An anonymous infertile couple is planning to have a "daughter" by cloning her "mother."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/08/13...nna/index.html
Printable View
An anonymous infertile couple is planning to have a "daughter" by cloning her "mother."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/08/13...nna/index.html
i say go for it, if they tried everything else might as well.
http://southparkspot.com/southpic/spp06.jpg
Chomp, pa chomp, pa chooey chooey chomp.
Thing is, the newborn is going to be genetically identical to her "mother." Wouldn't that be noticeable?
Yeah they would be identical but what can ya do.
That's just...weird.
It's be like raising yourself. Not on a personallity level, but even still...weird.
I still don't know where I stand concerning human cloning. But, again, this is weird.
It's 100% wrong, and if this 'anonymous' couples' identities were revealed, I'd be on the 1st plane to where they live to shoot them in the face.
momy wants to give herself the childhood she never had in the future.
I'm all for cloning - the ability to clone organs, to aid families like this, I think it's excellent, and I think it'll have hugely positive ramifications for first-world countries (at least).
People who object to cloning on a religious basis won't be able to stop the expansion of cloning. I don't think a moral argument can be made against cloning- cloning is far more clear-cut, more obviously positive and less shady than abortion.
I don't think a moral argument can be made in support of cloning. Cloning is not 'clear-cut' or less shady than and abortion. *adds Stone to list*Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
I'm all for cloning - the ability to clone organs, to aid families like this, I think it's excellent, and I think it'll have hugely positive ramifications for first-world countries (at least).
People who object to cloning on a religious basis won't be able to stop the expansion of cloning. I don't think a moral argument can be made against cloning- cloning is far more clear-cut, more obviously positive and less shady than abortion.
I don't see anything wrong with it, for many of the reasons Stone mentioned.
In fact, with the paucity of organs available to needy patients, it would be immoral not to take advantage of this technology.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by sleeveboy
I don't see anything wrong with it, for many of the reasons Stone mentioned.
In fact, with the paucity of organs available to needy patients, it would be immoral not to take advantage of this technology.
I am opposed to cloning because it goes against nature. If people trusted nature more, the planet wouldn't be in the crippled state it already is.
I also don't see how cloning is clear-cut but abortion isn't.
As far as helping needy people - there are already far too many people for the planet to support. Using technology in this fashion is only going to create more people to consume precious natural resources - I'd call forwarding cloning immoral in the face of these other, far more serious problems. Educate & supply the third world about birth control, for starters.
I think technological advances should be used to create new and efficient forms of fuel, and to try and fix the damaged environment. Humanity needs to put things right before trying to impose itself further.
Cloning can wait until the planet is better able to support the people it's going to create/save. But even then, I'll still be opposed to it.
My clone would probably end up more successful and better than me in most things, the bastard. :(
:p
personally, i dont think theyre anything wrong with cloning. i just think its a little strange that a couple would want to clone THEMSELFS.
thugg, please add me to your 'list'. id just love to be on it.
and i guess this means your against stem cell research too? dont give me that "its immorale, youre killing babies" bullshit. this stuff is going to help MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people. but this is a different matter....
I like cloning just because it pisses off religious people :)
This couple should name their daughter "Rei" ha ha ha (not funny, Zerodash, not funny).
Or, they can name the child "Boba" (shut up Zerodash)
*Zerodash slaps himself*
i want to be cloned just to see if my conciousness could be two places at once and remain intact.
*crosses Thugg off of "People I Need to Clone" list*Quote:
Originally posted by EThugg
It's 100% wrong, and if this 'anonymous' couples' identities were revealed, I'd be on the 1st plane to where they live to shoot them in the face.
I don\'t understand the religious/moral argument against cloning. Like in almost any other matter, highly religious/moral types need to STFU, IMO. I could understand if someone/some country was attempting to genetically engineer super-soldiers (and clone them) or use clones for slave labor, but they\'re not. Your genetic makeup is yours alone, and I don\'t see where anyone comes off telling you what you can and can\'t do with it.
And that\'s ignoring the medical benefits.
The worst scenario would be perpetuated by the very nations that stay on the moral high horse and oppose cloning - where only the very rich could afford cloning or gene therapies in far-off nations, creating yet another class-based inequality.
We can clone Neanderthals and then laugh at how ugly they were (once again, not funny)
Ahahah, spoken like a true moralist. You're a jackass, you know.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.
Cloning will save lives. The only, the only issue available for discussion is whether we'd be violating God's law, some sort of eternal law, by using science to create life.
And what if you're born in a society that has developed the ability to clone? Don't you deserves the consequences of scientific development?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.
Also, if we reject our society's ability to clone, then we become culpable in the deaths of everyone who could have been saved by cloning. A bit of fear about the mystical problems of cloning isn't enough to justify letting people die for lack of organs.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
And what if you're born in a society that has developed the ability to clone? Don't you deserves the consequences of scientific development?
Plus, I dunno about you, but even if I was religious, I\'d risk hubris and my eternal soul (by supporting cloning) if the reward was the ability to save lots of lives.
In the offchance that God exists and is pissed about cloning, how angry could he get? It\'d be for a good cause, right?
Apparently they didn't try adoption.Quote:
Originally posted by innova
i say go for it, if they tried everything else might as well.
I don't understand people who object to human cloning because "it's against nature/god!" (so's a car; you own one of those?). But I also don't like the idea of cloning as a means of reproduction. The world's already overpopulated enough.
Reminds me of Brave New World...
*dun dun dun*
Stone: There are potential dilemmas raised by cloning, but I don't think they're any different than those raised by birth control, fertility therapy, abortion or gene therapy. And I don't think they're raised by this occasion.
SoK: Cloning isn't and isn't going to become a factor in overpopulation. Overpopulation is caused by that most natural of natural acts: copulation.
I am against all medical testing, research and procedures. I won't even take aspirin.Quote:
Originally posted by Rhydant
personally, i dont think theyre anything wrong with cloning. i just think its a little strange that a couple would want to clone THEMSELFS.
thugg, please add me to your 'list'. id just love to be on it.
and i guess this means your against stem cell research too? dont give me that "its immorale, youre killing babies" bullshit. this stuff is going to help MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people. but this is a different matter....
Human lives don\'t need saving, and I don\'t believe in any god, or religion, so take your assumptions and shove them up your ass. It\'s wrong because it\'s wrong. There is no deeper issue or reason.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Ahahah, spoken like a true moralist. You\'re a jackass, you know.
Cloning will save lives. The only, the only issue available for discussion is whether we\'d be violating God\'s law, some sort of eternal law, by using science to create life.
It\'s very simple. You are defying your fate and nature and extending your life. It\'s bad for society, bad for the planet, bad for the natural balance of the planet, and is more ripe for misuse than any single scientific advancment outside of maybe atomic energy.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
*crosses Thugg off of \"People I Need to Clone\" list*
I don\\\'t understand the religious/moral argument against cloning. Like in almost any other matter, highly religious/moral types need to STFU, IMO. I could understand if someone/some country was attempting to genetically engineer super-soldiers (and clone them) or use clones for slave labor, but they\\\'re not. Your genetic makeup is yours alone, and I don\\\'t see where anyone comes off telling you what you can and can\\\'t do with it.
