Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on August 12, 2002, 10:38:21 PM
-
Hello liberals!
In a few years when the whacko leftist femininsts who often set the liberal agenda on such things begin demanding cloning as a "Reproductive Right", and we all know they will, will you liberals support the idea?
Lets hear it lefties!!! :D
-
I'll bite. :D
If someone wants to clone themself, I don't care.
-
I think I'll call him Mini-Me.
Mini-Me, you complete me.
Cobra
-
CLONE OF MY OWN (to Home on the Range)
Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With the Y chromosome changed to X.
And when she is grown,
My very own clone,
We'll be of the opposite sex.
Chorus:
Clone, clone of my own,
With the Y chromosome changed to X.
And when we're alone,
Since her mind is my own,
She'll be thinking of nothing but sex.
-
Sandman has created a whole new meaning for "go diddly yourself" :D
-
Designer babies? ones you could manipulate eye color, hair color, IQ level, resistant of diseases? Sure, I’m all for it.
Question is: Why would you be against that?
-
I'm talking about cloning. Not DNA by numbers designer babies, which could be really cool, a sort of modern twist on eugenics. But I imagine the real leftists would be against designer babies - at least those purchased by wealthy capitalist type individuals. Imagine the horror if somebody wanted a thin/phsically fit, tall, healthy (non cripple), visually abled, hearing abled, intelligent, socially apt, blue eyed, blond haired, white, male, heterosexual baby. Did I cover the opposite of every current specially protected group? :D Horrible!!!
Anyway lets hear about cloning. It is currently illegal in the USA, so will the whacko feminist movement declare this the next cherished female "Reproductive Right"? And will the liberals come out in support?
-
Sorry Grun misunderstood your question.
Stem cell research which is kind of a tie in to cloning, is opposed by the Christen right on account of they don’t want anybody fiddling with God’s will. If the fems are on the side of the Christians I didn’t know that.
If part of reproduction rights mean you can clone an army of supermen, I’m all for it!. It can only benefit society to have healthier smarter people.
If other countries are already researching stem cell and cloning, I say we get on that bus.
WAaaaa an issue we agree on?... no ways. :)
-
Send in the clones!
Why not? The clone won't be exactly the same person - won't think the same, like the same stuff. They'd just be genetically the same, exactly like [;)] identical twins (nothing wrong with identical twins is there?).
What's the big deal? If you want one, buy one.
Though why anyone would want a clone is beyond me: The only thing I can think of is it'd be perfect for organ transplants, but only if you don't mind murdering/mutilating your twin. For that sort of stuff, mucking about with stem cells is much more ethical and probably much faster and cheaper.
Which makes cloning expensive, compared to good old fashioned sex; less exciting than sex; and a bad evolutionary strategy - ie your clone is every bit at risk of dying from whatever diseases you're genetically at risk from. In short - purely a "we did it" kind of achievement, where the end result serves very little purpose, although the techniques learnt may be of benefit.
To clone an army of supermen - you need a superman to clone first. That you have to get through designer babies.
-
I fully support stem cell research and religious type opposition is ridiculous to me. The potential benefits to all people are stunning.
-
yeah, lets let the ones screaming for the removal of God play god :rolleyes:
-
Heh, just think of it as an opportunity, Grun. When the liberals get it passed, the next time the conservatives take control, they can push for deregulation of the cloning industry so that parents can ensure their kids are born conservative, heterosexual and with an unshakable belief in the allmighty.
-
Oh, the irony, Lance!
I have a religious objection to it, no doubt. I also have grave questions about whether we know enough about it to go mucking about.
I find it distasteful where the demarcation of "life" begins for the liberal mindset. "Pro-choice"? Pro-death! What happens if you clone something that doesn't meet your standards? Does it get destroyed? Is it an "it" or "he/she", and when does that distinction take place?
Will I have to be party to funding such efforts through my tax dollars? I am vigorously against such research, and would want no party to it.
I think it is pretty arrogant to think we could make perfect "people" when we can't even cure the common cold.
-
-dead-: Send in the clones! Why not? The clone won't be exactly the same person - won't think the same, like the same stuff. They'd just be genetically the same, exactly like [;)] identical twins
Identical twins - even those raised separately think substantially the same and like the same stuff - foods, activities, mates, etc. But why would it be a problem even if a clone is exactly the same person?
Though why anyone would want a clone is beyond me: The only thing I can think of is it'd be perfect for organ transplants,
From the nature's standpoint the clone is you. There are quite logical reasons why someone would want to raise a baby genetically identical to him/herself.
The only thing I can think of is it'd be perfect for organ transplants, but only if you don't mind murdering/mutilating your twin. For that sort of stuff, mucking about with stem cells is much more ethical and probably much faster and cheaper.
Quite the opposite - a rational man without complexes (like me) would say - "I have a clone - so there is another 'me' living on this Earth. Now I can die without wasting money on prolonging my decay. Rather I would leave whatever wealth and accumulated experience to me/him". We are already way past absurd in wasting resources on life-supporting elderly corpses. If you love someone that much, make a clone and turn off the switch.
and a bad evolutionary strategy - ie your clone is every bit at risk of dying from whatever diseases you're genetically at risk from.
As are your children - they will inherit the same genes.
In short - purely a "we did it" kind of achievement, where the end result serves very little purpose, although the techniques learnt may be of benefit.
It is another hot issue on which a consensus will never be reached. For you it's a curious tidbit of knowlege - like christians' silly concern about their hypothetical 'immortal souls', but for some it's a real way to personal immortality.
Eagler: yeah, lets let the ones screaming for the removal of God play god
Removal of what? Play who? Oh, right... I cannot talk for others, but I would never 'scream' for removal of God had one existed. I just want to keep silly superstisions our of public schools, that's all. :rolleyes:
Kieran: Will I have to be party to funding such efforts through my tax dollars? I am vigorously against such research, and would want no party to it.
