Human Cloning

Why aren't we (As in society) proceeding with this on a wide-scale? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there alot we can learn and alot of important developments we can make from doing so? I haven't seen many good arguments against cloning or bio-engineering people. Sure, I've seen the "Well, CLONES DON'T HAVE SOULS" argument, but that's nonsensical religious muck that shouldn't be taken seriously. I've seen the "unethical" argument, but nobody has really ever explained why it's unethical.

I mean, it's the same sort-of crap that caused us to stall behind in stem-cell research. Why are we limiting our scientific progress like this? If you have a good reason as to why we should limit our scientific progress by not proceeding with such experimentation, post it, because I'd like to see it. However, if you're going to post some "It's playing God" or "It goes against nature" nonsense, I suggest you don't; your argument is baseless and won't be taken seriously by anyone.

Well, discuss. Should active human cloning commence? I, for one, say go ahead with it.

Lets say I have a heart condition. If I were to kidnap my neighbor, kill him, and take his heart to transplant into my body, people would consider me a murderer. So why is it that if I cloned myself, then proceeded to do the same thing, it would be ok?

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Lets say I have a heart condition. If I were to kidnap my neighbor, kill him, and take his heart to transplant into my body, people would consider me a murderer. So why is it that if I cloned myself, then proceeded to do the same thing, it would be ok?

Because your organ harvest clone would have been created in a permanently unconscious state and would have never experienced life, making it no different from abortion?

human cloning on the level you suggest is unethical because we are creating a fully sapient being of our own species for the sole purpose of it being a science experiment for it's entire life. You mention stem cell research in an attempt to refute this argument. the two subjects are fundamentally different. The mother is able to choose whether she wants her embryonic stem cells to be used in research. If I understand you correctly the clone, a living and thinking person, would have no such choice. The only possible way for clone studies to be ethical would be to wait until the clone is an adult and allow it to volunteer to be studied like everybody else does. Anything less would be just as bad as forcing the mother to give up her stem cells for research.

Originally Posted by Tyras

human cloning on the level you suggest is unethical because we are creating a fully sapient being of our own species for the sole purpose of it being a science experiment for it's entire life. You mention stem cell research in an attempt to refute this argument. the two subjects are fundamentally different. The mother is able to choose whether she wants her embryonic stem cells to be used in research. If I understand you correctly the clone, a living and thinking person, would have no such choice. The only possible way for clone studies to be ethical would be to wait until the clone is an adult and allow it to volunteer to be studied like everybody else does. Anything less would be just as bad as forcing the mother to give up her stem cells for research.

The ethical nature of it would be determined by if we let these cloned humans have a taste of awareness or not. Naturally, we would not "awaken" these cloned humans; they would be in a permanently unconscious state, as I explained in my previous post.

If were cloned humans with the purpose of repopulating society after a global plague or some other disaster, however, then it would be unethical to revoke their human rights and use them as experiments. That would be one of the only situations in which we clone and "awaken" those cloned people, however.

If we made clones, they would have to have the same rights as normal people. I wouldn't want to take their rights as human beings away and make them experiments.

Originally Posted by Dread

If we made clones, they would have to have the same rights as normal people. I wouldn't want to take their rights as human beings away and make them experiments.

If they never became conscious, however, how would it be any different from abortion?

Originally Posted by Andross

Because your organ harvest clone would have been created in a permanently unconscious state and would have never experienced life, making it no different from abortion?

Aborting a 6 week old fetus is much different than killing a 22 year old clone.

The ethical nature of it would be determined by if we let these cloned humans have a taste of awareness or not. Naturally, we would not "awaken" these cloned humans; they would be in a permanently unconscious state, as I explained in my previous post.

So if I were to walk into a hospital and shoot a brain dead person, it wouldn't be unethical? Your saying a human isn't a human if they are unconscious?

If they never became conscious, however, how would it be any different from abortion?

A fetus is part of a mothers body, a clone is a separate being.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Aborting a 6 week old fetus is much different than killing a 22 year old clone.

Not if that 22 year old clone was never "born."

So if I were to walk into a hospital and shoot a brain dead person, it wouldn't be unethical?

Of course not. If a person is "brain dead," and incapable of ever thinking or percieving again, it's just a mindless husk.

Arguing that way is just like arguing that it would be unethical to shoot a mindless zombie in the head (Excuse me if this example is a little too whimsical, but it's the same concept).

Your saying a human isn't a human if they are unconscious?

