Please use this space to respectfully and intellectually debate the
issues surrounding cloning. Express your
opinion in a productive, focused and open-minded way. If any of your
posts have to be removed, you will lose classwork credit.
Cloning is the process of taking a non-fertilized then you harvest an egg from another sheep. Once this has happened the eggs are infused and replanted into the sheeps uterus. The sheep will come out as an exact copy of the sheep that gave birth to it. This could be a really good thing, but I am not for it because the sheep might as well give natural birth. This will keep the genetic variety through the sheep population, and it could keep evolving the sheep into better, more nutritious organisms. I also don't think that this should happen because eventually it will happen in humans. People will start doing it only to have the organs of the first person. I think that this is considered abuse and should not be socially accepted because it is literally murder.
I do not understand your reasoning that if cloning occurs in sheep, it will then occur in humans. This seems to be an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Furthermore, I do not see how cloning constitutes murder or abuse. Please explain your argument further.
I understand it David, and I am with you Devan, it is still unethical. I mean sure you might love an animal so much you want to have him again, but that is unethical. I understand the slippery slope fallacy part David, but you have to think. Humans have such a keen curiosity where they WOULD start to clone humans, but that is wrong.
Please explain to me how you understand the issue. Loving an animal has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Furthermore, you acknowledge the fact that a slippery slope fallacy is being used and then use one. If you do not think that a slippery slope is being used, please present evidence to substantiate your claim that "Humans have such a keen curiosity where they WOULD start to clone humans, but that is wrong."
Your description of the process is worded awkwardly. It seems as if some of your words may have been unintentionally erased as you were typing your first sentence. Would you please restate this description?
Your description of the process is worded awkwardly. It seems as if some of your words may have been unintentionally erased as you were typing your first sentence. Would you please restate this description?
If I am misunderstanding what you mean in you first post, please correct me.
It appears that you are saying that we would clone humans to harvest their organs. Assuming this is possible, if we could clone a single organ rather than an entire person that would probably be one of man's greatest creations due to the lives that could be saved.
If you mean that it would be wrong to clone an entire person for organ harvesting, I can understand why it would be murder. At that point it is an entire person and so I believe that would legally be murder.
Cloning is absolutely necessary because it helps couples with genetic problems that restrict them from having a child. Cloning is also very necessary because it can also help with various of degenerative diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. You can also clone stem cells to repair damage caused by cancer, spinal cord injury, stroke or burns. This is a plus because then you can heal much better then you did before. You can also clone cells and produce embryonic stem (ES) cells. Then those cells could be tested on without any risk to human patients. There is also a type of cloning called Therapeutic cloning, which can help people reproduce cells which could one help grow organs and get replacement limbs. It could also help us repopulate the endangered populations that are in the world.
I beleive that this can benefit the human race if it ever came to where we needed to clone just to have children, but it could also be really bad because if we figure out how to clone humans, then we could figure out how to give us wings even though that is really off topic...but I do not really have an opinion for this topic. (and from the first comment: how is cloning considered murder?)
When cloning, you do realize that it will not work perfectly every time. This means that many fetuses would have to be sacrificed in order to produce a semi-healthy one, and even then the person does not have a gauranteed chance to survive. The child would deal with many chances of disease, so if you cannot have a baby, then you probably should not produce a kid with the same problem.
Will did you not read my whole post, because i do not just mention reproductive cloning. I mention every type of cloning. There are types of cloning that help repair damage from cancer, and another one that helps you reproduce cells so that you can fix your limbs. I am not just talking about reproductive cloning. And with everything, there is going to be sacrifices. Like with war, soldiers sacrifice their selves for us. Cloning has more good than it does bad. I looked at all types of cloning while you only looked at sheep cloning. I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way I do, but if you look at the site that i did. It will support what i am saying.
Cloning could be a great idea, but when someone keeps using a clone to help them live longer then it start to become wrong. Before anyone says anything and this will be off topic. The person could use stem cells, so that there brain does not deteriorate.
The idea is that if somebody is suffering from heart disease, brain dysfunction, diabetes, etc. you could create a new cloned heart/brain/pancreas that doesn't have the dysfunction. Of course, this will not work with a genetic disorder. However, conditions brought on by age or environment will be solved with this technology.
Sara. I understand what you are saying, but for a couple who cannot have kids to have a cloned baby? Wouldn't the child have the same defects as the parent, and if they did not, then you do realize how many fetuses (babies who are not born yet or PEOPLE)live would have to be sacrificed? If it took many (not sure on the exact number) of attempts to clone a sheep, then imagine how many attempts would have to be made to clone a person? by the way, I know that I am only referring to dolly and there are other animals that have been cloned. The fact that I am trying to let you understand, is there are failed attempts. People's lives would be lost. If you are against abortion, then isn't this just another form of killing a fetus without it knowing why. Just like a miscarriage, the fetus well probably even more than one person will ever produce in a lifetime, will die. Even if there is a successful birth, like Dolly, the human might not live but half of its usual lifetime, without running into many genetic disorders. Also when cloning, that makes the offspring more likely to get a disease.
I have the same stance as Devan. However I believe that the research in the field of cloning is not necessarily bad. I think it is good for us to be educated on cloning and how it works, and different effects whether good or bad of cloning; however, it should not be tested on animals or humans because if something goes wrong that's basically animal cruelty.
Well, in that case, how would you research it? For people to be educated on cloning, some research/experiments need to happen. If you don't think that it should not be tested on animals or humans, then how would the experiments be conducted?
If I understand your argument correctly, you are stating that there is too high of a risk to continue the testing of cloning on humans or animals. However, there is a significant issue with this line of reasoning.
If you propose a ban on testing, how do you propose that the risks involved be reduced? Scientific experimentation is a crucial part of understanding the mechanisms behind biological processes. Cloning is no exception; we need to test to make it safer.
Well as usual I did not put as much thought into it as you guys have. You could still research the DNA and such, I'm just against the testing because it is cruel to the animals being tested.
Cloning has been a moral issue since the year 1996. That was the year of the first cloned mammal, a sheep named Dolly. Cloning, in my opinion, is a terrible unethical thing. It is bad for the general population of many species to be cloned, because they become less genetically diverse. When this happens, the species is open for many more diseases. You can see now that this would be begging for disaster and death among the species, especially the cloned organism. The only reason cloning could be considered ethical, is in the case of trying to restore a species. When cloning, many fetuses have to be sacrificed to get one semihealthy organism. In the case of Dolly, she only lived to be 6 years old. A normal sheep's lifespan should be around 12 years. As you can see by this additional fact, cloning is wrong, and should be stopped unless it is to bring back the overall population of an endagered species.
There are valid reasons for needing a set of genetically identical set of organisms. How do you propose, if cloning was to be banned, that genetically identical organisms be obtained?
Furthermore, how can you ascertain that further research into cloning technology will not yield results that benefit humanity? If you cannot, then on what grounds do you propose a ban on cloning?
As you are well aware, scientific testing necessitates that all variables other than the independent and dependent variables be controlled.
When performing animal testing, it is often necessary to ensure that bad genetics do not modify the results. This creates a demand for a set of genetically identical organisms.
The points or questions you are making, David, make it seem as if you think there should be two clones that way at least one will survive with procedures or studies kept on the other. Will you please reword them?
I am making a stand more so for human cloning, not the cloning of every organism.
Please, no. This is completely unethical and should be disregarded completely. You wouldn't clone a person, let them age for years doing nothing their whole life, and then all of a sudden one day... "Hey! We're going to completely strip your of your organs and life! We're sorry it took years for us to tell you, but it's best if you give up now. Bye bye."
So no, an organ farm is unrealistic and completely unethical. Just the thought of this made me frown. We do have organ donors you know...
It would be much more ethical and practical to use transgenic organism technology or stem cells to create artificial organs.
@Tyler: We do have organ donors, but we do not nearly have enough. There are, at the time of writing, 113580 people on a waiting list to receive an organ. http://www.unos.org/index.php
I think cloning has the potential to help many species, but it shouldn't be tested on animals or humans because something could go wrong like Becca said.
I believe that we should not clone. Cloning is morally wrong, and it provides huge amount of risks and failures, which can result in miscarriages, abortions, or birth of diseased individuals. According to that, cloning is unacceptable by all ethical standards as stated in Gale Opposing Viewpoints. Cloning also uses up resources to create a clone, then uses more resources to keep the clone alive. This results in the depletion of our resources that are already decreasing. The human population is already near or at carrying capacity, so cloning will only increase the number of humans, which can become an issue in the long-run.
On what basis do you claim that cloning is morally wrong?
What evidence do you have to substantiate the claim that "Cloning... provides huge amount of risks and failures, which can result in miscarriages, abortions, or birth of diseased individuals."?