And that\\\'s ignoring the medical benefits.
The worst scenario would be perpetuated by the very nations that stay on the moral high horse and oppose cloning - where only the very rich could afford cloning or gene therapies in far-off nations, creating yet another class-based inequality.
You're not even funny anymore.Quote:
It's 100% wrong, and if this 'anonymous' couples' identities were revealed, I'd be on the 1st plane to where they live to shoot them in the face.
---
How so? Nature has given us intelligence, and so we use it.Quote:
I am opposed to cloning because it goes against nature.
The world can support many more people, the problem lies in how those people use it's resources. I don't see how this is a case against cloning. Should we not allow people to make kids the regular way, because there are plenty to adopt?Quote:
As far as helping needy people - there are already far too many people for the planet to support. Using technology in this fashion is only going to create more people to consume precious natural resources.
The technology is not just going to be used to create babies, it'll be used in many other areas to improve human life. And what does the third world have to do with anything? We all know the poor suffer, how's a ban on cloning going to help?Quote:
I'd call forwarding cloning immoral in the face of these other, far more serious problems. Educate & supply the third world about birth control, for starters.
The resources put into cloning aren't going to hurt advances in new energy sources. Some genetic engineer isn't going to pack up and move onto windmills, if he gets the boot.Quote:
I think technological advances should be used to create new and efficient forms of fuel, and to try and fix the damaged environment. Humanity needs to put things right before trying to impose itself further.
Why will you be opposed to it? I mean your argument to date has been that earth doesn't need more people. However once we shape up, and meet your criteria, it should be okay then, correct? There must be some reason behind your decision, I mean you aren't just afraid of the unknown are you?Quote:
Cloning can wait until the planet is better able to support the people it's going to create/save. But even then, I'll still be opposed to it.
---
You guys watch too many horror movies. Armies of zombie-clones aren't going to walk the earth, they'll be perfectly normal human beings. Actually they are perfectly normal human beings, since twins are technically clones. New advances in technology will simply produce twins that are months to years apart in age. Ontop of that, with new advances in stem cell research, we'll be able to grow compatible organs in a dish and fight off diseases. Then we'll move onto designing new species. It's the next evolutionary step people, it's either super-humans or robots, take your pick. :)
Oh no, my totally serious post wasn't funny! :eek:Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny
You're not even funny anymore.
Not knowing how to live within our natural state makes us intelligent how? I think it proves how stupid we really are, that we can't get by without trying to destroy and oppose every natural law and proccess.Quote:
How so? Nature has given us intelligence, and so we use it.
And what? You think these super human genetic freaks will somehow live better and more naturally than the regular ol' human? I am against having kids if you can adopt, yes.Quote:
The world can support many more people, the problem lies in how those people use it's resources. I don't see how this is a case against cloning. Should we not allow people to make kids the regular way, because there are plenty to adopt?
It won't help, but allowing it certainly has a lot of potential to hurt. And in a way, preventing the worse by preventing cloning is the intelligent thing to do.Quote:
The technology is not just going to be used to create babies, it'll be used in many other areas to improve human life. And what does the third world have to do with anything? We all know the poor suffer, how's a ban on cloning going to help?
No, but if we eliminated all trash research like this, and only allowed smart, earth friendly research, he might. Not that that matters, my point had nothing to do with any scientists chosen field.Quote:
The resources put into cloning aren't going to hurt advances in new energy sources. Some genetic engineer isn't going to pack up and move onto windmills, if he gets the boot.
Assuming that nearly impossible scenerio occured, no, it's still unnatural. If you live to be 1 or you live to be 100, it should be due to your body, and your genes, and basic lifestyle. Not life 'enhancing' procedures, drugs, or cloned body parts.Quote:
Why will you be opposed to it? I mean your argument to date has been that earth doesn't need more people. However once we shape up, and meet your criteria, it should be okay then, correct?
It's a nature thing. Or maybe just a EThugg thing. I fear nothing, only am saddened...Quote:
There must be some reason behind your decision, I mean you aren't just afraid of the unknown are you?
[quote]You guys watch too many horror movies. Armies of zombie-clones aren't going to walk the earth, they'll be perfectly normal human beings. Actually they are perfectly normal human beings, since twins are technically clones.[quote]
They are not human beings. Human beings are born due to copulation. No other procedure creates a real human. That's not to say it isn't as smart, or have the same feelings, but I would never call a clone a human. Ever. Did anybody even pat attention to The 6th Day and other movies that warn about this stuff?
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.Quote:
New advances in technology will simply produce twins that are months to years apart in age. Ontop of that, with new advances in stem cell research, we'll be able to grow compatible organs in a dish and fight off diseases. Then we'll move onto designing new species. It's the next evolutionary step people, it's either super-humans or robots, take your pick. :)
How?Quote:
Originally posted by EThugg
It's very simple. You are defying your fate and nature and extending your life. It's bad for society, bad for the planet, bad for the natural balance of the planet, and is more ripe for misuse than any single scientific advancment outside of maybe atomic energy.
You get it, or you don't. I've provided all the reasons I'm going to, you agree, or don't. But be prepared when I beat the shit out of your little clone and treat it as if I just kicked your mailbox... (IE: Not like a human).Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
How?
i want to be kicked like a mailbox :D
"How so? Nature has given us intelligence, and so we use it."
It's artificially creating life, which is in my eyes a violation of nature.
"The world can support many more people, the problem lies in how those people use it's resources. I don't see how this is a case against cloning. Should we not allow people to make kids the regular way, because there are plenty to adopt?"
My point is that since the people who are already in existence don't know how to use the planet's resources, we don't need artificial ones on top of the already bad natural overpopulation.
"The technology is not just going to be used to create babies, it'll be used in many other areas to improve human life. And what does the third world have to do with anything? We all know the poor suffer, how's a ban on cloning going to help?"
My language was unclear here (my apologies) - at this stage, I was arguing against the cloning of organs to help the ravaged population of the third world. That's like using a band-aid to heal a severed limb - it doesn't address the actual problem.
"The resources put into cloning aren't going to hurt advances in new energy sources. Some genetic engineer isn't going to pack up and move onto windmills, if he gets the boot."
I see where you're coming from. You can't stop progress no matter what, but I think that more funding and effort should be given to researching new, unharmful energy than cloning (which I think should be very low on the priority list). Improve what we've already ruined before adding. I'm being idealistic...but not very realistic. I realize that, but I'd still like to see the focus shifted.
"Why will you be opposed to it? I mean your argument to date has been that earth doesn't need more people. However once we shape up, and meet your criteria, it should be okay then, correct? There must be some reason behind your decision, I mean you aren't just afraid of the unknown are you?"
No, it still won't be OK with me because I think creating artificial life is a violation of nature. However, as I stated just above, you can't stop progress, and I do see the benefits of creating organs...I just don't like it. Would I take an artificially grown limb if I happened to lose an arm? To be honest, I can't answer that - I'd have to be in that situation. But in no case would I ever endorse the cloning of an entire human being.