Exellent point. I am too vigoroulsy against my tax dollars being used on research and support of people 'living' way past their God/nature intended time. Government should not fund any kind of research other than military.
miko
-
Ego??
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Ego??
Far from it. I can list just a few briefly:
For a rational naturalist, a clone is the same as him/herself. So it is a way to achieve a personal immortality.
Let's say you are satisfied with your physical and mental makeup. Then the process of rasing that baby is very different from rasing a baby who is a complete stranger. You know him/her as well as you know yourself - the temperament, the weaknesses, the strengths, the peculiarities. All your mistakes and your parents' mistakes and omissions in rasing you that you've realised when you grew up yourself you would be able to avoid repeating! There would be much more understanding, much better adjustment, much fuller realization of potential.
The experience transfer from generation to generation would go much better - you would know where he is likely to need advice, what kind of situations he has problem with, how his mind works and how it learns, etc. That second 'you' will surely be more successfull in life with such an understanding parent and perfect rapport... That career you found you should have chosen in your late age - he/you can start in it from birth!
Imagine now that your wife is your ideal mate - not only would she (knowing you) be able to better help rasing that child, her clone would most likely be even closer to perfect mate for him - being raised appropriately, etc. That is a side isuue but just one unexpected opportunity that is associated with knowlege of teh future - as much as knowing another person can be called that.
Obviously I would never miss an opportunity to play the great genetic roulette and conceive babies in the normal way - with whatever help of genetic screening I deem reasonable. I would be more confident in them too - since all siblings are as genetically related to each other as a parent is to his/her child, my clone would have as much insentive to care for them and look over them as I do - and will be better prepared based on my experience than a random brother would.
Of course that would only work for intelligent mentally-balanced parent(s) who care to invest time and effort in rasing his kids - some would just chop them up for organs, that's true. But why do would I care what some humans do to themselves? Hamsters eat their young and I live with that.
miko
-
"For a rational naturalist, a clone is the same as him/herself. So it is a way to achieve a personal immortality."
like I said EGO
WHat about the kid? You think you know best for him/her? You think he/she wants to go through life looking like you, no matter how "perfect" You think YOU are?
Selfish Ego
-
Well, what concerns me is having an evil alter-ego out there...
Don't you guys read Calvin and Hobbes?
-
Didn't the clone wars teach us anything?
Charon
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Far from it. I can list just a few briefly:
For a rational naturalist, a clone is the same as him/herself. So it is a way to achieve a personal immortality.
miko
That rational naturalist is fooling himself. We have clones already. They're called identical twins. As I understand it, they are exact duplicates in every biological way... BUT they are not the same person nor do the have the same personalities. A clone of me will not be me. It may look like me and talk like me, but it won't think like me.
-
Cloning humans for research? to benifit society?
Would this not be the same as creating and forcing a life into slavery or personal servitude? To benefit our society so I don't have to go out into the heat of the day to pick dat cotton. Ya lets get a whole army of'em dem cotton pickers. Lets see if we can filter facial features and skin color to end racsism we get a whole army of a 'pure' race of beings. Anyone disagreeing with new purity must sit in the back of the bus and use separate bathrooms.
AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"--Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Sandman has created a whole new meaning for "go diddly yourself" :D
Can't take credit for it... I believe it was Isaac Asimov.
-
Identical only in DNA.
If I was to have a clone baby right now...
I'd be 28 when it was born. By the time the clone was 28 years old, it could be exactly like me, but it could be nothing like me! Physical and mental attributes as determined by our DNA are not all that define us as human beings. Life experience plays a significant part in the development of our personalities. I grew up in the 80's. A clone of mine born today would grow up in the late 00's and early 10's. Vastly different times, which could result in vastly different personalities for me at 28 and my clone at 28.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
That rational naturalist is fooling himself. We have clones already. They're called identical twins. As I understand it, they are exact duplicates in every biological way... BUT they are not the same person nor do the have the same personalities. A clone of me will not be me. It may look like me and talk like me, but it won't think like me.
Actually sandman, modern biological theories look at the gene as the ultimate survivor in the "survival of the fittest" game. The reproduction/survival of the gene is what seems to be of utmost importance. Cloning oneself would be (biologically speaking) twice as good as natural reproduction in terms of passing on ones genes (although less than half as fun). Yes the clone would not BE you, but it would have 100% of your genetic code. You have just hit the biological jackpot in passing on YOUR genetic makeup to the next generation.
OTOH a species thrives through genetic diversity (I know this flies in the face of the above). Rampant cloning would by definition reduce the diversity of the gene pool and harm the species over the long run. Think how well a cow would do in the wild.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"For a rational naturalist, a clone is the same as him/herself. So it is a way to achieve a personal immortality."
like I said EGO
Whatever. Will to live is an instinct determined by my biology. You can hyppocritically say whatever you want but I would never believe that life and death are equally attractive to you. If they were, you would have been dead already.
As for ego - I at least I am not running around believeing that a superhuman Creator of Universe is listening to my every whine like some butler.
WHat about the kid? You think you know best for him/her?
Your statements are either opposite or have nothing to do with what I said.
Of course I "know best" for him. The moral/legal part of that does not change whether the child is a clone, natural or adopted - the parent is the one who always "knows best". But the technical part is slightly different - I more accurately "know best" because I have extra knowlege.
You think he/she wants to go through life looking like you
The child will be looking like himself. If it's a clone, he will be looking like me, of course. His wish is irrelevant - before cloning there is no one to wish, after birth, every child wants to look like, say, Arnold Schwartzsenegger - but woudl hardly agree on terminating his existance so that his parents could raise A.S. clone instead.
no matter how "perfect" You think YOU are?
