Human Cloning.

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

13 Aug 2002, 08:15 PM
BioMechanic

Johnny: I think it IS a valid argument.

burgundy: Technology can't hope to duplicate a natural process. Simulate, yes, but NOT duplicate. In this way, a clone can never be the equal of a naturally conceived human being. Yes, chemo is unnatural, but is it 100% effective? No. And are there harmful side effects? Yes. And technology hasn't yet figured out a cure for death, has it? I don't think it ever will.

I'm not trying to pretend that natural is "better", so to speak - by its very nature, life is flawed. Following this, anything that is artificially created with the use of technology, even if it's perfect, it's not life because it didn't come into existence via a natural process. Perfect or not, a clone is not alive. And is a perfect artificial clone an improvement of nature? Perhaps superficially - but it's still the same as a robot.

I've gotta bail - have an appointment - but I'll respond further tomorrow.
13 Aug 2002, 08:18 PM
EThugg

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnny
You don't have a valid argument, that's the problem here. You can't argue logic against feeling, it's messy.

There is NO logical reason to heal people, there is NO logical reason to reproduce via cloning. YOU are the one who is ignoring logic. But what do you care what I say? Posting here is just my 'hobby', and everything I say is meant as a 'joke'.... :rolleyes:
13 Aug 2002, 08:27 PM
burgundy

Bio: You have a very interesting definition of life. By your definition, a child conceived in-vitro isn't alive. Now, I know you disagree with that, but to disagree and to deny the existence of life are two very different things.
13 Aug 2002, 08:47 PM
Dyne

so when do i get kicked like a mailbox.....CMON!!!!!! :)
13 Aug 2002, 09:12 PM
EThugg

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonmaster Dyne
so when do i get kicked like a mailbox.....CMON!!!!!! :)

Well, you aren't a clone yourself, so your out of luck with me, but I heard any sense of morals enrages Johnny.... so tell him how you did somthing moral, I'm sure you'll get that kicking.... :jest:
13 Aug 2002, 09:36 PM
Rich

Quote:

Originally posted by EThugg

No, it wouldn't. YYou get what the fuck your born with. You born defective? TOUGH SHIT. You injured yourself? TOUGH SHIT. You deserve to have whatever the consiquence is, including death.

EThugg needs to learn some fucking sympathy. I wish with everything I can possibly wish with that EThugg gets forms of cancer in every possible part of his body, and also develops various other curable diseases but I will hope people say "fuck you, no cure for you." Someone should go shoot EThugg in the head, then say "tough shit, moron." I would gladly beat the shit out of EThugg if I knew he was, and then refuse to get him medical attention after he is injured. And I'm positive he would want medical attention in all of these circumstances, thus going against all his beliefs and further strengthening the thought of him only caring about himself because he is a heartless piece of shit who represents all that is wrong with the world.
13 Aug 2002, 09:41 PM
EThugg

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich

EThugg needs to learn some fucking sympathy. I wish with everything I can possibly wish with that EThugg gets forms of cancer in every possible part of his body, and also develops various other curable diseases but I will hope people say "fuck you, no cure for you." Someone should go shoot EThugg in the head, then say "tough shit, moron." I would gladly beat the shit out of EThugg if I knew he was, and then refuse to get him medical attention after he is injured. And I'm positive he would want medical attention in all of these circumstances, thus going against all his beliefs and further strengthening the thought of him only caring about himself because he is a heartless piece of shit who represents all that is wrong with the world.

I would not seek medical help under any curcumstanse. Like I said, I won't even take a aspirin. Pretty harsh words... meh.
13 Aug 2002, 10:11 PM
Rich

Of coarse pretty harsh words, in case you haven't realized, I despise you *edited for to reduce hatred*. And also I think your full of shit, there is no way you would accept death if you could easily take a pill to correct the problem.

I'll take robots. At least no one will pretend they are human. PS: Twins are born due to copulation, they are not cloned. Clones are not real people, they are animate objects that can be treated as inanimate.

How are clones not real people, what is your defition of life? They ARE born naturally, with a father's (or mother's if she's being clone) cell from their body and an egg, and given birth to. The only difference is that the DNA is changed.
"The scientists would remove the DNA from the nucleus of an egg cell taken from the mother. This DNA would then be replaced by the genetic material taken from one of the father's cells - perhaps a skin cell. A trigger would be applied to the egg cell that would then make it start to divide like any normal embryo. The mother would have it implanted in her womb in a procedure which is routinely performed in IVF clinics. " That is the procedure, so bleh!

This is a real person, only born in a different way, but it has it's own mind and is completely independent from it's natural counterpart. Hell, the clone wouldn't even necessarily look the same as the parent, since the way you are is totally dependant on your genes, AND your evironment. So basically, you could have two completely different people with nothing alike besides their DNA, how does having the same DNA as some other person make you "not real." Your entire theory is flawed and therefor should be taken as a joke by others.

And to go against cloning, until it is perfect I wouldn't agree with it. The chances of successful cloning are almost nonexistant. And not only that, but you also endanger the mother while cloning, and if the clone did happen to be born, it would most likely be abnormal. But if this clone was born normal, then it would by all means be considered human, noone would even know it was a clone.

On another note, even with cloning, you will NOT, I repeat, NOT have the exact same genetic makeup as the parent. To further reinforce my statement, and my previous statement about the environment, I quote BBC News, "No. On the genetic level, the clone would be 99.9% identical to its parent. It would not be a complete copy because there are some important genes that would be contributed by the egg donor. These genes reside outside the nucleus.

