PDA

View Full Version : Is it ethical to clone humans?



Ipwnyou
20th May 2008, 12:14 AM
Read the title.
Personally I'm against it because of the fact that clones often suffer after being made and I don't see what the point of it is.
Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about cloning so I'm not 100% sure about what I think about.

dragoniteKnight
20th May 2008, 12:24 AM
cloning humans is stupid and pointless...cloning is basicly getting a women to have birth to a lookalike (through an expensive process mind you) that remembers nothing that the origonal knows. they suffer from desiesies that the other one was going to have and will die sooner. (for example, you clone a guy with a 40 year old cell, he will live till hes 80, the clone will only live for 40 years)

the only use of cloning is bringing back excint animals, or helping a speiceis out if its endangerd or threatend

Strants
20th May 2008, 12:44 AM
cloning humans is stupid and pointless...cloning is basicly getting a women to have birth to a lookalike (through an expensive process mind you) that remembers nothing that the origonal knows. Not exactly. Say two gays or lesbians want to have a child. Cloning is the only way (Or something similar). Also, a clone of a smart person will not know what they do, but it will have the same mental ability (genes for "smartness") as the cloned.

they suffer from desiesies that the other one was going to have and will die sooner. (for example, you clone a guy with a 40 year old cell, he will live till hes 80, the clone will only live for 40 years) A natural child would also have a chance of having or carrying diseases. What about AIDs? It is spread through sex, so natural children have a good chance of having it. With clones, there is less of a chance, I'd think. Also, their may be a way around the life-span problem, such as 'reseting' the cellular clock.
Overall, if clones were given equal rights (which they should be, anyways), I have no problems with it morally.

dragoniteKnight
20th May 2008, 12:57 AM
Not exactly. Say two gays or lesbians want to have a child. Cloning is the only way (Or something similar). Also, a clone of a smart person will not know what they do, but it will have the same mental ability (genes for "smartness") as the cloned.
A natural child would also have a chance of having or carrying diseases. What about AIDs? It is spread through sex, so natural children have a good chance of having it. With clones, there is less of a chance, I'd think. Also, their may be a way around the life-span problem, such as 'reseting' the cellular clock.
Overall, if clones were given equal rights (which they should be, anyways), I have no problems with it morally.

1) where did i say it would be stupid? what i meant if we say cloned disney, he wont be anything like him, he could be a jerk, nice, ect. he wouldnt know about creating oswald, goofy, mickey, ect. hes be an intirley new person to say.
2) lesbians and gays can adopt, and multiple other things if they want children.

however i looked at the aid part, cloning isnt like cartoons where they use a hair, put it in a machiene and out pops a clone, they remove the nucli from a cell, put it in a womens egg, shock it once for combining, shock it again to get it to multiply, put it in a women to "raise" it, and 9 months later a baby with the exact same genes pop out... but once again there are alternitves such as adopting, and such.

seeing how it doesnt remember anything from the origonal, you might as well just get anoughter child, cloning shortens lives. sides there are other ways to have children without anyone contracting aids.

cradle_of_filth_rock
20th May 2008, 12:58 AM
only if they get superpowers :D

only joking why not its not hurting anyone

and if it does who cares

Strants
20th May 2008, 1:35 AM
1) where did i say it would be stupid? what i meant if we say cloned disney, he wont be anything like him, he could be a jerk, nice, ect. he wouldnt know about creating oswald, goofy, mickey, ect. hes be an intirley new person to say. Where did I say the new person (saying 'it' sound discriminatory to me) would be stupid? I just said that said person would have the same genes, and with a gene for intelligence, said person would be smart.

2) lesbians and gays can adopt, and multiple other things if they want children. Why not add another? I see no harm in it.

however i looked at the aid part, cloning isnt like cartoons where they use a hair, put it in a machiene and out pops a clone, they remove the nucli from a cell, put it in a womens egg, shock it once for combining, shock it again to get it to multiply, put it in a women to "raise" it, and 9 months later a baby with the exact same genes pop out... but once again there are alternitves such as adopting, and such. I am aware of what cloning is. However, it still seems to prevent AIDs more effectively. Also, many people are sentimentally attached to their own flesh and blood, their genetic children. What is wrong with providing another alternative? That's what capitalism is, after all. ;) Also, the question was the ETHICS, not simplicity. It's hard and somewhat pointless to participate in sports (not to sound offensive, I understand there are benefits, but they could also be gotten in other ways, no?), but is it unethical? I think not.

