Human Clone

[Anathema]

Must I quote myself again?

The point is to create an embryo clone of a patient to be able to extract certain basic cells from the embryo that can be used to grow any tissue of any kind. This means we can grow organs, skin, nerves and muscles.

[Acriku]

Empr, pal buddy care to counterargue my points? I know you have points just itching to be thrown at me :)

Dudedoc, it highly depends on the situation. I wouldn't kill 100 humans for one elephant child because I'm human myself (hard to believe eh), and can sympathize more with fellow human children. I do view elephants less than myself, but I do not elephants inferior. If that makes sense. I would not kill 100 elephants for one human, as that is a highly imbalanced scale. I'd kill 5 maybe, but not 100.

And earth, who are you to decide what is moral or not? The 1 millon sea turtles (even though there are a lot less, only 1400-1500 females in Hawaii) vs 1 million humans is not a good debate because of the constituents and the situation itself. So bleh on it.

Dunenewt, it's possible in the future, and I'm sure the government is doing it already (but with minerals or elements to enhance the soldiers, not from cloning), but anything is possible.

[emprworm]

quote] 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.

that is not the only choice. humans have more value than sea turtles. And if you are an atheist whos view is that all life is merely biological tissue metabolizing nutrients, expelling waste, ovulating eggs, and inseminating sperm, then you still have not even a moral argument that all those sea turtles are worth more than a brick. If you are a theist, then upon what basis can you say a turtle is worth more than a human? When you slay a child to save a turtle, you will stand before your creator. What will you say?

I would gladly give my life to save the sea turtles

and would you give your families lives too? How about your father, mother, and brother? Would you give the lives of all your friends? How about your neighbors? And how do you explain this to God? Or if you dont believe in God, then how is a sea turtle worth anything more or less than a dried up 2 week old smear of dog excrement on a cracked sidewalk? Both of them are just a chaotic conglomerate of subatomic particles- protons, electrons, neutrons, leptons, quarks, etc. heaped together in a random arrangement, neither having any more intrinsic value than the other.

I think you are confused morally, or else you will explain those questions.

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.

well obviously they were worth the entire species of small pox virus. And that is a life form also. Small pox virus is not out to kill anyone, they just want to live like all other species. yet we exterminate all of them, for what reason? was all of humanity in danger? Hardly. for the sake of 1-5% of human populatioin, we wipe out a species (at least exterminated it out in its natural habitat). Where were you to defend small pox virus before we killed billions of them and eradicated their natural existence off the face of the earth? Again, you are morally confused. What is the basis of your morality? UPon what basis do you assign value to one creature over another?

[NeoDevilbane]

Here's an interesting thought...

Assuming we could locate the cross that Jesus Christ was crucified on, or even the Spear of Destiny that impaled him as he lay upon it 2002 years ago, and scientists were able to extract trace samples of Jesus' blood... imagine the repercussions if science were to CLONE Jesus. Would it not be possible? And if it were done, NO ONE could refute that the guy to come from that would be the real deal J.C., back from the dead.

What do you guys think?

- Neo

[DjCiD]

well it was believed a few years back that the shroud Jesus was wraped in before he was carried into the tomb was found. They did some testing and found some weird stuff... There was a special on tv about it, but im not sure if they confirmed it was the actual shround or not.

but you couldnt say the person cloned form was the real deal Jesus back from the dead (to believers HE already rose from the dead) It wouldnt be the real deal, but more of a carbon copy.

I would hate to think humanity would be so stupid as to attempt to clone Christ.

but it is thought provoking.....

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Clone Muhammed!!!

Allah su akkhbar

[Anathema]

humans have more value than sea turtles

That's what you base your entire point of view on.

then how is a sea turtle worth anything more or less than a dried up 2 week old smear of dog excrement on a cracked sidewalk?