Whatever made you think I consider myself "perfect"? Or even believe that I attribute any meaning to that silly word you people use in such abundance? In fact, I learned to think in Russian - and we do not have that idiotic word that americans have stuck in their brains. We do have a word we use in similar situations - "sovershenny'i" - literally that means "accomplished" or "finalised". I can tell you what "accomplished" is - quite reasonably and in simple practical terms that do mean something. The word "perfect" did originate from latin phrase meaning "thoroughly made" - but how many english-speakers use it that way? That is quite a far stretch from current idealistic meaning not applicable to anything in nature - perfect: being entirely without flaw and meeting supreme standards of excellence
That definition cannot be appied by a human to himself by any stretch of imagination. If I consider some flaw in myself (as opposite to some minor part, like chipped tooth) - if that flaw were corrected, that would not be me, would it? I can only be "perfect" by someone else's judgement - which I care about only to a certain degree.
I am what I am. I am reasonably content with myself - genetically at least. I learned enough about myself in the course of my life to raise a child clone of myself more content with himself accomplishment-wise than I am - meaning more fully realising his potential, etc. I am sure that human being would be far from "perfect" by other people standards. So what? Ny one of my children would.
If I am good enough for myself (don't really care much about someone else's opinion) to live today and a year from now, why am I not good enough to live a hundred years from now through my clone? It's my money...
P.S. I am arguing that I am not driven by "Ego", whatever it means, just as a matter of truth in the current situation. It is none of your business if "Ego" were involved in any of my motivations - as long as I am not asking you to foot the bill. What's wrong with people having ego? You seem to treat it as a dirty word.
miko
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
If part of reproduction rights mean you can clone an army of supermen, I’m all for it!. It can only benefit society to have healthier smarter people.
Interesting! Gobbels and Hitler would have agreed with you 100% ;)
-
How about cloning a copy of yourself so as ya age ya got a ready supply of "spare parts"?
I smoke cigarettes, it'd be kinda nice to have a spare set of lungs handy.
Wonder how long before science gets around to brain transplants?
Or backing up your thoughts, memories to hard disk, so your clone can be imprinted, making your death insignificant.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
BUT they are not the same person nor do the have the same personalities. A clone of me will not be me. It may look like me and talk like me, but it won't think like me.
First, the twins even reared apart think in substantially similar way.
Second, the miko five years ago or ten years ago was not the same as one twenty years ago or myself now. All thinking a bit differently bacause of different life experience. Still, I know those personalities' ways of thinking much better than I could ever know anyone else's - other than my clone, of course...
Third, your clone will have children "exactly" like you would - being genetically identical. Once a person is dead, what difference does it make what slightly different way he could have thought? Or wether if he/she was a clone, rather than "original"?
And what is that "We have clones already. They're called identical twins"? I do not have one. And nobody has one he/she could reasonally pass experience to at a young enough age to matter.
Creto: Would this not be the same as creating and forcing a life into slavery or personal servitude?
Most people would clone themselves a child to love and cherish, but if you think in such dirty ways, what's to prevent you from forcing your regular children into "Would this not be the same as creating and forcing a life into slavery or personal servitude?" Same laws would protect the clones, I imagine.
There were no clones in 1800 and slavery prospered - so it is a legal issue rather than a biological one.
Lets see if we can filter facial features and skin color to end racsism we get a whole army of a 'pure' race of beings.
That's not cloning - it is artificial reproduction and genetic screening. Those have been going on for years by hunderds of thousands.
During in-vitro fertilisation a trained embriologist examines the embrios and selects the best one for transfer. In some cases a sell from an embrio (when it only gas 8 cells) is snipped out and examined - for sex where legal and genetic defects - before the embrio is transfered or discareded in favor of another one. I bet people would screen for health and intelligence if only they knew what genes to look for - and they will shortly.
Also, many women perform amniosynthesis at about 16th week of pregnancy - mostly to screen for chromosomal abnormalities.
midnight Target: OTOH a species thrives through genetic diversity (I know this flies in the face of the above). Rampant cloning would by definition reduce the diversity of the gene pool and harm the species over the long run.
True, but benefit of species has no bearing on gene selection in nature. For our species, we can see advantage in having diverse healthy gene species pool for our progeny to mate with - but we do not need to rely on nature to take care of that - being sentient species and all...
miko
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually sandman, modern biological theories look at the gene as the ultimate survivor in the "survival of the fittest" game. The reproduction/survival of the gene is what seems to be of utmost importance. Cloning oneself would be (biologically speaking) twice as good as natural reproduction in terms of passing on ones genes (although less than half as fun). Yes the clone would not BE you, but it would have 100% of your genetic code. You have just hit the biological jackpot in passing on YOUR genetic makeup to the next generation.
Exactly... but there's no immortalitiy in it for me. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
In a few years when the whacko leftist femininsts who often set the liberal agenda on such things begin demanding cloning as a "Reproductive Right", and we all know they will, will you liberals support the idea?
Here's a better question: Will the right-wing “pro-life” group support it? Cloning as a reproductive procedure would provide a means for otherwise infertile people to have children. What could be more “pro-life” than that?
-
Originally posted by myelo
Here's a better question: Will the right-wing “pro-life” group support it? Cloning as a reproductive procedure would provide a means for otherwise infertile people to have children. What could be more “pro-life” than that?
Doubt it, your messing with Nature...whether your vacuuming out a womans womb of an unborn child, or encouraging cloning...
-
It would seem that Mr Ripsnort is hip deep in the "messing with nature" trap.
Who would like to perform the coup de gras?
:D
-
Cloning is actually a reproductive left.
;)
-
Heh, so you see Grunhurz, it’s your own Conservative debating side comes out vehemently against cloning. Not the femms. I knew they would. Like Sandman or Midnight said in another thread, “how do you debate logic with the faithful?” Why, it would take a leap of faith..