Dattebayo
20th May 2008, 1:35 AM
I'm against cloning. It's against the laws of nature if it's a cloned being. I also agree they'll be suffering after being created. Besides, playing God = bad idea.

Meta_Ridley
20th May 2008, 1:42 AM
Though I'm against it morally, cloning can lead to health benefits for organ transplants and the like. At least, that is what I heard on a show on cloning.

crazymoose
20th May 2008, 1:45 AM
I'm against cloning. It's against the laws of nature if it's a cloned being. I also agree they'll be suffering after being created. Besides, playing God = bad idea.
i agree with all of those statements, especially the last one

Pinata Panda
20th May 2008, 1:45 AM
I tink its stupid and they should stop cloning cows already its realllyyy bad for us

Lon
20th May 2008, 1:50 AM
Thinking something is stupid without knowing the exact details of the thing is stupid in itself.

Honestly, I don't have an opinion on it yet. From what I've seen, cloning can be helpful if we wish to experience extinct animals that our ancestors so selfishly killed, or obtain healthy parts made from diseased ones. A more elaborate opinion would require more information gathering on my part first.

$Cash$
20th May 2008, 1:55 AM
I'm against cloning. It's against the laws of nature if it's a cloned being. I also agree they'll be suffering after being created. Besides, playing God = bad idea.

Agreed, science should NEVER go that far

Black Marauder
20th May 2008, 1:56 AM
I feel that cloning is wonderful ^_^ It would only 'harm' the clones and not 'parent'. But if we're gonna talk about cloning we might as well bring in genetic engineering and steam cells >_>

Profesco
20th May 2008, 1:59 AM
I have no moral qualms with cloning humans. I plan on heading into the field of genetics, anyway, so I look forward to learning much more about it.

Profesco
20th May 2008, 2:01 AM
I have no moral qualms with cloning humans. I plan on heading into the field of genetics, anyway, so I look forward to learning much more about it.

Strants
20th May 2008, 2:03 AM
It's against the laws of nature if it's a cloned being. I FINALLY get to use my secret weapon argument! OK then, look around the universe real fast. How much life do you see? Life is, by your definition, unnatural. Besides, plenty of organisms clone on a regular basis. Think bacteria and protista.
I also agree they'll be suffering after being created. How? If cloning is improved, we might be able to do away with lifespan problems.
Besides, playing God = bad idea.
God, I notice, can play God all he wants.

Regan
20th May 2008, 2:04 AM
Cloning is fine, as long as everyone in the process is fully aware of what happens, and the reprocussions. Why shouldn't people be able to clone themselves? They can have children. Its just a scientific way of reproduction.

Black Marauder
20th May 2008, 2:13 AM
I FINALLY get to use my secret weapon argument! OK then, look around the universe real fast. How much life do you see? Life is, by your definition, unnatural. Besides, plenty of organisms clone on a regular basis. Think bacteria and protista. How? If cloning is improved, we might be able to do away with lifespan problems.
God, I notice, can play God all he wants.

In addition, our very lives depend on cloning. It all goes down to the bacteria and binary fission. Bacteria are very important organisms you know.

And cloning CAN be improved. That's where genetic engineering comes in. That's where we can remove/replace bad homozygous genes from the cloned organism.

Who said that playing god is a bad idea. It never was and it never will be. It's just that the religious groups want to 'maintain their religions' by saying that it's [cloning] is wrong.

GhostAnime
20th May 2008, 2:23 AM
these religious reasons are the same things that held galileo back.

GrizzlyB
20th May 2008, 3:50 AM
I FINALLY get to use my secret weapon argument! OK then, look around the universe real fast. How much life do you see? Life is, by your definition, unnatural. Besides, plenty of organisms clone on a regular basis. Think bacteria and protista.

Nah, binary fission's rather different, given that it is subject to replication errors. Otherwise, prokaryotes wouldn't evolve now, would they? In addition to your standpoint, though, you might mention mitosis, occurring in nearly all cells of any eukaryote, practically the same process as binary fission.