I don't believe that we are near carrying capacity, as demographers predict a steady increase of population. If we were near or at carrying capacity, more governments would enact laws limiting population increases
Cloning is an issue I am somewhat against for a multitude of reasons. First, the ethical value of cloning, like Will has stated, is something that many people have been debating about for years. Here's where my opinions begin to contradict: Cloning humans, to me, seems completely unethical because you basically create life artificially. Plants and animals, on the other hand, are a completely different story. Plants and animals, if cloned, can benefit us if a certain mutation in that one animal or plant occurs. For example- if a cow has a mutation that causes it to require less food and gains weight much faster, this animal may want to be bred as well as cloned to keep the genetic mutation.
you say its not ok to clone humans but its ok to clone plants and animals because theres the possiblity that the cloning could result in a mutation that could benifit us. however, what if the cloning of a human resulted a mutation that could also benifit us?
Tyler did not state that cloning will cause a beneficial mutation. That is not the way cloning works. He stated that if a beneficial mutation was to occur, then the organism with the mutation can be cloned in order to preserve it.
I agree with tyler... i do think that cloning humans is completely un ethical, but where i might differ is if somebody is terribly sick and in need of an organ, if you just cloned that person and then you used the rest of the organs for other people that might be ok, but i am still on the fence about this topic.
"Please, no. This is completely unethical and should be disregarded completely. You wouldn't clone a person, let them age for years doing nothing their whole life, and then all of a sudden one day... "Hey! We're going to completely strip your of your organs and life! We're sorry it took years for us to tell you, but it's best if you give up now. Bye bye."
So no, an organ farm is unrealistic and completely unethical. Just the thought of this made me frown. We do have organ donors you know..."
Why put another human being through years of life just to end up dying anyway at the hands of those we artificially gave life to him/her? Why waste that much time and effort when there are willing organ donors at there that would donate to someone?
I agree with Tyler. We do have organ donors. As bad as this sounds, healthy and young people die every day, and if they are an organ donor, and yes, while there is a long list of people who are waiting to get their transplant, the fact remains that there is in fact another system already put in place to help people, instead of cloning people. Not to mention, cloning people would kill the original donor, so you just basically killed another person to help somebody else. An eye for an eye does not work in this situation.
Sorry, I realized that the middle part of my paragraph probably doesn't make sense. What I meant to say was that those healthy and young people, if they are an organ donor, could easily save lives, and while the demand is greater than the supply, I would prefer waiting to using something that was cloned. (Additionally, the government has started approving second-standard, per se, organs that would not originally have been accepted. Just keep in mind, these second-standard organs aren't bad organs and won't make you worse, so the line moves faster and we wouldn't have to rely on cloning if our country ever got to that point in the future.)
If it is possible to clone the organs alone that would save many lives.
There is a movie called The Island in which the people are clones who are harvested for organs when the organs are needed the IMDb site url is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/
i believe that cloning has both a good side and bad. From looking at all of the comments above i have concluded that yes cloning can help in a sense of couples who are infertile, but on the other hand if put into the wrong hands or gotten out of hand.
I do not agree with cloning. While there can be some good coming out of cloning, the majority of it is unnecessary. As I said in my previous post in reply to Jessie, there are some things science doesn't need to mess with, and I believe cloning should just be left alone. For example, several scientists want to try and recreate a Wooly Mammoth by cloning genes they found on Wooly Mammoth bones. The Wooly Mammoth went extinct for a reason, and it would not survive in this day and age. Additionally, human cloning is not only dangerous, but I also believe it is unneeded. Humans have done a perfectly good job of staying alive without the help of cloning.
Present evidence substantiating your claim that "We (as in humans) have been doing just fine for quite a while now. Science doesn't need to mess with something that works perfectly fine on its own."
What do you mean present evidence? People saying that cloning could help people who don't have kids, and want them, etc., can adopt, do IVF, there are millions of ways to have a child without cloning. Humans have been reproducing forever, science doesn't need to step in. Yes, IVF is extremely helpful, I will concede that, but WITH the option of IVF/adoption, cloning is unnecessary.
Having a child is not the same thing as having a biological child. There are ethically justifiable uses for cloning that are not addressed in your argument. For example, homosexual couples that wish to have biological children are currently unable to.
This also addresses your claim that 'Humans have been reproducing forever, science doesn't need to step in." Homosexual couples have not been having children forever.
If you would like to further discuss this issue, please amend your claim that "Humans have been reproducing forever, science doesn't need to step in" with the knowledge that this technology will benefit homosexual couples.
I agree with Kylie....we shouldn't have to clone someone or something because it will "benefit" us. We are doing fine without another one of any of "us" running around.
The use of human cloning technology will allow homosexual couples to have children. This is currently impossible. This is an ethically justified use of human cloning technology.
An ethical justification from the Journal of Medical Ethics can be found here: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
Reading the comments above, there are many sides in cloning. As said before by Jacob, and organ farm could save many lives, but it IS very unethical. A clone of a human still has the feelings of a human. Using clone technology for couples who are infertile sounds good, but let's look at the long term effects. Overpopulation is a risk for the future. My side is neutral for this topic.
There are ethically justifiable uses for human cloning technology. For example, cloning could allow homosexual couples to have biological children. See this paper, published in The Journal of Medical Ethics, for an ethical justification of this use.
List of social benefits and risks of differenty types of cloning:
Benefits in cloning body parts: * Solving the organ transplant shortage. * Curing of diseases.
Benefits in cloning animals: * Creation of health-care products. * Animal husbandry. * Revival of endangered and extinct species.
Benefits of cloning humans: * Cloning of children for infertile couples. * Cloning of departed loved ones.
Risks of body part cloning: * Creation of human terminate it. Risks of animal cloning: * Several failed attempts for one successful animal clone. * Genetic defects.
Risks of human cloning: * Human clones with genetic defects. * Loss of genetic identity. * Human cloning getting out of control.
Cloning won't cure diseases. It would more likely allow for the evolution of more advanced super viruses due to the lack of genentic diversity and other factors.
What evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that "Cloning won't cure diseases. It would more likely allow for the evolution of more advanced super viruses due to the lack of genentic diversity and other factors."?
How exactly does cloning lead to viral evolution? What mechanism causes this to occur?
Cloning in general seems so unethical. Why should an exact copy of something be made? where is the significance in that? There seems to be absolutely no point in ever cloning humans. Cloning degreades the value of life to the point where is it meanigless.
I have just stated in my above comment that "cloning could allow homosexual couples to have biological children." This possibility is not at all meaningless.
I still do not totally see the usefulness of cloning so that homosexual couples could have biological children. Tons of homosexual couples have been able to 'have' children that are theirs through IVF. While their has to be a woman to carry the child, the child will still look like the father.
A gay couple cannot have a child through IVF. One member of the couple can, but the couple cannot. There is a significant difference between these two cases that you have failed to address in your statement.
Notice I put 'have' in quotation marks, and I didn't say 'fathers', I said father. While no, a homosexual couple cannot have a child that is biologically both theirs, I still do not believe cloning is the answer to that problem.
I fully understand that there are semantic differences between our two statements. However, you have still failed to address my point. A homosexual couple, using cloning technology, can produce a child that is biologically the child of both parents. This is an ethically justified use of human cloning.
However, since you "do not believe cloning is the answer to that problem," I would like to hear from you what you think is the solution that will allow homosexual couples to have biological children.
As long as you are unable to 1) present an alternative solution that allows homosexual couples to have children that are related to both parents biologically or 2) prove logically with valid premises and conclusions that this use of cloning is not ethically justifiable, you will not have dismissed my point. Please provide either of these things if you would like to continue this discussion.
I don't believe that you can personally justify the use of human cloning because you believe that your reason is 'ethically justified'. I've been trying to say all along that what I've been saying are my ethics. Ethics are an offshoot of your morals, and therefore you can't claim that because of your ethics, cloning should be used.
I would firstly like to note that you have failed to meet any of the challenges I presented to you. I clearly stated that if you would like to continue this discussion, you must 1) present an alternative solution that allows homosexual couples to have children that are related to both parents biologically or 2) prove logically with valid premises and conclusions that this use of cloning is not ethically justifiable.
I have never stated that cloning is justified because I believe it is ethical. Belief has no bearing in intellectual debate. What I have argued is that there exists a valid ethical justification for human cloning. A paper providing this justification exists at the following link. http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
If you are unable to overturn this justification, then it exists regardless of your beliefs. Again, your beliefs are irrelevant in this discussion.
How are beliefs irrelevant in this discussion? We were told to pick a side in each debate, and it so happens this is the side I chose.
