Bush bans Human Cloning in US
 

While I was watching the news today, President Bush made a speech. He's trying to ban Human Cloning in America. So far, it's very controversial. What do you think about it?

Re: Bush bans Human Cloning in US
 

What an idiot. There's no good reason to do that.

actually it's there is a reason but it is entirely popularity. the people he wants as his followers are the type of people who are against cloning, therefor whether the bill passes or fail he gains popularity, then again there are no practical reasons for the bill because researchers and fertility clinics can move.

What is the meaning for clonning. There is no reason for it, the world is already becoming over populated as it is. How would you feel knowing that you are a clone of someone else, and don't say you wouldn't care because you would. I do believe in clonning organs for medical science, if that is even possible.

Personally I don't like cloning, I think it is wrong but I do approve of organ cloning for medical reasons but not cloning humans. Atleast trying to clone organs might help people what does human cloning help people with? Cloning humans will only lead to designer babies anyway.

The only advantage in cloning humans would be that infertile couples could have children.

Um, could you please explain the logic behind that?

Cloneing can be a very dangerous thing in the world. For instance if the cloneing teachnology gets into the wrong hands. Well you could have another Adolf Hitler or some other Tyrant of the past.

Plus ethically and moraly it is wrong. So I am agenst cloneing all the way. Leave creation in the hands of God! Humans were just never ment to play God for there are serous consequences in the long run!

So all power to Bush! ;)

You're assuming that Hitler's DNA is evil. He was abused growing up. If a genetic copy of Hitler was ever produced, the child's upbringing would determine whether or not he would be a bad person.Morally and ethically wrong? Says who? And what are the serious consequences of cloning? I don't believe there's a valid reason to artificially clone animals and humans, but the ramifications that people suggest are highly exaggerated.Aggh!

Well what I ment by that is it can be a serous matter like something could go wrong with the cloneing. What if you clone a human and say the human dies right after he or she is cloned? Thats not good. I think thats just like waisting life awey you know? But cloneing animals for live stock is fine because we kill animals for food obveously. There are a lot of things to consider when you clone a humen. Like how will you be abel to tell the clone when he or she is old enough that you were born in a lab? How would He or she take that? Will they become depressed and commit suicide because they think they are some kind of freak? Thats where I get the morals from. Should we clone humens? Or should we just stick to cloneing live stock or crops for farms to produce food. I think thats a better idea than cloneing humens. It's better because we would have an endless supply of food.

All I am trying to say is that is it moraly right to play God and make copies of our selves? Thats all. Thats why I support Bush on that issue. :fuzblink: And yes I did go a little crazy with the evil thing but that is one of the possiblities in cloneing. What can happen if it does get in the wrong hands?

I believe killing animals for food is morally and ethically wrong, but that hardly sways your opinion, does it?It would probably be born in a hospital, like most other babies. If you meant conceived in a lab, then you must be against procedures such as IVF and other methods of artifical insemination.Cloning animals to eat would be no more of an "endless" supply than is the current method of meat production. Isn't cloning animals "playing God" just as much as cloning humans?

Oo sreepy...just two days ago I had to write a persuasive paper on my views of a certain subject - and I chose human cloning. If you want I can post it, but I'll ask first - it's kinda long. Should I post my paper?

Yeh...and he's created loads the past millenia!!

You dont tell them...simple.

Is that really all that bad? Choosing whether your child was healthy? Clever? Obeidiant? Well...mayne the Obeidiant bits wrong, but choosing whether a child was healthy and normal that is ok (Although i dont really agree with the term 'Normal' since the dictionary was written by a man...nuff said.) I would want to make sure my child was not crippled, mentally or physically.

Bloody hell!



Post it, Corey!

OMG! I actually agree on something with Bush...:rolleyes:

Ok I'm copying my debate paper from Word, so "%." or something might replace the punctuation. Here it is:

Human Clones: The Sub-Human Disposable Race?
By Corey C. Jones

Since there are so many things we can do to help people, why do we need to make new ones? Do scientists want to just to see if they can? Or do they only want to make a scientific breakthrough? In any case, no matter what point that they are trying to prove, humans should not be cloned. Not only would cloning a human being raise ethical questions on whether the humanness would be preserved, but what kinds of situations would the human clone be presented with? Many people would see them as a completely disposable race, and some people may act upon that assumption.
Some people believe that cloning will create a completely despicable race of carbon-copied, sub-human people that will be prone to slavery, disease, and experimentation. There is a particularly large audience that actually believes that scientists are only cloning humans so that we can use them as lab rats to use for testing new medicines and procedures. Not only is this outrageously untrue, but many facilities are using these false accusations to scare away political groups that are uneducated in the subject of human cloning. They frighten these important people so that they may vote against it in levies for monetary support on genetic researching (Bailey, Reason Magazine Online).
The reality is that cloning, as of now, is only being used for advances in scientific medicine, and it should stay that way. They are not creating new humans to treat new medicines on, but instead, donors are giving skin and tissue samples for research; and instead of having new people emerge from these samples, they try and "program" the cell to behave how the scientists want it, and even making more so that they may repair gene-related injuries. These include injuries such as spinal damage, in which it may possible to eliminate wheelchairs altogether, and could cure diseases such as cancer or HIV/AIDS (Fox, 64; Various Contributors et. al., 276)
This style of cloning has been appropriately dubbed "therapeutic cloning". Not only does the genetic research need not go further, but the world of genetics can find so many different things to spend time, effort and money on instead of accomplishing tasks that are ethically questionable and overall an unnecessary accomplishment that is cloning a full human, that it is unjust to let them do anything but.
Finally, there is a huge area to be explored in the world of genetics that is bioengineering. In the book Superpigs and Wondercorn, the author Dr. Michael W. Fox suggest that through continuous genetic research, eventually we could create corn that is four times their current mass, and even create pigs and livestock that could have different medication already secreted in the meat, such as insulin hamburgers and milk. (102) The research that could lead to this can solve world hunger, and should not be overshadowed by gratuitous and silly goals such as human cloning. This cannot be stressed enough.
The world of genetics is far from explored, and human cloning should not have to be an issue until all precautions are exhausted and tediously evaluated, and even when that time comes, the world will not be ready to take on the challenges that would be raising a clone in today's society. With super-swine and non-existent disabilities in this world yet to come, we do not need to be burdened by something superfluous.


Hey, it worked! Well, hope you like it.

Yeah, I know. It makes me feel so dirty... :fuzblink:

The comment on Adolf Hitler made me think of something. At some point there will most likely be a a group which believes that all clones are evil and must die (or something along those lines), the logic is 1. It is new and it happens with more absurd groups 2. Many people already believe that they do not have a "soul" which is the main thing needed for true hatred. does anyone agree?

Ummmmm...yeh?

You've got a point there.

Give me a gun and I'll kill the zealots! Life's just a game of Halo, ain't it!

I think that that cloning would lead to playing god. "Oooh, i want you Doctor, to make me an Aryan child...who's really smart and can play music to become a slap bass star. Now, throwing in jumping like a gazelle so he can do the hurdles in the 2044 summer olympics..." The people with the most money would have god like children and would have a total advantage over Joe shmoe who can only have a "abnormal" child. It would be like a biological arms race. and really, thoiugh, what is the point? So the snickleworts can relive the magic of fluffly their first poodle... or something more insidious, like Replicants and making organ doning slaves for people. Cause they aren't real humans, just clones so we can do whatever, it is our right to science. Roe v. Wade 2 aNYONE?

Cloning = Cloning

Designing Babies = Designing Babies

Learn to tell the difference, before you get involved in a debate about them!

The way I see it, there is absolutely no reason to ban cloning. On the other hand, I can see no reason to clone complete humans, either. It would not be ethically or morally wrong, it would just be pointless...

I don't know whether you belive that or you are giving an example of something an idiot would say.
Whichever it is, it's wrong.


I wonder how much a non-human organism would have to be modified before it could be classed as human. Or how much a human would have to be modified before it could be classed as non-human.
I wonder if a cloned liver would be classed as a human or just a part of a human.


Edit:
Unless it was made legal to kill and eat humans.

Evidentally, Bush thinks it is...

Anyways, I read in the paper in the other day that a woman in the U.K. (I can't remember where specifically) was inseminated with a human clone. I think that she would be 10 weeks pregnant now. I can dig up the article later.

The only good thing about it is that we can make more people for the army.

What do you mean by that, Mitsur? Do you think that human clones are actually made in automated mechanical incubators, like in a factory? As far as I know, an embrio of a human clone still needs to spend nine months in a woman's uterus to grow into a fully developed baby, just like averone else.

However, there are already researches to create the first artificial "uterus", which will make dispensable the "natural" method of pregnancy. In time, it doesn't have nothing to do with cloning, since it could be used to any kind of embrio, clone or not

Let me remind everyone here that Hideo Kojima's Metal Gear Solid has a fictional storyline.

Why must we mess with cloning anyway? Let's leave well enough alone. the only cloning I think that should be allowed is the cloning of organs to give people. And clones for the army is one of the silliest things i've ever heard. You can't force ethem into service. Or maybe you could. Once again the sanctity of life is wore down a little more.

People have played God anyway in a way. They have bred Dogs and Horses, and that is playing God sort of. Our Teacher was telling us about is he wanted a Hunting Dog, he would get a Vicious Dog and breed it with a fast one, then the offspring would be as good as a hunting one for example. So, people do mess around with playing 'God' as it were, just on animals.

How is crossbreeding playing God? You don't create through artificial means. and an animal giving birth to better and stronger babies isn't wrong, nor is it with animals. I am in full support of "frankenfood" just not franen people. a clone in itself is not bad, but the ultiereor motives may be. Designing a human or using a clone as a tool is wrong, and the whole cloning thing just seems to dangerous to me. Lets just let a sleeping dog lye. And by the way, making a potato resistant to a disease is a whole hell of a lot different than cloning

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.