Cloning And Use Of Embryeos
<div class="IPBDescription">for medical purposes</div> This thread so you don't have to derail the animal cruelty one.
So what do you think about use of clones to save human lives. For example cloning a hand for someone who doesn't have one. Or doing tests to human embryos in order to stop cancer etc. What about cloning humans in whole?
Discuss.
So what do you think about use of clones to save human lives. For example cloning a hand for someone who doesn't have one. Or doing tests to human embryos in order to stop cancer etc. What about cloning humans in whole?
Discuss.
Comments
I tend to quote Bill Hicks:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're not a human until you're in my phonebook.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All scientific hints show that we're not concieved human, but only become it by the mementic, the social interaction, which can not begin until our central nervous system is developed, thus, early-embryonic research can not be considered a crime by scientific standards.
Does this mean that I do not believe an embryo has a soul? Does this mean I'd want a new liver created out of an embryo? No, because my socio-cultural bckground indicates to me that there could be something in there scientists can not find.
This is, however <i>my</i> believe, and if there's people with differing notions, I can not be so arrogant to impose my beliefs restriction on them.
- Reproductive cloning:
We have meddled in the human genepool for millenia. The process is called 'sex'. Cloning is to me just a new, fancy way of doing just this. I have honestly no morallic problems with, for example, homosexual couples getting babies by means of cloning once the technology is far enough developed to make it applicable on humans.
On more personal issues and slightly more controversial I also think that genetic engineer/screening should be used to make us healthier and more adept in our enviorments. I believe with how advanced our society is it's silly that a person can fall into a lake and simply drown, some people claim modifying ourselves to make us live longer and more survivable would make us less human but I think our bodies don't make us human, but our minds and souls do.
And my general stance on science is that it should be taken to it's limits and it should never be limited by ideological, politcal or personal beliefs, all branches of science should be explored fully, intently, and objectively. If religious fanatics wouldn't have burned down thousands upon thousands of libraries we would never have had the dark ages and following technological trends we would have landed on the moon in 1492. Think what our society would be like today if that were the case.
Embryonic Research: I don't think that anything is a baby / human until it actually kicks the mother. Then it's human.
While very much true lies in that statement, there's one counter. It's measured in megatons.
Science has brought us into a position of destroying the world, and is now about to bring us in a position when the word 'human' requires a completely new definition. These questions concern all of us, they must therefore not be decided by a select few, and depending on our descisions, it is our right and obligation to limit - <i>limit</i>, not halt - scientifc progress in certain areas.
I'm really unsure about cloning though, perhaps mostly down to Michael Marshall Smith's splendid novel <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553579010/qid=1055371088/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-3157414-5207017?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>Spares</a>, in which clones of people are made when they're born, as a kind of insurance policy for the rich. Lost a finger? Grab a replacement from your clone. That the book came out at the same time the Dolly the sheep thing happened only made it stick in my mind even more.
Cloning for medical reasons seems ethically untenable, and what other reason could there possibly be other than an Everest-like "to prove that we can"?
There was a reasonably high-profile "designer baby" case in the UK not so long ago though which showed a more difficult thing to come to a decision on, with a couple wanting to have a second child so its kidney and blood could be used to save their other ill child (with a very rare blood type). I think the courts ruled against it because they were uncomfortable with this second child going unloved and having its organs harvested, but I disagree. I think that the child would be loved just as much as the other, both for the slightly shoddy reason that he/she saved his brother's life, and also for the very plain reason that it's also their <i>child</i>.
While very much true lies in that statement, there's one counter. It's measured in megatons.
Science has brought us into a position of destroying the world, and is now about to bring us in a position when the word 'human' requires a completely new definition. These questions concern all of us, they must therefore not be decided by a select few, and depending on our descisions, it is our right and obligation to limit - <i>limit</i>, not halt - scientifc progress in certain areas. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a real gray area Nem, if we would have aquired nuclear power 1200 years ago would we have blown everything to hell? We don't know maybe we would be living in a world with no AIDS, cancer, birth defects, etc.
I can understand why there should be limits on science but I just think setting limits opens the door for more limits until someone decides to say halt all research that has to do with so and so because I'm in charge. But no limits would mean science was only limited by what was currently possible and I'm not saying everything that was discovered should be implicated but if we think so narrowly on the subject we screw over future generations.