In my mind, cloning is not evolution because it's not a natural process. (By "natural process", I mean one that occurs without any interference by technology.) A clone is not a normal human being, because it is not conceived out of natural processes - it would be the result of synthesis. Life is imperfect by nature. And twins are NOT clones, technically. It's a natural process - see where I'm coming from? The creation process is where I draw the line. Yes, it's metaphysical, and no, it might not make complete logical sense, but neither does life. I also think that deformation and abnormalities are vital to the process of life itself - wipe those out, and natural life becomes that much closer to a simulation.
And I don't think that the complete eradication of disease would be such a good thing. In fact, I tend to think that if we wipe out cancer or heart disease, something else will "evolve" to take its place. Natural laws rely on organisms succumbing within a certain lifespan. Life is flawed for a reason, and we're all supposed to die. Cloning is an attempt at the impossible - perfect life. That very phrase is an oxymoron - it can't happen.
Robots and clones are the same in my eyes.
Let the cloning process begin Ha Ha Ha Ha.
I say go for it.
I don't get it.Quote:
Originally posted by EThugg
You get it, or you don't. I've provided all the reasons I'm going to, you agree, or don't. But be prepared when I beat the shit out of your little clone and treat it as if I just kicked your mailbox... (IE: Not like a human).
You haven't provided a single reason.
I don't agree.
And I would hurt you very badly if you touched either my clone or my mailbox.
:)
EThugg, you really need to find another hobby. Noone takes you seriously and for good reason.
---
How is it any more artificial than natural copulation? Both involve humans producing something. Your eyes need to be opened.Quote:
It's artificially creating life, which is in my eyes a violation of nature.
So do you support limiting 'natural' child birth as well? If the research is only used to help fight disease and whatnot, would you support it then?Quote:
My point is that since the people who are already in existence don't know how to use the planet's resources, we don't need artificial ones on top of the already bad natural overpopulation.
I can understand that. But I wouldn't outright ban the research.Quote:
I see where you're coming from. You can't stop progress no matter what, but I think that more funding and effort should be given to researching new, unharmful energy than cloning (which I think should be very low on the priority list). Improve what we've already ruined before adding. I'm being idealistic...but not very realistic. I realize that, but I'd still like to see the focus shifted.
It's no more artificial than current methods. Why don't you support cloning an entire human being? There must be some logic behind your decision, or you come off looking silly. Let's say a mother is set to give birth to twins, would you support law that forces the mother to abort one of them? I'm guessing you wouldn't. Seems a little hypocritical.Quote:
No, it still won't be OK with me because I think creating artificial life is a violation of nature. However, as I stated just above, you can't stop progress, and I do see the benefits of creating organs...I just don't like it. Would I take an artificially grown limb if I happened to lose an arm? To be honest, I can't answer that - I'd have to be in that situation. But in no case would I ever endorse the cloning of an entire human being.
You're right, your position doesn't make complete logical sense. Clones are normal by any logical standard, and only different than twins when it comes to age difference. I'd be against cloning some guy millions of times too, because variety is essential, but we're not arguing that.Quote:
In my mind, cloning is not evolution because it's not a natural process. (By "natural process", I mean one that occurs without any interference by technology.) A clone is not a normal human being, because it is not conceived out of natural processes - it would be the result of synthesis. Life is imperfect by nature. And twins are NOT clones, technically. It's a natural process - see where I'm coming from? The creation process is where I draw the line. Yes, it's metaphysical, and no, it might not make complete logical sense, but neither does life. I also think that deformation and abnormalities are vital to the process of life itself - wipe those out, and natural life becomes that much closer to a simulation.
Try explaining your position to someone who suffers from those diseases. Who's to say humans are only supposed to live for a set number of years? Who says cloning is an attempt at perfect life? What's perfect life?Quote:
And I don't think that the complete eradication of disease would be such a good thing. In fact, I tend to think that if we wipe out cancer or heart disease, something else will "evolve" to take its place. Natural laws rely on organisms succumbing within a certain lifespan. Life is flawed for a reason, and we're all supposed to die. Cloning is an attempt at the impossible - perfect life. That very phrase is an oxymoron - it can't happen.
I'd like you to say this to a clone in twenty years, and see what happens. I'd be pretty pissed if someone told me I was no better than the machine mowing my lawn. :)Quote:
Robots and clones are the same in my eyes.
Bio: Do you also oppose in-vitro fertilization, and such?
Also, I agree that organ growing isn't the solution of the root cause of illnesses and injuries, but so what? Do you refuse to stitch a cut because it doesn't make your knife any safer? Do you refuse to take aspirin because it only helps the symptoms and not the cause of your headache?
And your argument that natural processes are paramount would also mean that you should disagree with any life-saving or assisting medical treatment. Or wheelchairs. Which is fine, if that's what you believe, but I don't think most opponents of cloning will agree with you.
So far the only arguments I've heard against cloning are "I don't like it," which aren't really arguments at all.
I mean, shit, I don't like Carrot Top, but I don't think he should be outlawed.
Just so long as it's not you, I'm OK with it.Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis
Let the cloning process begin Ha Ha Ha Ha.
I say go for it.
"How is it any more artificial than natural copulation? Both involve humans producing something. Your eyes need to be opened."
So you're telling me that a human or team of humans creating a clone in a lab is a natural process? Sorry, I don't agree.
"So do you support limiting 'natural' child birth as well? If the research is only used to help fight disease and whatnot, would you support it then?"
People need to be educated about the risks of overpopulation, and need to be responsible for their children. If people can't even take care of their own kids, how can they be trusted to take care of a clone, with which there would be no natural bond?
"It's no more artificial than current methods. Why don't you support cloning an entire human being? There must be some logic behind your decision, or you come off looking silly. Let's say a mother is set to give birth to twins, would you support law that forces the mother to abort one of them? I'm guessing you wouldn't. Seems a little hypocritical."
It's perfectly logical: CLONING IS AN ARTIFICIAL PROCESS. And abortion is a separate issue.
"You're right, your position doesn't make complete logical sense. Clones are normal by any logical standard, and only different than twins when it comes to age difference. I'd be against cloning some guy millions of times too, because variety is essential, but we're not arguing that."
Clones are NOT NORMAL because their origins are UNNATURAL. I've said this several times already. I don't know how to word it any more logically.
"Try explaining your position to someone who suffers from those diseases. Who's to say humans are only supposed to live for a set number of years? Who says cloning is an attempt at perfect life? What's perfect life?"
OK, so why clone at all then, if it's not to "improve" life? Evolution is not something that happens in a lab - it happens as a natural, untouched process.
"I'd like you to say this to a clone in twenty years, and see what happens. I'd be pretty pissed if someone told me I was no better than the machine mowing my lawn."
I would say it, and any clone who's not a complete idiot would believe me. If they want to delude themselves, fine, but the undeniable fact is that clones are artificial.
burgundy: Yes, I'm against invitro. As far as medical technology goes, I don't have a problem with that. That's saving a life that was naturally conceived. It's the artificial life-creating process that I'm opposed to. Using medicine to save lives is a separate issue.
