Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 Cloning Ban?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  10:17:53  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
This article got me thinking about human cloning.

World faces choice on human cloning: U.N. study

OSLO (Reuters) - The world faces a stark choice between banning cloning of humans or preparing ways to protect them from potential abuse or discrimination, a U.N. study said on Sunday.

Experts at the U.N. University's Institute of Advanced Studies said it would only be a matter of time before scientists manage to clone a human if governments do not impose a ban.

"Whichever path the international community chooses it will have to act soon -- either to prevent reproductive cloning or to defend the human rights of cloned individuals," said A.H. Zakri, head of the Institute, which is based in Yokohama, Japan.
I have two questions on this:

1. Why would a clone have any fewer rights than, say, twin brothers? That is, why less than an uncloned human?

2. All genetic diversity issues aside*, why ban cloning? If someone has the money and the genetic donor's permission (no unauthorized genetic copies of me running around please), why not make a clone? What's the big moral question here anyway?



*I'm thinking that if the human race for some odd reason resorted to cloning as the major means of reproduction, the loss of the genetic mixing and the opportunity for mutation would probably not be good for us in an evolutionary sense.


EDIT: Why is there a pseudo-science forum but no straight-up science forum? Is it that real science discussion is considered a general discussion as opposed to a skepticism-related discussion?

-Chaloobi


Edited by - chaloobi on 11/12/2007 10:20:37

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  10:24:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
because it is unnatural. As are many things, however this is one of the newest and most unnatural things at the moment and hence one of the most controversial

I am guessing there is no real science forum since by definition real science is nothing to be sceptical about.

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 11/12/2007 10:25:47
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  10:25:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

because it is unnatural. As are many things, however this is one of the newest and most unnatural things at the moment and hence one of the most controversial
What does 'natural' mean in the context you use it?

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Saudi Arabia
1266 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  10:40:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
in nature males of the species have intercouse with females, (or females with males if you want to be PC about it) to produce offspring (The man puts his pee pee in the woman's woo woo until his milk comes out), this occurs with mammals such as humans. He does not use any form of cloning to achieve this and the offspring will have genes from both parents. No one collects eggs or inserts genetic code into embryos and artificially inseminates anyone.

D'you get the difference I am illustrating here?

Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  11:30:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

in nature males of the species have intercouse with females, (or females with males if you want to be PC about it) to produce offspring (The man puts his pee pee in the woman's woo woo until his milk comes out), this occurs with mammals such as humans. He does not use any form of cloning to achieve this and the offspring will have genes from both parents. No one collects eggs or inserts genetic code into embryos and artificially inseminates anyone.


So I guess you are against in-vitro, right? Or use of fertility drugs?

Does your definitions of "unnatural" apply only to reproduction, or to other aspects of life? For example, do describe transplant surgery as unnatural?

And cloning is natural in other species, correct?

Is it because you won't be able to figure out how the soul is created in a clone? Or is a clone soul-less?

A lot of questions here, lol!

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

leoofno
Skeptic Friend

USA
346 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  11:59:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send leoofno a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Gee, oob, don'cha get it?

People get into their mind some kind of idea about what "God ordained", and any deviation from that is "unnatural", even evil, because you're either going counter to God's will, or you're taking God out of the equation. And there'd be no angel putting a soul into these clones, so they'd be soulless, like animals.

These are the same type of people as those who were upset whan pain killers took away the pain of childbirth, which was also ordained by God.

I don't see why cloned people would be any different than anyone else, as in your twin example.

"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  12:25:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

in nature males of the species have intercouse with females, (or females with males if you want to be PC about it) to produce offspring (The man puts his pee pee in the woman's woo woo until his milk comes out), this occurs with mammals such as humans. He does not use any form of cloning to achieve this and the offspring will have genes from both parents. No one collects eggs or inserts genetic code into embryos and artificially inseminates anyone.

D'you get the difference I am illustrating here?
Please leave the dim-witted sarcasm aside and confirm that this is what you are calling natural: anything humans or animals do that does not involve cultural influence but is instead strictly genetically determined.

I make this distinction because there are two kinds of information that humans base behavior on:

1. Information stored in their genes and transmitted from generation to generation via reproduction

and

2. Information stored in their culture and transmitted from generation to generation via spoken or recorded communication and human to human non-verbal interaction.

The use of reproductive technology, like cloning, falls into the second category. The un-augmented or 'traditional' method of reproduction falls into the first category (I'm going out on a limb here and claiming that people don't need to be taught how to breed. But I could be wrong). Are you saying that anything that falls into the second category is "unnatural?"

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  12:28:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by leoofno

Gee, oob, don'cha get it?

People get into their mind some kind of idea about what "God ordained", and any deviation from that is "unnatural", even evil, because you're either going counter to God's will, or you're taking God out of the equation. And there'd be no angel putting a soul into these clones, so they'd be soulless, like animals.

These are the same type of people as those who were upset whan pain killers took away the pain of childbirth, which was also ordained by God.

I don't see why cloned people would be any different than anyone else, as in your twin example.
So any activity, any technique, any knowledge, any process or methodology that was not understood or in common practice when Christianity came into being is "unnatural?" And I'm assuming anything branded unnatural is automatically bad and should be avoided. Huh.

