I think we've done the unthinkable

[billvon 2,400]

>The sad truth is yes. Some people would raise their kids to be like
> them. Including their flaws by not acknowledging them.

Ever watched someone try to raise a kid like that? Usually doesn't work. Fortunately, kids do develop minds of their own, and teenage rebellion is a fact of life.

>Besides, aren't kids in a sense a clone of their parents?

Kids are a result of their parents; the person they end up being has more to do with their upbringing than their genetics.

[QuickDraw 0]

Yeah, but if we keep them in dark boxes like veal......

-- Hope you don't die. --

I'm fucking winning

[riddler 0]

"He declined at the time to say where any of the trio was, disclosing only that one lived in an Islamic nation"

I disapprove of cloning Osama Bin Laden.


Regardless of whether anyone approves or how many laws there are against this, people will do it.

One advantage is we will finally see working examples of the heredity/environment arguments. If you have clones, you have a standard for heredity, so you can see how much environment affects people.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[wlie 0]

So do you think that cloning can end teenage rebellion? Or that cloning will alleviate the need for upbringing? Don't you think that the clone would develop their own mind?

My other ride is the relative wind.

[billvon 2,400]

>So do you think that cloning can end teenage rebellion? Or that
> cloning will alleviate the need for upbringing? Or that the clone
> wounld not develop their own mind?

Uh, no, no and no. People have this image that clones will be like the clones in the movies - evil or inhuman or perfect, born at age 30 with no hair and a monotone voice. That's not the case. They will just be children, born and raised like anyone else. They will have an identical twin, but their twin will be a different age. As identical twins are not generally evil or soulless or bent on world domination, I don't see anything new coming from clones.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I don't see anything new coming from clones.

I would like to see it as a tool towards better health. Gene therapy may be a better answer than cloning.

[wlie 0]

Won't that be a great way to punish someone? Have them raise an identical self so they can taste what a handful they are.

My other ride is the relative wind.

[QuickDraw 0]

Quote

I don't see anything new coming from clones.

I think the irony was lost there bill.

-- Hope you don't die. --

I'm fucking winning

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

SNIP.. I'm going to get rich cloning up hot female celebrities in my basement & selling them all wrapped up in cellophane!!Any requests?? The line forms to the right.

I know I'll probablly catch shit for this but here it goes...

I'll open this to both sexes. If you could clone a female/male partner what traits would you leave out? Imagine a woman that couldn't bitch and moan( no vocal cords),had no gag reflex, was double jointed and never had a headache or PMS? You could change her hair color, body shape, size of her boobs/ass and so on.
Ladies, give us a female perspective on what you'd do to males.

Let the mad scientists begin!! LOL

*For the thin skinned folks out there...this is a joke.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

They have a democracy, sort of, so they must approve of such things.

What's "sort of" about it? They hold more elections than the US of A does.

[hagar 0]

Sure it would be nice, but it has little to do with cloning.

---
PCSS #10

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

now the real questions start.
do clones have rights?
souls?
are they people or property?

Oh c'mon!! Clones have souls, rights, etc. They are people just like anyone!! I mean they're not organic androids!!

Identical twins are clones, and each one has his/her own individual soul/identity, etc. why is this even a question?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

the world only needs (and can only handle!) one dove!!!

Nahh...the more the merrier I say!

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I disapprove of cloning Osama Bin Laden

If there were more than one of him......maybe we could catch one and stop looking like such buffoons...

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

the world only needs (and can only handle!) one dove!!!

Nahh...the more the merrier I say!

Nope. Only one. She's special and I like to keep her that way.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I disapprove of cloning Osama Bin Laden

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If there were more than one of him......maybe we could catch one and stop looking like such buffoons...

Hey let me try! I'll fuck with his DNA and make a dozen little one-foot high Osama Bin Ladens. Then I'll put them beneath a table with little holes cut in it, and bring it to county fairs as a "Whack-a-Mole" game!!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Galen 0]

I haven't thouroughly read every post but it looks to me as if we're looking at this as right or wrong. An ethical issue. I don't know how far they are planning on taking this experiment. Are they going to clone a fully developed adult, just a fetus, or some human tissue cultures. I'm guessing they are doing this to gain knowledge. I believe that knowledge in itself is not subject to ethical discussions. Just how we obtain this knowledge and how we apply it.

Second guessing myself: I wonder if we are applying knowledge or obtaining it and what the actual method is.

Respect the Dolphin

[happythoughts 0]

The personality issue. People believe that a clone of Osama Bin Laden/Hitler/whoever, would go the same route. I am too lazy to look up the exact numbers, but OBL's father had like 10 wives and 50 kids. One of the 50 was a college prof in the US. (We know what a sordid lot they are, right Kallend? )

Same basic genetics, but different motivations and personality. Example: A person may be really aggressive. How do they channel it? Join the army, become a serial killer, become a pro football player, desire to be the worlds best surgeon?

Choices, opportunities, environment. They all shape the person. Cloning means they just look like someone, they don't have to act like them.

[Push 0]

Why cloning? If it's to make infertile couples have children, why do it this way? Why not perfect the number of methods already available?