I would think that my opposition to cloning because it's not a natural, life-creating process would serve as a sound, valid argument.
You don't have a valid argument, that's the problem here. You can't argue logic against feeling, it's messy.
Bio:You're coming the closest - I'll give you that.
But death, cancer and disease are natural, too. Now, I'm guessing you're drawing the line between artificial life-creating and artificial life-saving, which is fine, but let's not pretend that chemotherapy is anything but artificial.
And once you destroy the notion that natural is necessarily better, you've pretty much gutted the anti-cloning argument.
In any event, you may be making sense if you live your life as "naturally" as possible, but the political fat cats that are going to jump all over this as "unnatural" run the companies that spew pollution and waste into our air and water.
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.
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: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.
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.
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:Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonmaster Dyne
so when do i get kicked like a mailbox.....CMON!!!!!! :)
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.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.
I would not seek medical help under any curcumstanse. Like I said, I won't even take a aspirin. Pretty harsh words... meh.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.
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
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Considered human by you. Not by me.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.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzZZZZZzzzzZZZzzz..... ok, ready to get back on topic of the morality of defying nature? Or would you like to stay off topic?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.
OT it is... :rolleyes: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
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.Quote:
It's perfectly logical: CLONING IS AN ARTIFICIAL PROCESS.
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.
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:
Technology can't hope to duplicate a natural process. Simulate, yes, but NOT duplicate.
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.Quote:
Clones are NOT NORMAL because their origins are UNNATURAL.
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.
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)Quote:
And is a perfect artificial clone an improvement of nature? Perhaps superficially - but it's still the same as a robot.
life is a conclusion. How that conclusion is reached doesn't matter.
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.Quote:
There is NO logical reason to heal people, there is NO logical reason to reproduce via cloning.
stuff is missing. I had to retype all of this since my computer froze.
Man, all I have to say is :lol:. EThugg's views have never been very popular, but that's about the funniest shit I've ever read. I wish someone could say that to me and mean it. *insert T smiley*Quote:
he is a heartless piece of shit who represents all that is wrong with the world.
That's a compassion/'feeling' (in Johnnys words) reason, not a logical one. Logic would say all that matters is self preservation, not the preservation of others. Like a kid not trying to help his brother up from hanging off a cliff cause he fell... helping could put the 1st kid in danger. It would be illogical to help, as you'd be putting yourself in danger. Only compassion would tell you you should help your brother. Is this making sense yet...?Quote:
Originally posted by rezo
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.
I also don't consider you a real person, but rather an abomination of nature. Human are meant to have sympathy, something you are void of. What would this world be if humans were not here to help each other out.Quote:
Originally posted by EThugg
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.
On another note, IMO, this is easily debatable however, everything is natural on the contrary to what everyone says. Everything that is made is made through natural elements, or from objects from natural elements or so on and so on. And if something is possible to be accomplished by any animal, it is natural. Who says God's choice of reproduction was through sex? Maybe his original plan for reproduction was through cloning but he had to wait for humans to discover how to do this with natural elements, and natural materials. Or if you don't believe in God, then you should be in support of cloning because it's science so it doesn't matter. And if you don't understand what I'm saying, don't bother asking me what I mean because I just explained it best I can.
Just curious:
What are you going to do when the majority of the food you can purchase only comes from cloned animals?
Milk is already on the way...
And for the records, I'm not sure whether I support or don't support cloning, because I can easily debate both sides of the argument.
I'm a vegan.Quote:
Originally posted by dog$
Just curious:
What are you going to do when the majority of the food you can purchase only comes from cloned animals?
Milk is already on the way...
dog$, he is going to refuse to eat it because it is not natural and then refuse medical attention when he needs it because of starvation and dehydration, hence leading to his death *edited for sympathy*
Damn, he is a vegan, let\'s clone plants and kill the originals!
Well, hopefully quieter.Quote:
Originally posted by Rich
I also don't consider you a real person, but rather an abomination of nature. Human are meant to have sympathy, something you are void of. What would this world be if humans were not here to help each other out.
Good argument... :rolleyes: I support science and God theories equally... not at all.Quote:
On another note, IMO, this is easily debatable however, everything is natural on the contrary to what everyone says. Everything that is made is made through natural elements, or from objects from natural elements or so on and so on. And if something is possible to be accomplished by any animal, it is natural. Who says God's choice of reproduction was through sex? Maybe his original plan for reproduction was through cloning but he had to wait for humans to discover how to do this with natural elements, and natural materials. Or if you don't believe in God, then you should be in support of cloning because it's science so it doesn't matter. And if you don't understand what I'm saying, don't bother asking me what I mean because I just explained it best I can.
Would it help you deal with the concept any if you knew the woman's clone won't be leaping fully grown from a large glass cylinder filled with strange bubbling liquid in the basement of some mad scientist's castle laboratory? She'll have the clone implanted in her uterus, be pregnant with and give birth to it like any other child. It really isn't any more unnatural than in vitro, as burgundy has pointed out. Do you not consider people born through in vitro ferltilization human? If so, you're a strange sort of bigot.Quote:
Originally posted by BioMechanic
So you're telling me that a human or team of humans creating a clone in a lab is a natural process? Sorry, I don't agree.
I can grow my own food, unless you plan on busting onto my property like a nazi and destroying it...Quote:
Originally posted by Rich
Damn, he is a vegan, let\'s clone plants and kill the originals!
Then what the fuck do you support and why the fuck are you giving input on a topic with no basis on your opinions..
When animals have been doing it for millions of years and a male and a female fit together like a puzzle piece, its at least a safe assumption.Quote:
Who says God's choice of reproduction was through sex?
No, they are not human. And bigot would imply I hate them. Realizing they aren't what they pretend to be doesn't equal hate.Quote:
Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Would it help you deal with the concept any if you knew the woman's clone won't be leaping fully grown from a large glass cylinder filled with strange bubbling liquid in the basement of some mad scientist's castle laboratory? She'll have the clone implanted in her uterus, be pregnant with and give birth to it like any other child. It really isn't any more unnatural than in vitro, as burgundy has pointed out. Do you not consider people born through in vitro ferltilization human? If so, you're a strange sort of bigot.
I support nothing and no one except the undeniable truth that I am always right. Come my childeren, I shall lead you on the path to enlightenment.... or to a Xbox...Quote:
Originally posted by Rich
Then what the fuck do you support and why the fuck are you giving input on a topic with no basis on your opinions..
ImRich66: but it is natural, it just involves a third party and extra equipment, which is made by natural elements
EThuggX: Concreate is made up of natural elements, but when combined by human hands, it's no longer natural
EThuggX: If it requires a 3rd party, it cannot be naturtal
ImRich66: but humans are natural, as is the concrete's elements
ImRich66: so your saying if natural things combine, it's no longer natural
EThuggX: Correct.