No, I'm saying it isn't unethical if that human's mind is nonexistant or if that human was never born, which are both concepts that are very different from simply being unconscious.

A fetus is part of a mothers body, a clone is a separate being.

It is a separate organism, but I wouldn't call it a separate being, if it never had a thought in its life.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Lets say I have a heart condition. If I were to kidnap my neighbor, kill him, and take his heart to transplant into my body, people would consider me a murderer. So why is it that if I cloned myself, then proceeded to do the same thing, it would be ok?

Originally Posted by Tyras

human cloning on the level you suggest is unethical because we are creating a fully sapient being of our own species for the sole purpose of it being a science experiment for it's entire life.

I think the idea is that the clone wouldn't be sapient.

if it does commence it should be made a widely publicized and observable event.

In other words: a completely transparent event, unlike the cold war operations and the Manhattan project.

I wouldn't be opposed to it being a joint UN effort actually, much like the LHC is in Europe between the academics.

I don't really trust tinkering research labs powered by think tank politico muscle to maintain humanitarian standards otherwise.

If "bad things" happened and the info ever leaked out it would destroy public trust between the people and the government, something that's been in desperate need of renewal ever since JFK was shot.

Originally Posted by Lysis

I think the idea is that the clone wouldn't be sapient.

And how do you keep that from developing? and what precisely gives you the right to strip another living human of that aspect of their life?

it would never be an aspect of the clone's life to begin with.

I don't know how you keep sapience from developing. I don't know the first thing about making a clone. I'm no geneticist. I assume it would have something to do with not letting the clone's brain develop as much as a normal human being.

it would be in a constant state of brain-deadness, from the day it was made.

Originally Posted by Lysis

it would never be an aspect of the clone's life to begin with.

I don't know how you keep sapience from developing. I don't know the first thing about making a clone. I'm no geneticist. I assume it would have something to do with not letting the clone's brain develop as much as a normal human being.

it would be in a constant state of brain-deadness, from the day it was made.

Still, what gives you the right to do that? How can you possibly justify it?

EDIT: also, how is a brain-dead clone useful for testing purposes? If you are testing a drug, then you need to look at every possible side effect the drug can cause, both physically and mentally, that requires brain activity. testing a drug on a person who is incapable of reacting to external stimuli is not particularly useful, but potentially dangerous as well.

what gives me the right to make a mindless clone of a human being?

how about "because I can"?

or even better, how about for the betterment of all humanity. Human cloning would lead to great advancements in medical care. We would be able to clone organs on demand that would match the DNA of the person who needed it exactly. If your liver failed, you could get a replacement right away, without having to cross your fingers and hope you find one that your body won't outright reject. And that's only one aspect of the medical uses of cloning.

it would save millions of lives and hurt nobody. So, what gives you the right to prevent this?

Originally Posted by Lysis

what gives me the right to make a mindless clone of a human being?

how about "because I can"?

how callous.

or even better, how about for the betterment of all humanity. Human cloning would lead to great advancements in medical care. We would be able to clone organs on demand that would match the DNA of the person who needed it exactly. If your liver failed, you could get a replacement right away, without having to cross your fingers and hope you find one that your body won't outright reject. And that's only one aspect of the medical uses of cloning.

it would save millions of lives and hurt nobody. So, what gives you the right to prevent this?

plenty of terrible things have been done in the name of the so called "greater good". you mention organ transplants. Wouldn't it be more effective to just grow the organ you need instead of growing a person to harvest it from who would then die from the loss of that organ?I'd say that's harming somebody. but I forget, clones don't actually count as people even though they are human so that doesn't matter. Now where have we seen this before kiddies?

EDIT: another thought just occurred to me. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to clone a living being? what do you propose we do with those clones who are failures, who cannot be used for what we want? do we allow them to live with their defects and deformities? do we just kill them because we can't get what we want out of them?