Also, the clone would be subject to different environmental factors and a different upbringing to his/her genetic parent. This could result in a changed appearance and personality. If the recent research on the human genome has taught us anything, it is that we are far more than just our genes. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1211136.stm
13 Aug 2002, 10:28 PM
EThugg

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
Of coarse pretty harsh words, in case you haven't realized, I despise you and wish death upon you. And also I think your full of shit, there is no way you would accept death if you could easily take a pill to correct the problem.

Well, you're wrong, I refused medical attention 4 years ago when I broke my ankle very badly, and my family was trying for days to convince me to go to the hospital. I would rather die than take a drug, or see a doctor, and I don't care what your narrow minded non-believing ass thinks.

Quote:

How are clones not real people, what is your defition of life? They ARE born naturally, with a father's (or mother's if she's being clone) cell from their body and an egg, and given birth to. The only difference is that the DNA is changed.

Changing the DNA alone makes it unnatural, and unless that egg and that sperm came from their bodies, and never sat in a lab, or tub, it's not natural. The concept of sex is simple enough even for your stupid ass. Sex between a man and women with no altered 'ingredients' is the ONLY natural way.

Quote:

This is a real person, only born in a different way, but it has it's own mind and is completely independent from it's natural counterpart. Hell, the clone wouldn't even necessarily look the same as the parent, since the way you are is totally dependant on your genes, AND your evironment. So basically, you could have two completely different people with nothing alike besides their DNA, how does having the same DNA as some other person make you "not real." Your entire theory is flawed and therefor should be taken as a joke by others.

They are real, just not real people. They feel, but that doesn't change the fact they are abominations of nature and should be destroyed.

Quote:

And to go against cloning, until it is perfect I wouldn't agree with it. The chances of successful cloning are almost nonexistant. And not only that, but you also endanger the mother while cloning, and if the clone did happen to be born, it would most likely be abnormal. But if this clone was born normal, then it would by all means be considered human, noone would even know it was a clone.

Considered human by you. Not by me.

Quote:

On another note, even with cloning, you will NOT, I repeat, NOT have the exact same genetic makeup as the parent. To further reinforce my statement, and my previous statement about the environment, I quote BBC News, "No. On the genetic level, the clone would be 99.9% identical to its parent. It would not be a complete copy because there are some important genes that would be contributed by the egg donor. These genes reside outside the nucleus.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzZZZZZzzzzZZZzzz..... ok, ready to get back on topic of the morality of defying nature? Or would you like to stay off topic?

Quote:

Also, the clone would be subject to different environmental factors and a different upbringing to his/her genetic parent. This could result in a changed appearance and personality. If the recent research on the human genome has taught us anything, it is that we are far more than just our genes. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1211136.stm

OT it is... :rolleyes:
13 Aug 2002, 10:36 PM
rezo

Quote:

It's perfectly logical: CLONING IS AN ARTIFICIAL PROCESS.

cloning is artificial? artificial what? conception? I imagine this is what you are thinking of,though if that is not, it doesn't matter, but it is not conception. It isn't even the joining of two people's DNA, so there is no reason for an association. Cloning is natural cloning. It is artificial conception in the same manner that it is artificial baking. All that means is that it is a DIFFERENT means of gaining an independent lifeform, not an invalid one.

more. if conception is the joining of a sperm and egg lets say, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THAT OCCURENCE TAKES PLACE. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THEY ARE INTRODUCED TO EACH OTHER. all that matters is that they are joined. Unless you are so absurd as to call an action artificial by location. fine, conception in wyoming is artificial conception in california. That does not change the fact that it is conception. The notion of "artificial" needs to be dropped.

cloning is not conception. That does not mean that a clone is not alive. If anything, it is proof that there are other means of attaining lifeforms.

Quote:

Technology can't hope to duplicate a natural process. Simulate, yes, but NOT duplicate.

It need not be a duplicate to be alive. my examples: the many different sorts of humans. all it needs to do is meet the standard. I should note that "natural" processes fail to meet the standards for life on occassion. using technology, or limiting your tools to those that are a part of you(what you must be considering "natural" I imagine) can both lead to a successful lifeform, and can both result in failure. the error than, is not in the method, but in the performance.

Quote:

Clones are NOT NORMAL because their origins are UNNATURAL.

clones are the natural result of cloning. they aren't the natural result of something else, but that is not what they are intended to be.

and you mention they not being "normal". fine, but if the majority of humans were clones, they would be normal. That has nothing to do with whether they are alive or not.

Quote:

And is a perfect artificial clone an improvement of nature? Perhaps superficially - but it's still the same as a robot.

a robot who can think and function in everyway a "regular" human can. Whose form is dependent on its progenitors in the same manner you are to yours. The only difference is, you don't want to recognize it has a human. But it would be a human. a human that was built in a lab(note: for this example, I am not referring to clones, as clones are not constructed directly as a machine is)

life is a conclusion. How that conclusion is reached doesn't matter.

Quote:

There is NO logical reason to heal people, there is NO logical reason to reproduce via cloning.

sure there is. for example, a logical reason to help someone is if you want them helped. an illogical reason to help someone is if you don't want them helped. so I don't really understand what you mean.

stuff is missing. I had to retype all of this since my computer froze.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page