Here’s the problem: They are all against abortion, hell most of us are too, I’m very much against abortion think it should be illegal. That said what do you do with the fetuses that have already been aborted?. A proper burial they say and that’s fine. But what if some are used for stem cell research and reproduce cells that could be used to cure Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, growing new cells for burn victims and many other maladies.
Ah but what of the soul of the fetuses?.. If asked, the soul would want to contribute to the betterment of mankind. The comment about an army of supermen I guess congers up a vision of marching storm troopers all identical. Not at all. A generation of healthier, stronger, smarter, more attractive people is a good thing.
This wouldn’t be the first time fundamental Christians tried to stop progress. They even tried to stop to printing press. Here’s a tip for ya Grun, fundamental Christians are every bit as dangerous as fundamental Islamics.
-
Just because you cant grasp scientific advancements, doesn't mean they are not gonna happen. Why is it that republicans like to do Daddy Spank on us poor ole non elitist schooled infants. You cannot stop someone cloning themselves or someone else..all it takes is money and expertise. Expertise is coming and lots of non replublican folks have fortunes.
Wonder why repubs are against it..just think...1000 Dick Cheneys running all the oil companies.
hardcase
-
"A generation of healthier, stronger, smarter, more attractive people is a good thing."
and I guess this would be part of subsidized Family Planning for those who couldn't afford it or would it just be those nasty rich ppl getting "healthier, stronger, smarter, more attractive people" while the poor continued to get sicker, weaker, dumber & uglier.
-
just think...1000 Dick Cheneys running all the oil companies.
Oh God... you might've just made me change my point of view!
-
"Heh, so you see Grunhurz, it’s your own Conservative debating side comes out vehemently against cloning. Not the femms."
Of course the Conservatives are against it. :D
The point of the thread is to see if the liberals will in turn come out for it as some sort of new fangled "Reproductive Right".... And call the ban on cloning an oprresive act against their rights. :D
"Here’s a tip for ya Grun, fundamental Christians are every bit as dangerous as fundamental Islamics."
I am sure you would not object to me adding fundementalist leftist, anti-god, feminist, communist ,USA hater, male hating, PC, white people hating, anti-capitalist types.
:D
-
the left will come up with an abort_clone machine
it'll look like something out of a Dr Seuss book
it'll be sucking in one end, reconfiguring the "material" into the "perfect" er I mean "healthier, stronger, smarter, more attractive" mini me and blowing it out the other
-
Anyone seen that movie, "Gattica"? I am against cloning on religious grounds, but the impacts to society worry me as well. I'm not against progress and technological advancement; however, I've seen little evidence that any culture or society existing today has the wisdom or the social fiber to introduce such a drastic change to the very fabric of that society.
As for Miko's assertion that he would be able to raise himself better than his parents, that's not born out by the evidence. People tend to repeat the mistakes of their parents, even the worst of those. Not everyone who was beaten as a child or has an alcoholic for a parent will do those same things to their child, but there is a very high incident of it happening just that way.
Call me a Christian radical if you like, it won't change my belief system, and that belief system is what guides my moral choices. I believe large scale acceptance of cloning would further erode the already weakened societal belief in the sanctity of life. I also see the potential for large-scale social upheaval, exaggerated and excellerated by the genetic engineering that will surely follow. Again my opinion. No...my belief.
On a personal note, I do not sneer at those that do not believe in God or some other supreme being, but do object when others sneer at my belief that there is one. I believe in the soul as the only passport to immortality. A clone would not be me, so it would do nothing for me in terms fulfilling the desire to have some part of me continue on after this body of mine fails.
-
I am sure you would not object to me adding fundementalist leftist, anti-god, feminist, communist ,USA hater, male hating, PC, white people hating, anti-capitalist types.
Why sure! I defend with my life your right to speak about anything you want.
-
sicker, weaker, dumber & uglier.
Ahhh, more Republicans!
:p
-
Midnight may your RV business suffer great failiures!!! ;)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
-dead-: Send in the clones! Why not? The clone won't be exactly the same person - won't think the same, like the same stuff. They'd just be genetically the same, exactly like [;)] identical twins
Identical twins - even those raised separately think substantially the same and like the same stuff - foods, activities, mates, etc. But why would it be a problem even if a clone is exactly the same person?
I merely wanted to dispel some of the myths surrounding the clone thing. Like for example the myth that a "you" raised in the 2000's was going to end up thinking much the same as a "you" raised in the 50s / 60s / 70s / 80s - so two identical twins raised during the same time period is not the best example. And at guess you've been hanging around with different identical twins from the ones I know... chalk & cheese ... and the fights! wow. :D
Though why anyone would want a clone is beyond me: The only thing I can think of is it'd be perfect for organ transplants,
From the nature's standpoint the clone is you. There are quite logical reasons why someone would want to raise a baby genetically identical to him/herself.
Or that myth... From nature's standpoint the clone is the clone, I'm afraid. The clone's fingerprints would be different, the retinal patterns would be different, the brain pathways and therefore the mind would be different etc etc...
There are logical reasons, eh? Such as?
The only thing I can think of is it'd be perfect for organ transplants, but only if you don't mind murdering/mutilating your twin. For that sort of stuff, mucking about with stem cells is much more ethical and probably much faster and cheaper.
Quite the opposite - a rational man without complexes (like me) would say - "I have a clone - so there is another 'me' living on this Earth. Now I can die without wasting money on prolonging my decay. Rather I would leave whatever wealth and accumulated experience to me/him".
Or you could just have kids like everyone else... it's much cheaper, less faff, and evolutionary (or doesn't that count for anything to a rational man?).
We are already way past absurd in wasting resources on life-supporting elderly corpses. If you love someone that much, make a clone and turn off the switch.