Originally Posted by Tyras

how callous.

how is it any different than anything else? What gives me the right to do anything at all?

plenty of terrible things have been done in the name of the so called "greater good".

hey, if you can think of any downsides, please post them. The way I see it, the pros outweigh the cons by such a large amount it would be morally wrong not to pursue it.

you mention organ transplants. Wouldn't it be more effective to just grow the organ you need instead of growing a person to harvest it from who would then die from the loss of that organ?

what is the best way to store an organ? In a living body, with blood carrying oxygen through it. Keeps it fresh and useful. Outside of a body, an organ begins to rot and storing it becomes quite difficult. Inside a clone an organ can be stored for as long as the clone can be kept alive.

also, clones have other purposes. For instance, with the advent of brain transplantation, I could stay alive virtually forever by putting my brain (or just my memories if mind downloading becomes possible) into a younger clone of myself. Death could be virtually eliminated. As long as you had a backup of all your memory and a clone of yourself ready to go, nothing could kill you for long. Get hit by a bus? Oh well, you can wake up in a new body the next morning. Murdered by a deranged serial killer? That's okay, get revenge on him later.

I'd say that's harming somebody. but I forget, clones aren't don't actually count as people even though they are human so that doesn't matter. Now where have we seen this before kiddies?

clones aren't people. They're just bodies. The clone doesn't think, doesn't reason, doesn't know anything, and doesn't feel anything. It doesn't know or care if it lives or dies. Legally it's already dead. Your spleen doesn't have any rights, does it? It's just a piece of flesh. You have rights because you are a sapient being, not because your flesh has primarily human DNA in it. Clones are not sapient, or even sentient. They hardly count as alive. They are just like plants or organic machines.

EDIT: another thought just occurred to me. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to clone a living being? what do you propose we do with those clones who are failures, who cannot be used for what we want? do we allow them to live with their defects and deformities? do we just kill them because we can't get what we want out of them?

assuming they are like the clones I've been talking about, that is, completely brain-dead, then we would just terminate them and try again. I'm assuming that if any failures happen in the cloning process, the result would be less developed, not more developed, so I don't think we're at risk of producing any actually sapient clones if we do it right.

Originally Posted by Lysis

hey, if you can think of any downsides, please post them. The way I see it, the pros outweigh the cons by such a large amount it would be morally wrong not to pursue it.

how about the increased rate of degradation in cloned tissue. If I made a clone of myself right now, I'd be using 19 year old DNA. no matter how many clones i make of myself, It's DNA will still show all of the signs of aging that I do. Thus, any tissue that I gain from the clone is just going to wear out faster, and no matter how many clones I make my DNA will only be older with each subsequent attempt to produce a clone. and of course this doesn't even begin to solve any health problems that are genetic in nature.
how about the fact that we have yet to perfect the process of animal cloning? what makes you think that we will be capable of safely producing humans?

what is the best way to store an organ? In a living body, with blood carrying oxygen through it. Keeps it fresh and useful. Outside of a body, an organ begins to rot and storing it becomes quite difficult. Inside a clone an organ can be stored for as long as the clone can be kept alive.

this works just fine according to most medical professionals.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaspan

also, clones have other purposes. For instance, with the advent of brain transplantation, I could stay alive virtually forever by putting my brain (or just my memories if mind downloading becomes possible) into a younger clone of myself.

it's a real shame that brain transplantation is highly hypothetical and is faced with many problems such as the inability for nervous tissue to heal, as well as the extensive amount of rehabilitation you would have to go through. this is of course assuming the operation could ever work.

Death could be virtually eliminated. As long as you had a backup of all your memory and a clone of yourself ready to go, nothing could kill you for long. Get hit by a bus? Oh well, you can wake up in a new body the next morning. Murdered by a deranged serial killer? That's okay, get revenge on him later.

Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me. Besides, since we don't have the ability to do this and won't for quite some time I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place. Try focusing on something that we are actually capable of doing.

clones aren't people. They're just bodies. The clone doesn't think, doesn't reason, doesn't know anything, and doesn't feel anything. It doesn't know or care if it lives or dies. Legally it's already dead. Your spleen doesn't have any rights, does it? It's just a piece of flesh. You have rights because you are a sapient being, not because your flesh has primarily human DNA in it. Clones are not sapient, or even sentient. They hardly count as alive. They are just like plants or organic machines.

Just like Jews, and gypsies, and homosexuals, and communists, and criminals, and cripples, and the mentally disabled weren't people, but barely sentient animals, right?

assuming they are like the clones I've been talking about, that is, completely brain-dead, then we would just terminate them and try again. I'm assuming that if any failures happen in the cloning process, the result would be less developed, not more developed, so I don't think we're at risk of producing any actually sapient clones if we do it right.

This causes me to call into question your knowledge of cloning. you have yet to explain how we can prevent the clone from developing sapience, or how they would be useful at all for anything like medical testing. it might interest you to know that when cloning animals, we still produce many deformed, dead, and diseased clones. even when we "do it right." The "perfect" clones, like Dolly, are few and far between. So do explain how human cloning is even feasible.