Additionally, no, I cannot give another way for homosexual couples to have biological children. I just don't believe cloning is necessary. Like the article I posted said, humans would want to start playing God. Even if this could be called a slippery slope, jumping straight from cloning to people playing God, it is true. I also believe that people (and this isn't everybody, but some people would) would want to start creating 'perfect' clones and clones used just for their limbs. While no, not everything related to cloning is bad, I feel that the cons outweigh the pros.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Beliefs are irrelevant when you are trying to JUSTIFY your position. Stating that "my position is true because I believe it to be so" has no validity in intelligent argument.
I would like to note again that you have failed to either 1) present an alternative solution that allows homosexual couples to have children that are related to both parents biologically or 2) prove logically with valid premises and conclusions that this use of cloning is not ethically justifiable. This means that you have still failed to overturn my piece of evidence. As long as you are unable to do one of these two things, my piece of evidence will stand, and you will have no basis to claim that cloning is morally unjustifiable.
Additionally, I would like to note that you have repeatedly failed to substantiate your claim that "humans would want to start playing God." In fact, you admit that this uses a slippery slope fallacy.
I have come to the conclusion that perhaps you do not understand what a logical fallacy is. Allow me to briefly explain.
A fallacy is an error in logic. When you have used a logical fallacy in your argument, that argument is no longer valid. Allow me to repeat myself. That argument is no longer valid.
Your argument, because it contains a slippery slope, is not valid. It cannot be used as justification, period.
Now, it also occurs to me that perhaps you do not know what a slippery slope fallacy is. A slippery slope fallacy is a claim that A will cause B when there exists no causal link between A and B.
Currently, you have failed to demonstrate that the use of cloning for reproductive therapy will lead to "humans... playing God." If you would like to prove that your argument is not a slippery slope, present solid evidence that there is a clear, logical causal link.
Again, when you have used a logical fallacy in your argument, that argument is no longer valid.
I will offer my apologies for using language that could be construed as condescending. However, I would expect that a member of the STEM Academy better be able to understand information taught in class and apply it to a real-world situation. You have demonstrated to me repeatedly a lack of this ability. You insist on using a fallacious argument that you cannot justify with evidence, but you ignore the evidence which I present.
At this point, I am stating the same things over and over again. I do not have the time to continue repeating myself. However, I do have time for constructive, critical debate.
I will continue this discussion if you can present one of three things.
1: An alternative solution that allows homosexual couples to have children that are related to both parents biologically.
2: A logical proof with valid premises and conclusions that the use of human cloning is not ethically justifiable overturning the evidence I have presented to you.
3: Evidence demonstrating a clear causal link between the use of therapeutic cloning for homosexual couples and the behaviors you describe above (playing god, etc.)
If and when you present one of these three things, I will continue this line of debate. However, if you remain unable to do so, I will not continue this discussion with you. I have stated everything that I need to state to give you proof that human cloning is, for certain uses, ethically justifiable.
@Chris: I know what he is saying, but this whole debate was on our own personal feelings, and explain why we do believe the way we do. I believe I have done that efficiently enough.
@David: I do know what logical fallacies are. All I have been trying to say all along is that I disagree with cloning, and just because we have the power to do something, does not mean we should. In Science (or in anything, really), not everybody will agree. I would appreciate if you would stop telling my why I should believe that human cloning is ethical, when I, in fact, do not believe it is ethical. I have given enough evidence on several different posts why I believe that, and have backed up my claims with evidence from more than one source.
I have spare time today, so I can respond to this comment. I think my current methods are not getting through to you, so I'll address your latest comment piece by piece.
"I do know what logical fallacies are." You have demonstrated in this discussion that you do not understand that a logical fallacy makes an argument invalid. I will use a direct quotation from you in order to make this point.
You stated, "Even if this could be called a slippery slope, jumping straight from cloning to people playing God, it is true."
In this statement, you admit that you have employed a logical fallacy but still have the audacity to claim that your argument is true regardless. This direct quote demonstrates your lack of understanding of what a logical fallacy is.
"All I have been trying to say all along is that I disagree with cloning..."
I understand that you disagree with cloning. You have repeatedly made this fact very clear. However, if you cannot justify your personal beliefs with credible evidence, then they are not a valid justification for an argument.
"...and just because we have the power to do something, does not mean we should."
This is absolutely correct. Having the power to do something does not mean that we should. However, I would also like to point out that having the power to do something does not mean that we shouldn't, either. These two ideas are completely unrelated.
"In Science (or in anything, really), not everybody will agree."
This is true. This is why we need to ask each other about our beliefs and the reasons why we hold them in order to come to an informed, intelligent conclusion.
"I would appreciate if you would stop telling my why I should believe that human cloning is ethical, when I, in fact, do not believe it is ethical."
I have never stated that you should believe human cloning is ethical. I have stated that human cloning is ethical for certain uses whether you believe it or not. Your beliefs are irrelevant in this situation.
"I have given enough evidence on several different posts why I believe that, and have backed up my claims with evidence from more than one source."
This is quite the interesting statement. I have checked through this whole comment thread, and the only link that I can find is the one that I posted. Incidentally, it is also the link to the piece of evidence that justifies my argument, which also happens to be a piece of evidence that you have repeatedly failed to overturn.
I would like to see the evidence that you have presented in this discussion. Please provide me with a direct quote from one of your previous comments that has such a piece of evidence in it.
As you should know, a logical syllogism is a form of formal logical argument. It uses more than one premise to come to a single logical conclusion. The great thing about syllogisms is that when they are correctly formed with valid premises and logic, they are objectively and inescapably true. I will make a logical syllogism below.
Major Premise: If an act can be ethically justified for one or more purpose(s), then it is not unethical for all purposes.
Minor Premise: Cloning can be ethically justified for the purpose of reproductive therapy in homosexual couples. See source here: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
Conclusion: Cloning is not unethical for all purposes.
Now, that logical statement is objectively and inescapably true, assuming that both premises are true.
I will state once again that I simply don't care what you believe. I only want to hear what you can justify with valid logical reasoning or credible evidence.
Now, if you can use valid logical reasoning or credible evidence to disprove one of my premises above, then I will concede that you have a valid argument and amend my statements. If you are unable to do so, then it is objectively true that cloning is not unethical for all purposes.
My beliefs are not irrelevant in this conversation. Once again, this whole conversation is based on your beliefs. Additionally, I have given several reasons why I believe something. Not everything has to have scientific backing. I believe that murdering is wrong, but there is no scientific backing to that.
Once again, the fact that you think cloning is not unethical for all purposes is your opinion. I believe it is. I don't think cloning should be messed with at all. It is unnecessary. I don't really feel like I have to explain that cloning is unnecessary because I have given my reasons in several other posts before.
Additionally, in another post below this one, I have posted another link (before this conversation) that helps me show people how/why I feel that way I do.
I think that cloning endangered animals and humans is okay. I don't feel the same way about organisms that are extinct. Similar to what Kylie said, I say that extinct species were selected by nature to cease to exist. If there is a couple unable to have children, cloning is a good way for them to live the life they wish.
I understand the claim that "extinct species were selected by nature to cease to exist." However, how does this claim logically lead to saying that cloning extinct animals is wrong? This appears to be a non sequitur.
Cloning extinct animals would allow scientists to study them and analyze why they went extinct. We could make significant discoveries and even learn from these animals' mistakes.
While yes, scientists could learn from these animals' mistakes, the fact of the matter is that these animals are still extinct. If you were to allow these animals out in the wild after cloning, they would most likely die/cause some type of major disturbance in their ecosystem. If these scientists were just to observe them in a lab or something similar to that, that would be extremely unfair to the animals.
On what basis do you claim that "If these scientists were just to observe them in a lab or something similar to that, that would be extremely unfair to the animals."?
I don't "claim" that, I know it. Keeping animals cooped up in a lab for some scientist's weird tests is mean. Animals deserve to be able to live a proper life.
Claiming that "Keeping animals cooped up in a lab for some scientist's weird tests is mean. Animals deserve to be able to live a proper life." is not only an appeal to emotion but is also a blatant mischaracterization of animal testing, constituting the use of a straw man fallacy. There is nothing about cloning that necessitates that animals be mistreated.
Furthermore, many people keep pets in their homes with no issue. A researcher with significant financial backing will probably be able to house test animals.
If you would like to further discuss your claim, please present evidence to substantiate your statements.
What do you mean "further discuss my claim"? I will keep on discussing it because it is what I believe.
And yes, the animal would be mistreated because it's not a house cat we are cloning. If you were to clone an extinct animal, it would be something like a dinosaur or Wooly Mammoth. You can't keep that in your house. Besides, if you were to clone an animal, extinct or not, that animal would be poked and prodded and observed so much it would not get a natural life.