Why bother? They wouldn't be that person at all. They wouldn't have any of the previous person's mutual experiences, so you'd have nothing in common. They would also be several years younger than you. - you'd have to wait about 20 years before they would even bother having a serious conversion with a old fart, such as you would be.
and a bad evolutionary strategy - ie your clone is every bit at risk of dying from whatever diseases you're genetically at risk from.
As are your children - they will inherit the same genes.
Biology 101: they only inherit half your genes, and sometimes there are pleasant mistakes: that's how evolution works, remember?
In short - purely a "we did it" kind of achievement, where the end result serves very little purpose, although the techniques learnt may be of benefit.
It is another hot issue on which a consensus will never be reached. For you it's a curious tidbit of knowlege - like christians' silly concern about their hypothetical 'immortal souls', but for some it's a real way to personal immortality.
Do us both a favour and look up personal in the dictionary. For personal immortality, I'd stick with antioxidants. Cloning is only going to give you genetic immortality. Personally, you die. If you're not so fussed with personal immortality - again, why not go down the having kids route?
Right now I've said all that - I'd still support your right to clone yourself, however deluded I feel it to be. I'd just urge you to think carefully - if it's immortality you're after, cloning is a complete waste of cash.
-
Why, I'm surprised. The lefties have hurled a few insults, but not one of the louder lefties has bothered to answer the questions, "What happens if you clone someone that doesn't meet your standards? Does it get destroyed? Is it an "it" or "he/she", and when does that distinction take place?"
You know darn well what you'd do- you'd kill it, just like you kill your unwanted children. Then you'd perform medical experiments on the corpse, and try to tell me I should be thankful because you might find the cure for cancer or some other disease in the process. No thanks.
Same goes for experiments on fetuses- I'd rather have the disease than to introduce a mechanism into society that rationalizes murder of innocent children.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Doubt it, your messing with Nature...whether your vacuuming out a womans womb of an unborn child, or encouraging cloning...
Messing with nature?
Please.
That’s as insincere as it is vague. You, I and everybody else know the pro-life group is against abortion because they believe it is killing an unborn child. Not because it is interfering with nature.
And what does “messing with nature mean anyway”? In vitro fertilization? Pre-natal care for pregnant women? Vaccination to prevent fatal diseases? Medical treatment that extends healthy life? Sounds anti-life to me. Don’t see many bumper stickers promoting that point of view.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Why, I'm surprised. The lefties have hurled a few insults, but not one of the louder lefties has bothered to answer the questions, "What happens if you clone someone that doesn't meet your standards? Does it get destroyed? Is it an "it" or "he/she", and when does that distinction take place?"
You know darn well what you'd do- you'd kill it, just like you kill your unwanted children. Then you'd perform medical experiments on the corpse, and try to tell me I should be thankful because you might find the cure for cancer or some other disease in the process. No thanks.
Same goes for experiments on fetuses- I'd rather have the disease than to introduce a mechanism into society that rationalizes murder of innocent children.
Hardly Kieran.
I guess we should agree on what exactly a clone is. Like Dolly the lamb, a clone is nothing more than the insertion of a complete (all chromosomes present) nucleus into a host Ova (sans nucleus). I'm not sure how this thing starts cell division, but once that starts you have a normally developing baby. Just like an invitro procedure.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm talking about cloning. Not DNA by numbers designer babies, which could be really cool, a sort of modern twist on eugenics. But I imagine the real leftists would be against designer babies - at least those purchased by wealthy capitalist type individuals. Imagine the horror if somebody wanted a thin/phsically fit, tall, healthy (non cripple), visually abled, hearing abled, intelligent, socially apt, blue eyed, blond haired, white, male, heterosexual baby. Did I cover the opposite of every current specially protected group? :D Horrible!!!
Anyway lets hear about cloning. It is currently illegal in the USA, so will the whacko feminist movement declare this the next cherished female "Reproductive Right"? And will the liberals come out in support?
Go ahead GRUNHERZ, name a law that specifically protects anyone of those groups.
You'll find that the vast majority of laws are written in such a fashion that they apply to anyone. Regulations may be a different thing.
(I have never heard of any law or regulation that mentioned social aptitude, height, hair color or eye color. You're letting your Nazi leanings show again.)
-
but once that starts you have a normally developing baby. Just like an invitro procedure.
Where do you stand on abortion? I happen to believe what you state suggests you should be against it. Yet, 2nd trimester abortions do happen.
-
Sabre: As for Miko's assertion that he would be able to raise himself better than his parents, that's not born out by the evidence. People tend to repeat the mistakes of their parents, even the worst of those. Not everyone who was beaten as a child or has an alcoholic for a parent will do those same things to their child, but there is a very high incident of it happening just that way.
Besides those considerations being irrelevant to my well-adjusted family, what cloning has to do with it? If people tend to repeat mistakes of their parents, they will do at least no worse with cloned children than with natural ones.
-dead-: I merely wanted to dispel some of the myths surrounding the clone thing. Like for example the myth that a "you" raised in the 2000's was going to end up thinking much the same as a "you" raised in the 50s / 60s / 70s / 80s - so two identical twins raised during the same time period is not the best example.
Even if they were, didn't I specifically said that I would try to raise a clone differently than I myself was raised - besides it being a different times and me not being my parents and not living in the same place. Of course the personality will be different. But temperament, intelligence, character traits - those are genetic. There would have been much in common. Why would I look for making a copy of me? I would try for "better" me.
From nature's standpoint the clone is the clone, I'm afraid. The clone's fingerprints would be different, the retinal patterns would be different, the brain pathways and therefore the mind would be different etc etc...
Those things you've mentioned would have been substantially the same - may be only slightly different. I do not care much for retinal print or fingerprints. Intelligence is highly inheritable - that is more important.
Genetic code would be the same. Children by that clone would not be distinguisheable from my children in any way. Of course I would know which one of us is a clone. For a child in 100 years time there would not be any difference.
