Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cloning

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cloning

    What do you guys think about cloning?

    Do you think it should be banned partially or all the way or not at all.

    I don't see anything wrong with any type of cloning. No being with the ability to reason is killed in the process.

  • #2
    I'm opposed to cloning, they just haven't perfected it yet.

    Basically with cloning, you take an egg and empty it of it's genetic material, and fuse a cell with it using an electrical charge.

    A cell can only divide so many times. If you clone a 50 year old man, fusing one of his cells with the egg, in 25 years the cloned person will be the same age he is, 75.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • #3
      A cell can only divide so many times. If you clone a 50 year old man, fusing one of his cells with the egg, in 25 years the cloned person will be the same age he is, 75.
      Sounds like BS to me. Any actual evidence to back this up?

      Last edited by Praxus; 13 Nov 03,, 02:17.

      Comment


      • #4
        "no being with the ability to reason is killed"

        way to go Dr. Mengele. :ermm

        I'll grant that foetus's can't reason. However, if left alone, they will be able to, so by destroying them, you are essentially destroying a reasonable creature.
        SWANSEA 'TILL I DIE! - CARN THE CROWS!

        Rule Britannia, No Surrender

        Staff Cadet in the Australian Army Reserve.

        Soli Deo Gloria

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Praxus
          Sounds like BS to me. Any actual evidence to back this up?
          I believe thats what happened to Dolly's clone.
          Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ziska
            "no being with the ability to reason is killed"

            way to go Dr. Mengele. :ermm

            I'll grant that foetus's can't reason. However, if left alone, they will be able to, so by destroying them, you are essentially destroying a reasonable creature.
            Typical knee-jerk reaction, as was previously stated that isn't how it works. An egg, stripped of it's genetic material, is fused to a cell from the person/animal to be replicated, in current applications, no fetus is involved. The person/animal born simply has the exact, barring mutation, same genetic make-up of the fused cell, there is no strange aging in this process. There are other methods that involve stym-cells, these are for cellular cloning, something that could be used in the future to replace lost limbs/organs, but they do involve the use of an allready aborted fetus.
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Praxus
              Sounds like BS to me. Any actual evidence to back this up?
              What makes you think I would try to pass BS?

              Dolly, the cloned sheep, developed arthritis and lung ailments at the age of 5, it was found to have aged prematurely.

              Cellular aging, or senescence, is the process by which a cell becomes old and dies. It is due to the shortening of chromosomal telomeres to the point that the chromosome reaches a critical length. Cellular aging is analogous to a wind up clock. If the clock stays wound, a cell becomes immortal and constantly produces new cells. If the clock winds down, the cell stops producing new cells and dies. Our cells are constantly aging. Being able to make the body's cells live forever certainly creates some exciting possibilities. Telomerase research could therefore yield important discoveries related to the aging process.
              http://www.swmed.edu/home_pages/cell.../sw_facts.html
              As one ages, the telomeres shorten, as the telomeres shorten, the cells cannot divide. The cells die. When the cells die, you die.

              When they clone a living organism such as a sheep or human, all genetic information such as the telomeres is copied.

              Let's say for example a certain type of cell can divide 100 times in a lifetime. If you take someone who has had that type of cell divide 90 times, and clone them, those cells can only divide 10 more times in them, and in the clone.
              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

              Comment


              • #8
                What makes you think I would try to pass BS?

                Dolly, the cloned sheep, developed arthritis and lung ailments at the age of 5, it was found to have aged prematurely.
                Ok, thanks for the info.

                I guess it would be prudent to wait till the technology matures, but my point is there is nothing immoral about it.

                way to go Dr. Mengele.

                I'll grant that foetus's can't reason. However, if left alone, they will be able to, so by destroying them, you are essentially destroying a reasonable creature.
                You are able to argue wether a fetus in it's 7-8th months after conception is being capable of reason.

                However NO ONE can claim that a chunck of cells the size of a human hair is cable of reason and should be treated as a human.

                There is nothing immoral about stem cell research.

                Now please don't go off on your irrational religious crap.
                Last edited by Praxus; 13 Nov 03,, 19:06.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I guess it would be prudent to wait till the technology matures, but my point is there is nothing immoral about it.
                  You can't declare something is moral or immoral as a statement of fact, because morality is subjective.
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I believe humans who are rational beings can come to the same idea of what is moral or not if they do not reject reason.

                    According to me anything that violates humans individual rights is immoral, anything that does not is moral.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What about the rights of a clone? Doesn't he have a right to parents, to family? Do you think a clone would appreciate the fact he was created on an egotistical whim, that he is a mere copy of another person?

                      Now what is rational and what is irrational is also highly subjective.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Praxus
                        However NO ONE can claim that a chunck of cells the size of a human hair is cable of reason and should be treated as a human.
                        What changes when the child comes out of the womb? The child breaths in air and...wow...it can reason.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What about the rights of a clone? Doesn't he have a right to parents, to family? Do you think a clone would appreciate the fact he was created on an egotistical whim, that he is a mere copy of another person?
                          I think he would apreciate exsistence, what seperates one human from another is his mind. He would be a genetic copy but his mind would be completley different.

                          Someone would have to give birth to the clone, you can't completly grow a human in a petry dish. It would be the father or the mother cloning themselves because say the father does not produce enough sperm. In most cases this is what would be the reason for cloning.


                          Now what is rational and what is irrational is also highly subjective.
                          You think everything is subjective.

                          You determine what is rational or not by the free use of reason. Like I said before if you accept reason then I believe like Aristotle did that they will eventual arive at the same conclusion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think he would apreciate exsistence, what seperates one human from another is his mind. He would be a genetic copy but his mind would be completley different.
                            Knowing he was just a mere clone, created on somebody else's egotistical whim?

                            Someone would have to give birth to the clone, you can't completly grow a human in a petry dish. It would be the father or the mother cloning themselves because say the father does not produce enough sperm.
                            In-vitro fertilization is always possible if the father produces ANY sperm.

                            There is such thing as women renting their wombs, they are not the mothers of the child.

                            You don't see anything wrong at all with cloning humans, what if someone obtained one of your cells and fused it with an empty egg, and made a clone of you?

                            The only way I see cloning as being the right thing is if the child dies when the woman is giving birth, or she suffers a miscarriage.

                            You think everything is subjective.

                            You determine what is rational or not by the free use of reason. Like I said before if you accept reason then I believe like Aristotle did that they will eventual arive at the same conclusion.
                            You do NOT have a monopoly on what is rational or reasonable, I can think just like Aristotle and come to an entirely different conclusion than you.

                            Aristotle believed in moral virtue. He NEVER advocated complete moral detachment when making decisions. What he advocated was a middle ground.


                            And do tell us, what is the difference the day before a baby is born and the day after?
                            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              IMO Cloning of organs, growing organs is ok. But even that would create lot other problems. simply man will not die which will increase worlds population, which will substantially increase the exploitation of the world and nature.

                              Cloning people is debatable not to mention that its just gonna lead to an unorganized chaos.

                              Oh well, nature has its own way of checking humans, who knows. But definetely cloning will stop the growth of evolution. I'm still not sure about the adaptability and survivability of clones. Also it leads to another worst thing, tailouring babies, so after a while, almost all children will look alike.

                              Spielburg's AI wud be a good start, even though the kid is not a clone, it shows the mental and emotional stress a humanoid experiences.
                              :LOL
                              A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X