You fucken idiot. I don't intend to breed turtles to make a fortune with them. That you would apparently sell your pet if you could get 50 bucks for it doesn't have anything to do with me- I believe animals do have value, you apparently do not. An individual human is IMO more worth then say an individual cow. But cows aren't endangered.

If we had to choose between those 1500 sea turtles or 1500 humans, consider the consequenses. If we loose 1500 humans, that's tragic- but don't get me wrong when I say there are plenty of other people, we'll get over it. But the turtles would get extinct, and they'd never get back again- something the world will never get over again.

That is, unless you think animals are inferior, expandable creatures like you do.

[IxianMace]

Or if you dont believe in God, then how is a sea turtle worth anything more or less than a dried up 2 week old smear of dog excrement on a cracked sidewalk? Both of them are just a chaotic conglomerate of subatomic particles- protons, electrons, neutrons, leptons, quarks, etc. heaped together in a random arrangement, neither having any more intrinsic value than the other.

Science and religion do not mix. To demonstrate this we can look at the popular theory of the creation of the universe. The Big Bang Theory as people like to call it. Scientists believe that the universe, and consequently all matter that comprises it came from the same source, which would be the explosion when the universe was created . However, religious people would believe that their 'God' created the universe, and would disregard the Big Bang theory straight off, simply because it contradicts their belief.

Leaving religion out, if everything arose from the same source, then essentially everything has the same intrinsic value. This I agree on. However, I think that Earthnuker is assigning value to creatures based on their usefulness and purpose in relation to the Earth. If sea turtles were to die out completely, then that would be another link in the food chain broken, which would lead to an unbalance in the natural environment. The death of x numbers of humans would be insignificant due to the immense population of the human species on the planet. The death of the entire population of sea turtles in the world would have a greater (and detrimental effect) on the planet than the death of x numbers of humans. This is because the creatures that rely on sea turtles as a source of food will have to look to other sources for sustainment, and this will eventually lead to a decline in the population of the species that are being preyed upon more, since sea turtles are no longer there to provide food for their predators. The important thing to note is that sea turtles are an important part of the fauna of the planet, just as every single species of plant and animal are all inter-linked in the energy transferral process of predator and prey.

The death of a relatively small number of humans will be tragic in the moral sense to members of the human population (unless you have no feelings or are completely insensitive), but as far as science and evolution are involved, this is not much of a concern at all. There are already so many people on this planet that a major catastrophe will be required to wipe us out. Perhaps a catastrophe that is so devastating that only the toughest bacteria will survive. The human species will go on. However, since sea turtles could be wiped out due to their small population, this is more important than the death of a minority of the entirety of the human population.

This is what I believe Earthnuker is assigning his value of one creature over another. I do not believe that he is saying that a sea turtle is of more worth than a human, although it may seem that he is implying it. It would be understandable from a human point of view if someone said that sea turtles were worth more than humans, for someone to feel resentment at that, or feel insulted, since what is basically being said is that you (as a member of the human population) are also worth less than a sea turtle. However I feel no need to resort to personal insults. If someone went up to me and said that I was 'worth less than a sea turtle', then could I care less? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether you are insulted by it depends on how much you believe it.

[emprworm]

You fucken idiot. I don't intend to breed turtles to make a fortune with them.

of course hurling flaming insults with profanity will get nowhere, but beside the point,

lol. i wasnt talking anything about money. i do believe you are confused. value means worth and in this context has nothing to do with money. your whole point of view seems to be placed on the term "endangered" which is inconsistent and illogical. i already gave you an example of the small pox virus which was killed to extinction in its natural habitat to save a few thousand people per year. under your bizzare views of value, we should have saved small pox. and if not, again, I ask you why. small pox is a life form like any thing else alive on this planet.

you did not answer my questions about God.

you did not answer my questions about your source of morality

you did not answer my questions about what makes one life worth more than another

you did not answer my questions about sacrificing the lives of your family for the sea turtles.

