Welcome to Gaia! ::

Shaviv
Psisya
Cloning human cells is perfectly acceptable. Cloning whole humans is another matter. It's a very thorny ethical question. I'd say it depends on the reason.

I don't see why cloning should be ethically that different from IVF...


Effectively, it's not, however the difference is in the application. As I said, it depends on the reason. If you wanted to clone a person so that someone who otherwise couldn't procreate properly could reproduce, that's fine (and very similar to the application of IVF). However, cloning humans for other possible reasons (medical research, for example) could easily in unethical. And procedure which has the possibility of producing a being capable of reason and understanding is something that should not be undertaken lightly.
Psisya
Shaviv
Psisya
Cloning human cells is perfectly acceptable. Cloning whole humans is another matter. It's a very thorny ethical question. I'd say it depends on the reason.

I don't see why cloning should be ethically that different from IVF...


Effectively, it's not, however the difference is in the application. As I said, it depends on the reason. If you wanted to clone a person so that someone who otherwise couldn't procreate properly could reproduce, that's fine (and very similar to the application of IVF). However, cloning humans for other possible reasons (medical research, for example) could easily in unethical. And procedure which has the possibility of producing a being capable of reason and understanding is something that should not be undertaken lightly.

You've hit upon the core of my issue with declaring cloning to be unethical.

Technologies themselves are generally neutral in terms of morality and ethics. Controlled nuclear fission, for example, is just something that happens when you generate a critical or supercritical mass. If you use it to power a city's industries, that is probably a good thing; if you use it to blow up a city, that's probably bad. Yet I've seen folks declaring nuclear fission to be a technology that should be forbidden, that merely making use of it for any purpose is unethical and immoral. Same goes for cloning. I don't buy it. Even a screwdriver can be used for evil, but that doesn't make it evil.
a sword never kills anybody. It is a weapon in a killer's hand.
n2 lystez
a sword never kills anybody. It is a weapon in a killer's hand.

And yet, is a sword unethical? Is a gun? Is a tank? Is a multi-warhead ballistic missile?

Producing these things when there are (to paraphrase Eisenhower) schools and hospitals to build, food to grow, or roads to pave might be unethical, but the items produced that way are not inherently so.
Kiraden
I was researching cloning the other day, and read about all the controversy that came with the theory of human cloning. The former pope said it was "A tragic attempt by man to imitate God's unique life-giving powers." When Dolly the cloned sheep was announced in 1997, Bill Clinton's cabinet said that human cloning would be immoral.

What do you guys think? I think it could be taken in moderation for, say, cloning skin cells to heal a burn victim. It shouldn't be used for selfish reasons like parents wanting to bring back dead children however (They would just be identical people anyway, you can't clone memories)
you should ask the pope if its immoral for clatholic priest to rape little boys they be doing alot of that
Why is it okay for us to clone a sheep, but we can't clone a human being? Last time I checked, a sheep was still a living breathing organism, which makes it a life. Would things be different if they had cloned the human first, and then the sheep? Would it have been viewed as a break through in modern science?
Rei Kuroniko's avatar

Hallowed Phantom

10,800 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Alchemy Level 2 100
  • Mark Twain 100
As a Scientist... It's not my job to decide whether things are ethical or not... My job is to research, and expand on that of which we already know, but also that of which we need to know, through the process of scientific inquiry... Clearly not a scientist... It's up to the public to decide whether it's ethical or not, or if you prefer... Politicians (Not a wise choice.)...
panadarian's avatar

3,550 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
What I think,
Cloning won't be wrong only when we're not trying to create such duplicates of ourselves. its okey to clone our cells for ,lets say, medical healing, or for plants for agriculture. but to create another human being, it would require numerous tests which of course the test subjects would be human because our genes are much superior than that of a sheep, an we're much more complex than any other animal here on Earth.

so lets say you've cloned yourself, and its a complete failure, cuz it doesn't resemble what will you do then?.. of course you'd throw it away right? and that alone is killing a person though not made through the embryo of a man and woman, once you clone you're making a new person.. and every"person" that comes out a failure will be dead--once you had many tries to get it right you'll be killing a whole lot of "people"... much more than a mass murder i think

And many complications may arise... what if.. a mistake has happened?
instead of a person.. or an animal your cloning, what was made was a monster from the genes?
you're planning to kill the monster but failed, and it'll go rampaging through the facility, killing every researcher and scientist inside.. then, it breaks out. goes into community and a whole lot of screaming will happen crying crying

only an opinion of things 3nodding blaugh
panadarian's avatar

3,550 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
follow up on my post

all things here on Earth are good

what makes them bad though is how we use those things..

A sword is good, a gun is good too, heck so is using explosives...
but when you use these things for--- killing people, torture, as well as killing the lifestyle of animals
that's when its bad..

its not the things that make its nature bad.. but its in how they handle that thing that makes it bad

in connection to my post, Cloning is GOOD.... but only for the benefit of mankind (Medical healing, Agriculture, Livestock, Medicines, even bacteria, viruses and parasites for study.. etc.) but, what benefit would it make in making a duplicate of yourself? for fun? you'd be killing countless you's just to make one perfect you in another body? God created us differently from each other, non of us are the same, even twins are different in their own way..

