As I've said-- controversial topics.

Cloning has come as fairly new technology and I'll get right to the point:

I think there are some things we should not touch, cloning is one of them. Invisibility is another.

Some take this scenario:

A mother loses her child pre-maturely to a disease. She wished she could have spent more time with her child, so she wishes to clone the baby with DNA from some hair or some other item the baby would leave his or her DNA. Would it be right? Would it be fair?

My opinion--

No. I strongly believe that everything happens for a reason to help you grow and to become strong, mentally.

Scenario:

A child is cloned from two doner's DNA. Take the baby Eve that has been claimed to have been cloned.

My opinion--

Is it fair for that child to grow up a test-tube baby? Without a true mother or father? Without truly being 'conceived'? I believe that would not be good on the child.

Scenario:

The United States is entering a war with North Korea and we'd like to try making super-soldiers from cloning DNA and 'fixing' genetic weaknesses.

I can't come up with a clean opinion on that that isn't pages long. I think it's wrong, unfair. All humans were meant to have imperfections. It's what makes us human.

Share your thoughts. Keep them clean. No flaming, please.

`Wildie

It is an interesting technology, one which could potentially have positive uses.

But as far as creating sentient beings goes, I am against it.

Wildie's made a controversial topic.

Anyway, I personally am against "whole human cloning" because doing so is going to the extreme.

However, if it is a liver, a lung, a heart, a kidney, a pancreas, a stomach, an intestine, a spine, or a bone marrow that is about to fail\is too weak and there is absolutely no capable donor, I'm for cloning.

Afterall, there would be theoretically a zero rejection rate because the dna is the same. It's a better alternative than having my son give me one of his kidneys (if compatible) and thus sacrficing his athletic career and me going into dialysis daily.

Another example would be a person who suffered from a horseback riding accident and caused irreparable damage to his spine. If it can be regrown using cloning, I have nothing against it. I don't believe that I should deprive him\her of the opportunity of standing upright and being able to walk again.

Last example, someone who went blind after getting his\her eyes pierced by a criminal. If the dna of his\her eyes can be cloned, why not? I can't say to him\her you were pierced by that criminal for a reason and it's to make you mentally stronger.

I say no; morally and ethically wrong. Aside from the fact that it'd be creepy, the clone would have a host of genetic flaws from the process.

The process they would have to use is the same one they used to clone Dolly the sheep (somatic cell nuclear transfer). But removing the DNA from a host cell damages the nucleus and causes a huge failure rate in the embryo; a 98% chance of failure in fact, so there'd be a whole lot of embryos that are basically dead from the start of the attempt. Aside from that being completely wrong, there's other things to think about.

Cloning someone would give the clone their EXACT DNA sequence. But there's a but of DNA at the end of chromosomes called telomeres, that protect the chromosomes from damage. But each time DNA replicates, the telomeres become shorter, which is one reason our body becomes weaker at old age and why are DNA is more susceptible to degredation. So cloning someone that ALREADY has shorterned telomeres gives the clone the short telomeres; which really is dooming them to a short life. The DNA also seems to get damaged more easily because of this and the clones basically die easily; Dolly developed progressive lung disease, other clones have got brain disorders and cancer, etc.


So I'm against it. Even if the technology is perfected and all this stuff is overcome, the clone's gonna live a terrible life; under observation, and imagine the criticism they'd have to stand.

I am strictly against cloning. Not because I'm religious and use the arguments they use, but for other reasons I will try to explain now.

First of all, I want to differ between cloning and PID (don't know if this is also called PDI in English, I will translate from German: pre-implantation-diagnostics), and, on the other hand, medical researches on human DNA.

For cloning/"PID":
I see great problems in this case with the tendency to the "perfect" human. I don't know how well all of you know the backgroundstory of Matrix (especially delivered in Animatrix), but isn't the conflict there not that the machines are just kind of perfect, and simply stronger, better? What will happen to human society if there is one part of the society that is born the "classic" way, and the other part cloned with improved DNA, or, respectively, children that have been tested on their DNA, and, eventually, have improved DNA as well then. It's quite obvious that the human society will split into two, and I don't think the more "perfect" humans will like us "normals/classic" in their elitist society. We will have a biased meritocracy, because how shall one normal man (usually 5-6 genetical mistakes, that's average) compete with a "perfect" man? Great times coming in that case. Eventually we end as batteries like in Matrix. But probably without a world for our thoughts.
Another problem, especially brought through "PID" is the one with children with heavily damaged DNA that can't be repaired. What will parents say if they KNOW their child won't be "normal" nor "perfect"? Shall we end in times like Germany between 1939 and 1942, when these children were just SLAUGHTERED?
I may suggest a book here. It's "Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer. Though in his opinion, you might kill the children, he writes a lot about that topic which is partly interesting (I strongly disagree with him though, yet it's interesting).