If we had to choose between those 1500 sea turtles or 1500 humans, consider the consequenses.

obviously you put more value on one individual sea turtle than a human life. if 1500 sea turtles have more value than 1500 humans (including you and your family), its obvious that 1 sea turtle has more value (and I'm not talking about money.... :P) than 1 human. Your values are extremely confused. no wonder you dodge my questions. So to people who boil sea turtles, it is just punishment to execute them? And again I ask, you would be willing to blow your mothers brains out to save an unhatched salt-water amphibian?

and you think I'm the one twistd?

If we loose 1500 humans, that's tragic- but don't get me wrong when I say there are plenty of other people, we'll get over it.

yea, unless of course those 1500 people represented everyone in your family including your friends. You going to sacrifice them against their wills for some amphibians. Again, I ask you, what will you tell God when he asks you why would be willing to slay a child for an amphibian?

[Anathema]

So you think I am flaming you? What would be worse- to call someone a moron because he refuses to read your arguments or to falsely accuse that person with insults that hold absolutely no truth? The only difference is that the last method is sneaky and cowardly.

God question

I don't believe in God, so I don't really need to answer this, but for your benefit I will. If I had to stand trial for killing 1500 persons to save the entire sea turtle species, I could say that I did it because mankind had no right to exterminate one of Gods creations and that I prevented the extermination of yet another one. People like you, who do nothing about all this, are just as guilty as the people who kill endangered animals.

Viruses

Those viruses are openly attacking our species and form a threat to our heath greater then every predator alive (more children die of pox then people die because they were eaten). Besides, even our natural immune system kills the viruses. In this case it's self defense. I don't recall the sea turtles having ever posed any threat to humankind.

Would I sacrifice my family to save an entire species?

Yes, I would, an entire animal species is more important. But my family isn't composed of arrogant people like you and they would understand.

Why is one life more important then the other?

Have you been listening? I answered that question at least 5 times! It is morally unjust to exterminate an animal species, and if we are in danger of doing so we should protect those animals instead of hunting them for food. One sea turtle is more important then a cows life, because cows are far from extinct. One sea turtle is also more worth then one human being for the same reason, but a human life is more important then a cow.

Apparently you believe nothing is more important then human lives. By believing so, you also believe that animals are inferiour and hold no value in comparision with humans. Ixianmace thought that I meant the value of sea turtles for the global eco system. That too, but those animals have nothing to do with our crimes, greed or violent nature and are completely innocent. We have no right, deliberately or not, to exterminate an animal species.

Now here's my question to you. Suppose, mankind has finally exterminated all but one species. There are 2 crows left, one male and one female. Would it be morally justified to kill those 2 crows in favour of two human beings?

[TMA_1]

I wouldnt sacrifice my family for an animal species. Virus' just do what is natural. They hunt for cells do dump their dna/rna in. I could say that it is wrong to kill virus' they are just doing what is natural. They arent living things but are programmed to do what they do.

[Anathema]

Please answer this

A You do think an entire species is worth more then a relatively small amount of humans

B You believe any amount of humans is always better then any amount of animals

If you chose A, you just don't want to sacrifice YOUR family. If you chose B, you agree with Emprworm that animals are inferior.

[IxianMace]

C You believe 'worth' in this sense, is relative, and also completely subjective which makes it vary from person to person.

[emprworm]

Again you ignored my questions. When you answer my questions, I will happily answer yours. Until then, you are an intellectual ducker. But for your convienience, I will rewrite the questions here for you:

Where do you derive your source of morality?

Where were you to defend the smallpox virus, which was extinct from its natural habitat off the face of the earth to save a few thousand people per year, and why are you not defending small pox virus wihc is a living species. If being "endangered" (which you never really defined anyway), makes you more valuable than humans, then why isnt the small pox virus more valuable than humans since this lifeform is practically extinct?

would you sacrifice your mother for a salt-water amphibian

What do you say to God when He asks you why you would be willing to kill 1500 humans, including those of your own family, in order to save 1500 amphibians?

