Human Clone

[emprworm]

Embryos are non-sentient. Plants are non-sentient yet we eat them. An embryo has the potency to become a sentient human being, but isn't quite.

Of course, if we look at science and law we see clear precedent that both of them conclude that embryo's have equivalency to the fully developed life form.

Example: an unhatched sea turtle egg carries the exact same scientific and societal value as a fully grown sea turtle, if not more. Killing a sea turtle egg will bring upon you the same penalty as killing a fully grown sea turtle, so their value is identical- both in science and in society. Not only is this true with sea turtles, but it is true for whales, bald eagles, rhino, and scores of other creatures. Why should humans be any LESS than animals? To argue such is absurd.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I find in strange to have humans or even creatures that were not born in a natural way

well clones are born in a natural way they are only made by the same cells as another human.

they are come from a woman, just like you and me.

[Anathema]

Example: an unhatched sea turtle egg carries the exact same scientific and societal value as a fully grown sea turtle, if not more. Killing a sea turtle egg will bring upon you the same penalty as killing a fully grown sea turtle, so their value is identical- both in science and in society. Not only is this true with sea turtles, but it is true for whales, bald eagles, rhino, and scores of other creatures.

Sea turtles are an endangered species. Humans are not ::).

Why should humans be any LESS than animals? To argue such is absurd.

Interesting to read you saythat, because it is often people like you that are against geneticly manipulating animals to save human beings (and kill the animal in doing so).

[Emperor Harkonnen]

That would of course be the best purpose of cloning, to produce endangered species.

if that is the way the technology is going to be used I think that they should initiate it right away.

[Terror]

ok now I have a question: What would you think about reproducing a dino (if that is possible). Should we do it to bring back an old species from the dead? Do not directly think of jurassic park. Not on some secret island but only for in a zoo or something

[Anathema]

Oh, the resurrect-extinct-species-from-the-death thing. Not dinosaurs anyway, since we didn't exterminate them (for a change). We did almost exterminate several tiger species, several turtle species and are well underway of exterminating a dozen more species. That cannot be considered to be a part of the natural evolution, since we consider ourselves to be better then animals. So we have the moral obligation to bring back those species.

[Terror]

i'm not thinking about a species WE exterminated. Just the dino's. I mean people are so excited about it, should it be done? should we bring back these ancient killers?

[Usul]

No and certainly not to put in some zoo. Anyway they probably couldn't survive in today's climate and vegetation.

[Terror]

yeah that's probably true, the world is too cold nowadays

[emprworm]

Sea turtles are an endangered species. Humans are not

After hearing you say this, you are sounding like what you are saying is that any endangered beast has more value than a human being. That since the beast is "endangered" that makes it worth 'more' than a worthless human. Is this not what you are saying? And if so, how about we use your own life as an example of a human worth less than an unhatched amphibic beast?

And besides, even if that IS your argument it still confirms that the embryonic stage of a life form carries identical value to the adult life form. Science doesn't care about moral judgments. Either an embryo = the life form or it doesn't. Its not a subjective whim.

[Anathema]

You twit, next time try to understand what I'm saying.

An embryo has the potency to become an adult of his species. We seriously need more sea turtles since they're endangered, so we need those embryos to become sea turtles. I don't believe there is a lack of human beings, but I never said it was right to sacrifice one human for a single sea turtle ::).

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Use the cloning to bring back the smilodon. I love that animal!

but it will anyway probably appear again naturaly.

has anyone seen the program velwet claw. it tells about all the species after the dinosaurs. and how they might develope in the cities.

[Acriku]

Example: an unhatched sea turtle egg carries the exact same scientific and societal value as a fully grown sea turtle, if not more. Killing a sea turtle egg will bring upon you the same penalty as killing a fully grown sea turtle, so their value is identical- both in science and in society. Not only is this true with sea turtles, but it is true for whales, bald eagles, rhino, and scores of other creatures. Why should humans be any LESS than animals? To argue such is absurd.

As far as I know, whales don't lay eggs. Or rhinos. But my second point is as follows: I don't see how penalties brought by human legislatures depict whether or not it is scientifically equal. Animal rights activists think so about that, and they have influenced the law numerous of times.

And embryos may have the potential for becoming a full-grown adult, but what if a scientist were to encode genes for an infant disease that would kill them anyway, be like a DrEvil?

And, the embryo was never to be without the scientists making it, so to create something never to be, would it not be morally satisfying to let the embryo that was never to be cease to live?

[emprworm]

You twit, next time try to understand what I'm saying.