The other point is the research on human DNA to DEVELOP medicines. Now you might think this ultimately is the same, but there are great differences. While cloning/"PID" manipulates the human body directly, medical researches are done outside the body and don't manipulate the body itself, so there is no "I have a perfect DNA, I will never get ill or so".

K, that's my opinion. If you read it, thank you

Lama, they would use stem cells for that stuff. I support stem cell research. I do NOT support cloning. Having clones would completely break down all society as we know it. That's all I have to say.

BTW, Wildie, I was about to make this topic. :P

Originally Posted by Wild Angel

As I've said-- controversial topics.

Cloning has come as fairly new technology and I'll get right to the point:

I think there are some things we should not touch, cloning is one of them. Invisibility is another.

I don't see anything wrong with invisibility, but I guess that's not the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Wild Angel

Some take this scenario:

A mother loses her child pre-maturely to a disease. She wished she could have spent more time with her child, so she wishes to clone the baby with DNA from some hair or some other item the baby would leave his or her DNA. Would it be right? Would it be fair?

My opinion--

No. I strongly believe that everything happens for a reason to help you grow and to become strong, mentally.

I concur. People who die obviously had a reason to, and the strength of the human race depends on the weak dying out (and the amount of stupid people that breed so much dwindling, but that'll take a long time).

Originally Posted by Wild Angel

Scenario:

A child is cloned from two doner's DNA. Take the baby Eve that has been claimed to have been cloned.

My opinion--

Is it fair for that child to grow up a test-tube baby? Without a true mother or father? Without truly being 'conceived'? I believe that would not be good on the child.

That's not really a valid reason not to have a 'test-tube baby'. Granted that in this day and age it would be seen as an anomale, it could and would eventually become relatively standard, and not really have any wear on the child whatsoever. Sorry to say, but it sounds like you're saying you're afraid of change with this opinion.

Originally Posted by Wild Angel

Scenario:

The United States is entering a war with North Korea and we'd like to try making super-soldiers from cloning DNA and 'fixing' genetic weaknesses.

I can't come up with a clean opinion on that that isn't pages long. I think it's wrong, unfair. All humans were meant to have imperfections. It's what makes us human.

Super humans? Is that the best we've got!? I certainly hope not, the malefits far outweigh any benefits that could come from it. Especially since it sounds like we would be treating them like involuntary members of the military.

-Bluezy Bunny

Originally Posted by Wild Angel

As I've said-- controversial topics.

Cloning has come as fairly new technology and I'll get right to the point:

I think there are some things we should not touch, cloning is one of them. Invisibility is another.

Some take this scenario:

A mother loses her child pre-maturely to a disease. She wished she could have spent more time with her child, so she wishes to clone the baby with DNA from some hair or some other item the baby would leave his or her DNA. Would it be right? Would it be fair?

My opinion--

No. I strongly believe that everything happens for a reason to help you grow and to become strong, mentally.

Scenario:

A child is cloned from two doner's DNA. Take the baby Eve that has been claimed to have been cloned.

My opinion--

Is it fair for that child to grow up a test-tube baby? Without a true mother or father? Without truly being 'conceived'? I believe that would not be good on the child.

Scenario:

The United States is entering a war with North Korea and we'd like to try making super-soldiers from cloning DNA and 'fixing' genetic weaknesses.

I can't come up with a clean opinion on that that isn't pages long. I think it's wrong, unfair. All humans were meant to have imperfections. It's what makes us human.

Share your thoughts. Keep them clean. No flaming, please.

`Wildie

I agree entirely with Wildie. I feel that cloning is one thing in the world that we just shouldn't touch. While it is an interesting technology, things *do* happen for a reason, and cloning someone to 'try again' is wrong. Another thing I bring up is that a clone can look the same, but they can't clone the mind or spirit. This gets into deeper moral things that I probably don't need to state.

Originally Posted by Black Ninja

I agree entirely with Wildie. I feel that cloning is one thing in the world that we just shouldn't touch. While it is an interesting technology, things *do* happen for a reason, and cloning someone to 'try again' is wrong. Another thing I bring up is that a clone can look the same, but they can't clone the mind or spirit. This gets into deeper moral things that I probably don't need to state.

I think they can clone the mind and there is no such thing as a "spirit." But that gets into religion, which is rather different from cloning :P

By itself, it's rather pointless. A cloned human being does not copy the truely unique features of a person. No memories are copied, and appearance might not be completely the same. Such things aren't dependent on DNA. The main reason any average person would want to clone somebody else would be to copy either memories, apearences, or other physical attributes. Cloning by DNA will not achieve this.