[IxianMace]

small pox virus which is a living species.

Viruses are not considered to be living. Viruses are proteinacious, infectious particles.

[NeoDevilbane]

Turtles are reptiles, not amphibians.

- Neo

[Anathema]

Where do you derive your source of morality?

From the principle that mankind has no right to decide about the fate of an animal species.

Where were you to defend the smallpox virus

Read my posts, dammit! Pox are a threat to human health. If we protect them, and they die because they can't live without damaging our health, it's our very right to defend ourselves. Besides, pox are non sentient and not even alive.

would you sacrifice your mother for a salt-water amphibian

Interesting question. The first one actually worth answering. I stated that it would be all right to sacrifice 1500 humans to save the remaining 1500 sea turtles, so I also would be willing to sacrifice a single human life to save 1 sea turtle. But I admit I wouldn't be emotionally capable to sacrifice any member of my family for a single turtle.

Now answer my question at the botom of my previous post before falsely accusing me again.

[emprworm]

Turtles are reptiles, not amphibians.

lol! an obvious blunder committed by the worm. ::) nice work correcting that blurb.

Ixian: viruses are alive. they are categorized in numerous species. see this scientific page for information on species categorization of viruses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTV/intro_to_universal/universal_system.html

believe me, Ixian, if a virus were discovered on Mars, I guarantee you people would be saying "life on Mars". A virus reproduces, a required ability for anything considered to be alive. And according to evolutionists, these same viruses have the capability to further evolve into more complex beings. (assuming evolution is true--->) Had you killed the first virus-like organisms on this earth, you would have wiped out all human existence long before it ever began. Viruses are alive.

[bob_fox]

I strongly believe animals are far inferior, but that doesn't mean I go around harming them for no reason; in fact, I like 'em (except when they spread fleas (YUCK!)).

I don't see how you can think animals are not inferior. I mean, look: If you're an atheist, you'd surely believe they're inferior because they're not as smart and you're on top of the food chain (and some animals kill each other anyway). If you believe in God (like me), you believe that God placed them beneath us. I don't see what the problem is.

Of course, as I said before, we shouldn't harm them for no reason.

[Anathema]

You religious people need to stop telling atheists like me what we're supposed to believe.

My point was that animal species as a whole are not inferiour to mankind. Since we humans consider ourselves above animals and their ways, we have no right to judge about continuity or extinction. Yet we have done so numerous times in the past.

Should the choice arise between a relatively small amount of humans and wiping out an entire species, IMO we should preserve the animal species.

Wether or not you agree with this depends on if you consider human value to be unconditionally above all other values.

But besides that, we have never extinguished animals because they threatened our survival. Just because of our own luxury (hunting tigers for their skin, hunting turtles to make soup). That is unjustifyable.

[emprworm]

From the principle that mankind has no right to decide about the fate of an animal species.

what the? Who are you to say that an animal is more important than our forests or our plant life? So you are going to extinct the most endagered species of plant called Raven's Manzanita, perhaps the rarest plant on earth to save a saltwater reptile? I'm not too sure what you mean by emphasizing animal, but if we look at the scientific definition of animal we see this:

1 : any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation - from Websters Dictionary

So we see that an animal according to science includes single-celled organisms as well. But besides the point, why is it only ANIMALS that have the true value, while all other life does not? Who are you to cast aside billions of living things created by God just because they aren't ANIMALS?

Read my posts, dammit! Pox are a threat to human health. If we protect them, and they die because they can't live without damaging our health, it's our very right to defend ourselves. Besides, pox are non sentient and not even alive.

thats not their fault. A virus is not out to get anyone. mosquitoes are a vast threat to human health. But they don't do it on purpose. So are leeches and many other animals that have been known to prey on humans. We going to kill off any animal that threatens us? Wait a minute. Didn't you just say that humans weren't as important as animals? confusion, confusion.

[Anathema]

what the? Who are you to say that an animal is more important than our forests or our plant life?

