Thread: Why is cloning "profoundly wrong"?

Originally Posted by honedright

Then again the issue might come up regarding the rights of the pig - is it more human than pig...



Scott

Sometimes it's hard to tell



My attempts to derail this thread have failed. I think I will go have a ham sandwich now

Originally Posted by honedright

I think the holy grail of cloning would be to develop a non-human host for vital organs. The idea is to be able to transplant human tissue without the need for anti-rejection therapy which suppresses the immune system.

Hence my brainless "human" body idea. Now, how to get one to grow correctly without relying on a brain....someone else solve that one.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

OT: Jockeys, I believe you meant on the ATOMIC level, not molecular, when referring to the strong nature of the HUP, correct?

actually, now that I think of it, i should have said sub-atomic level as the HUP is a probability parameter function that limits the resolvability of a quantum particle's waveform. that's what I get for spending most of my day in HR lectures, my freaking brain won't work right

when applied to things big enough to behave under newtonian conditions, the more correct term is "the observer effect." in this case both apply, on the molecular level for the neurons themselves, and on the sub-atomic or quantum level for the electrons charging each neuron.

it's a fascinating problem, however hopelessly intractable.

Allow me to quote a selection from the famous pro stem cell research song:

Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can't move...
Where are the clones?
Send in the clones.

...

Send in the clones......... Don't bother, they're here.

Says it all, really.

I agree with Mark - cloning is not profoundly wrong. Just like guns or atom bombs are not profoundly wrong. A thing cannot be profoundly wrong - it just is. Actions can be profoundly wrong, not things.

James.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Sometimes it's hard to tell



My attempts to derail this thread have failed. I think I will go have a ham sandwich now

Yeah, go pig out



Scott

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Hence my brainless "human" body idea. Now, how to get one to grow correctly without relying on a brain....someone else solve that one.

Geez, look around... That's been going on for quite awhile now.



Scott

I didn't have time to read this: Thinking Twice: Cloning and IVF but skimming over the article, it looks interesting.

I'll read it later when I have time, but thought I'd post it for others to consider.



Scott

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The A-bomb led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Atiomic power led to Three mile Island and Chernobyl. Is that what we're saying?

Well, sure if you take a specific event and judge purely on that!

I guess what I'm saying here is, would human life be worse off without atomic research, taking into account Hiroshima etc. and Chernobyl etc.? I say a resounding yes. Our lives would be worse. Same applies to Cloning or Stem Cell research.

But I still reckon legislation against research such as this is pointless anyway. How do you stop progress? Sure, you can delay it, but it's going to happen. GM foods is a case in point. Europe and UK spent so much time and effort trying to outlaw GM... even going so far as to damn what little GM crop research there is in the UK with stories about the risks of cross-fertilisation with normal crops. And the whole time we import foods which are GM. Now, I don't see GM issue reported anymore in our press. They've moved onto the next Frankenstein's monster, be that Cloning or growing an ear on the back of a mouse. (OK, old example, but you get my point I hope.)

Instead of trying to outlaw such research, we should be devoting our efforts to thinking about how we use our new-found knowledge to the best of its potential.

Embryonic stem cell research: I'm all pro. The cells come from IVF, where large amounts of eggs are fertilized, a few selected ones implanted, and the rest thrown away. Might as well use the garbage for some research.

Cloning: depends on what you see as cloning. Normally, it is "making a genetic copy". So taking the full DNA from a cell, implanting it into another cell and growing a new organism from it. I'm not against, as long as the clone is considered a human like any other. Currently clones are out of the question, due to health issues. Way too much cellular problems to get a good clone.
The whole "cloning is making an exact copy of someone" is ridiculous. You can't put someone in a photocopier, set the number of copies and press Go. Never can, never will happen. The human brain is much too complicated.

Originally Posted by jockeys

actually, now that I think of it, i should have said sub-atomic level as the HUP is a probability parameter function that limits the resolvability of a quantum particle's waveform. that's what I get for spending most of my day in HR lectures, my freaking brain won't work right
.

You did mentioned sub-atomic as well. Argh...HR lectures? I recently took some revolving around "A manager's duty...Sexual harassment in the workplace." And let me tell you, those people can NOT take a joke.

Quantum sciences are a hobby of mine. I don't understand them, but I take comfort in the fact that it is likely that no one really does. Of course, I also don't even know what it IS that they know they don't know...you know?

OK, back to cloning...I want a bunch ( a troop, a gaggle? What is a group of clones called?) of cloned butlers. I just think it would be great for when guests are over.