Additionally, you do not have to agree with me. This whole blog was put up so we could voice our opinions. This is what I believe, and I believe that I have substantiated my claims enough to where other people could see why I believe what I do.
Your claim that "If you were to clone an extinct animal, it would be something like a dinosaur or Wooly Mammoth" constitutes the use of a slippery slope fallacy. I have never asserted that dinosaurs or mammoths will be cloned. This has never been necessitated. We could clone, for example, small mammals or plants that have gone extinct.
Please substantiate your claim that "that animal would be poked and prodded and observed so much it would not get a natural life." There exist multiple non-intrusive methods of observing animal behavior.
I fully understand that you can hold your opinion, and in fact, are entitled to believe what you want. However, we are here to discuss the issues presented in a critical and scientific manner. This necessitates the use of logical argument with valid premises. On multiple occasions, you have failed to substantiate your claims with scientific evidence. Additionally, you have employed multiple logical fallacies in your responses to me.
You have not provided enough support for your premises to justify your conclusions. Until you do so, I will address these concerns in a respectful and intellectual manner.
Again, if you would like to continue this discussion, please present evidence to substantiate your claims.
For one method of studying animals unintrusively, see http://www.eurisy.org/index.php/news/item/170-biotrack-studying-animal-behaviour-by-satellite-navigation.html
This article presents the use of GPS tracking collars to study animal activity.
I would like to get some clarification. Several of you have mentioned cloning as a possible option for a couple that cannot have a child naturally. I am unclear about why this would be necessary. I suppose if the woman or man were entirely infertile(i.e. she has had and ovario-hysterectomey) that this would be an option that would allow the couple to have a child with at least his DNA; but a similar result could be accomplished with an egg donor/serogate mother with much less expense and risk to the child. However, most couples who struggle with conception are still able to produce some egg and sperm. For those couples, in vitro fertilization is a much more realistic, and currently available option. Have you found articles in the databases that mention human cloning as an option for reproductive therapy?
My next question is directed at Kylie. You have mentioned twice that the organism being cloned dies in the process. Where did you get this information? This is not how the process works, as I understand it. Please help me understand your meaning and your source for this information.
I would like to get some clarification. Several of you have mentioned cloning as a possible option for a couple that cannot have a child naturally. I am unclear about why this would be necessary. I suppose if the woman or man were entirely infertile(i.e. she has had and ovario-hysterectomey) that this would be an option that would allow the couple to have a child with at least his DNA; but a similar result could be accomplished with an egg donor/serogate mother with much less expense and risk to the child. However, most couples who struggle with conception are still able to produce some egg and sperm. For those couples, in vitro fertilization is a much more realistic, and currently available option. Have you found articles in the databases that mention human cloning as an option for reproductive therapy?
My next question is directed at Kylie. You have mentioned twice that the organism being cloned dies in the process. Where did you get this information? This is not how the process works, as I understand it. Please help me understand your meaning and your source for this information.
I would like to get some clarification. Several of you have mentioned cloning as a possible option for a couple that cannot have a child naturally. I am unclear about why this would be necessary. I suppose if the woman or man were entirely infertile(i.e. she has had and ovario-hysterectomey) that this would be an option that would allow the couple to have a child with at least his DNA; but a similar result could be accomplished with an egg donor/serogate mother with much less expense and risk to the child. However, most couples who struggle with conception are still able to produce some egg and sperm. For those couples, in vitro fertilization is a much more realistic, and currently available option. Have you found articles in the databases that mention human cloning as an option for reproductive therapy?
My next question is directed at Kylie. You have mentioned twice that the organism being cloned dies in the process. Where did you get this information? This is not how the process works, as I understand it. Please help me understand your meaning and your source for this information.
I will concede that when I had raised the possibility of cloning allowing infertile couples to have children in my reply to Annie, I had not considered the possibility of surrogate mothers. This does seem to be an adequate solution, and I will offer my apologies for speaking before thinking.
However, I believe that the point still stands that cloning has serious potential benefits that deserve research.
On a related note, I would like to raise the point that while there are already solutions for infertile couples, these solutions do not exist (to my knowledge) for homosexual couples that wish to have biological children. Cloning and other genetic technologies may allow homosexual couples to have children of their own.
Some people that I know do have issues with the use of a surrogate mother (or the use of a sperm bank). That would be a time in which cloning could be good.
i also agree with you Devan, it is cruel. sure it has some benefits, but it is cruel and most clones don't even survive. yes it can help other people with diseases and other things that is wrong with a person if you do clone but people have to realize, when you clone someone, you have just created another human being or animal and you have to treat with the same respect. clones or not, it is still alive with the feelings and such things like that. if you clone something so you can save other people,a person dies either way,except, this is murder because most likely, the clones didnt sign up to die.
Mrs. Fleener: I thought you said that in the library, if you were to clone Terrell, Ashtan, and I, you would be arrested because the original people would die?
Even if that is untrue, I still believe cloning is unethical and should not be done.
This article illustrates some reasons explaining why cloning should not be done. It has some reasons why cloning could be beneficial, but overall, their points against it are very important and help show why I think cloning is unethical.
Your article states that "The cloning of fetal stem cells is particularly immoral, because it requires cells from aborted fetuses."
This is absolutely not true. The Stem Cell Basics page from NIH clearly states that "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." The page can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Your article states that "The cloning of human beings, however, should be permanently banned, as an offense to human dignity. The practice raises the possibility of babies born... to serve as providers of "spare parts" for sick relatives."
This is a clear use of both the slippery slope and straw man fallacies. Human cloning has never necessitated that organs be harvested from clones. This blatant mischaracterization is not supported by any evidence that the article provides.
Additionally, there are ethically justifiable reasons for the use of human cloning technology. This article from the Journal of Medical Ethics presents an ethical justification of the use of human cloning in order to produce biological children for homosexual couples. http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
Your article states that "The cloning of human beings is particularly distasteful, and shows humans' desire to 'play God' regardless of the risks to the people born in this manner."
This is another blatant straw man mischaracterization found within your article.
Your article states that "This is also an area in which the world's great religions need to speak authoritatively, as in the case of other human rights issues."
As I am sure you are aware, the scientific method is a secular process that does not involve religious beliefs. While the world religions are free to speak as they see fit, their words have no authority in the scientific community.
The practice of human cloning will not necessarily lead to organ farms, designer babies, or anything else of the sort. To claim otherwise is to make use of the slippery slope fallacy.
While these practices are indeed unethical, as I am sure we will both agree, their possibility alone does not provide a valid basis for the anti-cloning viewpoint. You would not argue, for example, that because we have car accidents, we should ban cars. In both cases, a negative possibility outweighs many potential benefits.
As I have brought up with you many times in the past, there are ethically justifiable uses of human cloning. Until you can address these uses, I will contend that human cloning technology has real uses that deserve research.
There appears to be a contention from the anti-cloning circle that the cloning of humans is unethical. This claim appears to be based on the assumption that clones will only be harvested for organs or kept for scientific experimentation. This is simply not the case.
Cloning technology can provide benefits which are morally and ethically justifiable. For example, a homosexual couple that wishes to have children is not able, with current technology, to produce a baby that is theirs biologically. Cloning would allow this. It can be argued, even, that not allowing them to have children is the ethically unjust position.
This paper from the Journal of Medical Ethics provides ethical justification for reproductive cloning when used with genetic modification. http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
i can see how many people would be for and against cloning. i myself am against the whole idea. yes, "You can also clone stem cells to repair damage caused by cancer, spinal cord injury, stroke or burns" as Sara said. however, if scientists continue their research in this study, that should be their stopping point. succeeding in cloning a human leads to less genetic diversity, possible genetic deffects in the clone, and possible over populating since the human race is possibly near its carrying capacity already.
Please provide evidence substantiating your claim that "cloning a human leads to... possible genetic deffects in the clone". If the cloning procedure is done correctly, it seems to me that the clone would only have the genetic defects the original human had.
In addition, your claim that "cloning a human leads to less genetic diversity" can be addressed by using genetic modification in the cloning process. This possibility also addresses the previous concern, as any genetic disorders in the original human can be engineered out in the clone.
Cloning is an interesting subject for me. I am a Catholic and the Church has quite an issue of it being humans playing god. I see no issue with the cloning of other animals due to its uses for science. I think that the cloning of human organs could be extremely beneficial for those who need an organ yet can't find a donor (this could make having a donor obsolete).
The cloning of entire human beings is something that I can't say I agree with. There is no way I can defend that belief; I just simply don't agree with it, but I can't really explain why.
I fully understand what you are saying. I just felt it would be best to cover that topic due to it being a generally controversial subject, even if I could not defend the statement. But yes, I agree, it is not good practice to make a statement you can't defend.