Also, it's great to see that misconceptions about cloning still abound, such as magically producing an exact copy of an individual, no matter their age. Simply put, cloning gives identical genes to another person, not conditioning or anything like that, which are pretty much the things that give anyone their idiosyncrasies, taking a lot of the creepiness out of cloning. Really, cloning someone would be a good way to determine nature versus nurture on people, which I'm certain would show nurture being much more prominent.


And cloning CAN be improved. That's where genetic engineering comes in. That's where we can remove/replace bad homozygous genes from the cloned organism.

Well, then it's not cloning. And sometimes, mixed alleles can be worse than a homozygous gene, so why not expand that to heterozygous genes, too?


I have no moral qualms with cloning humans. I plan on heading into the field of genetics, anyway, so I look forward to learning much more about it.

I'm rather jealous of you. Genetics is by far my favorite facet of science, albeit something I'm likely never to go into.

Hive Mind
20th May 2008, 3:55 AM
They should clone only organs and body parts needed for replacements. That should help people not be in lines for hearts and lungs while they die. However, anywhere else is playing God.

Shinin
20th May 2008, 4:03 AM
They should clone only organs and body parts needed for replacements. That should help people not be in lines for hearts and lungs while they die. However, anywhere else is playing God.

How is harvesting organs from clones any less of playing god than using the clones for other purposes?

DragonDance
20th May 2008, 4:08 AM
It's not a question of whether it's ethical or not. It's a question of whether it's smart or not.

And something like this, is really, really, dumb.

This is the same with cloning something like a cat, or a cow. Pointless.

DragonDance
20th May 2008, 4:11 AM
It's not a question of whether it's ethical or not. It's a question of whether it's smart or not.

And something like this, is really, really, dumb.

This is the same with cloning something like a cat, or a cow. Pointless.

dragoniteKnight
20th May 2008, 4:11 AM
guys just remember that once you start altering the DNA it isnt cloning anymore, it some really big word i cant remember. anyways just a note to one of the above people saying we can use clones for organs and such, thats a bad idea, clones are still people.you might as well just walk into anoughter country and kidnap people for organs.
(correct me if im wrong didnt they do the cloning for organ thing in the superman comics?)

GrizzlyB
20th May 2008, 5:01 AM
guys just remember that once you start altering the DNA it isnt cloning anymore, it some really big word i cant remember. anyways just a note to one of the above people saying we can use clones for organs and such, thats a bad idea, clones are still people.you might as well just walk into anoughter country and kidnap people for organs.
(correct me if im wrong didnt they do the cloning for organ thing in the superman comics?)

You mean genetic engineering?

The reason the organ-stealing idea is so prevalent is because if someone was cloned and needed an organ, they wouldn't have to search for a match; they'd have one, and an exact one at that, making the process much simpler and safer than it is now. But, if the ethics of simply cloning are so controversial, I cannot understand how one can get off saying organ-robbing is OK so nonchalantly.

Hakajin
20th May 2008, 8:08 AM
I wouldn't be against cloning if scientists found a way to clone people with normal health and lifespans. Clones wouldn't be exact replicas because they'd have different experiences than their parents. They're not supposed to be just alike. It would be an alternative for parents who couldn't have their own children.

On the other hand, I think that parents who don't have children should adopt more. The population's already too big, and there are plenty of children who need homes. Some say that they have to have their own children, but personally, I think they're being selfish.


The reason the organ-stealing idea is so prevalent is because if someone was cloned and needed an organ, they wouldn't have to search for a match; they'd have one, and an exact one at that, making the process much simpler and safer than it is now. But, if the ethics of simply cloning are so controversial, I cannot understand how one can get off saying organ-robbing is OK so nonchalantly.

Exactly. Harvesting organs from clones wouldn't happen. They'd have the same rights as other people.

Khamul
20th May 2008, 9:17 AM
Exactly. Harvesting organs from clones wouldn't happen. They'd have the same rights as other people.