ImRich66: then that devoids everything
EThuggX: If it's not a natural occurance
ImRich66: sperm + egg = 2 natural substances combining
EThuggX: Animals have sex, if there were no humans, this would be true even
EThuggX: Anything that requires human intervention is not natural
ImRich66: do you think asexual animals are not natural?
ImRich66: because they are basically clones
EThuggX: They are freaks.... mutants
ImRich66: because they reproduce differently?
Well me and EThugg have come to a decision. It's foolish to debate opinions, I will post the entire conversation later tonight.
I was under the impression that asexual reproduction existed prior to reproduction by conception. x_X
I understand now. but, yeah, working for self-preservation is only logical if self-preservation is your goal. logical actions are the ones that meet the requirement of a goal. That goal can be anything.Quote:
That's a compassion/'feeling' (in Johnnys words) reason, not a logical one. Logic would say all that matters is self preservation, not the preservation of others. Like a kid not trying to help his brother up from hanging off a cliff cause he fell... helping could put the 1st kid in danger. It would be illogical to help, as you'd be putting yourself in danger. Only compassion would tell you you should help your brother. Is this making sense yet...?
rezo, asexual reproduction works simultaneously along with sexual reproduction, in different organisms, all though it also existed prior ..
Well me and EThugg have come to a decision. It's foolish to debate opinions, I will post the entire conversation later tonight.
No, I post the convo NOW! Enjoy everybody...
Quote:
EThuggX: Why not tell me how you really feel? :-)
ImRich66: about?
EThuggX: Me....
ImRich66: I've already told you
ImRich66: I despise you
ImRich66: I've never believed in the validity of "wrong opinions" until I've read yours
EThuggX: Awww shucks, you're not so bad yourself. Tell me more...
ImRich66: ...?
ImRich66: your devoid of sympathy, and for it I despise you
ImRich66: how can you feel people deserve death for being born with a defect
EThuggX: I'm a vegan only out of compassion for animals, what exactly is your definition of 'sympathy'?
ImRich66: it's not their fault
EThuggX: That gives you no right to play god and 'fix' them.
ImRich66: your not playing god
ImRich66: your using god's resources to fix them
EThuggX: Yes, you are.
EThuggX: Gods resourse is fuck and have kids
ImRich66: if it was against god's will, the ability to heal would be nonexistant
ImRich66: did Jesus not heal people?
EThuggX: If you can't, you aren't suppose to.
ImRich66: all though I know you don't beleive in it
EThuggX: It's against my will
ImRich66: what is?
EThuggX: I and every real human is devalued when a cheap imitation can be created
ImRich66: but it's not an imitation
EThuggX: its not real
ImRich66: and they are "real"
ImRich66: they have the same structure as everyone else
EThuggX: they are real in that they exist and are alive only, they aren't human.
ImRich66: and what seperates people, IMO, is the mind
ImRich66: and they wouldn't have the same mind
ImRich66: what makes them not human?
EThuggX: they were created by science, not nature
ImRich66: they were created through natural means, what is unnatural? who says sex is the natural way?
EThuggX: nature
ImRich66: nature says sex is natural
EThuggX: I'm a tree hugger... you won't alter my view
ImRich66: ?
ImRich66: I'm not tryign to alter your view
ImRich66: simply providing my view
ImRich66: the same applies to you, your not gonig to alter my view
EThuggX: just say its 'wrong' and I'm all thats wrong with the world...
ImRich66: eh?
ImRich66: hell you talkin about
EThuggX: You said my opinions are wrong, and I represent yadda yadda
ImRich66: I do feel you have wrong opinions, because I feel only "real" humans have sympathy
ImRich66: and all "real" humans have sympathy
ImRich66: thus putting you in the same class as a clone
EThuggX: I have sympathy, but my sense of right and wrong overrides it.
ImRich66: but what makes cloning wrong, provided it's natural, IMO
ImRich66: and as I've already said, I don't know if I support cloning or not
EThuggX: That's the problem. In no way do I find it natural.
ImRich66: that's because you feel God's means of reproduction are through sex, but you have nothing to back that up besides your own feeling
EThuggX: Nature, not God... and so?
EThuggX: My own feeling is all I need
ImRich66: well that coudl quite possibly make your opinion wrong
ImRich66: because for all you know, Nature's means of reproduction are through cloning
EThuggX: How could that be? It occurs naturally nowhere
ImRich66: but it is natural, it just involves a third party and extra equipment, which is made by natural elements
EThuggX: Concreate is made up of natural elements, but when combined by human hands, it's no longer natural
EThuggX: If it requires a 3rd party, it cannot be naturtal
ImRich66: but humans are natural, as is the concrete's elements
ImRich66: so your saying if natural things combine, it's no longer natural
EThuggX: Correct.
ImRich66: then that devoids everything
EThuggX: If it's not a natural occurance
ImRich66: sperm + egg = 2 natural substances combining
EThuggX: Animals have sex, if there were no humans, this would be true even
EThuggX: Anything that requires human intervention is not natural
ImRich66: do you think asexual animals are not natural?
ImRich66: because they are basically clones
EThuggX: They are freaks.... mutants
ImRich66: because they reproduce differently?
EThuggX: I'm cvonfused... asexual animals that are all asexual, or when they aren't normally?
ImRich66: asexual animals that are naturally asexual..
ImRich66: btw, I'm posting just a segment of this convo and nothing else, hope you don't mind
ImRich66: to bring up my point of asexual reproduction
EThuggX: I'd have to think about it... but normally, I wouldn't think animals are... plants I know... what animals?
ImRich66: I don't think any animals are, but monera
ImRich66: and single cells organisms
EThuggX: I'd say I just cannot determine it... like sea horses, they are an oddity I have no whay of knowing if they should be like that, or they deviated from their natural path... like fags... I'm not a scientist...
ImRich66: well do you think it's natural for male seahorses to give birth?
ImRich66: maybe every other organism (sexual, not asexual) has been mutated for the female to give birth
EThuggX: If the only info I had is that the males give birth, I'd say no. I'm sure this is more to it than I could comprehend.
EThuggX: There is more to it I meant
ImRich66: well what about 1) giving birth to eggs, 2) or releasing eggs then having the male release sperm onto them
ImRich66: damn I forgot #3
EThuggX: Listen. I am sure of only one thing. Sex is the only natural way for humans to reproduce.
ImRich66: but how can you be sure
ImRich66: that's our whole argument, basically
EThuggX: It's a 'feeling'...
EThuggX: :-)
ImRich66: exactly, so this debate is completely pointless
ImRich66: for it's a debate on opinions
EThuggX: every debate on TNL is... ;-)
ImRich66: hmm, you've got a point... since almost everything is either morals or religion
ImRich66: however I stil feel your in need of human compassion =P
EThuggX: well, I think I'm in need of some water...
ImRich66: ...so go get a drink? unless it's filtered water
ImRich66: becuase that's not natural
ImRich66: or tap, that's not natural either
ImRich66: you can only drink spring water
ImRich66: I hope you realize the point I'm tryign to make
EThuggX: Tap evens it out, cleans out the unnatural pollutionn from people... ;-)
ImRich66: that almost everything you may use is unnatural in some way
ImRich66: tap isn't natural...