3nodding
sorry for being quite a chatter... i just happen to like the topic and makes me want to talk about my opinion
Kiraden
I was researching cloning the other day, and read about all the controversy that came with the theory of human cloning. The former pope said it was "A tragic attempt by man to imitate God's unique life-giving powers." When Dolly the cloned sheep was announced in 1997, Bill Clinton's cabinet said that human cloning would be immoral.

What do you guys think? I think it could be taken in moderation for, say, cloning skin cells to heal a burn victim. It shouldn't be used for selfish reasons like parents wanting to bring back dead children however (They would just be identical people anyway, you can't clone memories)


By itself, I think of cloning to be about as immoral as normal human reproduction.
Golden Dysprosium
Kiraden
I was researching cloning the other day, and read about all the controversy that came with the theory of human cloning. The former pope said it was "A tragic attempt by man to imitate God's unique life-giving powers." When Dolly the cloned sheep was announced in 1997, Bill Clinton's cabinet said that human cloning would be immoral.

That just doesn't make sense. It's like saying if someone has twins, we should kill one of them. In cloning, though, it's a copy of someone, rather than a division of a person. Afterall, with things like fashion trends, sports jerseys, school uniforms, and hair dye, we kinda have enough things that signify that people are the same.
The "popular" issue with cloning was that the clone "wouldn't have a soul" and thus "wouldn't be human". If you don't believe in souls, etc then the entire arguement is void. There's also an issue with the process behind it, much like stem cells.
Quote:
What do you guys think? I think it could be taken in moderation for, say, cloning skin cells to heal a burn victim.

That's not the same. I know, since I did a project about that. Besides, that's just a cell dividing (I find skin cells to be rather lack-lustre; nerves and macrophages are cooler) , as opposed to with cloning which is the whole sperm+egg routine.
Quote:
It shouldn't be used for selfish reasons like parents wanting to bring back dead children however (They would just be identical people anyway, you can't clone memories)

Hey, some people will give an arm and a leg to get someone they love back. gold star for whoever gets the reference.


I was about to say the same thing about the twins btw.

Also I wonder what the reference could be possibly be of (looks at Avi).
JoaoFrancisco's avatar

4,400 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Citizen 200
Alright, this is my opinion. Cloning human cells for therapy it's ethical, but an entire human being is unethical, as well as unnecessary.
For what purpose could this be done? I heard these answers:
1. making a duplicate of himself to continue his own life;
2. making a duplicate of a loved person to continue his life;
3. taking from a duplicated body organs biologically compatible at 100%.
In the first two cases, in addition to ethical issues, I say that the idea is totally useless, why would we duplicate only a biological body, not a personality, which is not bound to DNA alone, but to the circumstances of a lifetime, totally unplayable. Two twins, physically indistinguishable, grown in two separate environments, without contact with each other, have different personalities in general.
Personally I knew two indistinguishable twins, grown in the same family, with clearly different personalities.

The third case is even criminal: the cloned person would have the same protection of laws of any human being, and could not be treated as an organ bank, ready to be eliminated in favor of the original; criminal and useless. Someone to get around the objection, suggested to make a clone with the clipped brain: this is doubly criminal, as if mentally retarded by nature could be regarded as a living organ bank.

Kiraden
I was researching cloning the other day, and read about all the controversy that came with the theory of human cloning. The former pope said it was "A tragic attempt by man to imitate God's unique life-giving powers." When Dolly the cloned sheep was announced in 1997, Bill Clinton's cabinet said that human cloning would be immoral.

What do you guys think? I think it could be taken in moderation for, say, cloning skin cells to heal a burn victim. It shouldn't be used for selfish reasons like parents wanting to bring back dead children however (They would just be identical people anyway, you can't clone memories)
Prince Baldr's avatar

Blessed Knight

Shaviv
n2 lystez
a sword never kills anybody. It is a weapon in a killer's hand.

And yet, is a sword unethical? Is a gun? Is a tank? Is a multi-warhead ballistic missile?

Producing these things when there are (to paraphrase Eisenhower) schools and hospitals to build, food to grow, or roads to pave might be unethical, but the items produced that way are not inherently so.
You know, religion is like a gun, people get killed for it all the time. Also, like a gun, religion is only as deadly as its welder. That said, I say clone them all. Science without bounds.
wait....why the ******** do we want to clone anybody in the first place? what scientific relevance would it have?

who would want to be a clone? "mommy, was i adopted?" "yes, but you never had any parents to begin with. you are a clone."
Kiraden
I was researching cloning the other day, and read about all the controversy that came with the theory of human cloning. The former pope said it was "A tragic attempt by man to imitate God's unique life-giving powers." When Dolly the cloned sheep was announced in 1997, Bill Clinton's cabinet said that human cloning would be immoral.

What do you guys think? I think it could be taken in moderation for, say, cloning skin cells to heal a burn victim. It shouldn't be used for selfish reasons like parents wanting to bring back dead children however (They would just be identical people anyway, you can't clone memories)


About as immoral as giving birth to someone, unless someone is harmed in the process of said cloning.

(It isn't impossible to clone memories, I think what you are trying to say is that it wouldn't be the same person, because they would have different consciousness and it would be similair to having an identical twin die.)

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games