pottsynz

I'm currently writing a paper on the ethics of cloning, so I though I'd round up some opinions. Personally I think its ok if you do it for the right reasons...say you can't have a child. A wrong reason would be to replace a dead child with it's exact copy...ala Godsend.

t193r7

I personally think it is alright to replace a dead child with a clone, but to expect the clone child to be an exact copy (in everyway) is wrong.

And for the kind of cloning because a couple can't have children..... this is kind of awkward if you ask me... it simply delays the dessipation of their gene for one more generation... I don't see much of a point. If you can combine two people's gene to create another unique person, then I think it will be more rewarding than just have an exact copy of only one or both parent.

On the topic of cloning organs or tissues to cure disease, I'm totally for it.

pottsynz

I just think if I'd be cloned from someone who died, I'd find it extremely creepy

xepherys

I think that cloning for research, especially stem cell research, is not only acceptable, but our moral imperative to help aid those that are sick and dying of diseases that might be treated from such research.

I think that cloning for the purpose of recreation is morally acceptable, but as was pointed out, you are just moving forward one generation a genetic set that was not supposed to recreate. It's acceptable, but I don't think it's beneficial to humanity at large.

I think that cloning to replace dead pets, children, grandparents, etc. is just ludicrous. Again, I don't see it as morally aprehensible, but I also don't see it as beneficial to humanity at large.

Lastly, I believe (honestly) that the ultimate form of cloning will be to clone ones own self for the purpose of future brain transplantation into a new, younger, stronger body, thus making one immortal to some degree. The concept of a brain transplant is, of course, rather crazy by today's standards. However, I think most people reading these forums know enough about science and discovery to rule out ever saying that something is impossible. This also would require one to transcend religion bounds that say the soul is an important part of humanity. If your brain carries your thoughts, memory, personality and knowledge, you could be a complete yet soulless being (like Christians believe animals to be?). Hmmm...

FatherTed

I believe that it will become useful and valuable for research generally, especially stemcell.

I believe that the creation of ANY living being by cloning (i dont class the embryos used in research as living, althouh I know some do) as absolutely abhorrant and should be stopped at whatever cost.

Just my 0.002p.

zen_tom

If you create a clone, it begins life as a foetus. Just like everyone else in the world. The fact that it shares someone's DNA does give it any magical powers, or make it 'freaky' in any way. Identical twins are clones. They are not always evil. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong in being a foetus. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong in growing up to be a normally functioning human being.

Now creating a clone for the sole purpose of performing surgury on it, or for some purpose other than for it to grow up, now could be considered as being wrong. But only as wrong as having a child the more traditional way for some purpose other than to love and care for it, and for it to eventually to grow into an adult.

So cloning isn't wrong at all - just as child-birth isn't wrong. It is the motives and intent that can be examined for morality or ethics, not the techniques.

Suave

Cloning a full being is stupid and pointless in my opinion. Why would one do it? Purely out of the interests of vanity, and narcissism I'd imagine. If you cannot have children, there are THOUSANDS out there waiting to be adopted, and if you can't handle that, artificial insemination is right there. If someone you love dies, THEY'RE DEAD. When my grandfather died, I took my time remembering him and appreciating having known him. I didn't think "WOW I WISH I COULD CLONE HIM". If one is going to have one's self cloned, I can't even begin to understand the logic they'd use to justify that one. Growing clones to harvest organs would be just... creepy.

I do, however, strongly support the artificial growing of organs, or what might be considered partial cloning. If you need a new liver, and there's the technology to grow yourself a genetic replica, by all means, let's do it.

Note: I apologize for my rather extensive use of words typed in all caps.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Suave

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.

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.

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.

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.

seep

There are already plenty of twins and triplets out there, many of which can be attributed to advances in medical science, ie fertility drugs.

I don't really have an ethical problem with cloning, it just seems like a waste of time.

guthmund

I thought the "left" twin was always the evil one?

Cloning, eh? I see very little purpose to creating a full fledged clone of any human being. Creating an eventual carbon copy of oneself? Replacing a dead child? Can't have a child? Ridiculous.

Why would you want your own mini-me to raise? Are your genes so great?Why would you torture yourself by having a child that looks identical to the one you lost? Haven't you suffered enough? What edge does cloning have that fertility drugs do not? I for one would rather raise a "joint" project than a "single" contribution.

Once it's possible to clone individual body parts/organs, then I'll be interested. Once there's a way to move "me" from one body to the next, then I'll be interested. Until then it's all farting in the wind.

I have no problem concerning the ethics and/or morality question when it pertains to cloning. They're your cells. Do with what you will. To say otherwise would contradict the very core of my being. Cloning does not have the potential to lead us to dangerous country, only a very stupid, vain and self-absorbed one.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

cybersharp

I think that cloning is ethical. Does a baby choose to be born? Of course not...If you think that cloning anouther human being is unethical then you must think having children is unethical as well?......

__________________
0PtIcAl

pottsynz

I knew a pair twins whre one twin was nasty, the other was nice as pie haha..so maye the evil twin thing is true!

Personally, 6 billion people is enough...we're already beyond carrying capicity by some estimates...why do we need to start xeroxing people? I'm not saying cloning is morally wrong, but do we really need ways of making more people? Interestly enough though it is the countries that can afford cloning...that have decling birthrates...so its a funyn situation. Stem cell research is a-ok, helping people that are already here...my gf has diabetes..my grandmother had 20 years of alzhiemers...I can see the point

zen_tom

Thankyou Suave you are quite right and (despite me going off track onto the circulatory system) I have to apologise. I just got fueled up. Anyway, I think the point still stands, it is not cloning itself that can be argued against, it is the relationships we expect to have with the offspring that is the point of contention.

