Thread: Why is cloning "profoundly wrong"?

"It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society,"

Ah, the tried and tested speech-writing trick of saying something three times with different wording.
Why bother explaining what you mean and justifying it, when you can just make a good soundbite?

Originally Posted by jockeys

wonder how many American lives were saved by those two events, hm???

Yes, yes, and we all know that American lives are worth more than just your run of the mill humans...

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Yes, yes, and we all know that American lives are worth more than just your run of the mill humans...

if I was given the choice to save the lives of some of my countrymen by killing some of the enemy's countrymen, I think I'd do it. that's sort of the whole point of a war. not very politically correct, but there you have it.


also, to go back on topic, i don't really see the ethical dilemma here. a human is a human is a human. i don't really care how they came to be, i don't see a clone as any less human. do we consider a twin (not quite the same thing, i know) less human simply because they are a copy?

guess i've never really understood why some people think a clone shouldn't have rights. from a legal standpoint, i think a clone would be in much the same situation as any other single-parent child.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, while passing the embryonic stem cell research go-ahead bill, Obama also says of cloning



So, people of reason, why is embryonic stem cell research OK, but cloning is not?

Or is Mr. Obama wrong, and cloning should be allowed?

Maybe Obama thinks it's wrong because he can't find a way to fund cloning with public funds.


Scott

PS - Identical twins (mono zygotic) are clones. Are they profoundly wrong? No place in our society? I don't think so. What about invitro fertilization? Essentially cloning.

Originally Posted by jockeys

if I was given the choice to save the lives of some of my countrymen by killing some of the enemy's countrymen, I think I'd do it. that's sort of the whole point of a war. not very politically correct, but there you have it.


also, to go back on topic, i don't really see the ethical dilemma here. a human is a human is a human. i don't really care how they came to be, i don't see a clone as any less human. do we consider a twin (not quite the same thing, i know) less human simply because they are a copy?

guess i've never really understood why some people think a clone shouldn't have rights. from a legal standpoint, i think a clone would be in much the same situation as any other single-parent child.

I agree with your viewpoint on "war is war".

If a clone should have rights, why not viable embryos?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I agree with your viewpoint on "war is war".

If a clone should have rights, why not viable embryos?

Because a clone is a human being (I think we might have had this conversation before), and I do not believe an embryo is.
I'm with Jockeys here. A human is a human, no matter how it is born/comes to be. An embryo is a clump of cells that could, given certain circumstances, and assuming nothing goes wrong, someday become a human.

I guess from legalalities. Here goes.

When one says the word clone, or offers up cloning waht generally comes to mind is AN EXACT COPY of yourself. A person that has the same memories, the same likes and dislikes.

This is a legal mine field. Take an innocent situation. John has a credit card. John's Clone (JC) takes the credit card with intent of buying a 60" TV for the superbowl. John, being out of town, is unaware of the situation until his credit card company calls and lets him know about the large purchase.

Questions:
Is John responsible for paying for the TV?
Is JC in violation of laws, forgery, theft or some other tort?
How do we sort out who is who and who went where, what if JC was out of town and situation reveresed itself, John blamed the TV buy on JC.

This is a relatively simple example that you can see could get out of hand very fast.

Twins have there own separate identities, memories, likes, dislikes, they are two DIFFERENT people with a lot in common.

Originally Posted by xman

Unnecessary. They can now turn your skin cells into your stem cells and then into any organ you need!

Sorry, but this isn't quite true yet. Induced Pluripotent Stem cells (iPS) are created with a ****tail of viruses you do not want in your body. It's a technology in its infancy, but then so are ES cells. They both have a long way to go. I call it job security!

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

An embryo is a clump of cells that could, given certain circumstances, and assuming nothing goes wrong, someday become a human.

Hmm, interesting...

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Hmm, interesting...

Yeah I saw that too. Lets leave it alone and stay on point.