I typed that in response to your virus argument. I should have been more specific. But you don't care more about plants then about people do you?

So we see that an animal according to science includes single-celled organisms as well.

Not all single-cell organisms. But what has this to do with the topic?

thats not their fault. A virus is not out to get anyone. mosquitoes are a vast threat to human health. But they don't do it on purpose. So are leeches and many other animals that have been known to prey on humans. We going to kill off any animal that threatens us? Wait a minute. Didn't you just say that humans weren't as important as animals? confusion, confusion.

The fact that it is the virus/mosquitos nature to attack others, including humans, doesn't mean it is not an attack. If a tick nestles himself on your skin, will you not remove him, and thus kill him?

We don't exterminate mosquitos, but technicly we didnt' exterminate any viruses either- we just protected ourselves, and those viruses couldn't live because we did so. Mosquitos on the other hand can still pick on other animals.

Viruses are alive.

Many scientists disagree. A virus contains DNA, but it doesn't produce any of the life signs we can detect with plants, bacteria or animals. A virus is essentially a contraption that injects his DNA into the hosts' cell and force him to produce more of these contraptions.

You still haven't answered any of my questions. Wonder why ::)

[Acriku]

Define many Earth. Stop saying many when in fact only a select group disagrees. Viruses are classified as organisms, just either very very very simple microorganisms or the other end of the spectrum, very very very complex. But they are still organisms, which is a biological fact.

[emprworm]

You still haven't answered any of my questions. Wonder why

because i was waiting for you to answer mine.

Please answer this

A You do think an entire species is worth more then a relatively small amount of humans

B You believe any amount of humans is always better then any amount of animals

If you chose A, you just don't want to sacrifice YOUR family. If you chose B, you agree with Emprworm that animals are inferior.

Your questions are confusingly worded, so I will try and decipher what it is I think you are trying to say.

A: are humans superior to animals?

Yes.

Human beings are superior to animals. Not only does creation teach this, but so does evolution. The fittest will survive and if evolution is true, then humans are superior and the most fit. According to evolution, species that do not need or require something will either replace, destroy it, or ignore it. This IS evolution. When the homosapiens killed off all the species of neanderthal (according to evolution) thus making the neanderthal extinct, this WAS EVOLUTION at work. This was NOT morally wrong for homosapien to extinct neanderthal (according to evolutionists). This was simply nature at work. humans are PART OF NATURE. If humans extinct the sea turtle, then that is NATURE AT WORK. Humans do not NEED sea turtles, we are the fittest, and we can survive without them. According to evolutionary theory, the only time that humans should be morally compelled not to supplant or destroy something is that if it will cause harm to them.

Fortunately, however, I am not an atheist and I do not believe in the atheist evolutionary theory that homosapiens genocided neanderthal. Simply because I do not believe that neanderthal was a prehistoric human. I believe in creation. And just like in evolution, creation ALSO says that humans are superior to animals. So either way, I see no logical precedent for you to say an animal has more VALUE than a human- either through atheism or through theism.

a TRUE atheist says that all life is merely biological tissue metabolizing nutrients, expelling waste, ovulating eggs, and inseminating sperm. No particular life is anything other than a hapless random accident without purpose. You are just a heap of bilogical material no different than a cloud of hydrogen drifting in space. Same protons, same electrons, same neutrons. Just a different arrangement. When you die, your particles simply re-arrange. You have no more intrinsic value than a clump of dirt, a dirty sweater, a rusted curtain rod, an iron meteorite fragment orbiting Alpha Centauri, or a speck of sand resting on a small rock loged in the lower base of the volcano Prometheus on the moon of Io, orbiting Jupiter. That, my friend, is true atheism. Written about and agreed upon by Frederick Nietzsche who put it even more poetically than I did.

[emprworm]

Yes, Aikiru, viruses qualify for life. Like I said earlier, if you found a virus on mars, sicentists wouldnt hesitate to say "life on mars".