Medical Cloning

[Inoculator9]

Is cloning for medical purposes all right? I think it is because the egg isn't sentient.

[Baron_carl]

I believe medical cloning is good as if we didn't do it many people needing limbs would die (i guess)

[Caid Ivik]

If they will make ONLY one organ such a hand or heart, it is acceptable. But embryos for research? They are live humans, which lost their chance to live by terminating their personal evolution! That's an unforgivable offence against humanity!

[Baron_carl]

Not really if you think of the benefits and lives it will save in the future.

[DjCiD]

another cloning thread...

kill a life to save a life...

im aginst cloning all together. not for medical, warfare, food, or anything.

stop trying to play God.

is cloned food really safe to eat?! Im not trying it ;D

[Acriku]

Kill a life to save lots of others, who need blood, organs, limbs, etc.

[Anathema]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Inoculator9]

The embryo is not sentient that setals it for me.

[Dude_Doc]

Some creepy thought, if you loose your arms and legs in an accident or something, it's somewhat unethical thought, that you will wake up with cloned arms and legs. I think you will, from time to time, bother with that it's not your own arms and legs, but if you take a look from the lighter side, you at least can walk and touch things again, and that's at least a confortable tought. We could, as an alternative, create robotics and augmentations, constructed machine parts, very much like those in Aliens and Star Wars, but that will take some time to achieve, or it will look like Ghunter from Deus Ex :P. I am for cloning body parts, but against cloning real humans. Imagine that you were born in a clone wat, without any natural parents. But, the only time I think cloning a human would actually be good, is in some critical state for the human race. But to clone and experiment, or clone because you can, that's just as bad as experiments on animals.

[DjCiD]

you choose to beleive that an embryo is nothing more than some cells clumped together.

but my son was a living creation at conception, before empryonic or zygote stage.

playing God and simulating conception in order to kill those unborn children and ravage them for there stem cells is unhuman... especially when there are many couples every day that yearn for a child and cannot concieve.

[Anathema]

Everything that has cells is a living creation- a plant is too.

However, there is one alternative for extracting cells from embryos- geneticly manipulating animals to produce human compatible tissues.

[Caid Ivik]

Imagine, that embryo should became a scientist, who will find something much better. Do what you need with animals, but humans have a specifical intelligence and soul. Maybe it hasn't brain, but soul is there. You don't know about yourself when you even are born, but this don't allow doctors to kill you for medical purposes. Human should choose if he want to die for other human or not. Embryal experiments are mass murders, horrible as Nazi experiments.

Cloning. Why they want to make an alternative kind of reproduction? Classic way is enough popular and those unable of it can adopt orphans or leaved children if they want so. Difference between people is nice, also cloning will duplicate only body, psychical properties and soul isn't same (Herbert called psychical duplicate "ghola"). Cloned person will be doomed to live as a "factorial product". It's feeling should be horrific. If they'll do this, what will be next? Mix of human and animal?

[Anathema]

Ah, so now we're comparing pro-cloning people to nazi sympathants?

I never claimed it was right to clone a human being and let it grow up- I'm claiming it is right to clone in a scenario as follows:

a man lies dying in the hospital because of organ failure, and no organs are available. A doctor could create an embryo clone from his cells and extract stem cells from that embryos.

Do you believe it is right to sacrifice an embryo to save a grown human being?

I agree that geneticly tinkering with the very origins of our species is weird or even disturbing, but this could save lives.

[DjCiD]

Do you believe it is right to sacrifice an embryo to save a grown human being?

there is a plane about to crash an only on parachute... who do you save the old man or the young boy?

same senerio to me... sorry gramps, give lil' johnny a chance...

who knows maybe that embryo could have found a cure in the future to reverse organ failure... so save the one old man now or let the unborn save many later....

[Dude_Doc]

Maybe, if the embryo never really woke up. You could clone a whole human, but never wake him up. And then take his organs to the person who needs them. Yeah I know it sounds sick... :)

[Anathema]

I understand the point Djcid, but picture this:

If you were forced to kill either a chicken or an egg, wich would you kill?

[nemafakei]

For you must always remember in such decisions, that refusing to act is a decision in itself - which could cause more loss than action; you must work out what the lesser evil is.

[DjCiD]

I understand the point Djcid, but picture this:

If you were forced to kill either a chicken or an egg, wich would you kill?

that depends, are we having fried chicken or an omelet

if you kill the chicken no more eggs for now... (wait till egg grows up)

if you kill the egg no more eggs in the future... (that chicken wont live forever)

[Anathema]

There would be other chickens- so there's no risks of the chicken getting extict. But wich would be morally just: to sacrifice the egg to save a single chicken or to sacrifice a single chicken to save a single egg?

[Inoculator9]

The egg, atleast in the beginning had nothing in it but fluids, I would choose the egg. Even if it were later in it's development. It's harder to put a face on a victim. Could anyone hear look someone without limbs in the eye and say, no, you can't use this tiny bit of nonsentient bio-matter to make your life livable, you just have to go on without being able to do anything everyone should be able to do. An embryo is non-sentient. Would you save the life of a baby in coma that may never come out, or the life of a happy, vibrant baby brimming with potential. This scenario is even overstating the matter, the comatose child is sentient, perhaps dreaming, but alive, calling an embryo alive would be a stretch.

[Acriku]

Perhaps if you disallow the embryo to live and grow, you may be preventing the next Hitler. As you see, it can go both ways on this, so it shouldn't be a factor.

[Inoculator9]

It of course could go either way, but thats a question that really shouldn't be considered under the circumstances.

[Sarahbones]

Is cloning for medical purposes all right? I think it is because the egg isn't sentient.

Politically, I would argue that cloning PARTS is okay, but not whole beings and no brain components. A liver, for instance, has no mental capacity whatsoever - it is not an organism, it's an organ. It does not have its own special genetic structure.

Religiously and personally, all cloning gets the thumbs down. Let God be God and humans be humans. But I could understand that others wiht different religions might think cloning is all right, and as long as they are not creating organisms to be destroyed but instead only tissues to save lives, then I wouldn't try to stop them.

[Anathema]

We can't just "grow" a liver. We lack the knowledge. However, an embryo has no mental capacity either (yet anyway).

[Repoman]

The majority of people were against IVF 20 years ago, now look at it. The majority of the population are against Human cloning now but in 20 years it will be socially acceptable

Stop being so unadaptable, it is a sign of ageing