ImRich66: it's combined with unnatural substances
EThuggX: pollution in my spring isn't natural :-(
ImRich66: so your no longer allowed to drink
ImRich66: every form of liquid is unnature except sping water that isn't polluted
ImRich66: you can't clean your clothes with anything but unpolluted sping water
ImRich66: you can't watch tv
ImRich66: you can't be on the comp
ImRich66: you can't be sitting in the chair your in
EThuggX: I can do anything
ImRich66: you can't eat most vegetables
ImRich66: all of these are unnatural
ImRich66: if you can do anything, than you can clone people
EThuggX: You can't compare playing Dr. Frankenstien to using a PC
ImRich66: sure I can
ImRich66: PC is made unnaturally
ImRich66: as is a clone, in yuor opinion
EThuggX: well, yea, but it will just keep us going back and forth with no resolution
ImRich66: hence the "battle of opinions"
ImRich66: you can't even breathe the air your breathing
ImRich66: you would have to live in a naturally made bubble your whole life eating nothing but plants that have grown themselves without you
ImRich66: ..do you see where I'm going with this?
EThuggX: Yes, to a comical extreme.
ImRich66: well, not comical, but yes, an extreme
EThuggX: all things in moderation friend
ImRich66: I'm just trying to make a point, by going to the extreme
EThuggX: As far as I'm concerned, the potentail for bad with cloning outweighs the good, and it's too unnatural. That's my final say.
ImRich66: I never disagreed with the potential fo rbad
ImRich66: that's why I said I wouldn't agree with it unless it's perfected
ImRich66: but as for not believing clones are humans, I find that ludicrus
EThuggX: ok...
ImRich66: but something unnatural doesn't necessarily mean bad
ImRich66: we all live through something unnatural
EThuggX: It comes down to the damage of a unnatural act, or my personal opinion.
ImRich66: and it cloning was perfected?
ImRich66: there would be no damage
EThuggX: to get to 'perfection' requires very much damage. You want to be the guy who has to push a half formed mutanyt into a firepit?
ImRich66: huh?
EThuggX: you know the abominations they will be spitting out for years before it's perfected?
ImRich66: but with science nowaday, we can perfect it without experimenting
EThuggX: Not really...
ImRich66: it may take a hell of a long time, but it can be done
ImRich66: just curious, think dolly is unnatural?
EThuggX: even if it was perfected, IMO it could be too easily misused still.
ImRich66: and should be destoryed
EThuggX: Yes
ImRich66: well then, would you want to be the one who has to push the fully living dolly into a firepit?
ImRich66: a successful experiment
EThuggX: I wouldn't want to, but it would be the right thing.
ImRich66: well, what if you could insure it's perfection and never to be misused, would you still be against it?
ImRich66: why would it be right, why doesn't dolly deserve to live, she has the same functions as everyone else, and what if a clone made a great contribution to the world, still destory it?
ImRich66: everyone else being other sheeps
EThuggX: Probably.
It represents a potential danger to the other sheep, and because we think it's perfect doesn't mean it is. We could be introducing something horrible to the sheep genepool we don't even realize.
ImRich66: and if we weren't, and what potential danger? it is just like the other sheep
EThuggX: We aren't gods, and we don't now, nor will we ever, be able to KNOW a clone is perfect except maybe with a single celled organizm
EThuggX: the danger is we don't know
EThuggX: and the potential benefits are not justification
ImRich66: we're not tryign to make a clone perfect
ImRich66: hell I don't think clones should be made
ImRich66: but I think if they are they have a right to live
ImRich66: I don't see any danger, since they have the same exact genetic makeup as all other human beings
EThuggX: we can never deem them perfect, so how can you judge if it should exist?
ImRich66: out of compassion for the human species
ImRich66: we aren't perfect, either
EThuggX: Accoarding to what humans know it's a exact duplicate. I don't believe in god, or heven, but I do believe I don't know what else there is. What if there is a 'spirit' in each of us we can't create in a clone? We have no right to assume we know enough
ImRich66: it's not
ImRich66: and humans know it's not
ImRich66: I quote my post
EThuggX: it's not what?
ImRich66: exact duplicate
ImRich66: On another note, even with cloning, you will NOT, I repeat, NOT have the exact same genetic makeup as the parent
ImRich66: that was from my post
ImRich66: 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.
EThuggX: fine, assuming that even, still doesn't address what I said.
ImRich66: we create new spirits when cloning
ImRich66: that's the thing
ImRich66: "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. "
EThuggX: You don't know enough, maybe we don't. Maybe spirits can only be created when a baby is created under my definition of natural... you don't, and can't know the entire picture
ImRich66: a spirit is a life giving force
ImRich66: or another definition is "person"
ImRich66: and clones are persons who can reproduce
EThuggX: it's like doing a puzzle with only half the pieces... you might figure out it's a picture of a sailboat, but you don't see all the waves inn the water (this is just a example), regardless of how hard you try, or how much you know, you won't know enough to saftley do what your arguming.
EThuggX: No, that's your definition of spirit
EThuggX: you do not know if a spirit even exists, but your defining it?
ImRich66: no, that's webster-merriam's definitino
EThuggX: Webster doesn't know either
ImRich66: and neither do you
EThuggX: exactly.
ImRich66: for all you know, you make a new spirit when striking a match
EThuggX: maybe, but you, me and no one else is in a position where they can decide that
ImRich66: but how can you say they deserve to die because it MAY not have a spirit
EThuggX: it's like giving a kid a gun... he might get hurt, he might not... not very responsible, its it?
ImRich66: how can you compare it to that?
EThuggX: Your proposing the creation of life that may or may not have everything it needs, and seem to feel the risk is of no concern...
ImRich66: but how do you know that through sexual reproduction it has everything it needs
ImRich66: whether or not we get souls may be random
ImRich66: shall we continue this later, I'm going to watch a movie
EThuggX: I don't reproduce, I avoid that risk :-)
EThuggX: ok
ImRich66: using condoms is unnatural, my final word for the hour =P
EThuggX: I don't have sex
So, by your line of thought Ethugg, Caucasians and negros should be seperated and not allowed to breed, because its not natural for 2 different species of human to live in the same place without human intervention. And you are against homosexuality too, no? Now, who's acting like a nazi?
And you say that self preservation is the only important factor. Cloning seems like a way to ensure survival.
Eating food is a form of intervention. It stops us from dying.
And may I ask how you define human?
Dictionary definition: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
Clones fall under this catigory.
Also, nature is a very ambiguous word. It is human nature to intervene.
Also, because you completely lack empathy, I'll tell you that the situation would be different if a loved one required it. It really would be. Try and imagine the person you hold dearest to you gets their stomach torn open by a dog. You have the choice of letting her sit there and die in horrifying agony, or getting her ass to a hospital where they can treat her wound and her pain. I know that you would chose the first, because it is human nature to feel, and when a loved one gets hurt, you'll do anything to save them.
bah I forgot all of the stuff I was gonna say. Something about how risk is a natural thing. oh well.
