|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:32 am
I just think it sounds fun. No I cannot be bothered to give an intelligent answer, I do apologize u-u
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:20 pm
[Tristen] ((I would be surprised if someone actualy reads this.)) In my veiw, Cloning is perfectly fine if they doit corectly. As most of you know, it 2001 scientist successfuly cloned a sheep named Dolly. They began by taking a male and female sheep. As long as you don't take out the Male and Female in the cloning process then It would not be going against God. Kotori82 Cloning is wrong. It's playing with life and shouldn't even be done. I undestand about the organs, but it just seems immortal and it's not 100% safe. What if a criminal finds out how to clone and wants to clone himself....that is scary. I think people should just leave it alone. It's too dangerous for many reasons. A criminal would not beable to clone himself. It is impossible unless he knew a scientist who would do it or had the right things himself. Its a simple thing but you when you clone ((example above)) The clone would start as a fertilized cell and grow just like a regular human. The criminal would have to raize his clone as a criminal for him to actualy make an exact clone of himself. And he would have to be young at the time or he would die befor the clone reached maturity. Cloning is indeed not 100% safe. Dolly died shortly after she was born. While the original sheep lived. ----------- Let me paint a picture for you. A Women and Man loved each other truly. They decided to have a kid. The day the child was born, a, I don't know a criminal was in the hospital didn't get his way and held the baby hostage. The man kills the baby the mother and father are sad. What if a doctor said they could clone it. The couple say yes and nine months later they have there baby back. yes I know they could have just had sex again but if the girl had her tubes tied Cloning could still be done. I apoligize in advance for my blunt answer. That's disgusting! If someone looses a child, making a copy of it will never replace the actual child! I'd be rather offended if my parents said, "oops, there goes our daughter. Oh well, a clone is just as good." Having another child or adoption is a much better option because then you find a child to love rather then REPLACING the old child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:31 pm
while cloning does have it's immoral status, let us not forget about everything else mankind has done, that no one has yet indicated. Many of the main arguments against cloning and gene splicing says that it defies nature, but isn't all of us be on a linked technological network talking about it defying nature? We were not meant for long range excommunication, yet here we are. Medical Science as well, all vaccines and surgeries defies the "Survival of the Fittest" in nature. So cloning may be un natural, but it is to help an unatural species that we have become.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:10 pm
huh.
I think cloning is immoral, unless someone was infertile and wanted a child, which is probably the only viable choice.
editing one's genetic makeup, however, is slightly more tricky.
unless someone has agreed to doing so, it's out of the question for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:35 pm
Questioning the morals of cloning is complicated. Scientific advancement is a good thing, but maybe not the subject of cloning as a whole, but rather what you get out of cloning is what should be questioned.
A few things to consider:
- Who are you cloning?
- What will happen to the person being cloned?
- What will happen to the clone?
---
Consider this: If you clone someone, will behaviors be inherited from the original? If you clone a violent person, will the clone be violent? What about someone with a sickness? Will the clone be sick, too? What will happen to the person being cloned? Will they eventually be injured/weakened/die because the cloning process is too much for their bodies to handle? Will the clone be injured/weakened/die?
Cloning is not 0 safe, but nothing is. As long as there are aptly equipped people willing for scientific advancement, there will probably be endless possibilities to what we can do. However, life is precious. Only those who volunteer and accept responsibility should have something like that done to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:48 am
Where do I start? Many of you have made some very valid points. First off, many unlearned people think of cloning as making a exact lifesize copy of a person. Nothing can be farther from the truth. As one person said, the clone would have to grow up, just like any normal child. Remember, a clone is a genetic copy, meaning it would have the exact same genetic blueprint as the original. Herein lies a major problem, and why Dolly died. Dolly was an exact genetic copy of her mother, that is, a copy of her mother already aged. So Dolly was born already old, not physically, but genetically. It would be the same for humans, the clone would be newborn physically, bht would be the age of the original, genetically. Now as to "cloning" organs, I'm not sure you can call it cloning, when our organs have the ability to regrow themselves. The liver is most famous for this, they have already grown a whole liver from a few cells. In answer to the question of "would a clone of a violent person be violent as well?", no one can really say. You are cloning the physical body, not the mind. I'm not real sure how knowlege is stored in the brain, but if the knowlege is not put there, it won't be there. On the other hand, if violence is heredetary(sp), then making an exact genetic copy of that violent person would more likely produce a violent clone. This would also rely on it's enviroment. Now, as to whether I think cloning is wrong, I say yes. We have not even discovered how to use more than 15 or 20 percent of our brains. We need to finish learning about ourselves before we try creating ourselves, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:08 am
Is it moral to clone a person for the use of the clones organs, or to make a human/cow mixed breed? The human race has started to do this and I find it immorale. Can someone please talk to us about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:10 am
I think cloning is immoral, unless someone was infertile and wanted a child, which is probably the only viable choice.
editing one's genetic makeup, however, is slightly more tricky.
unless someone has agreed to doing so, it's out of the question for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:11 am
cloning does have it's immoral status, let us not forget about everything else mankind has done, that no one has yet indicated. Many of the main arguments against cloning and gene splicing says that it defies nature, but isn't all of us be on a linked technological network talking about it defying nature? We were not meant for long range excommunication, yet here we are. Medical Science as well, all vaccines and surgeries defies the "Survival of the Fittest" in nature. So cloning may be un natural, but it is to help an unatural species that we have become.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:41 am
...[The Anthony guy up there was quoteing random people I think...]
But something I've noticed people bringing up, is the Male AND Female necissary for this. This is not true. Look at an ameoba. They are Asexual, which means they split half their genes and have an exact copy of themselves, a clone. So there would be no need for a mother and father of a clone.
This also works for the im/moral-ality of this. Of God/Whoever your higher power says that the ameoba can split their genes, why can't we all?
About the dead child, unless they took genes directly from the baby while it was still alive, there would be no way for the doctor to recreate the child they had. I believe --I can't remember exactly-- that the scientists need living cells and/or organs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:13 pm
Anthony299 I think cloning is immoral, unless someone was infertile and wanted a child, which is probably the only viable choice. editing one's genetic makeup, however, is slightly more tricky. unless someone has agreed to doing so, it's out of the question for me. copycat. As science has told us, you can clone a brain, but not a mind. you can clone a body, but you cannot clone its strengths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:07 pm
I wouldn't like the idea of cloning.
Not that I think it's immoral or anything, it just seems weird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