However, you do bring up the pertinent fact that cloning is always going to be an inferior method of reproduction (especially in the long-term) compared to the more normal combination of a pair of gene sets.

Suave

That feels good zen. I'm always happy when discussions come to a mutual conclusion (which rarely happens ).

wnker85

Cloning is an effort to find out how our cells go from stem cells to the somatic cells in our body.

But first let’s start out with some background information.

DNA codes for proteins AKA traits. Now the whole strand does not code for our genes: there are many unused parts of the strand that do not code for anything and are cut out of the mRNA, but that is not the part that we care about here. The unused caps on the end of the strands AKA telomeres are what we need to talk about here. Now these telomeres keep the DNA strand from unraveling and killing the cell. Every time the cells splits DNA also replicates and loses some of the Nucleic Acids on theses telomere ends. This loss only allows the cell to replicate about 50 times. But, while a baby is a fetus these telomeres are fixed to their full length, and after birth this repair stops. (Only in cancer cells does this happen again)

So, when cloning we can not fix these ends, so anything that carried to term would be genetically as old as the donor.

Also, when sperm and eggs are made there is a process that turns off certain genes that cause birth defects, called imprinting. When cloning it is very these imprints are easily wiped away (so to say) and nothing normal would be carried to term, if it made it that far.


Cloning has a terrible success rate and I can not advice it for anyone, because to get a result that would be satisfactory there would be many aborted babies that would not turn out normal. Until there is a 100% success rate I can not agree with the cloning of humans.
Human parts I think is great that will save lives. But the advances that will come of cloning not the cloning itself, the advances will cause us to live longer lives.

NoSoup

I have no issues with cloning at all, be it research or cloning an entire animal/human.

I'll agree that I find it kinda strange that people would want to clone their dead friends/relatives/pets, but as long as they understand that it won't be that same person, I guess I don't have any problems with it.

I actually think that it would be very interesting to clone myself. It would be a true test as to see whether it is nature vs nurture, or at least a rough percentage of how much it affects someone.

__________________
I have an aura of reliability and good judgement.

Just in case you were wondering...

anonymity_sucks

I admit to having some reservations about cloning.

What would it be used for? Movies and books refer to using cloning for creating clones of people good in a certain profession, be it janitors, teachers, soldiers, etc. Would we create clones for those jobs we just don't want to do? What would keep anyone with money from creating an army based off of the genes of one person, and using it for their own personal desires (bad starwars reference, but other people have thought of this besides Mr. Lucas). Or could it turn society into something like Brave New World?

I don't neccessarily say these things would happen, nor am I against cloning in a research sense. But what I would like to see is more people looking into what could be done with it, and take steps to keep one more scientific wonder from being abused when it first becomes practical.

Humans are great at three things: Creating new things, deystroying existing things, and creating more humans.

I personally do not mind all of the oversight required when persuing this research, but I do have to wonder about those who persue knowledge for its own sake.

LeviticusMky

I don't think that cloning is the central issue here. The thing that people have a problem with is the replication of conciousness. If we are/will be able to duplicate someone's conciousness, then we may be in for a bit of a problem ethically, as both would see themselves as the "main," which one has the soul, etc. etc.

As far as biological cloning goes, it isn't far removed from the natural biological processes that are abount in the world already. asexual reproduction is essentially cloning, as the new lifeform is essentially the exact same as the old (sea cucumber). As far as more complicated life goes, Human reproduction is vastly more powerful than cloning ever could be. If we started cloning ourselves, or if we had been a species that reproduced by copy, the odds of being completely wiped out by a single biological event is vastly increased.

In other words, one fatal disease could easily destroy a whole society of clones, whereas, in the world we live in today, no one virus could kill every human, as some of our kind will have mutations from genetic combination that prevent a single virus or epidemic from taking the race out. Also, goodbye evolution, if cloning takes over. Without genetic diversity, or if we take over our reproductive capabilities, we can't expect to have any random mutations that benefit the race.

I doubt cloning will catch on, beyond growing new organs, which isn't so much a problem of cloning, as it is one of actually GROWING them. Genetic diversity is too powerful to substitute for an easy clone.

Plus, good luck getting people to stop screwing each other... I like sex.

Zeraph

Short answer, yes. I think cloning is fine.

CandleInTheDark

The only cloning I accept is for health care. That is, blood and organs, not people and a fertility drug replacement.q

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

Redjake

I think cloning is perfectly fine. Very interesting stuff. If we can get some organs and stuff like that out of it, excellent. If we can clone a human being, let's do it. It's not like they aren't a human or something. They aren't any different than ya'll. The only issue I have is the actual "point" of cloning a human. What is the actual point? The only thing it would prove is that we could actually *do* it. Other than that, you've created another human similar (VERY similar) to another one. And that's pretty much it. Ethically and morally, go for it. Logically? I don't see a point. I'm an identical twin by the way.

__________________
Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

LoganSnake

Well, I would strongly support cloning when it came to producing life saving orgams for people who need them and cannot wait in line for the donor. I would say that I'm against human cloning, unless the original and the clone have absolutely no contact.

__________________
Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques

Redjake

Interesting opinion. Why don't you agree with the clones being in contact with one another? Might disrupt the space-time continuem?

__________________
Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

TawG

i feel i dont know enough to say anything about it. I would have to read alot of biology and stuff on the subject before i could say anything.

joeshoe

Cloning is detrimental to the gene pool and natural development of humans in general.