Maybe cloning healthy organs would be more ethical, and it can be used for good, such as giving sight to the blind, and no one wouyld have rights that'd be stolen, since the organ was cloned anyway

JonesBlue
20th May 2008, 9:25 AM
I'm for pretty much anything that saves human lives.

I read an article years ago that mentioned the possibility of producing clones who are brain-dead by design, thus they would never be technically 'people'. Gives a lot of people the willies, and I agree up to some point.

GrizzlyB
20th May 2008, 9:32 AM
Maybe cloning healthy organs would be more ethical, and it can be used for good, such as giving sight to the blind, and no one wouyld have rights that'd be stolen, since the organ was cloned anyway

Cloning... organs? You mean just an organ, not a whole person? Silly man, it can't be done. Not only is it impossible to facilitate a mass of cells growing into a specific tissue, much less an organ, there's no way singular organs could be cultured to adult size, which would be the only practical use for just an organ.

Or maybe I'm reading your post all wrong.

Conquistador
20th May 2008, 10:00 AM
To be honest, I do not see the act of cloning unethical in any way, and don't see how it is.



I think the main unethicality comes when you think of the future of the child. It certainly would be inhumane to have that child live up in a "lab" environment.

But if the child is adopted and raised like any other, then what really is the problem?

EDIT: At Grizzly; it's actually quite possible to clone organs or make new ones from genetic material. Now I'm not sure how well they've perfected the art, but they certainly are able to do it.

Jazzy
20th May 2008, 10:05 AM
I dont see the point of clones. We already have ways to have woman getting pregnant without "thingy" so that argument is fairly useless. And I dont think cloning an army of vegetables only to harvest their organs is right either. Life shouldnt be created for so selfish a reason.

And if cloning doesnt give an exact copy, its not really cloning is it? its just making something that looks like the original.

Shinin
20th May 2008, 12:37 PM
It's not a question of whether it's ethical or not. It's a question of whether it's smart or not.

And something like this, is really, really, dumb.

This is the same with cloning something like a cat, or a cow. Pointless.

Your reasoning for this statement is quite convincing.

dragoniteKnight
20th May 2008, 10:36 PM
You mean genetic engineering?

The reason the organ-stealing idea is so prevalent is because if someone was cloned and needed an organ, they wouldn't have to search for a match; they'd have one, and an exact one at that, making the process much simpler and safer than it is now. But, if the ethics of simply cloning are so controversial, I cannot understand how one can get off saying organ-robbing is OK so nonchalantly.

the problem of cloning someone just to get there organs go as follows
1) theyd have to clone when the origonal is born, it takes nine months for a baby to come out, and anoughter 20 years for the organs to be roughly to be the same size.
2) its still a life your killing, its like walking up to someone and killing them for organs

but yhea...genetic engeneering...thanks lol. :)

Darkmaster Rannon
20th May 2008, 11:03 PM
If we get into human cloning, then eventually we'll get into genetic engineering then eventually have people who are part electric eel and eventually have bird people and and and... *EXPLODES*

Cloning is ok, but harvesting the organs? big problem is the money, they'd have to feed the clones, keep them healthy, etc... It is basicall like kidnapping foreigners and harvesting there organs.

goldfan
20th May 2008, 11:07 PM
How much difference is there between farming people and farming animals?

ironman4541
20th May 2008, 11:12 PM
I think that a good use could be found for cloning, besides just creating huge amounts of humans that are exactly the same.

Sherlock Holmes
20th May 2008, 11:19 PM
Well we could always farm genetic modified pigs that have human hearts or something,lol.
It is a sensible issue, but if the clones are allowed to have a regular life span, then why not?
As long as they are cloned from NON-EMO people,otherwise they would kill themselves pretty damn fast.

goldfan
20th May 2008, 11:22 PM
Holmes - Nice to add a little comedy to the subject - We'll done! may i sig that?

Sherlock Holmes
20th May 2008, 11:26 PM
Holmes - Nice to add a little comedy to the subject - We'll done! may i sig that?
Sure go ahead.

On a more serious note, we have to think on how the clones will feel. Even if they have non-emo genes they will always feel that they are not,original. "Original" people might think they are better than the clones,this kind of thing. It is ETHICAL, but I would not go as far as saying that it is right or something.