An embryo has the potency to become an adult of his species. We seriously need more sea turtles since they're endangered, so we need those embryos to become sea turtles.

potency means exactly what in reference to value? Dont be ambiguous here, Nuke. It seems like you are saying that if embryo has potency to become somethting we "need" therefore embryo = same value as life form. Yet "need" is fully subjective, therefore your definitions still collapse. Maybe i dont "need" any more sea turtles. Maybe that Chinese woman NEEDS to have her child born since her only child was a daughter and she NEEDS a son to keep her family lineage alive. Who are you, Earthnuker, to say what is NEEDED and what ISNT? So NEED therefore determines VALUE? The seaturtle egg has the same VALUE as a sea turtle simply because we (err...you) NEED seaturtles?

not very scientific are we?

[Anathema]

People like you sicken me. If sea turtles would die out, you wouldn't care. If rhinos wouldn't die out, you wouldn't care. The fact that these animals die out because of human selfishness means apparently nothing to you.

There are billions of humans. Be realistic. You cannot consider human embryos to be more important then the welfare of an animal species. So I dare you to answer this question: do you?

[gryphon]

Don't forget the amount of people who die every day by lack of food, claen drinking water adn things like that. We also don't care about them. It appears to be a different world to us.

[Dude_Doc]

But today is today. Ask this question: Would you kill 100 elephants to save one human child? Would you kill 100 humans to save an elephant child?

[emprworm]

People like you sicken me. If sea turtles would die out, you wouldn't care. If rhinos wouldn't die out, you wouldn't care. The fact that these animals die out because of human selfishness means apparently nothing to you.

There are billions of humans. Be realistic. You cannot consider human embryos to be more important then the welfare of an animal species. So I dare you to answer this question: do you?

you are irrational. and you are not a scientist. Science cares about objective fact, not someones subjective little whims. If you are going to say that an unhatched egg of an amphibian has EQUAL value to the fully grown version of that amphibian, you cannot turn around and say that a unborn human is LESS than the fully grown version of that human. You have let your jaded and warped, distorted view of humanity and lack of concern for human life cloud your ability to see things from a rational perspective. If human embro < human then all embroys are < their life potential. If the deliberate wanton act of killing an unborn human is not actually killing a human, then you have no basis upon which to say that killing an unhatched egg is anything other than making an omlette. You cant pick and choose embroys based upon your subjective, emotional whims which embroys are equals to their adult counterparts and which aren't. Bad science. Very bad.

And, btw, if there are too many humans on the planet, why dont you volunteer to either exterminate yourself and your family, or at the very least sterilize yourself so that you can spare the earth the burden of having to endure anymore of your family tree. O wait, now its IMPORTANT all of the sudden, isn't it? Only those people that have no bearing on you are the ones that you can mentally kill off.

Someone here is sickening, but it isnt me.

[emprworm]

Would you kill 100 elephants to save one human child?

its an interesting question, but at least its a scientific one. you are specifying a human being in your question. Where earthnuker goes wrong is that he is trying to call one thing subhuman (i.e. not even human) and another unborn/unhatched thing an equal.

[Anathema]

Sure, dodge my arguments and twist them into whatever form you are capable of countering. This is not a scientific issue, I never claimed that. It is a moral issue. I believe there are 5 billion people on this planet. Say, we have 1 million sea turtles. If we have to choose between those 1 million sea turtles (the whole species) and 1 million humans, the only moral choice is to choose the turtles. Those 1 million people only make out 1/50,0000 of the human species, they are not worth the well being of an entire species. That's also why a turtle embryo means more then a human embryo- they are not the equal of adult versions, but if there won't be any new sea turtles they will die out, but the humans are not at risk of extiction.

I would gladly give my life to save the sea turtles. But it is guys like you that would probably start hunting them even more and extinguish them afterall.

I'm not saying people don't have the right to have children- but we need a balance between birth- and die rate. Since the Earth is already to crowded, nobody should take more then 2 children at this time. Some people take over 4 children, those people sicken me.

Where earthnuker goes wrong is that he is trying to call one thing subhuman (i.e. not even human)

Aaaah, so you finally have lowered yourself to Navaros' level eh? Falsely accusing me of anything you can get your hands on in a vain attempt to convice others of your point of view? You disgust me.

[IxianMace]

Well we could use an analogy here. Don't you think that what is rare is valued more? Take oil for example. When the oil reserves and all the fossil fuels finally run out, can you imagine what the price on the remaining oil deposits would be? :O There's also dirt. What is dirt worth nowadays? ::) If we compare that to the case of sea turtles and humans, (I'm not saying that humans are worth dirt) then I think it's pretty clear that the turtles should be saved, and humans should not be so selfish to think that they are so important that nothing else needs consideration. It's not only our planet, there are lots of other creatures that at least deserve the right to live in peace, if they don't deserve anything else. :(

[Dunenewt]

I know this is from Star Wars but do you think anyone has thought about coning armies of Genetically Enhanced fighters

[gryphon]

But today is today. Ask this question: Would you kill 100 elephants to save one human child? Would you kill 100 humans to save an elephant child?

That would totally depend on the result and specific situation.

[Pawe]

We reakky shouldn't mess with human clones. :-

[Terror]

no, let god mess with it ;)