What Human Cloning May Lead To

I'd rather NOT have to say "I told you so" in the future, by avoiding the circumstances altogether...which I believe is what you were driving at. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Knight-

Exactly what I was talking about. Hypocrisy in this argument. By your own words:

"It will be abused. That is not even a debatable point."

and

"That is a certaintly. I'm going to say 'I told you so'" or something along those lines.

Then you turn around and say

"So you're able to see into the future??"

Are you?? What makes you any more sure that cloning technology will be exploited and abused beyond the extent that nuclear power has been? I keep saying this, and NOBODY LISTENS: we don't have the ability to grow an adult human yet....this is far off and I don't think anybody should even try until we have done a lot more laboratory research into how the developmental process works at the embryonic stage.

All I have ever been referring to is the cloning of 'embryos'-from which cells would be used for research, not the growing of full-blown adult humans. I have stated above that I do not consider them equal. If this offends you I apologize but it is only my opinion. Embryonic cloning research should be permitted. Every time I see one of my cancer patients or a person with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease it reiterates that belief. It could bring tremendous good. I'm not saying the risks aren't there-they are. But they are there for everything we do-it is our responsibility to use the technology wisely. I choose to believe that the good will ultimately prevail. Naive?? Perhaps. But we are all still here, despite every ability we have to destroy ourselves, even with everything going on in the world. So maybe we can survive the world of laboratory cloning too.

As far as the religion thing goes, I know plenty of christians who aren't opposed to cloning. I wasn't trying to generalize, I was simply making the point that the so-called 'moral' christian groups tend to be the most vocal against things of this nature, and they often claim they represent the opinions of christians everywhere, even if this is not the case. I wasn't trying to offend here I simply believe that religion should be left out of politics, even though of course that does not happen.

Anyway time to go.

V-03

 

So maybe we can survive the world of laboratory cloning too.


Saying that we can survive it seems to imply that it is a difficulty, a hardship, or a dangerous thing.

 

Rayder-

"...a difficulty, a hardship, or a dangerous thing..."

Could you any more solidly define life???
getting on a plane getting into a car the space program the war on terror the AIDS/Hep C crisis the drug problem the environment global warming israeli/palestinian crisis food shortages school violence gun control

ie life on this planet in general involves difficulty, hardship, and dangerous things

Once again, I will repeat myself:

These things are not a reason to ban something or shy away from learning about it. That is why you do it with caution. Small steps, learning along the way. The alternative is a return to the trees and a completely harmonious existence with nature...wait, maybe that's not a bad thing ...seriously though, there will always be risks in everything to balance the benefits. Either we take them, or we stop growing as a race.

Peace,

V-03

 

So then, are you including cloning in such things as the AIDS/HepC crisis, the Isreal/Palestine situation, etc.?

Seems to me that such things should be avoided however possible...

 

It does not matter what cloning may lead to. It is wrong by its very existence. Cloning disrespects human life by taking it away from nature/God and tinkering with it. It also is used mainly for selfish means, creating a person with your characteristics. Life should come from love, not selfishness.

 

It does not matter what cloning may lead to. It is wrong by its very existence. Cloning disrespects human life by taking it away from nature/God and tinkering with it. It also is used mainly for selfish means, creating a person with your characteristics. Life should come from love, not selfishness.

That's ridiculous. In my estimation God gave us the intellect with which to develop cloning in the first place. It doesn't disrespect human life, rather it takes the randomness out of evolution and allows the human race to grab the proverbial bull by the horns. Who said that love was going to leave the equation anyway?

 

Taking the randomness out of something is not necessarily a good thing. And it seems to me that if you move reproduction out of the bedroom and into a clinical, sterile lab, you're certainly taking some of the intimacy away, if nothing else.

 

"In my estimation God gave us the intellect with which to develop cloning in the first place."

God also gave us the intellect to develop guns and weapons of mass destruction, but does that mean we should use them?

 

I agree with Vaderize03 on this matter.

And it's ludicrous to think that because human cloning becomes possible, people are going to give up intimacy. We've had in vitro fertilization for decades, and people still crave intimacy of all kinds. They always will...it's human nature.

There are so many SERIOUS problems in the world that "disrespect" human life...war, famine, racism, exploitation of the poor and the 3rd World, destruction of the environment...NOTHING good comes from those things, and it goes on every day. The hysteria about what cloning "may lead to" are laughable in comparison to the massive human tragedies that go on now and everyday in the world around us.