Following that kind of logic, the only kind of state you could accept would be an anarchy, because, hey, any rule could lead to more rules, and so on.
I think science should be seperate from politics, just like church and state is supposed to be.
It would be kind of its own governing force, just like we elect people to run our countries we could elect qualified responsible people to be in charge of our scientific research, in my opinion it's just if not more important.
Use of cloning for medical purposes: I approve as long as only small parts of human is cloned. Not a whole human and then pick whatever organ you need.
Use of cloning for other purposes: This is trickier, imho clones should have automatically all human rights. I'm just afraid that if cloning would become common practice, people would use it for creating slave-clones. Also what about people that want to clone their dead husband/wife and then the clone doesn't want to be this persons wife/husband? What about preserving genetical diversity? If everyone just makes a clone of themselves instead of babies with other people, would it lead to lack of genetical diversity? Maybe that could be avoided by combining genes from two people but maybe Coil could answer to that better, since he has made that thesis <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not really religious at all, and always love to see our medical technology advance, so I'm interested to see what they can do with clones and stem cells and whatnot. Not to say that I'd like a clone of me running around, but I think with proper restraints on research like that, the human lifespan can be extended, people won't wait on donor lists as long, etc, etc.
So in my eyes, it's a good thing.
While very much true lies in that statement, there's one counter. It's measured in megatons.
Science has brought us into a position of destroying the world, and is now about to bring us in a position when the word 'human' requires a completely new definition. These questions concern all of us, they must therefore not be decided by a select few, and depending on our descisions, it is our right and obligation to limit - <i>limit</i>, not halt - scientifc progress in certain areas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a real gray area Nem, if we would have aquired nuclear power 1200 years ago would we have blown everything to hell? We don't know maybe we would be living in a world with no AIDS, cancer, birth defects, etc.
I can understand why there should be limits on science but I just think setting limits opens the door for more limits until someone decides to say halt all research that has to do with so and so because I'm in charge. But no limits would mean science was only limited by what was currently possible and I'm not saying everything that was discovered should be implicated but if we think so narrowly on the subject we screw over future generations. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think there should be any limits on science, ever, for any reason. I don't think that there has ever been a negative scientific advance. The science that let to the production of the atomic bomb is also the science thats leading us ever closer to the unified field theory. Science is neutral.
I think Embryo harvesting is fine, so long as you do it before the next stage. Once it kicks, it's human, as someone above said.
Cloning...I like to think that we'll have cloning so that if I have to get a kidney replacement I could get that organ and only that organ.
As my grandfather said, "When in doubt, throw it out." If one truly doesn't know when a human becomes a human, then perhaps one should assume that it is one from the very start.
Sure, one life for a thousand is great. However, that one life needs to give it up willingly. Taking it before it has the ability to give permission is wrong.
Why am I answering this... I don't know. I really don't want to get wrapped up in this converstation.
You mean [WHO]Them?
As my grandfather said, "When in doubt, throw it out." If one truly doesn't know when a human becomes a human, then perhaps one should assume that it is one from the very start.
Sure, one life for a thousand is great. However, that one life needs to give it up willingly. Taking it before it has the ability to give permission is wrong.
Why am I answering this... I don't know. I really don't want to get wrapped up in this converstation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
An embryo has no sense of self perservation it doesn't even have consciousness yet let alone any comprehension of life is so it's in no position to give up it's "life" willingly.
Thats still up for debate.
This needs moving to the discussion forum.
Oh, wait....
(am I dropping enough hints yet?)
Cloning is awesome IF there are certain limits on it. By certain i mean not cloning mass armys of the same person to take over the world. Whereas, stemcelling a heart for an old man whose heart is failing, that seems ok to me.
But cloning a whole human CAN have its specialties too with certain moral conflicts. Say you purposley clone a human with a certain defect, say a mental retardeness, so that you can study it to find a cure for future humans.... is that right? or just morally wrong.(im thinking of the sacrifice for the good of the group at the moment.)
Now say that is morally wrong, the argument that , that wich one is raised is all they know. If a cloned human has no knowledge of what "normal" humans lives are, then it wont care if you test on it ect.ect. Its only what others WANT for it. We farm fish to eat and catch for our own pleasure, so why not farm humans with certain defects who have known no other anything, so that we may cure these defect for future generations. Morally, its wrong, but for the further wellbeing of the human race....