In responce to a couple of Wildie's scenarios..
Babies being born without a mother or father is nothing new. Such situations should be avoided, but if the test tube baby had a caring mother and father to grow up with, I don't see anything wrong with that.
It might happen that some government will decide to clone an army, and that would suck for the same reason as the previous scenario, but in a larger quantity.

With that said, human cloning will happen. I don't see it becoming wildly popular though once people realize the limitations.

So is there any case where cloning might not be bad/pointless? Yes, if it could be linked with memory transfers. This way, individuals could get new bodies when their old ones fail. This will have other social ramifications, but they could be for the better. (Read: Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom to get a sense of what this might be like.)

I think that it would be to expensive anyway for a mother who losed her child.

anyway to get to the point i think there has to be a reason if someone young aged dies i dont beleave that happens without a reason, But what i am more worried of about cloning is the spirrit/mind.

Monolith, you made me think of another book I'm reading -- Age of the Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurtzweil. He predicts that by 2020 we will be able to upload our minds onto a computer. That's kinda off-topic though.

Anyway, cloning's only practical use would be mass-producing people (ew.) or reproduction for people who could not otherwise reproduce for any reason. However, it would be great for the study of genetics and DNA.

my thoughts on cloning...

it might be okay as long as there are still imperfections, and nobody makes "the perfect human".

Originally Posted by KRSplat

I do NOT support cloning. Having clones would completely break down all society as we know it. That's all I have to say.

(FTR)

BTW, Wildie, I was about to make this topic. :P

First you boast about a reply that would scare Fôx and now you tell Wildie that you had this idea first. (PA)

Derby: Flame tag/Personal attack removal.

I'm not scared of change, I just don't agree with certain changes.

`Wildie

My reasons for being against cloning go deeply into religion, which isn't the topic. However, I don't think it's fair to the cloned human. They won't live a normal life...they'll just suffer a miserable life. They won't ever have any real parents, and would be deprived of love, a major factor in deciding how someone turns out in the end. If that were true, then it is likely that 60% or so of cloned humans would turn out to simply be normal humans that are in some way 'retarded', and most likely a bit more mean than normal humans.

However, even the most recent cloning has a problem: age acceleration. You could clone, say, a liver, and then give it to someone who needs one, but it would age faster than the human using it, and therefore bring back the same problem a few years later.


Overall, I don't think there's any *real* benefit to cloning, and I am strongly against it.

Not pursuing cloning would be like inventing the airplane and saying "Let's not use this because some people are afraid of flying things." For the sake of science at least, cloning research should continue. The use of cloning, once perfected, may need to be regulated, but it should not be stopped altogether.

The case of clone armies is extreme, but it is an important point. My thoughts are: if a person can be cloned and altered so that he is emotionless and ever-abiding, why not? That person wouldn't be a person, wouldn't be able to see or even comprehend otherwise. In my opinion it would be a major technological advance, akin to artificial intelligence and with the same controversy. The mindset seems to be that clones will always be just like us, but what if they're not? The human brain and body is a wonderful piece of machinery, so if it can be put to use without inflicting emotional and intellectual pains upon a person, there is no reason not to. There probably would be exceptions, clones without the required modifications to be eternal slaves, but those exceptions would not lead a rebellion to liberate the clones, because the clones have no understanding of freedom.

Not that I believe clone armies would be good, as the general idea for the future should be to create world peace, but compare clone armies to our armies now. Right now you have people with families, people who have the capability to enjoy life, who put themselves in mortal peril to defend their country. Isn't that worse than an army of clones as described above?

Possibly.


`Wildie

As Niels brought up: It'd be hard to love a "perfect".

`Wildie

You brought it up

I can argue either way.

Already, God makes clones. Twins have exactly the same DNA anyway, developing from the same egg.

My dad is a twin. His brother is an alcoholic who has been arrested for so many things, lives with his sister because he lacks a home, and cannot keep a steady job. He was to be a mathematician before drinking his chances away, and he loves flowers. My dad, though, has worked for the same company for sixteen years, fully paid for his own house, has had two speeding tickets, a wife, and three kids. A Christian, he can't multiply, and cares nothing for plants. They're completely different people with the same DNA. Clones would not be as alike as twins, because clones would have different developmental signals from the different eggs from which they develop, different mitochondria from the eggs, different prenatal environments (i.e., maternal nutrition, toxic exposure), and different postnatal environments, including family and historical period. Anyway, DNA is a sequence of different chemicals\sugars. They affect only the physical body, not the mind. Clones would think differently, have different ideas and opinions.