Or you could just have kids like everyone else... it's much cheaper, less faff, and evolutionary (or doesn't that count for anything to a rational man?).
Who said I don't? Except that I am not sure about that "like everyone else". I am afraid my views on Eugenics may be even less palatable to some than my views on cloning.
Why bother? They wouldn't be that person at all.
That is not an argument. That person is not "that person" anyway. Ever seen Altsheimer victims? Just senile people?
They would also be several years younger than you.
Great - we could care for them in return for their care of us!
and a bad evolutionary strategy - ie your clone is every bit at risk of dying from whatever diseases you're genetically at risk from.
As are your children - they will inherit the same genes.
Biology 101: they only inherit half your genes, and sometimes there are pleasant mistakes: that's how evolution works, remember?
Not true. I do not have genetic deseases. So my children will be at risk of having one but my clone would not be! As for evolution, it works not by improving someone living but by someone living going extinct. I am interested in genetically improving my progeny, but I believe old-fasioned evolution is not the way.
Right now I've said all that - I'd still support your right to clone yourself, however deluded I feel it to be. I'd just urge you to think carefully - if it's immortality you're after, cloning is a complete waste of cash.
I appreciate that. I am also fully aware of a difference between a personality and a genetic identity. I still consider it may be attractive to am individual to preserve it - but there are plenty of other reasons, some of which I presened here.
I would not be much upset if I fail to clone myself, but if it becomes affordable in my lifetime, I would give it a shot. I would not exchange a chance of having two normal babies for a single clone - so it would have to be reasonably cheap.
I would never want government to subcidise research or finance it in any way - neither do I want any regulations.
What happens if you clone someone that doesn't meet your standards? Does it get destroyed? Is it an "it" or "he/she", and when does that distinction take place
I guess a person would do exactly the same he/she would do to a naturally or IV-conceived child. Cloning has nothing to do with it - other than it being much less likely to not "meet standards". Unlike with regular conception, with clone you know exactly what genotype you get.
miko
-
Seig Heil Karnak... :rolleyes:
Well yes the blonde tall blue eyed watermelon is deliberatly meant to invoke the evil nazi stereotypes in liberals like you. No doubt you would call any family who wanted such a baby a bunch of Nazis, or how did you say it have "Nazi leanings "...
My example worked perfectly, thanks for participating.
-
-dead-: I merely wanted to dispel some of the myths surrounding the clone thing. Like for example the myth that a "you" raised in the 2000's was going to end up thinking much the same as a "you" raised in the 50s / 60s / 70s / 80s - so two identical twins raised during the same time period is not the best example.
Even if they were, didn't I specifically said that I would try to raise a clone differently than I myself was raised - besides it being a different times and me not being my parents and not living in the same place. Of course the personality will be different. But temperament, intelligence, character traits - those are genetic. There would have been much in common. Why would I look for making a copy of me? I would try for "better" me.
So again - why not just stick with kids instead?
And who says temperament, intelligence, character traits are genetic? I've not seen the research. They still can't say for sure whether sexuality is . Even if these traits were genetic: Take for a scandalous example - Homosexuality - your clone would have a 48% chance of being gay, according to recent studies of identical twins that indicated that sexuality was genetically defined. This of course doesn't take into account the fact that a clone would have a different womb to grow up in from the original, so the figures may be worse still.
From nature's standpoint the clone is the clone, I'm afraid. The clone's fingerprints would be different, the retinal patterns would be different, the brain pathways and therefore the mind would be different etc etc...
Those things you've mentioned would have been substantially the same - may be only slightly different. I do not care much for retinal print or fingerprints. Intelligence is highly inheritable - that is more important.
Genetic code would be the same. Children by that clone would not be distinguisheable from my children in any way. Of course I would know which one of us is a clone. For a child in 100 years time there would not be any difference.
Yes the code is the same, but genes don't transfer things in a binary on/off way - as an example Parkinson's Disease, or even type 1 diabetes are genetic diseases, but not all identical twins of those affected will develop them. They just have the same percentage chance of developing them. It's called 'penetrance'. Look in to it. So for the purpose of our argument - maybe you have the gene for type 1 diabetes, but you lucked out and didn't develop it: you don't know - if so, however, your clone may not be so lucky.
Or you could just have kids like everyone else... it's much cheaper, less faff, and evolutionary (or doesn't that count for anything to a rational man?).
Who said I don't? Except that I am not sure about that "like everyone else". I am afraid my views on Eugenics may be even less palatable to some than my views on cloning.
Let's just hope your ideas on Eugenics a bit more accurate than your views on cloning.
Why bother? They wouldn't be that person at all.
That is not an argument. That person is not "that person" anyway. Ever seen Altsheimer victims? Just senile people?
They would also be several years younger than you.
Great - we could care for them in return for their care of us!
If you're that happy caring for someone different in exchange for a friend caring for you, why not just pick an existing stranger instead of going to all the trouble of creating a new one? There are plenty of people in the world who would be delighted to get this kind of care and monetary support. And the world would be a better place for it.
and a bad evolutionary strategy - ie your clone is every bit at risk of dying from whatever diseases you're genetically at risk from.
As are your children - they will inherit the same genes.
Biology 101: they only inherit half your genes, and sometimes there are pleasant mistakes: that's how evolution works, remember?
Not true. I do not have genetic deseases. So my children will be at risk of having one but my clone would not be! As for evolution, it works not by improving someone living but by someone living going extinct. I am interested in genetically improving my progeny, but I believe old-fasioned evolution is not the way.
Like I said earlier - while you haven't manifested any genetic diseases (yet - who knows what the future holds?), you may still have the genes for them. Both your kids and your clone may be at risk.
I fear evolution is a far more successful strategy than design: evolution when applied to the design of microchips totally outclassed any human designers in terms of efficiency, use of space and resources. Can't remember the refs for the study - I think it was in New Scientist - do a search on their site.
