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.
Enlighten me....
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
With artificial insemination and fertility drugs you're not creating exact genetic duplicates of yourself.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
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.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
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.
Posted by no. 6 clone (Member # 7855) on :
you asked for it...
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
*feels special*
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
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.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
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.
[ April 20, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
So, providing that the cells are young enough to provide a decent life span, the only obsticle is taste?
Is this really a valid reason to ban all cloning with legislation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
You are right Dag. That's what I meant, but I was being lazy with my words.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Will people get a chance to feel that way if congress decides to ban all human cloning?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
My prediction:
Yes.
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.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yeah, I agree. It’s going to be done. There’s no stopping it. Probably have better luck regulating it then banning it.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I have no problems with banning human cloning for the time being.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Port, do you have a problem with cloning for embryonic stem cell research?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Yes, I have severe problems with that.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Just to muddy the waters a bit - if we accept clones as being "real", which one is more real?
The "Alpha", provided we can tell which one that is or the "Beta" clone?
Do they both have the same rights to the singular property? Does my clone have complete and legal access to my money?
Can you imagine the complications from DNA testing at crime scenes? "Sorry officer, I'm not the clone you're looking for..."
-Trevor
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
What about cloning PARTS of people?
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?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
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.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:What about cloning PARTS of people?
AFAIK, that is not cloning.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Actually, that's what they are proposing for embryonic stem cell research.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The DNA problem exists, but situationally, it's pretty rare for it to crop up in a meaningful fashion.
The hypothetical development of implemented cloning technology, however, would present the possibility of identical DNA matches to be far more common.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The major complaint against embryonic stem cell research is the source of these cells rather than the potential use, I believe.
Although I'm sure there are people who feel equally strongly on both sides.
-Trevor
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
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?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
[ April 20, 2005, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
They can use stem cells from umbillical cord blood, so banning ALL stem cell research is extreme, I think.
Dag, what if they just grew torsos?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They can use stem cells from umbillical cord blood, so banning ALL stem cell research is extreme, I think.
I agree, and I don't favor a comprehensive stem cell research ban.
quote:Dag, what if they just grew torsos?
That's closer to the line, but I'm still not sure.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh.
How about completely artificial "birthing chambers" that superficially resemble the human body with the singular purpose of growing, storing and maintaining cloned organs.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The research and production of such things would require killing embryos as the devices were perfected, so I'm against their development.
If they existed in perfect working order, I'm not sure where I'd stand.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
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?
-Trevor
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
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.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Dag -- would you be against the development of this technology for animals?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
[ April 20, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
BTW, the ST:TNG episode about an entire society of clones is on right now. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag -- would you be against the development of this technology for animals?
Porta, I would not so object, even knowing it would be a first step toward its use for humans.
[ April 20, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Which raises the important question...
Does a cloned steak taste as good as the original?
Can you tell who missed lunch?
-Trevor
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
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.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
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.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Now this is the type of discussion I was looking for, thanks all.
Dag, sorry for being ignorant, but may I ask if you are Catholic?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Dag is Catholic.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And Portabello is LDS, if memory serves.
I am upholding the banner of the non-believer until Tom shows up.
-Trevor
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
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.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Yes, I am LDS.
No, I am not holding up any banner or saying that my feelings are anything more than my feelings.
I think that the idea of banning the existence of GMO is a bad idea. I think think that researching cloning technology is a great idea.
I might support, however, a temporary ban on human clonging research.
For me, there is a huge difference between cloning a chimp and a human.
[ April 20, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I apologize Mr. Head - I did not mean to imply you were arguing from a spiritual or religious point of view.
I was clarifying the specifics on my stance on religion for the purposes of Six's inquiry.
-Trevor
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
No worries, and no need to apologize. I was just clarifying.
While I'm not arguing, my opinions on this are definitely influenced by my spiritual and religious beliefs.
[ April 20, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
't's okay, I know MPH's affiliations. He, likely, knows mine.
I just thought that Dagonee's position was rather similar to the catholic view.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
no. 6 - I forget who this name is an alt for. Is it a secret, or can you fill me in? Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
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?
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
I think that would be great. Think of the women who don't have the right equipment themselves. No sticky questions of surrogate motherhood. Men could have children without even having to worry about a partner....
Then again, this might not be such a good idea. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: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?
Actually, I haven't decided yet. It's a complex question, but the absolutely insurmountable barrier would be removed.
There's a difference between what I consider worthy of being made illegal (which is where I put the creation and subsequent destruction of a human embryo) and things I think are immoral but should not be made illegal. If no humans (as I define them) are being killed, I might place the activities in the immoral but should not be illegal category, or I might consider them not immoral.
As I said, I haven't decided.
Dagonee
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
I read a cool book about a clone in the future.
"The House of the Scorpion" - by Nancy Farmer,
Clones are illegally made for spare parts and injected with something that makes them vegetables for their life, and their treated like livestock/filth. Except for Matt who is a clone of the worlds most powerful/insane man. A really great read.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I highly recommend the book Where Late the Sweet Birds Sing where a plague kills of humanity's ability to sexually reproduce, and the only surviving group does so because of cloning.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Oooh! Thanks for the suggestions. I'll have to look them up.
The best reference I'd seen in fiction in the past had been Nueromancer by William Gibson. See: 3Jane.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
*feels special*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)