The only time the word radiation appears on that page is in the sentence "Infertility is caused by genetic defects, injuries to the reproductive organs, congenital defects and exposure to toxic substances and radiation."
That sentence states that infertility can be caused by radiation. It makes no statement concerning cloning.
Again, please present evidence substantiating your claim that cloning will lead to radiation poisoning.
I agree with Sara to an extent. Cloning is absolutely necessary, but it depends on the situation of the cloning process. If you are cloning someone's healthy cells to replace the bad cells they may have, or in the case of cloning my sisters so that they will not have to go to Japan, but their clones will. Anyway, if someone was just cloning to clone or to satisfy his or her piqued curiosity, then it is wrong.
Cloning is the process of taking a non-fertilized then you harvest an egg from another sheep. Once this has happened the eggs are infused and replanted into the sheeps uterus. The sheep will come out as an exact copy of the sheep that gave birth to it. This could be a really good thing, but I am not for it because the sheep might as well give natural birth. This will keep the genetic variety through the sheep population, and it could keep evolving the sheep into better, more nutritious organisms. I also don't think that this should happen because eventually it will happen in humans. People will start doing it only to have the organs of the first person. I think that this is considered abuse and should not be socially accepted because it is literally murder.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand your reasoning that if cloning occurs in sheep, it will then occur in humans. This seems to be an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Furthermore, I do not see how cloning constitutes murder or abuse. Please explain your argument further.
DeleteI understand it David, and I am with you Devan, it is still unethical. I mean sure you might love an animal so much you want to have him again, but that is unethical. I understand the slippery slope fallacy part David, but you have to think. Humans have such a keen curiosity where they WOULD start to clone humans, but that is wrong.
DeleteI agree with Duncan that cloning is unethical and I believe it should not take place. Cloning is cruel, and I really do not want to be cloned.
DeletePlease explain to me how you understand the issue. Loving an animal has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Furthermore, you acknowledge the fact that a slippery slope fallacy is being used and then use one. If you do not think that a slippery slope is being used, please present evidence to substantiate your claim that "Humans have such a keen curiosity where they WOULD start to clone humans, but that is wrong."
DeleteDevan,
DeleteYour description of the process is worded awkwardly. It seems as if some of your words may have been unintentionally erased as you were typing your first sentence. Would you please restate this description?
Devan,
DeleteYour description of the process is worded awkwardly. It seems as if some of your words may have been unintentionally erased as you were typing your first sentence. Would you please restate this description?
If I am misunderstanding what you mean in you first post, please correct me.
DeleteIt appears that you are saying that we would clone humans to harvest their organs. Assuming this is possible, if we could clone a single organ rather than an entire person that would probably be one of man's greatest creations due to the lives that could be saved.
If you mean that it would be wrong to clone an entire person for organ harvesting, I can understand why it would be murder. At that point it is an entire person and so I believe that would legally be murder.
Cloning is absolutely necessary because it helps couples with genetic problems that restrict them from having a child. Cloning is also very necessary because it can also help with various of degenerative diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. You can also clone stem cells to repair damage caused by cancer, spinal cord injury, stroke or burns. This is a plus because then you can heal much better then you did before. You can also clone cells and produce embryonic stem (ES) cells. Then those cells could be tested on without any risk to human patients. There is also a type of cloning called Therapeutic cloning, which can help people reproduce cells which could one help grow organs and get replacement limbs. It could also help us repopulate the endangered populations that are in the world.
ReplyDeleteI beleive that this can benefit the human race if it ever came to where we needed to clone just to have children, but it could also be really bad because if we figure out how to clone humans, then we could figure out how to give us wings even though that is really off topic...but I do not really have an opinion for this topic. (and from the first comment: how is cloning considered murder?)
DeleteWhen cloning, you do realize that it will not work perfectly every time. This means that many fetuses would have to be sacrificed in order to produce a semi-healthy one, and even then the person does not have a gauranteed chance to survive. The child would deal with many chances of disease, so if you cannot have a baby, then you probably should not produce a kid with the same problem.
DeleteI think it can benefit any organism. Once we get to the point of science to where we can clone ANYTHING,then we are good.
DeleteWill, we can engineer the disease and stop it from happening in the second generation. That way they can breed normally.
DeleteTaeja: Cloning is could be considered murder because if you try to clone a human, the original human will die.
DeleteJessie: What do you mean? I think I would be worried if science could clone ANYTHING, because there are some things science just shouldn't mess with.
I agree with you Kylie, but it does have the benefits the Sara listed.
DeleteCloning would get WAY out of control if we could clone ANYTHING!?!!
DeleteI think cloning would be best if used only or majorly for it's benefits, but EVERYTHINJG has some consequence...
DeleteWill did you not read my whole post, because i do not just mention reproductive cloning. I mention every type of cloning. There are types of cloning that help repair damage from cancer, and another one that helps you reproduce cells so that you can fix your limbs. I am not just talking about reproductive cloning. And with everything, there is going to be sacrifices. Like with war, soldiers sacrifice their selves for us. Cloning has more good than it does bad. I looked at all types of cloning while you only looked at sheep cloning. I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way I do, but if you look at the site that i did. It will support what i am saying.
Deletehttp://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vihttp://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&hid=17&sid=22cf3d9c-f1c0-40d0-9b05-02944d503f0d%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12436955d=3&hid=17&sid=22cf3d9c-f1c0-40d0-9b05-02944d503f0d%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12436955
Cloning could be a great idea, but when someone keeps using a clone to help them live longer then it start to become wrong. Before anyone says anything and this will be off topic. The person could use stem cells, so that there brain does not deteriorate.
DeleteWould the clone not have the same problems as the original person?
DeleteThe idea is that if somebody is suffering from heart disease, brain dysfunction, diabetes, etc. you could create a new cloned heart/brain/pancreas that doesn't have the dysfunction. Of course, this will not work with a genetic disorder. However, conditions brought on by age or environment will be solved with this technology.
DeleteThat makes sense
DeleteSara. I understand what you are saying, but for a couple who cannot have kids to have a cloned baby? Wouldn't the child have the same defects as the parent, and if they did not, then you do realize how many fetuses (babies who are not born yet or PEOPLE)live would have to be sacrificed? If it took many (not sure on the exact number) of attempts to clone a sheep, then imagine how many attempts would have to be made to clone a person? by the way, I know that I am only referring to dolly and there are other animals that have been cloned. The fact that I am trying to let you understand, is there are failed attempts. People's lives would be lost. If you are against abortion, then isn't this just another form of killing a fetus without it knowing why. Just like a miscarriage, the fetus well probably even more than one person will ever produce in a lifetime, will die. Even if there is a successful birth, like Dolly, the human might not live but half of its usual lifetime, without running into many genetic disorders. Also when cloning, that makes the offspring more likely to get a disease.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have the same stance as Devan. However I believe that the research in the field of cloning is not necessarily bad. I think it is good for us to be educated on cloning and how it works, and different effects whether good or bad of cloning; however, it should not be tested on animals or humans because if something goes wrong that's basically animal cruelty.
ReplyDeleteWell, in that case, how would you research it? For people to be educated on cloning, some research/experiments need to happen. If you don't think that it should not be tested on animals or humans, then how would the experiments be conducted?
DeleteIf I understand your argument correctly, you are stating that there is too high of a risk to continue the testing of cloning on humans or animals. However, there is a significant issue with this line of reasoning.
DeleteIf you propose a ban on testing, how do you propose that the risks involved be reduced? Scientific experimentation is a crucial part of understanding the mechanisms behind biological processes. Cloning is no exception; we need to test to make it safer.
Well as usual I did not put as much thought into it as you guys have. You could still research the DNA and such, I'm just against the testing because it is cruel to the animals being tested.
DeleteCloning has been a moral issue since the year 1996. That was the year of the first cloned mammal, a sheep named Dolly. Cloning, in my opinion, is a terrible unethical thing. It is bad for the general population of many species to be cloned, because they become less genetically diverse. When this happens, the species is open for many more diseases. You can see now that this would be begging for disaster and death among the species, especially the cloned organism. The only reason cloning could be considered ethical, is in the case of trying to restore a species. When cloning, many fetuses have to be sacrificed to get one semihealthy organism. In the case of Dolly, she only lived to be 6 years old. A normal sheep's lifespan should be around 12 years. As you can see by this additional fact, cloning is wrong, and should be stopped unless it is to bring back the overall population of an endagered species.
ReplyDeleteThere are valid reasons for needing a set of genetically identical set of organisms. How do you propose, if cloning was to be banned, that genetically identical organisms be obtained?
DeleteFurthermore, how can you ascertain that further research into cloning technology will not yield results that benefit humanity? If you cannot, then on what grounds do you propose a ban on cloning?
Could you please give reasons of why genetically identical organisms are needed?
