posted
So, just what is wrong with cloning for simple reproduction? I'm not talking about cloning for stem-cell research here, but simple, good old-fashioned cloning so that a person can have offspring that are exact genetic duplicates of themselves?
You see, I can't see a problem with this. It sounds like a valid strategy for those who wish to pass on their genes, but are unable to reproduce, for one reason or another, naturally. Is this really any different from artificial insemination and fertility drugs? I don't see how.
posted
1. Many, if not most people, feel that there should be some limit on how we should create human or part-human life. For example, creating genetically modified people because they would make really great slave miners is not a good thing.
2. Until we have some mechanism or concensus about what is and is not okay in that arena, cloning is just a little too close for comfort for many people.
But then, I think that some people felt the same way artificial insemination back in the day. I think that people will eventually feel the same way about cloning as we now feel about artificial insemination.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds reasonable. I bet it’s more of the it’s so close to the edge that they’re trying to avoid.
So… if you cloned yourself and your spouse and raised those kids would they be brother and sister? What if they fell in love too? Sounds like a creepy sci-fi novel. Also, you can see how you’d turn out if you were raised how you wanted to be raised. Interesting.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cloning puts embryos up for undue risk, in my opinion. Most fertility technologies do as well. Whether that bothers you seems to be a fairly personal matter.
Another practical concern is telomere length. The lifespan of an organism seems to be dictated by telomeres and manipulating them is very dangerous, as cancer is a common result of telomere malfunction. Cancer cells are often immortal cells. Dolly, the original clone, had serious health problems because she was born with cells that thought they were already in their prime and moving on to middle age.
People also go to great lengths for a child to be the genetic mix of both parents. If it can't be both parents per se, they often want the bio parents to be like themselves (as with Melissa Etheridge having her child fathered by a musician.) So having a child be a clone of just one parent would seem to create difficulties. I don't think they couldn't be overcome, but I just think it won't be the solution to someone's search for fulfillment like they think. What child ever is?
We've had posters talk about the pain that they feel with infertility, and people thinking they are selfish not to adopt, but I still think it is as good an option as cloning.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So having a child be a clone of just one parent would seem to create difficulties. I don't think they couldn't be overcome, but I just think it won't be the solution to someone's search for fulfillment like they think. What child ever is?
Actually, that would be a bonus for many people that want to be a single parent.
Of course, that is very distasteful to those of us with a more traditional view of procreation and the family.
quote:But then, I think that some people felt the same way artificial insemination back in the day. I think that people will eventually feel the same way about cloning as we now feel about artificial insemination.
Actually, I don't think that's quite true. I think that people will eventually feel the same way about cloning as we now feel about in-vitro fertilization. The distinctions are important, at least to me and a lot of other people.
With our current level of technology, cloning it far to dangerous for many people to feel comfortable with it, and it would not surprise me if it is outlawed.
Cloning research will continue. It will get better and better. It will eventually be used for human procreation. Even if that is outlawed in the U.S., it won't be everywhere. People will travel to other countries to get the procedure done. Eventually it will be seen as another form of infertility treatment, and it will be legalized.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I agree. It’s going to be done. There’s no stopping it. Probably have better luck regulating it then banning it.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think THAT could really be good thing, to be able to grow new organs for people who need them. You've probably seen that picture with a human ear growing on a frog's back. Would something like that be okay in your worldview?
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my imaginary world where people can use cloning for procreation:
A clone is legally a child. It just happens to have genetic material from only one parent. It has no more rights to the parent's property than a normally conceived child would.
The same crime-scene problems with DNA already exist with twins.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, if they can clone a whole being with no brain, would that be okay? See, it happens every so often that a baby is born without a brain. They die very quickly after being born.
If they could produce a replica of a person with that particular genetic anomaly (and keep it alive) then that person could have a bank of replacement organs, should the need arise. Presumably, no real risk of rejection would exist.
Just because I like playing "What if?"
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To sum up my beliefs on this easily, I beleive that the creation of an embryo outside the womb is immoral.
Were the techniques perfect such that no "waste" embryos had to be made, I might rethink this. But we're not close to that situation at this point, so I'm comfortable with this as the testing principle.
Using this principle, I consider human cloning, in-vitro fertilization, and production of embryos to create stem cells all to be immoral.
Olivetta: The lack of a brain wouldn't change my opinions on the subject. Clearly, there's a line somewhere between regrowing a liver in a petri dish and complete-except-for-brain person, and I don't know where that line is. But the mere lack of a brain is on the "wrong" side for me.
How about completely artificial "birthing chambers" that superficially resemble the human body with the singular purpose of growing, storing and maintaining cloned organs.
posted
So it's safe to say that Dag falls into the "I object to the source and development of the technology" rather than "I oppose all aspects of cloning" camp.
Pointless hypothetical and inherently unfair - if the technology was developed to a functional level in another country, would you personally reject or object to reaping the benefits of that technology?
posted
I think at least a partial reason for the percieved wrongness of cloning is closly tied up with its spirtitual implications. Congress has to represent everyone's viewpoint, and a major viewpoint that has to be adressed is the existence or non-existence of a human soul and the moral questions that arise about cloning as a result.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pointless hypothetical and inherently unfair - if the technology was developed to a functional level in another country, would you personally reject or object to reaping the benefits of that technology?
If each individual use is possible without creation of an embryo, I'm not positive I'd object to its use. But I'm not sure if I'd avail myself of therapies based on that research - I'd have to do a lot of soul-searching.
posted
Here's a quick summation of my feelings on the matter:
I am against the creation of human life (or near-human life) without letting it grow, develop, and fulfil its potential as a human being.
Purposely developing a pseudo-human life incapable of that (like a baby that we know can't survivie) goes directy against that. But I wouldn't label growing a liver or an arm as the creation of a human life.
Like Dag, I don't know exactly where the line is.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are currrently trying to perfect an 'artificial womb' for use in helping premature babies survive as well as growing people's babies without using surrogate mothers.
Just so you know.
It hasn't worked so well, thus far.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since you've all been so forthcoming, I'll reply myself:
I do not oppose either reproductive or stem cell productive research, or practice. I do think that passing a blanket ban on a new science would be disasterous.
For instance: there is a local government near me that is trying to ban all genetically modified organisms from their county. Even though I have reservation about releasing GMOs unregulated into the environment (look what happened with Starlite, a type of corn intended for animal feed), I believe this general ban could be disasterous in the long-term for the area.
I have the same reservations about banning human cloning altogether.
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are currrently trying to perfect an 'artificial womb' for use in helping premature babies survive as well as growing people's babies without using surrogate mothers.
Just so you know. [Smile]
It hasn't worked so well, thus far.
This is the way I could see an artificial womb being developed in a way I don't morally oppose - creating incubators that help earlier and earlier preemies survive. I would guess that the most successful would be those that grow more womblike. As the point at which they work moves closer and closer to conception, eventually I could see it becoming a fully-functional womb.
quote:This is the way I could see an artificial womb being developed in a way I don't morally oppose - creating incubators that help earlier and earlier preemies survive. I would guess that the most successful would be those that grow more womblike. As the point at which they work moves closer and closer to conception, eventually I could see it becoming a fully-functional womb.
So I'm curious. If they did this and eventually perfected a method of IVF to artifical womb reproduction that bypassed natural reproduction entirely a la Brave New World, you would be okay with this so long as there wasn't any intentional killing of any embryos/babies?
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
*feels special*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