And yes, cloning can have dire consiquences. The amount of freakishly deformed people that are born before they get it right may be large.
For a look at how cloning can have a negative impact, watch gattaca, or read Brave New World.
Overall, I'm undecided. It has many benefits, but the risks are fairly high.
Well, if you read the convo between me and EThugg, you noticed there was a point in which I forgot the 3rd question in a sentence I wanted to ask him..
"ImRich66: well what about 1) giving birth to eggs, 2) or releasing eggs then having the male release sperm onto them
ImRich66: damn I forgot #3"
Well, I just recalled, number 3 was going to ask him how he felt about interspecie reproduction.
Aw shit, I had a convo with a friend about this and I just deleted it!
Well I'm going to trust EThugg in the area of in no way altering how conversation, because I don't think he would find the convo natural if he did.
They'd be carried in animals, until harvesting. The risk of rejection would be mute, since they'd essentially be your organs, thanks to stem cells.Quote:
One of my key worries with cloning is that there is a general agreement here that just cloning specific organs for transplants would be fine..but who is going to carry them? that second growing heart is not going to grow into a fully functional, normal human organ sitting in a petri dish, so is someone going to incubate a second heart for? you how would they carry it? If so i think there would be worries of rejection once it is introduced into your body since it would be a foreign organ.
This is only a small application of new genetic research, along with full human clones. The real benefits will come when diseases are cured, and people are genetically enhanced. Imagine a whole generation of super-geniuses, and what that would do to our society.
Doesn't evolution depend upon originality and mixtures and creativity? Wouldn't cloning of a human being be a backward path for evolution?
There is only one species of human on the earth, all the rest are now extinct.Quote:
So, by your line of thought Ethugg, Caucasians and negros should be seperated and not allowed to breed, because its not natural for 2 different species of human to live in the same place without human intervention.
Ethugg truely disturbs me.
it boggles my mind why anyone wouldnt want to make the world a better palce.
the only thing i can think of is that maybe you, ethugg, have a mental illness. im serious. whats so goddamn wrong with living?
I'm going to make a point in a bit, but first some definitions.We human beings are animals. As such, we are products of nature. Nature created us and shapes us to this day, and as such we and everything we do are inseperably part of it, for all time. The very fact that man has the capacity to do a given thing defines that thing as natural.Quote:
From dictionary.com:
na·ture
n.
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing.
------------------------------------------------------
in·tel·li·gence
n.
1.
a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
b. The faculty of thought and reason.
------------------------------------------------------
tech·nol·o·gy
n. pl. tech·nol·o·gies
1.
a. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
b. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
3. Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.
Why do we even have such advanced technology to even be in a position to debate the morality of cloning? Because of our intelligence. No, I don't mean comparative intelligence, as in "Einstein was more intelligent than the average man," I mean the state of sentience which has made us the dominant species on this planet. We have technology because of intelligence, and we have intelligence because of evolution, an integral part of nature.
Further, speaking of nature in terms of the seventh through ninth defitions listed above, man has exhibited since his earliest days the tendency to devise tools and processes to enhance his ability to thrive in the world. In other words, it is man's nature to create technology, and because this tendency of man is a result of nature, so is whatever technology arises from this tendency.
So you see, there is really no such thing as "unnatural" or "artificial". Nature created man, therefore man is natural. Man created technology, and man is natural, therefore technology is natural.
Bear in mind I am by no means equating "natural" with "right" or "unnatural" with "wrong". Just because my logic defines nuclear weapons as natural doesn't mean they're a good thing.
Some random thoughts this thread spawned:
-It's highly ironic that someone with the screen name Bio Mechanic is so against any kind of research into the building blocks of life.
-I am more convinced than ever that Ethugg is someone's exceptionally retarded, long-overdue-to-be-put-to-rest idea of a joke. Your "real" identity wouldn't perchance be phoenixangelwing would it? I noticed you disappeared right when he left after his uncle died, then returned the same day he did. Coincidence...?
LP: No IP similarity.
(I swear, if my PC locks up one more time I'm going to shoot it)
"It's highly ironic that someone with the screen name Bio Mechanic is so against any kind of research into the building blocks of life."
Ah ha - someone caught on. It IS intentionally ironic, LP. I'm not against the medical field. Use technology to investigate life. Improve what's already here (we need to desperately). Just don't use it for cloning.
Invitro and cloning are totally different. Invitro is a technological way to produce a natural process. Cloning is all technological. I'm not against invitro to the same degree that I'm against cloning. A child produced by invitro is alive because it is, in the end, the result of a natural process, no matter how technologically assisted. It makes me uncomfortable, but I accept it. I don't think that makes be a bigot...
I don't agree for a second that technology is the result of nature, although I certainly see LordPerrin's point. I also think that definition is highly misleading, and far too unspecific. My definition of technology is different, obviously. However, I do think that most everything in the universe is a construct of some sort - even nature (hence my screen name). I still think that man can't hope to understand nature - he simply doesn't have the capacity - which in my mind means he shouldn't even attempt to artificially (sorry, but cloning is 100% artificial) produce/duplicate a natural process. Our technology will never be able to understand this. This means that clones are not natural, which means they're artificial, which means not only that they're not alive, but there's nothing to separate them from robots. Call clones replicants, simulants, whatever - just don't try to pretend they're human, because even if they're an exact copy, they're still a copy, therefore not an original, nor a the product of naturally occurring reproduction. Simply by definition, a clone would NEVER occur through natural evolution, so that means there's little to differentiate it from a microchip or toaster.
I don't see where the confusion lies. Metaphysical "soul" arguments and religious views aside (both of which support the anti-cloning argument, but I ignore them because you can't debate belief), I still see no evidence that:
a) Cloning is a natural process that is the equivalent of nature;
b) Cloning is true evolution
c) Clones are human
Yep. But we're more like parasites or a virus. The worst thing that happened to this planet was the growth of human "intelligence". We fucked up this world with our "technology". One of the most advanced technologies monkeys or orangutans have is a stick that they shove into a termite hole to get the termites out. That's about as far as our technology should have advanced. We fucked up the natural progression of earth and every living thing on it.Quote:
We human beings are animals
Cloning? Eh. I wrote a 15 page term paper on that a while ago. Most of the information is probably void now but basically I said it would come to bite us in the ass in the future. With all the possibilities that cloning has...most of them are negative. Yeah you could heal people but you could also have the potential for clones to be slaves or work at factories for little to no pay, getting rid of the people who used to work there. Or these super-genius clones could decide to kill all the "idiot" people that caused all kinds of destruction and chaos and live in harmony in their super-genius world. Or nothing at all could happen and only positive things will come out of cloning. But what's the likelyhood of that? We're idiots.
Later all...
"Weak little creatures, speaking with gods.Quote:
Originally posted by BioMechanic
Call clones replicants...
Their cries are insane, their prayers are in vain,
For I am the replicant! To Hell with gods!"
;)
Cap'n - bwa ha ha. Good one.