DeleteAs you are well aware, scientific testing necessitates that all variables other than the independent and dependent variables be controlled.
DeleteWhen performing animal testing, it is often necessary to ensure that bad genetics do not modify the results. This creates a demand for a set of genetically identical organisms.
The points or questions you are making, David, make it seem as if you think there should be two clones that way at least one will survive with procedures or studies kept on the other. Will you please reword them?
DeleteI am making a stand more so for human cloning, not the cloning of every organism.
This can be used to create an organ farm
ReplyDeletePlease, no. This is completely unethical and should be disregarded completely. You wouldn't clone a person, let them age for years doing nothing their whole life, and then all of a sudden one day... "Hey! We're going to completely strip your of your organs and life! We're sorry it took years for us to tell you, but it's best if you give up now. Bye bye."
DeleteSo no, an organ farm is unrealistic and completely unethical. Just the thought of this made me frown. We do have organ donors you know...
It would be much more ethical and practical to use transgenic organism technology or stem cells to create artificial organs.
Delete@Tyler:
We do have organ donors, but we do not nearly have enough. There are, at the time of writing, 113580 people on a waiting list to receive an organ. http://www.unos.org/index.php
There may be a waiting list, but farming humans is too extreme in my opinion...
Delete@Tyler:
DeleteYes, I agree. This is why I propose that transgenic organism technology or stem cells be used to create artificial organs.
This needs restrictions as genetic engineering in general. Cloning can be beneficial to humans to couples that cannot reproduce regularly.
ReplyDeleteI think cloning has the potential to help many species, but it shouldn't be tested on animals or humans because something could go wrong like Becca said.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we should not clone. Cloning is morally wrong, and it provides huge amount of risks and failures, which can result in miscarriages, abortions, or birth of diseased individuals. According to that, cloning is unacceptable by all ethical standards as stated in Gale Opposing Viewpoints. Cloning also uses up resources to create a clone, then uses more resources to keep the clone alive. This results in the depletion of our resources that are already decreasing. The human population is already near or at carrying capacity, so cloning will only increase the number of humans, which can become an issue in the long-run.
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you claim that cloning is morally wrong?
DeleteWhat evidence do you have to substantiate the claim that "Cloning... provides huge amount of risks and failures, which can result in miscarriages, abortions, or birth of diseased individuals."?
I don't believe that we are near carrying capacity, as demographers predict a steady increase of population. If we were near or at carrying capacity, more governments would enact laws limiting population increases
DeleteCloning is an issue I am somewhat against for a multitude of reasons. First, the ethical value of cloning, like Will has stated, is something that many people have been debating about for years. Here's where my opinions begin to contradict: Cloning humans, to me, seems completely unethical because you basically create life artificially. Plants and animals, on the other hand, are a completely different story. Plants and animals, if cloned, can benefit us if a certain mutation in that one animal or plant occurs. For example- if a cow has a mutation that causes it to require less food and gains weight much faster, this animal may want to be bred as well as cloned to keep the genetic mutation.
ReplyDeleteyou say its not ok to clone humans but its ok to clone plants and animals because theres the possiblity that the cloning could result in a mutation that could benifit us. however, what if the cloning of a human resulted a mutation that could also benifit us?
Delete@Whitney:
DeleteTyler did not state that cloning will cause a beneficial mutation. That is not the way cloning works. He stated that if a beneficial mutation was to occur, then the organism with the mutation can be cloned in order to preserve it.
I agree with tyler... i do think that cloning humans is completely un ethical, but where i might differ is if somebody is terribly sick and in need of an organ, if you just cloned that person and then you used the rest of the organs for other people that might be ok, but i am still on the fence about this topic.
ReplyDeleteLet me quote what I had also said to Jacob:
Delete"Please, no. This is completely unethical and should be disregarded completely. You wouldn't clone a person, let them age for years doing nothing their whole life, and then all of a sudden one day... "Hey! We're going to completely strip your of your organs and life! We're sorry it took years for us to tell you, but it's best if you give up now. Bye bye."
So no, an organ farm is unrealistic and completely unethical. Just the thought of this made me frown. We do have organ donors you know..."
Why put another human being through years of life just to end up dying anyway at the hands of those we artificially gave life to him/her? Why waste that much time and effort when there are willing organ donors at there that would donate to someone?
I agree with Tyler. We do have organ donors. As bad as this sounds, healthy and young people die every day, and if they are an organ donor, and yes, while there is a long list of people who are waiting to get their transplant, the fact remains that there is in fact another system already put in place to help people, instead of cloning people. Not to mention, cloning people would kill the original donor, so you just basically killed another person to help somebody else. An eye for an eye does not work in this situation.
DeleteSorry, I realized that the middle part of my paragraph probably doesn't make sense. What I meant to say was that those healthy and young people, if they are an organ donor, could easily save lives, and while the demand is greater than the supply, I would prefer waiting to using something that was cloned. (Additionally, the government has started approving second-standard, per se, organs that would not originally have been accepted. Just keep in mind, these second-standard organs aren't bad organs and won't make you worse, so the line moves faster and we wouldn't have to rely on cloning if our country ever got to that point in the future.)
DeleteAnd that still probably didn't make much sense.
I agree with the contention that clone farms would be an unethical method of obtaining donor organs.
DeleteThe creation of artificial organisms is probably best left to technologies like transgenic organisms and stem cells.
If it is possible to clone the organs alone that would save many lives.
DeleteThere is a movie called The Island in which the people are clones who are harvested for organs when the organs are needed the IMDb site url is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/
i believe that cloning has both a good side and bad. From looking at all of the comments above i have concluded that yes cloning can help in a sense of couples who are infertile, but on the other hand if put into the wrong hands or gotten out of hand.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with cloning. While there can be some good coming out of cloning, the majority of it is unnecessary. As I said in my previous post in reply to Jessie, there are some things science doesn't need to mess with, and I believe cloning should just be left alone. For example, several scientists want to try and recreate a Wooly Mammoth by cloning genes they found on Wooly Mammoth bones. The Wooly Mammoth went extinct for a reason, and it would not survive in this day and age. Additionally, human cloning is not only dangerous, but I also believe it is unneeded. Humans have done a perfectly good job of staying alive without the help of cloning.
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you claim that "the majority of it is unnecessary... there are some things science doesn't need to mess with"?
DeleteWe (as in humans) have been doing just fine for quite a while now. Science doesn't need to mess with something that works perfectly fine on its own.
DeletePresent evidence substantiating your claim that "We (as in humans) have been doing just fine for quite a while now. Science doesn't need to mess with something that works perfectly fine on its own."
DeleteWhat do you mean present evidence? People saying that cloning could help people who don't have kids, and want them, etc., can adopt, do IVF, there are millions of ways to have a child without cloning. Humans have been reproducing forever, science doesn't need to step in. Yes, IVF is extremely helpful, I will concede that, but WITH the option of IVF/adoption, cloning is unnecessary.
DeleteHaving a child is not the same thing as having a biological child. There are ethically justifiable uses for cloning that are not addressed in your argument. For example, homosexual couples that wish to have biological children are currently unable to.
DeleteThis also addresses your claim that 'Humans have been reproducing forever, science doesn't need to step in." Homosexual couples have not been having children forever.
If you would like to further discuss this issue, please amend your claim that "Humans have been reproducing forever, science doesn't need to step in" with the knowledge that this technology will benefit homosexual couples.
I agree with Kylie....we shouldn't have to clone someone or something because it will "benefit" us. We are doing fine without another one of any of "us" running around.
DeleteWhat reason is there to clone or use any of the technologies within these blogs other than to benefit humans in some way, shape, or form
Delete@Leann:
DeleteThe use of human cloning technology will allow homosexual couples to have children. This is currently impossible. This is an ethically justified use of human cloning technology.
An ethical justification from the Journal of Medical Ethics can be found here:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
Reading the comments above, there are many sides in cloning. As said before by Jacob, and organ farm could save many lives, but it IS very unethical. A clone of a human still has the feelings of a human. Using clone technology for couples who are infertile sounds good, but let's look at the long term effects. Overpopulation is a risk for the future. My side is neutral for this topic.
ReplyDeleteThere are ethically justifiable uses for human cloning technology. For example, cloning could allow homosexual couples to have biological children. See this paper, published in The Journal of Medical Ethics, for an ethical justification of this use.
Deletehttp://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
I guess its not all meaningless... I still have mixed opinions about this.
DeleteHere are two questions to ponder: Can we do it, but better yet should we do it?
ReplyDeleteTrue Josiah
DeleteWe definitely should not. Sometimes science just needs to leave enough alone.
Delete@Kylie:
DeleteAgain, on what basis do you make this claim?