Originally Posted by Tyras

how about the increased rate of degradation in cloned tissue. If I made a clone of myself right now, I'd be using 19 year old DNA. no matter how many clones i make of myself, It's DNA will still show all of the signs of aging that I do. Thus, any tissue that I gain from the clone is just going to wear out faster, and no matter how many clones I make my DNA will only be older with each subsequent attempt to produce a clone. and of course this doesn't even begin to solve any health problems that are genetic in nature.

I don't know exactly how aging works, but I'm almost certain it's not encoded in your DNA. You should be able to use your 19 year old DNA to make a newborn baby clone.

how about the fact that we have yet to perfect the process of animal cloning? what makes you think that we will be capable of safely producing humans?

how should I know? This is all hypothetical. Leave that to the researchers. All I'm saying is that if it can be done, it should be.

this works just fine according to most medical professionals.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaspan

sure, but the day we settle on "just fine" and decide not to research better options is the day scientific advancement dies.

it's a real shame that brain transplantation is highly hypothetical and is faced with many problems such as the inability for nervous tissue to heal, as well as the extensive amount of rehabilitation you would have to go through. this is of course assuming the operation could ever work.

I'm arguing from a hypothetical standpoint, yes. I don't see how that changes anything regarding my points, however.

Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me. Besides, since we don't have the ability to do this and won't for quite some time I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place. Try focusing on something that we are actually capable of doing.

why anyone wouldn't want to be immortal is beyond me.

personally, it's my ultimate goal in life.

Just like Jews, and gypsies, and homosexuals, and communists, and criminals, and cripples, and the mentally disabled weren't people, but barely sentient animals, right?

wrong. All of those people are sapient human beings. Seriously, I don't know what the hell you're talking about anymore. Trying to compare me to Hitler. You're not even listening to me are you?

This causes me to call into question your knowledge of cloning. you have yet to explain how we can prevent the clone from developing sapience, or how they would be useful at all for anything like medical testing. it might interest you to know that when cloning animals, we still produce many deformed, dead, and diseased clones. even when we "do it right." The "perfect" clones, like Dolly, are few and far between. So do explain how human cloning is even feasible.

as I believe I pointed out quite clearly above, I don't know the first thing about cloning.

that doesn't mean, however, that cloning is somehow morally or ethically wrong, a point which you have yet to provide any reasoning for.

my argument is thus: "The ability to make human clones which are nearly physically identical to human beings but lack sapience would be a great advancement to medical science and should be researched and pursued. Doing so is not immoral or unethical and, in fact, preventing such advancement would be immoral and unethical."

I make no claims that any of this is currently possible or that it ever will be, nor do I even pretend to know how it would work.

the fact that human cloning is currently not feasible is not an argument against researching human cloning to make it feasible.

Originally Posted by Lysis

I don't know exactly how aging works, but I'm almost certain it's not encoded in your DNA. You should be able to use your 19 year old DNA to make a newborn baby clone.

a newborn baby with 19 year old DNA.

how should I know? This is all hypothetical. Leave that to the researchers. All I'm saying is that if it can be done, it should be.

If you don't know what you are talking about, then don't bring it up.

sure, but the day we settle on "just fine" and decide not to research better options is the day scientific advancement dies.

there's nothing wrong with researching better ways to store and produce organs, but they don't have to involve creating humans for the sole purpose of organ harvesting.

I'm arguing from a hypothetical standpoint, yes. I don't see how that changes anything regarding my points, however.

you see, I don't care much about hypothetical things especially when they involve performing feats that aren't even possible.

why anyone wouldn't want to be immortal is beyond me.

personally, it's my ultimate goal in life.

Then you're wasting your life. death is inevitable no matter what you do. to pretend otherwise is nothing short of foolish.

wrong. All of those people are sapient human beings. Seriously, I don't know what the hell you're talking about anymore. Trying to compare me to Hitler. You're not even listening to me are you?

this is entirely comparable. you are basically suggesting that we relegate members of our own species to a lower state of being just so we can make ourselves feel better about performing actions that would be considered totally reprehensible if performed on what you call a normal person.

as I believe I pointed out quite clearly above, I don't know the first thing about cloning.

Then why did you start arguing for it in the first place? You have now admitted twice that you know jack **** about cloning. Congratulations, you have just invalidated your entire argument.