Printable View
Probably should have been a tad more careful there.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
That embryo, in the right circumstances and environment, could become a human. There are a number of reasons (besides what I assume is the interesting one)why the embryo would not eventually become a human.
But they are still clones of each other. So what is your point? A clone is a clone.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
Scott
not medically possibly now, nor it is likely going to be in the next 100 years. however, they can take some dna from adult me, implant it in an embyro and using a surrogate mother, "grow" a brand new baby me.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
it won't be an adult, it won't have any memories or anything. it's a newborn. the only thing it has in common with me is that it will look like i did at the same age, assuming a certain commonality of environment.
or, if you have an embryo already, take some dna and make more. then you have artificially created twins (or triplets or whatever).
that's what is possible now.
Point is that in my example that they are two DIFFERENT people. Whereas a clone is AN EXACT COPY.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
A clone that is a baby as JockeyS states is, in my mind, nothing more than a twin. It will be a DIFFERENT person with different likes and dislikes etc, etc.
Monozygotic twins (identical twins) are genetically exact copies of each other (same genotype and phenotype). They are still two different people, but have the potential to have all of the same likes, dislikes, etc depending on outside influences. If you think in terms of nature vs nurture, they both have the exact same nature, but may have similar or different nurture influences affecting who they eventually become. In order to have the exact same memories, etc would require doing or forcing something unethical, in my opinion, upon one or both individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
But I don't really think that this science fiction scenerio is the issue at hand concerning cloning.
Scott
OK...
A clone in my example is an exact copy with the same life experiences, likes, dislikes, friends, memories, etc..
The clone would remember the time that little Timmy Brown pantsed you at the school play when you were two and feel the shame and embarrassment.
A twin would remember the event as an outsider but and would empathize with your shame and embarrassment but would not feel it or remember it that vividly or in the same way.
So, why not then simply create a clone of whomever needs medical help, but then you can stop that clone's development at whatever pre-determined (or rather yet to be determined) point in gestation before it actually gains rights as a human being? Perform a legal abortion and harvest your brandy-new people-parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by smokelaw1
I mean, embryonic stem cells belong to who knows what kind of people, why not be sure of the stem cells, or spare body parts, you will be recieving will be a good genetic match, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
That is purely science fiction.
Jockeys has a better idea of the possible reality in my understanding of it.
Clone is strictly a genetic term. What you are suggesting is purely science fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
Scott
:HJ
What's your source for that? This quote refers to "A World At Arms" by Weinberg:Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
"Weinberg demolishes claims that the Japanese were themselves desperately trying to exit the war in the summer of 1945. The messages the Tokyo government sent to its embassies in Moscow and elsewhere were so naive that its own envoys cabled back to urge a greater sense of realism."
Additionally, it was expected that even if we successfully invaded and occupied Japan, the Japanese army on the mainland would continue fighting.