List of social benefits and risks of differenty types of cloning:
ReplyDeleteBenefits in cloning body parts:
* Solving the organ
transplant shortage.
* Curing of diseases.
Benefits in cloning animals:
* Creation of health-care products.
* Animal husbandry.
* Revival of endangered and extinct species.
Benefits of cloning humans:
* Cloning of children for infertile couples.
* Cloning of departed loved ones.
Risks of body part cloning:
* Creation of human terminate it.
Risks of animal cloning:
* Several failed attempts for one successful animal clone.
* Genetic defects.
Risks of human cloning:
* Human clones with genetic defects.
* Loss of genetic identity.
* Human cloning getting out of control.
Cloning won't cure diseases. It would more likely allow for the evolution of more advanced super viruses due to the lack of genentic diversity and other factors.
Delete@Annie:
DeleteWhat evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that "Cloning won't cure diseases. It would more likely allow for the evolution of more advanced super viruses due to the lack of genentic diversity and other factors."?
How exactly does cloning lead to viral evolution? What mechanism causes this to occur?
Cloning in general seems so unethical. Why should an exact copy of something be made? where is the significance in that? There seems to be absolutely no point in ever cloning humans. Cloning degreades the value of life to the point where is it meanigless.
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you claim that "Cloning degreades the value of life to the point where is it meanigless"?
DeleteThere is a lot of significance to cloning. For example, it could allow infertile couples to have biological children.
I should amend this statement; please disregard the sentence above stating that cloning "could allow infertile couples to have biological children."
DeleteInstead, consider that cloning could allow homosexual couples to have biological children.
Reading this, I agree with your view. Cloning humans does seem rather meaningless.
Delete@Javier:
DeleteI have just stated in my above comment that "cloning could allow homosexual couples to have biological children." This possibility is not at all meaningless.
I still do not totally see the usefulness of cloning so that homosexual couples could have biological children. Tons of homosexual couples have been able to 'have' children that are theirs through IVF. While their has to be a woman to carry the child, the child will still look like the father.
DeleteSorry, I meant there.
DeleteA gay couple cannot have a child through IVF. One member of the couple can, but the couple cannot. There is a significant difference between these two cases that you have failed to address in your statement.
DeleteNotice I put 'have' in quotation marks, and I didn't say 'fathers', I said father. While no, a homosexual couple cannot have a child that is biologically both theirs, I still do not believe cloning is the answer to that problem.
DeleteI fully understand that there are semantic differences between our two statements. However, you have still failed to address my point. A homosexual couple, using cloning technology, can produce a child that is biologically the child of both parents. This is an ethically justified use of human cloning.
DeleteHowever, since you "do not believe cloning is the answer to that problem," I would like to hear from you what you think is the solution that will allow homosexual couples to have biological children.
As long as you are unable to 1) present an alternative solution that allows homosexual couples to have children that are related to both parents biologically or 2) prove logically with valid premises and conclusions that this use of cloning is not ethically justifiable, you will not have dismissed my point. Please provide either of these things if you would like to continue this discussion.
I don't believe that you can personally justify the use of human cloning because you believe that your reason is 'ethically justified'. I've been trying to say all along that what I've been saying are my ethics. Ethics are an offshoot of your morals, and therefore you can't claim that because of your ethics, cloning should be used.
DeleteI would firstly like to note that you have failed to meet any of the challenges I presented to you. I clearly stated that if you would like to continue this discussion, you must 1) present an alternative solution that allows homosexual couples to have children that are related to both parents biologically or 2) prove logically with valid premises and conclusions that this use of cloning is not ethically justifiable.
DeleteI have never stated that cloning is justified because I believe it is ethical. Belief has no bearing in intellectual debate. What I have argued is that there exists a valid ethical justification for human cloning. A paper providing this justification exists at the following link.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
If you are unable to overturn this justification, then it exists regardless of your beliefs. Again, your beliefs are irrelevant in this discussion.
How are beliefs irrelevant in this discussion? We were told to pick a side in each debate, and it so happens this is the side I chose.
DeleteAdditionally, no, I cannot give another way for homosexual couples to have biological children. I just don't believe cloning is necessary. Like the article I posted said, humans would want to start playing God. Even if this could be called a slippery slope, jumping straight from cloning to people playing God, it is true. I also believe that people (and this isn't everybody, but some people would) would want to start creating 'perfect' clones and clones used just for their limbs. While no, not everything related to cloning is bad, I feel that the cons outweigh the pros.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Beliefs are irrelevant when you are trying to JUSTIFY your position. Stating that "my position is true because I believe it to be so" has no validity in intelligent argument.
DeleteI would like to note again that you have failed to either 1) present an alternative solution that allows homosexual couples to have children that are related to both parents biologically or 2) prove logically with valid premises and conclusions that this use of cloning is not ethically justifiable. This means that you have still failed to overturn my piece of evidence. As long as you are unable to do one of these two things, my piece of evidence will stand, and you will have no basis to claim that cloning is morally unjustifiable.
Additionally, I would like to note that you have repeatedly failed to substantiate your claim that "humans would want to start playing God." In fact, you admit that this uses a slippery slope fallacy.
I have come to the conclusion that perhaps you do not understand what a logical fallacy is. Allow me to briefly explain.
A fallacy is an error in logic. When you have used a logical fallacy in your argument, that argument is no longer valid. Allow me to repeat myself. That argument is no longer valid.
Your argument, because it contains a slippery slope, is not valid. It cannot be used as justification, period.
Now, it also occurs to me that perhaps you do not know what a slippery slope fallacy is. A slippery slope fallacy is a claim that A will cause B when there exists no causal link between A and B.
Currently, you have failed to demonstrate that the use of cloning for reproductive therapy will lead to "humans... playing God." If you would like to prove that your argument is not a slippery slope, present solid evidence that there is a clear, logical causal link.
Again, when you have used a logical fallacy in your argument, that argument is no longer valid.
I will offer my apologies for using language that could be construed as condescending. However, I would expect that a member of the STEM Academy better be able to understand information taught in class and apply it to a real-world situation. You have demonstrated to me repeatedly a lack of this ability. You insist on using a fallacious argument that you cannot justify with evidence, but you ignore the evidence which I present.
DeleteAt this point, I am stating the same things over and over again. I do not have the time to continue repeating myself. However, I do have time for constructive, critical debate.
I will continue this discussion if you can present one of three things.
1: An alternative solution that allows homosexual couples to have children that are related to both parents biologically.
2: A logical proof with valid premises and conclusions that the use of human cloning is not ethically justifiable overturning the evidence I have presented to you.
3: Evidence demonstrating a clear causal link between the use of therapeutic cloning for homosexual couples and the behaviors you describe above (playing god, etc.)
If and when you present one of these three things, I will continue this line of debate. However, if you remain unable to do so, I will not continue this discussion with you. I have stated everything that I need to state to give you proof that human cloning is, for certain uses, ethically justifiable.
Kylie, I believe David is trying to say that we should avoid personal feelings/beliefs when taking part in a debate.
DeleteIt is sort of like if I were to say that it is bad for humans to eat leavened bread because God said so.
@Chris: I know what he is saying, but this whole debate was on our own personal feelings, and explain why we do believe the way we do. I believe I have done that efficiently enough.
Delete@David: I do know what logical fallacies are. All I have been trying to say all along is that I disagree with cloning, and just because we have the power to do something, does not mean we should. In Science (or in anything, really), not everybody will agree. I would appreciate if you would stop telling my why I should believe that human cloning is ethical, when I, in fact, do not believe it is ethical. I have given enough evidence on several different posts why I believe that, and have backed up my claims with evidence from more than one source.
I have spare time today, so I can respond to this comment. I think my current methods are not getting through to you, so I'll address your latest comment piece by piece.
Delete"I do know what logical fallacies are."
You have demonstrated in this discussion that you do not understand that a logical fallacy makes an argument invalid. I will use a direct quotation from you in order to make this point.
You stated, "Even if this could be called a slippery slope, jumping straight from cloning to people playing God, it is true."
In this statement, you admit that you have employed a logical fallacy but still have the audacity to claim that your argument is true regardless. This direct quote demonstrates your lack of understanding of what a logical fallacy is.
"All I have been trying to say all along is that I disagree with cloning..."
DeleteI understand that you disagree with cloning. You have repeatedly made this fact very clear. However, if you cannot justify your personal beliefs with credible evidence, then they are not a valid justification for an argument.
"...and just because we have the power to do something, does not mean we should."
DeleteThis is absolutely correct. Having the power to do something does not mean that we should. However, I would also like to point out that having the power to do something does not mean that we shouldn't, either. These two ideas are completely unrelated.
"In Science (or in anything, really), not everybody will agree."