The idea of playing God pleases me, but even God(if he exists,which I doubt) had to think before creating everything. I mean if he hadn't,then people would be born blind sometimes, or deaf, or with 3 arms, or.....uh.
My point is,if we are going to play God, then let's wait until we can do a better job than him. It shouldn't take long. Because if we can't do better than nature, we have no reason to go artificial...

Nintenfreak
20th May 2008, 11:33 PM
I don't see how it's unethical, unless you're worried about the DMCA being violated. That could prove to be a challenge for anyone conceived after 2000

goldfan
20th May 2008, 11:36 PM
Ever heard of Irenaus Theodicy?

Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy)

Gos had to create evil, It is impossible to love God with out free will, free will requires the potential to choose the wrong thing, I am agnostic but i think a lot of people give God a bad time, put yourself in his shoes, but you do make a very good point Sherlock, these are living creaters with a capacity to think and reason, Imagine being a clone?

GrizzlyB
21st May 2008, 12:08 AM
EDIT: At Grizzly; it's actually quite possible to clone organs or make new ones from genetic material. Now I'm not sure how well they've perfected the art, but they certainly are able to do it.

Maybe I just don't keep up with the times very well. But you mean that they can form organs without culturing them in a body? The thing that I have trouble understanding is how they trigger the differentiation in the cells; I thought that was still rather a mystery as to how cells induce each other, precisely (is induction the right term here?).

Strants
21st May 2008, 12:18 AM
On a more serious note, we have to think on how the clones will feel. Even if they have non-emo genes they will always feel that they are not,original. "Original" people might think they are better than the clones,this kind of thing. It is ETHICAL, but I would not go as far as saying that it is right or something. This brings up nature VS nurture. If the originals and clones grew up in different environments, would they be different? Also, human life isn't that 'original,' you're likely (I like to respond to every possibility) just a random mix of your parent's DNA.

Sherlock Holmes
21st May 2008, 12:40 AM
This brings up nature VS nurture. If the originals and clones grew up in different environments, would they be different? Also, human life isn't that 'original,' you're likely (I like to respond to every possibility) just a random mix of your parent's DNA.

I know that. You know that. But imagine what you would think if you were a clone...Wouldn't you feel like you were less original than everyone else? Even if everyone else was a random mix of their parent's dna, the clones would pity themselves and think they are different. They wouldn't think logicallt,they would think emotionally.

Logically thinking we wouldn't mind, but god knows the emo moments a clone would have....Yeah,maybe the clones would be different...Maybe not. That's a very interesting topic.

aquajet16
21st May 2008, 1:46 AM
I know that. You know that. But imagine what you would think if you were a clone...Wouldn't you feel like you were less original than everyone else? Even if everyone else was a random mix of their parent's dna, the clones would pity themselves and think they are different. They wouldn't think logicallt,they would think emotionally.

Uh, Mewtwo?

Though cloning is good to make spare parts of organs, a great advantage in the field of medicine. But they have to make sure that these clones would live as normal human beings free of flaws and have a normal human lifespan. But science will just test these clones with new medicine, chemicals etc. which makes the clones feel psychologically and emotionally hurt, Hence, they will feel totally "outcasted".

dragoniteKnight
21st May 2008, 1:55 AM
Uh, Mewtwo?

Though cloning is good to make spare parts of organs, a great advantage in the field of medicine. But they have to make sure that these clones would live as normal human beings free of flaws and have a normal human lifespan. But science will just test these clones with new medicine, chemicals etc. which makes the clones feel psychologically and emotionally hurt, Hence, they will feel totally "outcasted".


guys seriously...creating clones just to harvest there organs is evil....remember not only are they basicly the same thing as anoughter person (ya know, someone still had to give birth and such, and they are there son/daughter),imma bring my "saying" one more time. Killing a clone for an organ is the same as killing the person next to you for organs.

aquajet16
21st May 2008, 1:56 AM
guys seriously...creating clones just to harvest there organs is evil....remember not only are they basicly the same thing as anoughter person (ya know, someone still had to give birth and such, and they are there son/daughter),imma bring my "saying" one more time. Killing a clone for an organ is the same as killing the person next to you for organs.

But look at how many lives will be saved?