As for the photocopy/army arguement, it's unlikely that clones will be mass-produced. Women have to bear them and someone has to raise them. They have to develop for nine months in someone's uterus and after that, they have to grow at the same rate as a normal human child.

Here's a strong example: A twenty-year old is cloned. By the time that her clone is twenty years old, she'll be forty.

Sometimes it may be ethically allowable to conceive a child primarily for the benefit of someone else, as long as the child is loved and cared for as an equal with a family's other children. This has already occurred, when parents of a teenager with leukemia conceived a child as a marrow donor. Consider the following case, which actually happened in the United States. Case: Conceiving a child to benefit a teenager with leukemia.

The argument of humans "playing God," is pointless also. We already use artificial insemination to allow couples that cannot have a baby to concieve.

Cloning could be both useful and harmful. We don't really have a choice. I believe it will be carried out. If God does not wish for this to happen, he will not let it. He has reasons for everything. We could use this technology to bring back animals who are going or have gone extinct for more research. We could find out about what the world was really like six thousand years ago. We could use cloning in infinate ways.

It's a fundamental medical principle that no one should do harm. Cloning, at present, is experimental and unpredictable. Obviously, a human clone will not be produced until major animal research evidence has been provided.

I obtained some of my arguments from http://www.genesage.com/professional...arguments.html

Originally Posted by Lama

(FTR)



First you boast about a reply that would scare Fôx and now you tell Wildie that you had this idea first. (PA)

Derby: Flame tag/Personal attack removal.

(FTR)

Anyway, I don't think cloning is definitely going to happen. If we could get smart quick we would have a world government full of non-corrupt people and they could create a world ban on cloning. Not that I am totally for a world ban on cloning, but it could happen, although I doubt if we will have the ability to do that by the time cloning will be refined to the point that it would be able to be used regularly.

Derby: Flame tag removal. Look at who was talking.

Thanks so much for sharing these details! I also don't think cloning is definitely going to happen I'll be extremely attentive to this!

Do you mean in vitro? Well it's very good solution for women which can't get pregnant. I don't know what's worse cloning or abortion.Well in Blade Runner based on Philip K.Dick novel people are artificial intelligence among humans even in Terminator where quantic computers are creating killing cyborgs(part human and part machine)in Matrix humans are slaves imprisoned and controlled by robots living in endless video game simulations with no escape.

It could be useful. I could clone myself and send my clone to school.

Then again, a clone of mine would typically be stubborn enough to not follow my orders.

In Astroboy Doctor Tenma made robotic clone of his son after tragic explosion caused by red and blue cores experiment by president Stone.Megaman is like one sciencetist working on main protagonist friendly cyborg kind of son figure for Doctor Thomas Light.Doctor Willy was good to Doctor Light so he created evil robots sounds like Skynet quantic computers from Terminator machines are killing humans.In Animatrix there's backstory why machines are controlling humans.Btw I'm just wondering if androids can have sex or human having romance with android woman like in Blade Runner 2019 and Blade Runner 2049 (Rick Deckard have daughter, but her mother had very short lifespan).I also would love to have clone, but android instead.I heard clones are ageing very fast.In Deus Ex we have two A.I. gods Dedalus and Icarus sounds like reference to one of ancient Greek mythology father and son who tried to fly like a birds.Thanks to these virtual deities Bob Page and Walter Simons wanted to control humans just to for example augument them later...etc.Imagine guys evil clone who can shapeshift into alien like in Rick and Morty & Metroid Fusion sounds very disturbing, right?Imagine rogue A.I. created by some sciencetists who created GladDOS she killed them using neurotoxin sounds like very grim science-fiction just like in Portal.Imagine guys only one sciencetist survived he is avoiding GlaDOS he was hiding in secret areas of Aperture Science and he was drawing weird paintings on walls.Main character Chell woke up from coma sleeping probably 999,999 days(so I guess for example Gordon Freeman and G-Man are dead honestly lifespan of G-Man is unknown he is possibly alien that looks just like human btw it remains a mystery if someone tried to escape from City 17 citadel former sciencetist like Wallace Breen I'm just wondering can mysterious guy with blue tuxedo slow time when some building is destroyed because mute M.I.T sciencetist crossed plans of his former Black Mesa head administrator)and Chell is only last human and she's still labrat of GlaDOS and her puzzled challenges at least Portal gun is helpful.If GlaDOS is talking about desert as cake you should know that this machine is lying and that she wants to burn Chell alive.Person like Chell mute test subject of GlaDOS discovered that government crowdfunded and compared Black Mesa(kidnapping aliens from planet like Xen just to make researchs by Black Mesa sciencetists) with Aperture Science(making tests on A.I. and Portal gun technology) so guy like G-man with incredible super powers could be involved in it?