To add to 2D's statement, we have NO IDEA what the result of cloning will be, 20-30-1000 years down the road. I realize that we shouldn't use fear as an excuse, but it's still another argument against cloning.
Humans cannot, and never will, completely understand nature. We simply won't last long enough as a race.
Bio: I don't think clones can be disntinguished from identical twins. Obviously, the process is totally different, but I don't think it's wrong to say that a twin is simply a naturally occurring clone.
And generally, I don't buy the "in-vitro babies are human but clone's aren't" argument. Both occur as the result of natural processes kick-started by technological means. The cloning technique CNN presented merely begins with a cloned egg - nature takes its course from there.
The "no idea" argument would apply to any technological advancement, ever.
But...the process DOES make all the difference, in regards to twins.
A cloned egg is the product of a techological, unnatural process. Despite the fact that it's carried by a mother and is produced via "natural birth", the egg is still artificial, hence, the end result is artificial.
You're right about the "no idea" argument, but I think it applies more heavily to the cloning process, and has the potential for far more severe repercussions than some other advancements.
My point is that humans indistinguishable from clones occur naturally.
In-vitro fertilization is not natural. Is everything that is born as a result of in-vitro inherently unnatural?
While the risks involved with cloning might be far greater, the benefits might be too. Of course, for most, risk in itself is a bad thing, so I can see your point, somewhat.
As with most business investments, higher risks yeild higher payoffs. The question is: Are those risks worth taking?
Just something to think about. I still haven't made up my mind one way or another.
CV, if you have a problem with extreme uses of genetic engeneering(maybe you don't think 4 arms would be more useful as that scientist), it only means you should simply not support that, and not cloning in general. I don't see whats wrong with cloning, but if clones were created to work in factories and be slaves, I would be against that.
And I'll say it again, we judge the result, not the process that leads to the result. If someone picked up a block of cheese, and created a human from it, it would be a human. Would the human be the result of sex? No, this man would be proof that sex isn't necessary for humans to exist. now change cheese to cloning. You can say the process is different, but that is the only difference.
I never said I had a problem with cloning...or genetically engineering four-armed creatures.
What I did say is that I don't know where I stand on it.
It could be good...It could be bad. I honestly don't know, and God hasn't lead me one direction or the other concerning it.
Do I think it's neat? Sure! Do I think it's good? Don't know. Do I think it's bad? Don't know. But it's definitly neat! ;)
I was just taking a cue from your "risks" statement. I wasn't sure if you were only questioning risky use of cloning, or if you considered cloning itself to be the risk.
That would be "risky use of" my good man. :D
Your analogy is a bit cloudy. The only reason high-risk business investments have higher (average) payouts is that investors require compensation for taking on risk. It's possible that cloning is both high-risk and low-return, although I'm not convinced it is.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
As with most business investments, higher risks yeild higher payoffs. The question is: Are those risks worth taking?
Just something to think about. I still haven't made up my mind one way or another.
What are the risks in cloning?
The invention of the atomic bomb carried huge risk alongside it:
+ win WWII, end the concept of World Wars forever, forced first-world detente
- apocalypse is now a lot easier to start
Cloning?
+ allow the creation of organ farms, breed diseases out of new first world children, save lives, so on. Outside of human cloning, similar research will help in developing GM foods to feed growing populations.
- Malthusian over-population hell becomes more of a possibility every time we do anything that extends the average human lifespan
I still think that minus won't have much of an effect for a long time - it's going to be damn hard to extend the benefits of cloning to the places where it could really have an overpopulating effect. Think about the common life-saving devices we had 70 years ago that are still rare in disadvantages areas of the world.
If we can keep positive GM foods research going, maybe we'll be able to counteract the effect of growing population, too.
Stone: On the nuclear side, I think you're ignoring the benefits of controlled chain-reaction fission energy, which runs much cleaner than fossil fuel, though that also has its downsides.
This thread has given me such an astonishing amount of information on cloning its unbelievable. I've come to the conclusion that cloning is too unnatural to be done on a human safely, the amounts of risks involved are too grand in my view.
P.S. Man, I thought it was bad when I got confused with Nick now and then, now with Rich around its become harder for people to tell me apart! :p
lol Rick, I don't go by names, but rather avatars =P
I find the amount of ignorance in this thread astonishing, not to mention the fear of clones thus calling them not human. They are human, whether your like it or not, but let's just hope they aren't created from a risk perspective. But this they are not human campaign is stupid, the fact that people could be so void of compassion as to say clones should die. (maybe not in this thread, but in chats) I would gladly live side by side with a clone if one was to ever be created, Also, I'd like to point out that those using the clones are not human argument are most likely homophobic self reliant shits. I was talkign to someone who thought clones should die, and proceded to tell me if he was president, he would commit cultural genocide against the gays because they are not natural and they go against nature. (He was an Atheist) The reasons he provided were enough for me to lose another level of respect for those supporting the clones aren't human argument.
"Also, I'd like to point out that those using the clones are not human argument are most likely homophobic self reliant shits."
Respectful arguing is fine, Rich. Personal insults aren't. Don't sink to that level - it's pretty sad, and unnecessary.
Self reliant is a flaw or som sort of insult? And by homophobic, I assume you mean *hates* gays. Hating, and saying they are unnatural, and defective, are 2 different things. I need glasses, I'm defective, do you think I hate myself because I can admit that I'm defective? Well, I don't (regardless of your answer).Quote:
Originally posted by Rich
Also, I'd like to point out that those using the clones are not human argument are most likely homophobic self reliant shits. I was talkign to someone who thought clones should die, and proceded to tell me if he was president, he would commit cultural genocide against the gays because they are not natural and they go against nature. (He was an Atheist) The reasons he provided were enough for me to lose another level of respect for those supporting the clones aren't human argument.
PS: I said Dollie (or whatever) should be destroyed, yes, but only to prevent her from 'hooking up' with real sheep, and possibly spreading new/unforseen mutations to the gene-pool. Not because I don't think Dollie can';t feel, or isn't really alive.
PPS: Who's the cultural genocide guy? I'd like to talk to him... ;) BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
There's zero evidence that clones carry any more risk of mutation than any other organism. Actually, since they are perfect genetic copies of existing organisms, one could argue that they carry no risk of mutation whatsoever.
Regardless, experimental animals (like that bunny that glows Xbox neon green - there's a freak even you could love, Thugg!) are routinely sterilized, just as a precaution, and I'm sure the same was done to Dolly.
EDIT - Say hello to Alba!
http://www.bch.bris.ac.uk/staff/pfdg.../gfprabbit.jpg
This gives a new meaning to the term "like mother like daughter" :lol:
as a side note I'd like to mention that if some one commited cultural genicide against gays there would be more born (or coming out) the next generation anyway. That's just a frightening idea. <:(
ps. I\'m of course refering to the genicide.
Genocide against gays wouldn't work. They're neither discrete nor insular.
Damn...that's some funky stuff...the bunny I mean.
So, Burgundy, does it reflect the green light spectrum, or is it it's own light source?
Alba glows green when bathed in blue light (I'm thinking a black light).