.

No problem. I don't think you're being an ass at all. I'm glad you're reading my posts thoroughly.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Yes, there's flaws in everything in the scientific community, but why would you delay research on it that could make it better? The only way to fix something is with practice. Banning it would not make the flaws in cloning go away, only delay the time it takes to perfect it.

You didn't read what I said right at all.
The clones might die faster and have many difficulties, like illumineering said. (Also like I said, many people will want to use the clones to better themselves. The world is a selfish place.)
That to me is like murdering.
Also, our society DOES condone murder. What rock do you live under? Killing is a goal for many people.
Did you just forget about mobs, gangs, war, and etc?
Ofcourse it would happen. A clone would be an exact replica of us, would it not?
It would have feelings. Real human feelings.

How is that being condoned? Yes, it happens, and then those people get sent to jail or killed themselves. Do you know what condoned means?

Murder is not agreed with or portrayed as a good thing in our society, at all.

People might want to use clones to better their own selves, but that doesn't mean it's going to be allowed. No one would ever ALLOW someone to be killed. Nothing that is living will be killed without reprecussions.

What's wrong with that? Billions of people turn to the content of books to guide decisions. The bible is one obvious example.

You certaintly aren't thinking for yourself by not allowing anyone to post a contrary perspective that is just as valid as yours. Your use of "researched" facts is no more or less vaild than any other process of justification in this form.

It's one thing to help a morally based document GUIDE your opinoins, but it's another to base your opinions entirely off of a fictional story. What happened in The Island would never happen in real life. Nowhere in this world would there exist a place where clones were harvested and just killed off to benefit others. It wouldn't be allowed. That's not realistic at all.

[Stephire]

Yes, there's flaws in everything in the scientific community, but why would you delay research on it that could make it better? The only way to fix something is with practice. Banning it would not make the flaws in cloning go away, only delay the time it takes to perfect it.
How is that being condoned? Yes, it happens, and then those people get sent to jail or killed themselves. Do you know what condoned means?

Murder is not agreed with or portrayed as a good thing in our society, at all.

People might want to use clones to better their own selves, but that doesn't mean it's going to be allowed. No one would ever ALLOW someone to be killed. Nothing that is living will be killed without reprecussions.
It's one thing to help a morally based document GUIDE your opinoins, but it's another to base your opinions entirely off of a fictional story. What happened in The Island would never happen in real life. Nowhere in this world would there exist a place where clones were harvested and just killed off to benefit others. It wouldn't be allowed. That's not realistic at all.

I don't think you know what it means-
"condone: excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with;; "excuse someone's behavior"; "She condoned her husband's occasional infidelities""

Ofcourse it would be condoned, people will make millions off it. Just like people are making millions off cancer treatment. You're being so naive. It's very realistic, now tell me if you had lung cancer? You can't cure it you're about to die, and then someone tells you there is a way for you to live. By cloning you and using their organs, you can't tell me that it would be a pretty sweet deal? Our whole society is morally corrupt, if people had enough money, they would definately want it. We condone crack houses, why wouldn't we condone this? Also, "The Island" is what made start to think about it. It's not what I based my whole entire opinion on and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I don't think that I did, I think you just jumped to conclusions.
Anyway, bit of advice- Go look in the real world. You just seem so very sheltered that you actually think people wouldn't do this.

[illumineering]

Here's some breaking news about a Korean scientist who fabricated stem cell research data.

1st article

Here's another

2nd article

If you don't have a Korean language translator, I'd wait a few days. This will probably be more widley covered by the international community in the next few days.

Hwang Woo-suk claimed that he was able to successfully clone 11 human embryos to produce stem cells. He cited a new methodology for cloning was what enabled him to be the first to successfully clone human embryos. Several factors cited were dexterity w/ chopsticks, 24 hour staffing and support from the Korean government. His claims and data were completely fabricated.

[FoxBandCutie08]

I believe that cloning body organs for people who need them is OK.

Cloning a whole human is very risky, not to mention mean to the person itself, because they would be studied and looked at funny their whole life. I wouldn't want that for me, so I wouldn't want anybody else to go through that.

I think if cloning can be used in a beneficial way, like organs or skin tissue or something, then it is fine.

[MFDOOM]

I need a clone to complete my housework.

Nothing wrong with cloning from a moral standpoint.

[misoshiru]

I feel that ultimately, the technology for cloning will be made, and it will happen.

Personally, i feel that stem-cell research is beneficial to society. At this point with if we keep going down the road with stem-cell research, we will be able to come up with solutions for diseases such as parkison's or alzheimer's - diseases which we currently do not have cures for. And is it really wrong to be able to clone organs? Organs for transplant? To save people?

So, to stick to the point of reproductive cloning.. For those who say that cloned people aren't humans, who don't have souls, who are you to decide who is human and who isn't? So let me ask you something what makes a human truly a human? Is it our physical characteristics? Well, clones would have physical characteristics as well no matter how similar they are to other people. Is it our personality? If we put cloned humans into an environment, they would grow up and lead different lives than ours and have their own personalities as well. How can you say that they do not have a soul? Just because they are "unnaturally made" does not mean that they are not human.

However, if you are still to argue that clones are not human beings. Once again, what constitutes a human being? The fact that we are "natural"? Not everyone in the world is "natural" anymore. And if you wanted us to go au naturale, then why don't we go on the road that the Mennonites have gone on and ban blood transfusions as well, since the "new" blood is "bad" blood. Also, are you saying that people with heart transplants, electronic heart pumps, transplanted kidneys, metal disks in their hips NOT humans either? Well, they're not natural, so are you saying that they don't fit the criteria for being human?

You say that we shouldn't "play" God and clone humans. But by banning cloning, in a way, you are taking the role of "God" as well. Who are you to decide whether or not cloning should be banned or not?

And in conclusion to this, I would like to state that although I am and advocate for cloning, I believe that certain limits should be set on this. For cloning is, and will be for at least the next decade or so, a widely controversial topic whether we have the technology or not. There are huge ethical/religious problems, and not to mention the responsibility of the population and the governments, but also the fact that limitations should be set on this. I feel that cloning, is acceptable, up to a certain extent. Personally, I'm not too comfortable with another "me" walking around - although that "me" is a completely different individual. However, I am fully supportive of Stem-cell research and organ cloning.