 

God also gave us the intellect to develop guns and weapons of mass destruction, but does that mean we should use them?

Please, comparing cloning to weapons of mass destruction is way out of left field. Besides, we've had weapons of mass destruction for over 50 years now and we're all still here

Well most of us anyway.

 

There are so many SERIOUS problems in the world that "disrespect" human life...war, famine, racism, exploitation of the poor and the 3rd World, destruction of the environment
So, let's put our efforts into solving those problems instead of pursuing a controversial, morally amibiguous goal.

 

Nunquam-

I appreciate the support...thanks!

Rayder-

You are taking my argument and twisting it into the most narrow view possible. All I have stated is that life isn't sweetness and light, you take the good with the bad. We should all curl up and cry just because life isn't milk and cookies? Granted we have problems to solve in this world but life goes on, and progress must go forward. While the negative things in life should be avoided whenever possible, cloning inherently is not negative-it has great potential for good. At the risk of repeating myself yet again, it should not be banned for research 'just because' there are dangers of abuse. Such is Life.

Peace,

V-03

 

Darth-Snowdog sd:
Cloning is like anything else... it can be used for good or bad. Religion has been used for a lot of bad things... should we ban it?

I agree. The people who fear this, inevitable really, technology should be the ones who take a stand and say where it should go. The people commenting in this room are the kind who need to be heard. Open minded yet fearful of our own *darkside* of humanity. When people who truly cringe at the injustices that can come about, say where it will go and what it should do. then i have no fear for where it will take us.
And if those people do not stand up, then you should ask yourself:
"should i?"

 

I still dont understand how cloning can be bad for anybody except the cloned person, who may have some medical issues, and the person who was cloned, who would be freaked out at an exact copy of himself.
Speaking of exact copy, thats not exactly accurate. There are many more factors to ones appearance than genetics. Anything from environment to diet influences it, so the clone still isnt a garunteed identical twin of the cloned.

 

Sad sad sad...

If this thread could be preserved for generations, I have no doubt at all that 100-200 years from now, people would look at this and wish with all they have that we hadn't been so arrogant and foolish to try cloning humans.

Ah well. Learn from experience, I suppose.

 

I fail to see how I'm interpreting your argument in a narrow way. I'm simply saying that if those problems are such a big deal, let's devote our resources to them, instead of going on some pseudo-scientific wild goose chase.

 

Also, even when human cloning is used fo medical research and whatnot, it is just as, if not more so, wrong because the sole purpose of creating that new human life was to use it to better ourselves. The new human (most likely as an embryo) will the be flushed down the tubes.

This is already happening and needs to be stopped.

 

Rayder-

We can keep providing examples until we're both blue in the face, but that would be a waste of time. We have both stated our opinions for the record, and I think we will just have to agree to disagree .

Jediflyer-

Your argument comes from abortion. Plain and simple. Since we live in a free society, you are invited not to engage in legal practices that you find morally offensive. That is your decision-and yours alone. You do not speak for me, and you have no authority to try. The supreme court of the united states has ruled in Roe v. Wade that an embryo is not equal to a full grown person, and despite all the efforts of christian-based anti-choice groups across the nation, despite all their false and baseless rhetoric that most abortions take place late in pregnancy, the right to choose has withstood every legal challenge it has faced. This will continue to be the case, contrary to the opinion of abortion opponents. If you have a problem with cloning, that is your business, but don't fall back on abortion, because that cannot be used as a legal argument for outlawing this research. The law says you can perform abortions-therefore destroying an embryo can't be 'killing a person'-that would be a contradiction.

This is going to happen people. If it doesn't happen in the US, it will happen elsewhere, and I think that if this research is used to cure cancer and someone tries to ban it in the US because it came from an embryo, there will be a civil war. Leave the religion in church, or synagogue, or mosque, or whatever your place of worship. All opinions have the right to be heard, but not forced on others. Your religious beliefs are your own business-keep them out of the laws. Church and state are separated for a reason in the US constitution. The day that stops, we are no longer a democracy-we are a theocracy. Do you really want to go back to the middle ages?

Peace,

V-03

 

"...100-200 years from now, people would look at this and wish with all they have that we hadn't been so arrogant and foolish to try cloning humans."