Actually having gone through this - a new justification for cloning has come to mind: to properly investigate the genetics nature/nurture argument more completely than using identical twins - clones raised in different wombs would certainly be able to shed light on the affect of the womb environment on development, and characteristics.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Where do you stand on abortion? I happen to believe what you state suggests you should be against it. Yet, 2nd trimester abortions do happen.
Are you sure you want to get into this? In front of the children?;)
Abortion is bad. Making abortion illegal is worse.
-
-dead-: So again - why not just stick with kids instead?
I've already listed a few reason that apply only to the clone but not to regular children. The most important is the advance knowlege that I would have about his personality and abilities that I would not have about other children.
How about this one - have you ever heard of regression to the mean statistical phenomenon? It may be all the same to a low IQ person, but for someone with IQ of 130 (top 2%) coming from a population with average IQ of 100, the average IQ of his children would be expected around 115. Isn't that a disappointment?
Of course you can try to marry someone with much higher then yours or from a population with higher average IQ but that is all a matter of chance. At the same time a clone would have intelligence almost exactly the same as you. My clone would have had better than mine, actually - more fully realising his genetic potential - since I could provide for better nutrition for his surrogate mother, breastfeeding and mental stimulation.
And who says temperament, intelligence, character traits are genetic? I've not seen the research.
There are quite a lot of studies of twins - rared together or separately. There are quite a few studies on full or partial siblings as well. They may not have conclusive results yet - in part because any such studies are not politically correct. But I am willing to assume their preliminary conclusions work out - I do not have time to wait for definitive results. Lot of people base their life decisions on faith, why shouldn't I rely on educated guess?
Take for a scandalous example - Homosexuality - your clone would have a 48% chance of being gay
You mean being a clone of a homosexual? That's OK - I am not one.
So for the purpose of our argument - maybe you have the gene for type 1 diabetes, but you lucked out and didn't develop it: you don't know - if so, however, your clone may not be so lucky.
The same with a regular child.
If you're that happy caring for someone different in exchange for a friend caring for you, why not just pick an existing stranger instead of going to all the trouble of creating a new one?
First, you are twisting my words quite a bit. I made an illustration how concepts of "same" mean very different things for people based on what aspect of a subject they view.
From personality perspective 70yr-old granny is different than 50yr-old granny or her clone. From human species sample perspective, it is absolutely the same.
So my choice is that I am willing to care for the same person genetically while different personality (BTW, I do have a baby and his personality changes every week - should I just put him in a common pool and every morning select a kid at random to raise?)
I do help strangers but in serious matters I am a strong believer in only mutually beneficial cooperation - both parties should gain more than they contribute.
Both your kids and your clone may be at risk.
I fear evolution is a far more successful strategy than design: evolution when applied to the design of microchips totally outclassed any human designers in terms of efficiency, use of space and resources.
Successfull for whom? If I was a deity breeding humans for some purpose, sure. Since only humans can have interests and motivation, show me one personally interested in evolution that you describe? Of course I would like to ensure that my progeny gets healthier and smarter and leads more fullfilling lives. But through your method I would get the opposite of my wishes even if it worked on humans.
Tell me this - in that "far more successful strategy" what is the ratio of successfull chip designs (no need to even produce silicon to test it) to those discarded(/aborted?)? 1%? 0.001% And - if I remember correctly, chip designs can be tested in software simulation without actually producing one.
I am afraid that kind of techniques is not acceptable to me. Each baby would have to be produced, evaluated over at least 30 years - and than what? Eliminated? Not allowed to breed? Limited to fewer children? How else do you ensure differential propagation of "good" genes necessary for evolution?
That is disregarding the fact that our society already works in the opposite way - less intelligent breed more. Evolution has stopped among humans with creation of welfare state.
Just a general observation, guys - many of you calling themselves conservatives and democrats produce amasingly communist arguments on that purely personal topic.
You provide good reasons why it is not in my interests that some people had any children - for being bad parents or genetically defective or whatever. Then you make conclusion that my ability to have a clone but not a regular child should somehow be limited. I do not see any connection whatsoever.
Punishing successfull for fear of making less successfull envious? Equality of outcome? Making decision for others in deeply personal matters? Communism, here we come...
miko
-
Sabre: As for Miko's assertion that he would be able to raise himself better than his parents, that's not born out by the evidence. People tend to repeat the mistakes of their parents, even the worst of those. Not everyone who was beaten as a child or has an alcoholic for a parent will do those same things to their child, but there is a very high incident of it happening just that way.
Besides those considerations being irrelevant to my well-adjusted family, what cloning has to do with it? If people tend to repeat mistakes of their parents, they will do at least no worse with cloned children than with natural ones.
Miko, did you not offer this claim, that you would be able to raise a cloned child better than a naturally conceived one, as an argment in favor of cloning? I was merely offering a counter-argument. If it has nothing to do with cloning, then why did you bring it up as a supporting argument? In any event, I offered that counter-argument as a general statement, and was not implying any disfunctionality withing your own family.
I would not be much upset if I fail to clone myself, but if it becomes affordable in my lifetime, I would give it a shot. I would not exchange a chance of having two normal babies for a single clone - so it would have to be reasonably cheap.
Statements like "give it a shot" and "have to be reasonably cheap" are telling. They point again to a further eroding of the sanctity of life such technology will accelerate, whether you intended them to or not. We are talking about manufacturing human beings. As such, they become commodities, rather than unique and precious creations...either of God or nature (take you pick). Again I'll point out the past spectacularly tragic attempts at social engineering. Moral beliefs aside, should we rush to embrace something with such far reaching social and ethical implications? I'm not ready, and I have far more confidence in my own mental and emotional stability than I do in the rest of society.
