Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
This is exactly the kind of idea that shows how ignorant people are about what cloning actually is. Do you think that by cloning your Grandad, the foetus that is born is going to have any idea who you are? Do you think you might *POSSIBLY* have a similar relationship with a child who, instead of being 50+ years older than you, might be instead 10 years younger? Is it because you mistakenly think that the clone will be fully grown, with memories etc? If so, then please educate yourself.
|
I know all of that. I already said I didn't consider cloning him. It never came to mind at all, but there are people who want to be able to clone dead loved ones. Please don't argue against me when you're actually supporting my point.
Quote:
|
Cloning yourself out of the interests of vanity or narcissism? In what way exactly is changing a daiper for 3 years either vein, or narcissistic? In what way is saving to put a child through school and college vein or narcissistic? Sure the child will have exactly the same genes as you, but its experiences and personality will be different, just as a naturally concieved child's experience and personality would be different. If having your own child is vein or narcissistic, then perhaps you are right.
|
First of all, we're not talking about the circulatory system, we're talking about vanity and self-absorbtion. With so many options for raising children as it is, why would someone need a genetic duplicate of themselves as well? Again, the only thing I can think of is that they'd want to raise "themselves", and while I realise that parents like to live vicariously through their children, that's taking it a step too far in my opinion.
Quote:
|
Likewise, growing a clone for harvesting organs is evidently silly. What's to stop them getting up and walking away? It's not going to happen, but I repeat, it's not CLONING per say that holds the moral issue, it's how human beings interact with other human beings.
|
Well cloning, theoretically, doesn't have to be limited to creating completely functioning human beings. They could grow vegetable-like people, with functioning organs, which would then be removed for transplant. All I've been doing is listing possible reasons for cloning. My arguments against cloning to this point have been purely as a matter of opinion and the fact that I think it's a dumb idea; not moral. Although morally, I could bring up the fact that cloning would be an open invitation to genetically transmitted disorders, especially once it became more widespread.
Quote:
|
I will go more gently on some of your other points: Yes there are plenty of other easier ways to have children, and yes, there are plenty of children who would benefit greatly from having an adoptive home. Given the position of not being able to pass on my genes naturally, and having the option of either going through a risky (for the foetus) and expensive (for me) process of cloning, or adopting. I would probably adopt. But I still don't see anything morally wrong with taking the cloning route once the techniques are well grounded.
|
As I stated earlier, the only concern I'd have is (well, I suppose it's as much pragmatic as moral) the risk of disorders. The less diverse genetically the human population is, the greater the risk for disease and so forth. Sexual reproduction deals with that issue by combining two different gene sets (assuming you're not having children with your sister or brother or something); cloning does not.