Sounds like they're using the whole infertile couples thing as an excuse. Aren't there better, more promising ways to give infertile couples a chance? Why attempt to develop a technology that is supposed not to have any other uses, that has a very small chance of success, is highly contraversial, and very very expensive?

If you want to develop the means to genetically manipulate human evolution, a) say so, and b) do it rationally. Cloning a human today will not bring us closer to that goal. We don't know which genes to twiddle yet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stem cells. If anyone can cure my asthma, or the diabetes of my friends' father, or my grandfathers bad heart, without actually killing anything beyond an essentially advanced stage amoeba... Where do I sign?

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[billvon 2,400]

>Are they going to clone a fully developed adult . . .

That can't be done. Cloning just produces a blastocyst that starts dividing like any other fetus.

>just a fetus, or some human tissue cultures.

Both. The recent announcement was concerning a live birth of a human clone; many researchers are trying to use that blastocyst to create specific tissues (to be more accurate, a human fetus with all but, say, the kidneys supressed.)

>I believe that knowledge in itself is not subject to ethical discussions.
> Just how we obtain this knowledge and how we apply it.

I think you're right, but the research is contentious because:

-experiments have to be done with human clones

-you can use the same arguments you can use against abortion, and there are some very strong foes of abortion

-many people do not understand cloning, hence the 'will it have a soul?' questions.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Other ethical questions: What if they clone Clay and then cross-breed it with Dolly the cloned sheep??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

What if they clone Clay and then cross-breed it with Dolly the cloned sheep??

That would be the largest sheep cock you have ever seen!!!

[billvon 2,400]

>Why cloning? If it's to make infertile couples have children, why do it
> this way? Why not perfect the number of methods already available?

If a man is truly infertile, the only real option is a sperm donor. While that can work, I think some people might have an issue with it.

>Sounds like they're using the whole infertile couples thing as an
> excuse. Aren't there better, more promising ways to give infertile
> couples a chance?

If a man or woman is truly infertile - they cannot produce gametes, or their gametes are irrevocably damaged - then no. An example - a weapons officer in the military is exposed to a massive dose of radiation accidentally. If he fathers a child, it is very likely that it will have serious defects. A clone of the mother is a good way around it. A sperm donor is another way, or just taking the chance. But is risking a deformed child better than getting a much better chance of a good clone of the mother?

The issue I see is that there are a many possible answers to the above questions. The only people really qualified to answer them are the parents. Cloning is just another option, with its own benefits and drawbacks.

>If anyone can cure my asthma, or the diabetes of my friends' father,
> or my grandfathers bad heart, without actually killing anything
> beyond an essentially advanced stage amoeba . . .

Well, keep in mind that that amoeba _could_ become human - therapeutic cloning begins replication of a cell into a blastocyst. It is stopped before it becomes recognizable, but many abortion foes do not see the difference.

[Push 0]

Quote

If a man is truly infertile, the only real option is a sperm donor. While that can work, I think some people might have an issue with it.

If a man or woman is truly infertile - they cannot produce gametes, or their gametes are irrevocably damaged - then no. An example - a weapons officer in the military is exposed to a massive dose of radiation accidentally. If he fathers a child, it is very likely that it will have serious defects. A clone of the mother is a good way around it. A sperm donor is another way, or just taking the chance. But is risking a deformed child better than getting a much better chance of a good clone of the mother?

The issue I see is that there are a many possible answers to the above questions. The only people really qualified to answer them are the parents. Cloning is just another option, with its own benefits and drawbacks.

In this case, yes, I agree that it is a subject worth pursuing. Perhaps a little more cautiously than the doctor in question is doing it, but definitely worth it.

Quote

Well, keep in mind that that amoeba _could_ become human - therapeutic cloning begins replication of a cell into a blastocyst. It is stopped before it becomes recognizable, but many abortion foes do not see the difference.

It may become a human. Every egg that lives out it's cycle and is secreted during "that time of the month" could become a human. Only difference is it hasn't been fertilized yet. In fact, there are circumstances possible (and occur more often than not) where the egg will be fertilized and will still die. This is ok, but harvesting a completely uncaring soup of cells for the purpose of extending the life of your loved one by 40 years is not? Hrm...

Has anyone seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life? There was this musical skit there about things that could become humans.

I just hope that if I ever need a transplant and have no donor I will not be left to die in my 30s because some people think that a blastocyst is just too damn close to a baby.

Rantrantrant. Anyway...

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

[billvon 2,400]

>In this case, yes, I agree that it is a subject worth pursuing. Perhaps
> a little more cautiously than the doctor in question is doing it, but
> definitely worth it.

I agree on both counts.

>In fact, there are circumstances possible (and occur more often
>than not) where the egg will be fertilized and will still die.

I agree here too; in fact, the above tidbit makes anti-abortionists a bit crabby, since your body either spontaneously aborts or just plain ejects most fertilized eggs. I agree that using such a non-implanted blastocyst has no real moral implications, if it is used for that purpose (i.e. saving someone's life.)