1. If genetic engineering or cloning is 'playing God' then so is selective breeding.
2. I know. But then since I know you probably weren't talking to me...

Selective breeding is excellant!!! How else do you get all the cool plants? It is very benificil and abso positutely not playing god.

If selective breeding is not playing God, then neither is genetically modifying them. Selective breeding involves humans developing organisms with specific characteristics by means of what is naturally available to them. Our knowledge of how the world works is expanding, so we can further take advantage of what is naturally available to us. Developing organisms with specific characteristics via genetic modification is no more "playing God" than selective breeding.

Plants aren't human or sentient,though. They feel no pain, have no thoghts or emotions, and are expendable. Human life is much more precious, making a human clone is different than making a plant one.

I watched this nature show on TV a while back and they put a male tiger and a female lion (lioness as they are called) into a big enclosure and they left them for a long while and the lioness had cubs. Now you can't say that was playing God. All humans did was put them in the enclosure and it's up to the female to signal to the male that she was ready and wanting to mate.

So? It's still 'playing God'.

What about selectively breeding animals? I could argue that animals and plants are sentient. I could argue that all life is sentient.

As far as I can see, all living things fit that definition. Good AI seem fits that definition too.


Edit: Forgot about you, Abe22!
I can honsestly say that it was 'playing God'.
If the lioness and tiger had copulated without human intervetnion then that would have been nature/'God' 'playing God', but it was humans 'playing God'.

As Gluk said, it is playing God as the Tiger and Lion would never have met otherwise.

Well, everything I do must be playing God. It certainly wouldn't happen naturally. I breed jalepeno peppers and,yes, i did pratice selective breeding. I bought healthy plants and bred them with other healthy plants. God have mercy on me for impersonating Him.

Yes...indeed Stadikk...you should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF...BAD, BAD LITTLE STADIKK!!

Re: Re: Bush bans Human Cloning in US
 

Yes there is actaly. Sofare all the clones dont live aslong as the origenal, and are weaker. So untill it's possible to do perfects cloning, we shouldent do human cloning.

Re: Re: Re: Bush bans Human Cloning in US
 

1. That's why there's no point cloning humans.
2. You're partially correct but we don't clone humans because it would just be a waste of money.

Jacob, my name has got 2 t's in it it goes like this. Statikk HDM. If yah can't manage that, Hunter will suffice. Thanks. Cloning is so lame because science is a trial and error game right? So we could make the human if we tried but failed a lot, and than the human could have a malady, like be a catatonic scizophreinc, or be horribly and painfully disfigured. Which leads us to the choice of euthanasia or let the human suffer, After a bunch of scientific misteps we could create a clone but we wouldn't know the psychological implications of the cloning. It isn't cost effective. Almost no one supports it so getting the funding would be a bitch. So cloning is just one big can of worms that shouldn't be opened.

In my own opinion I hope that when they make a human clone it dies. I shouldn't wish death on people but I really hope it dies. I know I'm being a bitch (I'm born to bitch :D) but it might teach humans a lesson not to clone things (of course I bet it won't.) I can't agree with you more Statikk, cloning is pointless that's all there is too it.

There's a high likelyhood that it will die quite quickly if the cloning isn't completely sucessful.

For example, Dolly the sheep has a disorder which is being blamed on a complication of the cell nuclear replacement.

2 deaf Lesbians wanted a child...they could choose the genes. They chose to make the child deaf also. This is true and was sposedly why Bush got all ban happy in the 1st place.

By this argument, nobody should ever have a child, because it might have a malady, like catatonic schizophrenia. Having children is a huge can of worms etc...

I mean, there is absolutely nothing connecting cloning to anything like Schizophrenia. I really think you ought to learn something about certain things before arguing about them...

Is this the story where a Deaf both female couple used a Deaf male friend's sperm to make sure their baby was Deaf?

If it is then this has nothing to do with cloning. If it isn't then I appologise for mentioning this similar-sounding story.

Yeh, same story...but weren't we talking about Designer Babies a min ago!?

3. Oh, my mistake.

1. But they didn't.

2. Can Bush really be idiotic enough to ban cloning because somebody chose the father of their baby?

In my experience, any question beginning "Can Bush really be idiotic enough..." would probably go well with the answer "Yes"...