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  12:56:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chaloobi

EDIT: Why is there a pseudo-science forum but no straight-up science forum? Is it that real science discussion is considered a general discussion as opposed to a skepticism-related discussion?
That, or as in this discussion, the issue is cultural, rather than scientific. We're not real strict on the categories, anyway. Only the most egregiously wrong topics get moved, and sometimes not even them.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

leoofno
Skeptic Friend

USA
346 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  13:02:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send leoofno a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chaloobi

Originally posted by leoofno

Gee, oob, don'cha get it?

People get into their mind some kind of idea about what "God ordained", and any deviation from that is "unnatural", even evil, because you're either going counter to God's will, or you're taking God out of the equation. And there'd be no angel putting a soul into these clones, so they'd be soulless, like animals.

These are the same type of people as those who were upset whan pain killers took away the pain of childbirth, which was also ordained by God.

I don't see why cloned people would be any different than anyone else, as in your twin example.
So any activity, any technique, any knowledge, any process or methodology that was not understood or in common practice when Christianity came into being is "unnatural?" And I'm assuming anything branded unnatural is automatically bad and should be avoided. Huh.

Yeah, pretty much.

Hence opposition to:
Cloning
In-Vitro Fertilization
Stem Cell Research
Abortion
Birth Control
Same-sex marriage
Homosexuality
Divorce
Blah...blah...blah...

"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
Edited by - leoofno on 11/12/2007 13:04:10
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  14:12:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
chaloobi said:
*I'm thinking that if the human race for some odd reason resorted to cloning as the major means of reproduction, the loss of the genetic mixing and the opportunity for mutation would probably not be good for us in an evolutionary sense.

It seems a stretch to think that cloning will ever become more popular than the "traditional" method of reproduction.

OFFC said:
because it is unnatural. As are many things, however this is one of the newest and most unnatural things at the moment and hence one of the most controversial

That is hardly a rational argument. Humans are a part of nature, so anything we do is technically "natural". The objections to cloning are entirely founded in an irrational fear of the new and unknown.

When invitro fertilization first came about there was much of the same blather about how "test-tube babies" were unnatural. When organ transplants were first introduced, same thing. The artificial heart was called "ghoulish tinkering". And so on.

Once the benefits of all these things became clear to the ignorant, they rapidly achieved acceptance.

Therapeutic cloning (the creation of stem cell lines with a specific individual's DNA) is the current target of this fear campaign because the irrational rubes who think a fertilized egg = a human life have decided to conflate it with murder.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  15:29:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Cloning (parthenogenesis) is perfectly natural and is being found to be more and more common, and not just in single-celled animals such as amoebas.

The question, as I see it, is a matter of ethics. If stem cell 'cloning' should render successful treatment for such as Parkenson's or spinal chord injuries, I'd say, "have at it!" But I balk at raising a cloned human to adulthood. I see no good reason for it.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  16:11:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
filthy said:
But I balk at raising a cloned human to adulthood. I see no good reason for it.

But is that just a reaction to something new? The Kingsmen once had difficulty getting radio play, and faced wide criticism, because of the implied sex content of their songs. These days the only thing not played on the radio is direct profanity.

The "I see no good reason for it" argument just doesn't hold water. If there were some reason to think that cloning would be harmful, then there may be an argument against doing it. We don't know what we will ultimately learn from this science, and that alone is (IMO) justification to proceed as long as there is no harm caused.

We are already cloning everything from livestock to pets. It is just a matter of time before a human is cloned, if it hasn't happened in secret already.

However, on this entire topic my primary concern is the study of theraputic cloning. This field needs to see full support from governments and scientists need to answer the fearmongering with convincing and rational education. No, the primary objectors will never be swayed, but the majority of people already favor this research and we should not allow the religious extremists to set our science policies.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  17:27:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It clearly could be handy, and even a life-saver, for each of us to own a clone of ourselves for possible spare parts as needed. These could probably be raised most efficiently on stock farms. No parental nurturing, language skills or education required, just common innoculations, veterinary care, and feedings of monkey chow.

But, IMO, it would be wrong. This would be a kind of human cloning I would oppose. I haven't seen such a thing proposed seriously by anyone.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  19:13:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

It clearly could be handy, and even a life-saver, for each of us to own a clone of ourselves for possible spare parts as needed. These could probably be raised most efficiently on stock farms. No parental nurturing, language skills or education required, just common innoculations, veterinary care, and feedings of monkey chow.

But, IMO, it would be wrong. This would be a kind of human cloning I would oppose. I haven't seen such a thing proposed seriously by anyone.
This is the first rational argument so far against cloning. However, do you oppose using a cloned embryo of yourself for stem cell seed stock so you can grow a new liver to replace the one you've pickled from too much Jack Daniels and Coke? Or is it just raising clones to a certain age to be used as necessary that you get the heebie jeebies over? I don't ever see people raising clones as spare parts but if someone wanted to do something that nasty, it won't matter if the procedure is illegal - where there's a will, there's a way.

Regarding cloning for reproduction, I don't ever see that happening very much. To want a clone seems a supreme exercise in vanity, though if someone wants to do it, I don't see a reason to limit that right.

Other reasons for cloning might be to reproduce genius quality minds, like Einstein or Hawking. But genetic code is no guarantee of results - there's quite a lot of nurture involved in what we become. And again, no unauthroized clones, thank you.

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9677 Posts

Posted - 11/12/2007 :  19:22:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

because it is unnatural. As are many things, however this is one of the newest and most unnatural things at the moment and hence one of the most controversial

I am guessing there is no real science forum since by definition real science is nothing to be sceptical about.
Aspirin against your headache is unnatural in the same sense.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.47 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000