Umbreon_13
21st May 2008, 1:59 AM
well acually i am also against it cause then the clone gets mischievos ideas and pretends to be you until they get you put in jail or worse who knows you might end up going to japan for lunch with som guy named pedro no offese to anyone here named pedro but the possibilities are limitless

dragoniteKnight
21st May 2008, 2:08 AM
But look at how many lives will be saved?

Look at how many REAL lifes will be lost

aquajet16
21st May 2008, 3:58 AM
Look at how many REAL lifes will be lost

Not really, they were just created for the purpose of medicine.
Another good thing is that couples who are unfertile can have babies by cloning.

Moeteimasu Umi
21st May 2008, 4:09 AM
I am against it but for reasons that have nothing to do with ethics. See, if we clone a persons genetic line can spread throughout a number of people. Instead of 1 persons genetic code combining with another to make a completely new one, one person will be cloned, and it will be exactly the same. Now lets say that one person and the clone both have babys. Those two have babys and that goes on for a few centuries. Then about 100,000 people on the planet would be completely incapable of breeding and if they do huge problems will emerge. This will shorten our genetic diversity and eventually, the entire species will be so much alike that we could very well face extinction because we just cant breed.

:P That is a proven fact right there. For it has happened with out species. Only not the same way. There are two animals of that species left on Earth, they breed, their children try to but cant, species dies. Hence how I completely don't believe in Adam and Eve.

GrizzlyB
21st May 2008, 4:33 AM
I am against it but for reasons that have nothing to do with ethics. See, if we clone a persons genetic line can spread throughout a number of people. Instead of 1 persons genetic code combining with another to make a completely new one, one person will be cloned, and it will be exactly the same. Now lets say that one person and the clone both have babys. Those two have babys and that goes on for a few centuries. Then about 100,000 people on the planet would be completely incapable of breeding and if they do huge problems will emerge. This will shorten our genetic diversity and eventually, the entire species will be so much alike that we could very well face extinction because we just cant breed.

uhmyeahs, it's not like the genes of a clone are going to stay stagnant nor be the only set of chromosomes passed on through the generations, which would be the only way your scenario could possibly occur. Doesn't make none sense to me.

Besides, genetic diversity is a value, not a length.

Jazzy
21st May 2008, 7:48 AM
Not really, they were just created for the purpose of medicine.

...So we create life just to save life? seems just as pointless.


Another good thing is that couples who are unfertile can have babies by cloning.

AUGGHHHH! THEY ALREADY CAN! Why has no one realised you can get pregnant without a partner or clones? There is no point in making a clone for a kid if we already have another way to do it.

aquajet16
21st May 2008, 10:52 AM
...So we create life just to save life? seems just as pointless.

It's not pointless, they were just created for the sole purpose of medicine and scientific research. They can save many lives by giving their organs to legit people.

Conquistador
21st May 2008, 11:23 AM
How exactly would clones not be "legit" people?

Jazzy
21st May 2008, 11:39 AM
It's not pointless, they were just created for the sole purpose of medicine and scientific research. They can save many lives by giving their organs to legit people.

"So hey, umm, listen this is hard to say, but we only created and raised you just so we could give other people your organs".
"WHAT!!!??"
"So, uh, yeah...
*Slices and takes organs*

If your conscience would be fine doing that, you really need to reassess your morals.

Moeteimasu Umi
21st May 2008, 11:58 AM
uhmyeahs, it's not like the genes of a clone are going to stay stagnant nor be the only set of chromosomes passed on through the generations, which would be the only way your scenario could possibly occur. Doesn't make none sense to me.

Besides, genetic diversity is a value, not a length.

Saying "Doesn't make none sense to me" is like saying "Makes sense to me" because you used a double negative. When you use two negative words to describe one thing it makes it a positive comment. Or easier yet, makes it sarcasm.

And who said it was "my" scenario? This is actually a group of geneticists' scenario. That has been proven. I just worded it wrong. Which I do a lot because I suck at English...o.o

The only thing that makes cloning a good thing is the medical purposes for it. But there are sure going to be people protesting "THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO!" .-. But they are.

And to the poster above, you don't need to be a certain age (For some diseases you do have to be older to be effected.) to get injected with a diesease or to be genetical engineered to be born with it (In this case not really born...)

