Welcome to Gaia! ::

Answer me this...... If all these people are complaining that recent scientific advancements are immoral, and unnatural, then why are they on a scientific device (a computer, and internet) expressing their concerns about it. Why are people who believe that cloning for the sake of medical science is unatural, even using unnatural medicines. I'm sure someone will say something to the effect of (the ingredients came from nature) but if that be the case, then so does cloning, a human had to put the (ingredients) into a pill or liquid, just as a human has to for genetic cloning...

I see your point, however, i believe you missed mine, i was trying to ask how you can hate one aspect of something, and agree with another, that would be like what you had said...."being against killing a fetus, but for killing animals" it really makes no sense

Well Technology and Science are different. While they do mix together, say for the sake of creating prosthesis limbs, they usually stay in their own realms. So personally i don't think that you can closely link the internet or a computer to cloning. Also in this day and age it's easier and more effective to get your message across using a computer than paper.



So basically your position is that people that disagree with cloning shouldn't take medicines that have been created. Again I believe that you're linking things that are rather dissimilar. Many people feel that cloning is playing god, since you're duplicating a person. There's a lot to think about since you're creating a human. That is slightly different than the creation of new medicines. The new medicines aren't creating something new, they're sustaining or healing something old.Both technology and medication have their own issues but they don't encompass the same issues that cloning has.



again you're missing the argument that people have against cloning. It's not that they're against people using natural or unnatural ingredients, it's that they're creating life. This in itself brings up a lot of ethical, legal, and social issues. Things that we have to think about in relation to cloning are, If a clone originates from an existing person, who is the parent? What social issues will the Child (as a clone) have to face? How will the cloning industry be regulated? Do the risks of cloning outweigh the benefits?

Personally I like the idea of cloning to produce stem cells, but not for reproduction. Clone children would face many difficulties socially i think, and that would make it difficult for them to become their own person. Also currently we don't have enough answers to all the questions about cloning to be able to assure the livelihood of a clone. Problems such as premature aging and death, malformed organs, weak immune systems, and all of this on top of the high failure rate. I believe that before we start using this with humans we need to test it more on animals to get answers and solutions to the problems that cloning has.

I think one of the missconceptions about cloning is that the goal is to create replicants of people. In theory, if some one were to clone an individual, the clone would be genetically like the original, but socialy different. They would have to age like everyone else and thus be exposed to different life experiences than the original. A clone of some one like Ghandi, might not be a great advocate of non-violence. A clone of Hitler might not be bent on world domination.

But lets leave that to the realm of science fiction and instead focus on practical applications of cloning. In my opinion that would be cloning specific tissues for specific individuals. Like taking a sample of someones liver and creating a duplicate for transplant. Course it's more complicated than that....If the reason the organ is failing is genetic, then a clone of their liver would most likely have the same defects. But if we can isolate the genetic codes that caused the defect and 'correct' them, then the clone liver would be incredibly useful for transplants for the individual it was made from.
So to me it's not about creating life, but enhancing the life of the living.

I agree, I don't really know what this discussion is supposed to be about. confused

(from MenDia... I dunno how to put on top of the quote)

This works pretty well. The more complex things get, the more aspects they have and if you really think about it you will find aspects you agree with and aspects you don't.
I think you mix up a lot of things. It's not the same if you invent a new way of communication or a way to produce life. In fact I am not so happy with that. Of course it is useful if you can use it to produce organs and such stuff, but a complete life? I mean what worth will life have, if you can produce it like a (very expensive) barbie doll? Of course this is not possible yet, but who knows if it might be.
And think of all the pressure. I have a bigger sister and when I was small I was always asked "Are you as smart as you sister?" I really hated that. And people tend do compare things. So the clones would also be compared with things like "But you clone had his exam with a better grade" or "But your clone lost 10 pounds in one week" or whatever you may think of.

I could think of a lot of more things about cloning, but most has been said.

I htink it's more that science nowadays is mostly trying to affect things that are animate or 'alive' a computer, I think we'll all agree, is a dead hunk of metal. That's the way I see it.