Or, they'll look with disbelief at the irrational, often hysterical opposition to cloning. (Then again, maybe they'll just chuckle and associate it with the people who were against blood transfusion, innoculation, and women wearing pants.)

 

Vaderize 03, you are wrong. The law is not right and will be changed.

 

Jediflyer-

That is your opinion, and it will not be changed.

The abortion laws have been challenged under both Reagan and Bush Sr., two very conservative presidents, with very conservative congresses. Reagan tried to nominate Robert Bork to the court, and the democrats destroyed him. Bush got Thomas, but had to compromise on another justice and ended up with Souter-who has solidly supported Roe V. Wade. With a democratic senate in control this will not change, and it does not look like the dems are set up for a major upset in the november elections.

The high court also overturned a nebraska law prohibiting late-term abortions done through dilation and evacuation, what the anti-choice movement erroneously and hysterically labels the 'partial-birth abortion'. Contrary to popular anti-choice propaganda, this procedure is only performed to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rare genetic defects not detected earlier in pregnancy. It is a horrible and unscrupulous Ob/Gyn who performs this procedure electively, and I have never heard of or encountered such an individual. That is not to say that they don't exist, but these procedures, and the reasons that they are performed, need to be reported under federal law and they become public record. In looking up the number of procedures done under 'other'-meaning not for a pressing medical reason, the number was 2 for last year.

Anyway, we are also unlikely to convice each other-so let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

Peace,

V-03

 

Vaderize03, the same thing could be said about slavery around 1840. Just because something is in the law and the supreme court upholds it, does not make it right.

I believe Roe v. Wade will be overturned within the next 50-75 years.

 

Jediflyer-

That is your opinion, and I respect it. But as technology becomes more and more advanced, it will become harder and harder for people who are conservative, especially religious conservative, to hold the country back socially. Efforts are always made, of course, but ultimately, they have failed.

Some examples.
In the 50s, there used to be a censoring board for television, run mostly by politicians who were devout catholics. Could you imagine something like that existing now?? It would never happen.

Women traditionally were held down by the glass ceiling, and were kept almost entirely out of professions such as medicine and law. Could you imagine that happening now??

There were fights tooth and nail about stopping prayer in schools, and hanging the ten commandments there. Every effort to overturn these decisions has failed.

One of the favorite themes of the Bush administration has been 'values trump (blank)'-with values solidly referring to christian ways of thinking. But many judges, the congress, and lawmakers everywhere have brought this philosophy to a screeching halt with their court decisions and laws. Oregon's high court threw out John Ashcroft's decision to sanction doctors for physician assisted suicide, saying he had overstepped his authority, and Hawaii is poised to pass a similar law allowing euthanasia.

As far as slavery goes, you are comparing apples and oranges. Comparing the deprivation of freedom of a full-grown, intelligent, self-aware human being to the destruction of an embryo is crass at best, ignorant at worst. They are simply not in the same category. While I agree that slavery being legal did not make it right (and it was of course very wrong), abortion is simply not the same. In my opinion, a woman's freedom to control her body is paramount when compared to a ball of cells that has yet to develop into a person-it is mere potential, much like a nuclear missile is potential war. To give that potential more importance than the person around it is devaluing one and overvaluing the other. However, we are unlikely to be in agreement on this.

I could go on and on, but I think I made my point. While it is certainly possible that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, I find it (IMHO) to be highly unlikely. Whenever landmard decisions granting 'rights' in the US have passed, they generally have stayed that way. Few arguments have polarized the nation as abortion, but the value of the choice-and not reducing women to the level of incubators upon pregnancy, to name one possibility-trumps those who feel that the best place for women is in the home, barefoot and pregnant. I am not denying that religion is, and will continue to be, a valuable force in our lives, but the days when religion ruled government, and the intolerance such thinking bred, are behind us.

There will always remain those who wish to drag this country back several hundred years, or halt the forward movement of society. But the future is just that-ahead.

Peace,

V-03

 

Vaderize:

What you've said is, in a sense, the core of the argument for many people. Not everyone agrees that "that ball of cells" is mere potential, that it is, in fact, life. Stop to consider for a moment that you are, in fact, a ball of cells, too, just a more complicated one.

As for agreeing to disagree, I guess we can do that...but arguing is more fun.