The_Panda
21st May 2008, 12:03 PM
"So hey, umm, listen this is hard to say, but we only created and raised you just so we could give other people your organs".
"WHAT!!!??"
"So, uh, yeah...
*Slices and takes organs*

If your conscience would be fine doing that, you really need to reassess your morals.

What about using them for growing stem cells as foetuses?

Moeteimasu Umi
21st May 2008, 12:06 PM
What about using them for growing stem cells as foetuses?

That would be kind of pointless because we can create stem cells now without using babies. Well...something EXTREMELY similar. Just dose dead skin cells with a certain amount and a certain kind a radiation. Obviously not common kinds of it as well. :P

And it is fetuses.

The_Panda
21st May 2008, 12:45 PM
That would be kind of pointless because we can create stem cells now without using babies. Well...something EXTREMELY similar. Just dose dead skin cells with a certain amount and a certain kind a radiation. Obviously not common kinds of it as well. :P

But if that method fails (I heard about that idea, I'm rather skeptical of it), then should we resort to cloning?


And it is fetuses.

No; you can go to hell with the sacrilegious bastardisation of the English language. It's "foetus". And to be strict it shouldn't even be "foetuses" as a plural - it's "foetus" (with a long "u" sound, as oppose to the singular which is shorter). Next thing you'll tell me "doughnut" is spelt "donut" and the plural of "octopus" is "octopi".

dragoniteKnight
21st May 2008, 1:26 PM
Not really, they were just created for the purpose of medicine.
Another good thing is that couples who are unfertile can have babies by cloning.
thats not cloning, just cant remeber what its called. we could just get mice and such to grow organs

Token
21st May 2008, 10:52 PM
But if that method fails (I heard about that idea, I'm rather skeptical of it), then should we resort to cloning?



No; you can go to hell with the sacrilegious bastardisation of the English language. It's "foetus". And to be strict it shouldn't even be "foetuses" as a plural - it's "foetus" (with a long "u" sound, as oppose to the singular which is shorter). Next thing you'll tell me "doughnut" is spelt "donut" and the plural of "octopus" is "octopi".


Will you be my new best friend?

On a serious note, all of the positive sides od cloning I've read so far can also be achieved more efficiently without any deaths through the use of stem cells. Also to one poster, who said that since they have the exact same genes, they feel inferior, your logic phayls, because of two words. Identical. Twins.
I know quite a few twins, and none of them seem depressed because they have the same genes?

Strants
22nd May 2008, 12:49 AM
I am against it but for reasons that have nothing to do with ethics. See, if we clone a persons genetic line can spread throughout a number of people. Instead of 1 persons genetic code combining with another to make a completely new one, one person will be cloned, and it will be exactly the same. Now lets say that one person and the clone both have babys. Those two have babys and that goes on for a few centuries. Then about 100,000 people on the planet would be completely incapable of breeding and if they do huge problems will emerge. This will shorten our genetic diversity and eventually, the entire species will be so much alike that we could very well face extinction because we just cant breed. I, too, am pretty sure this is not true. some animals can do it, apparently, just fine, such as trematodes (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18535528). Plenty of plants more or less clone, using self-pollination (http://www.zetatalk.com/food/tfood09l.htm). Insects, such as an Asian pine beetle, also clone; most of this pine beetle specimens are, in America, female clones (males can't clone). They, sadly are thriving and destroying forests like there's no tomorrow.

No; you can go to hell with the sacrilegious *******isation of the English language. The English language IS hell, silly.

aquajet16
22nd May 2008, 4:47 AM
thats not cloning, just cant remeber what its called. we could just get mice and such to grow organs

Actually it is cloning, planting a fertilized egg in a females ovum to make her have a baby is what is done. Isn't that cloning? O_o

dragoniteKnight
22nd May 2008, 12:33 PM
Actually it is cloning, planting a fertilized egg in a females ovum to make her have a baby is what is done. Isn't that cloning? O_o

cloning is where you put a nucli into an empty cell then put it in a women, but we dont need more people in the world, they can just adopt a baby... hold on, whats the process of fertalization outside of a women called? cuz they could do that