-
miko
I don't think NY is big enough for two of you LOL
-
How do you feel about theraupedic cloning research, where the ultimate goal will be to grow kidney tissue or liver tissue or maybe even heart and lung tissue so your body won't reject transplanted organs? Do you think we should stop all medical research into the area of cloning based upon moral grounds and, if so, what are the moral objections specifically?
-
Well, PETA might object.
I have seen an experiment where a human ear was grown on the back of a lab mouse. This 'natural cartilage' was then used as a replacement ear for a man that had none. The mouse didn't survive the ordeal.
Consider having "your" genetically matched heart, lungs and kidneys in a lab pig. (Pigs are the right size for human organs). Would make quite a pet. :cool: Until a certain need arises.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well, PETA might object.
I have seen an experiment where a human ear was grown on the back of a lab mouse. This 'natural cartilage' was then used as a replacement ear for a man that had none. The mouse didn't survive the ordeal.
Consider having "your" genetically matched heart, lungs and kidneys in a lab pig. (Pigs are the right size for human organs). Would make quite a pet. :cool: Until a certain need arises.
Lets hope your noodle replacement will be on something bigger than a mouse ;)
-
Sabre: As for Miko's assertion that he would be able to raise himself better than his parents, that's not born out by the evidence. People tend to repeat the mistakes of their parents, even the worst of those. Not everyone who was beaten as a child or has an alcoholic for a parent will do those same things to their child, but there is a very high incident of it happening just that way.
Miko: Besides those considerations being irrelevant to my well-adjusted family, what cloning has to do with it? If people tend to repeat mistakes of their parents, they will do at least no worse with cloned children than with natural ones.
Sabre: Miko, did you not offer this claim, that you would be able to raise a cloned child better than a naturally conceived one, as an argment in favor of cloning? I was merely offering a counter-argument. If it has nothing to do with cloning, then why did you bring it up as a supporting argument?
I did say that I would be able to raise a cloned child "better" than regular one because of more knowlege about him. That advance knowlege directly derives from him being a genetic copy of existing person. Even raising someone-else's clone I would have extra knowlege from knowing the "original". In case of my clone a lot of my own experience growing up would be usefull and applicable.
I said that your couter-argument had nothing to do with cloning because your counter-argument appies to any child. Why would "very high incident of it happening just that way" be more likely with a clone than otherwise?
Statements like "give it a shot" and "have to be reasonably cheap" are telling.
They are not telling anything - especially with a non-native speaker like me. By "give it a shot" I ment that I would be likely to attempt a cloning if my wife supported my decision - after most carefull consideration and planning.
By "have to be reasonably cheap" I ment that the financial burden imposed by cloning should be light enough as not to negatively affect having and rasing other children of ours.
If I inaproppriately used conversational vernacular in a solemn discussion - I am sorry for misunderstanding.
As for "manufactured human beings" and "commodities" - what a row over nothing. I am not sure of your parental status but as even a recent parent I can tell you that the way a baby got into this world pales in significance compared to effort and time invested in raising one.
Again I'll point out the past spectacularly tragic attempts at social engineering. Moral beliefs aside, should we rush to embrace something with such far reaching social and ethical implications? I'm not ready, and I have far more confidence in my own mental and emotional stability than I do in the rest of society.
You echo my sentiments. I do not wish to engage into any kind of "social engineering" either with cloning or any other action of mine - just in a family planning - for the exact reasons you just provided.
The only social implication I see from cloning is that intelligent people would be more likely to engage in it thus slightly increasing average level of intelligence. Besides not being a danger but a benefit to all, that would still be a drop in the bucket compared to opposite trend going on due to current social engineering practices that we are coerced into subcidising.
miko
-
I say we go find Erik Estrada, yank him from his beach resort somewhere in Mexico and make clones of him for our future wars against Terrorism. We could even ask George Lucas for the copyright permission of calling his clones Boba Fetts. Yeah baby, that will freak out the terrorists! And if thats not enough we will clone his partner also, Officer Puncharello or was it Starsky or Robin or Shirley, well find him no worries!
-
Those of you who are all for cloning, think of being the clone yourself.
You are told at the age of 15 (or whenever) that you are *special* and that the doctors made it possible for you to be identical to your father so you'd be able to donate an organ to him so he can become healthy. What kind of psychological impact would that have on you? Looking at the cost of the procedure it is obvious that you were created for the sole purpose of making 'ol dad better. But what of your own life? How could you say no to the surgery? Talk about behavioral problems.
Do you guys not see the can of worms you're in favor of opening? Is it not possible to think past your nose? Now agree with me and shut up.
That is all.
-
Originally posted by hblair
Those of you who are all for cloning, think of being the clone yourself.
You are told at the age of 15 (or whenever) that you are *special* and that the doctors made it possible for you to be identical to your father so you'd be able to donate an organ to him so he can become healthy. What kind of psychological impact would that have on you? Looking at the cost of the procedure it is obvious that you were created for the sole purpose of making 'ol dad better. But what of your own life? How could you say no to the surgery? Talk about behavioral problems.
Do you guys not see the can of worms you're in favor of opening? Is it not possible to think past your nose? Now agree with me and shut up.
That is all.
one of my points exactly
but it doesn't matter to "immortal miko" :)
-
Eagler: one of my points exactly
but it doesn't matter to "immortal miko" :)
Of course it does not - I do not have a slightest intention of using my clone for spare parts. Your personal accusations are only based on your conviction that anyone daring to disagree with you must be a child-eater or worse.
hblair: Do you guys not see the can of worms you're in favor of opening? Is it not possible to think past your nose? Now agree with me and shut up.
hblair - your argument is quite logical. It accurately predicts the new kind of a disgusting act that will be introduced to the world once cloning is working. But that applies to any new technology that can be used for good and evil.
Why should I deny myself a use of a technique because some other people use it for objectionable purposes?
miko