These are just opinions and ideas, please dont flame, Flame is lame. Have a nice day.
No, because health problems are not in the DNA of the old man, unless its a genetic problem. Cloning is jsut taking the DNA of a creature, and implanting it into the egg of another or the same creature, so that the DNA is changed from the current one to the one of that wich you took it from, if that makes any sense.
ill make a diagram.
[Old Man]----->---Taking DNA
Inserting DNA----->-----[undeveloped human egg]----->-----Old DNA--->
[Egg had OldMans DNA instead of original mothers]----->--->-----[Develops into Oldman in his youth]
All you are doing is replacing the Genes of the orignal with the other. Things like failing hearts, crap livers, cancer ect.ect. are just external things that do not effect DNA or genetic code. So theoretically, you could make a copy of the old man in his youth.
<b> Sorry for the double post, felt like clearing it up after i posted once.</b>
We can't create life. Our understanding of it is vague at best. Tinkering with it is not advisable, and if it actually involves killing a human being that otherwise might have lived it's a downright sin.
Matthew 5:36 says "you cannot make even one hair white or black." This is supposed to teach us humility. Life was not created by us, it is a gift, and we must treat it with utmost respect. I often miss this respect in the embryo discussion. If this path leads us to cannibalize our unborn children so that we can live a few years longer, that would be a horrible sin. The human body must never be a mere tool.
<li>Currently, it is indeed true that science has not yet found a way of avoiding the degeneration of DNA that comes with age. Thus, the current technologies would indeed create babies with the genetic age of their 'parents'.
The technology is far, <i>far</i> from being practical.
<li>Concerning therapeutical cloning: If science is ever so far to recreate bodyparts by cloning, this will either be done by making embryonic stemcells (which are indeed the only cells the embryo consists of at the point it is harvested) grow into the required tissue, or by cloning actual cells from the person who reqires the replacement in the petri dish. Letting a complete clone grow to get a new liver from him would be unpractical, overly expensive, and ineffective.
Plus im suprised religion wasnt in here ealrier, it always get into crap like this. Almost annoying for an Agnostic person like me. Glad somone brought up religion tho so we can get more opinion <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
No, because health problems are not in the DNA of the old man, unless its a genetic problem. Cloning is jsut taking the DNA of a creature, and implanting it into the egg of another or the same creature, so that the DNA is changed from the current one to the one of that wich you took it from, if that makes any sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Close.
When you transfer that nucleus from the original cell into the nucleus of an emptied fertilized cell, and grow that cell, then the person that grows from it will have the same code as at the time of the sample taken. Your skin cells, stomach cells, almost every cell in your body sloughs up just a bit of genetic code during a splice. Every time it copies itself, gives rise to a new generation of cells before dying off, a tiny part of the code is changed. Geneticists strongly suspect this is the reason you age and, eventually die of old age.
Interesting to note that this same "sloughing off" is NOT observed in turtles after a certain age. Turtles don't die of old age.
Nor is this "sloughing off" in nerve cells. Which, granted, rarely splice themselves, but is interesting to note. Might the "immortal head-in-a-jar" become a reality in a few hundred/thousand years?
Here's a question: Some of you say that science should have little restraint from the conservative. How ethically sound would it be to take the nucleus of a human cell, and implant it in an animal's fertilized egg cell? Nothing might happen, as the information on the genes might be unreadable by the cell. Maybe the neurons in the animal can't suspect human-level thought. Or maybe the animal becomes human-level intelligent. Should we be allowed to carry out THIS experiment, knowing that one of these situtations may, and probably will, occur?
And Nemesis Zero makes a good point. Science is a double-edged sword, and the destructive is easier than the constructive. But science does no evil. We do. Rather than hinder science, we should understand peace. But until we can ensure that, maybe a small muzzle can make sure that we live to allow our next generation to come.
-Ryan!
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
-- Rene Descartes
"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
-- Albert Einstein
Dolly, the cloned sheep. Who did age prematurely.
-Ryan!
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
That sounds strange. What <i>do</i> they die of?
That sounds strange. What <i>do</i> they die of? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Disease and predators. Neat, huh?
-Ryan!
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs
-- Anon.