DeleteThis is true. This is why we need to ask each other about our beliefs and the reasons why we hold them in order to come to an informed, intelligent conclusion.
"I would appreciate if you would stop telling my why I should believe that human cloning is ethical, when I, in fact, do not believe it is ethical."
DeleteI have never stated that you should believe human cloning is ethical. I have stated that human cloning is ethical for certain uses whether you believe it or not. Your beliefs are irrelevant in this situation.
"I have given enough evidence on several different posts why I believe that, and have backed up my claims with evidence from more than one source."
DeleteThis is quite the interesting statement. I have checked through this whole comment thread, and the only link that I can find is the one that I posted. Incidentally, it is also the link to the piece of evidence that justifies my argument, which also happens to be a piece of evidence that you have repeatedly failed to overturn.
I would like to see the evidence that you have presented in this discussion. Please provide me with a direct quote from one of your previous comments that has such a piece of evidence in it.
As you should know, a logical syllogism is a form of formal logical argument. It uses more than one premise to come to a single logical conclusion. The great thing about syllogisms is that when they are correctly formed with valid premises and logic, they are objectively and inescapably true. I will make a logical syllogism below.
DeleteMajor Premise: If an act can be ethically justified for one or more purpose(s), then it is not unethical for all purposes.
Minor Premise: Cloning can be ethically justified for the purpose of reproductive therapy in homosexual couples.
See source here: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
Conclusion: Cloning is not unethical for all purposes.
Now, that logical statement is objectively and inescapably true, assuming that both premises are true.
I will state once again that I simply don't care what you believe. I only want to hear what you can justify with valid logical reasoning or credible evidence.
Now, if you can use valid logical reasoning or credible evidence to disprove one of my premises above, then I will concede that you have a valid argument and amend my statements. If you are unable to do so, then it is objectively true that cloning is not unethical for all purposes.
My beliefs are not irrelevant in this conversation. Once again, this whole conversation is based on your beliefs. Additionally, I have given several reasons why I believe something. Not everything has to have scientific backing. I believe that murdering is wrong, but there is no scientific backing to that.
DeleteOnce again, the fact that you think cloning is not unethical for all purposes is your opinion. I believe it is. I don't think cloning should be messed with at all. It is unnecessary. I don't really feel like I have to explain that cloning is unnecessary because I have given my reasons in several other posts before.
Additionally, in another post below this one, I have posted another link (before this conversation) that helps me show people how/why I feel that way I do.
I think that cloning endangered animals and humans is okay. I don't feel the same way about organisms that are extinct. Similar to what Kylie said, I say that extinct species were selected by nature to cease to exist. If there is a couple unable to have children, cloning is a good way for them to live the life they wish.
ReplyDeleteI understand the claim that "extinct species were selected by nature to cease to exist." However, how does this claim logically lead to saying that cloning extinct animals is wrong? This appears to be a non sequitur.
DeleteCloning extinct animals would allow scientists to study them and analyze why they went extinct. We could make significant discoveries and even learn from these animals' mistakes.
While yes, scientists could learn from these animals' mistakes, the fact of the matter is that these animals are still extinct. If you were to allow these animals out in the wild after cloning, they would most likely die/cause some type of major disturbance in their ecosystem. If these scientists were just to observe them in a lab or something similar to that, that would be extremely unfair to the animals.
DeleteOn what basis do you claim that "If these scientists were just to observe them in a lab or something similar to that, that would be extremely unfair to the animals."?
DeleteI don't "claim" that, I know it. Keeping animals cooped up in a lab for some scientist's weird tests is mean. Animals deserve to be able to live a proper life.
DeleteClaiming that "Keeping animals cooped up in a lab for some scientist's weird tests is mean. Animals deserve to be able to live a proper life." is not only an appeal to emotion but is also a blatant mischaracterization of animal testing, constituting the use of a straw man fallacy. There is nothing about cloning that necessitates that animals be mistreated.
DeleteFurthermore, many people keep pets in their homes with no issue. A researcher with significant financial backing will probably be able to house test animals.
If you would like to further discuss your claim, please present evidence to substantiate your statements.
What do you mean "further discuss my claim"? I will keep on discussing it because it is what I believe.
DeleteAnd yes, the animal would be mistreated because it's not a house cat we are cloning. If you were to clone an extinct animal, it would be something like a dinosaur or Wooly Mammoth. You can't keep that in your house. Besides, if you were to clone an animal, extinct or not, that animal would be poked and prodded and observed so much it would not get a natural life.
Additionally, you do not have to agree with me. This whole blog was put up so we could voice our opinions. This is what I believe, and I believe that I have substantiated my claims enough to where other people could see why I believe what I do.
Your claim that "If you were to clone an extinct animal, it would be something like a dinosaur or Wooly Mammoth" constitutes the use of a slippery slope fallacy. I have never asserted that dinosaurs or mammoths will be cloned. This has never been necessitated. We could clone, for example, small mammals or plants that have gone extinct.
DeletePlease substantiate your claim that "that animal would be poked and prodded and observed so much it would not get a natural life." There exist multiple non-intrusive methods of observing animal behavior.
I fully understand that you can hold your opinion, and in fact, are entitled to believe what you want. However, we are here to discuss the issues presented in a critical and scientific manner. This necessitates the use of logical argument with valid premises. On multiple occasions, you have failed to substantiate your claims with scientific evidence. Additionally, you have employed multiple logical fallacies in your responses to me.
You have not provided enough support for your premises to justify your conclusions. Until you do so, I will address these concerns in a respectful and intellectual manner.
Again, if you would like to continue this discussion, please present evidence to substantiate your claims.
For one method of studying animals unintrusively, see http://www.eurisy.org/index.php/news/item/170-biotrack-studying-animal-behaviour-by-satellite-navigation.html
DeleteThis article presents the use of GPS tracking collars to study animal activity.
I would like to get some clarification. Several of you have mentioned cloning as a possible option for a couple that cannot have a child naturally. I am unclear about why this would be necessary. I suppose if the woman or man were entirely infertile(i.e. she has had and ovario-hysterectomey) that this would be an option that would allow the couple to have a child with at least his DNA; but a similar result could be accomplished with an egg donor/serogate mother with much less expense and risk to the child. However, most couples who struggle with conception are still able to produce some egg and sperm. For those couples, in vitro fertilization is a much more realistic, and currently available option. Have you found articles in the databases that mention human cloning as an option for reproductive therapy?
ReplyDeleteMy next question is directed at Kylie. You have mentioned twice that the organism being cloned dies in the process. Where did you get this information? This is not how the process works, as I understand it. Please help me understand your meaning and your source for this information.
I would like to get some clarification. Several of you have mentioned cloning as a possible option for a couple that cannot have a child naturally. I am unclear about why this would be necessary. I suppose if the woman or man were entirely infertile(i.e. she has had and ovario-hysterectomey) that this would be an option that would allow the couple to have a child with at least his DNA; but a similar result could be accomplished with an egg donor/serogate mother with much less expense and risk to the child. However, most couples who struggle with conception are still able to produce some egg and sperm. For those couples, in vitro fertilization is a much more realistic, and currently available option. Have you found articles in the databases that mention human cloning as an option for reproductive therapy?
ReplyDeleteMy next question is directed at Kylie. You have mentioned twice that the organism being cloned dies in the process. Where did you get this information? This is not how the process works, as I understand it. Please help me understand your meaning and your source for this information.
I would like to get some clarification. Several of you have mentioned cloning as a possible option for a couple that cannot have a child naturally. I am unclear about why this would be necessary. I suppose if the woman or man were entirely infertile(i.e. she has had and ovario-hysterectomey) that this would be an option that would allow the couple to have a child with at least his DNA; but a similar result could be accomplished with an egg donor/serogate mother with much less expense and risk to the child. However, most couples who struggle with conception are still able to produce some egg and sperm. For those couples, in vitro fertilization is a much more realistic, and currently available option. Have you found articles in the databases that mention human cloning as an option for reproductive therapy?
ReplyDeleteMy next question is directed at Kylie. You have mentioned twice that the organism being cloned dies in the process. Where did you get this information? This is not how the process works, as I understand it. Please help me understand your meaning and your source for this information.
I will concede that when I had raised the possibility of cloning allowing infertile couples to have children in my reply to Annie, I had not considered the possibility of surrogate mothers. This does seem to be an adequate solution, and I will offer my apologies for speaking before thinking.
DeleteHowever, I believe that the point still stands that cloning has serious potential benefits that deserve research.
On a related note, I would like to raise the point that while there are already solutions for infertile couples, these solutions do not exist (to my knowledge) for homosexual couples that wish to have biological children. Cloning and other genetic technologies may allow homosexual couples to have children of their own.
DeleteSome people that I know do have issues with the use of a surrogate mother (or the use of a sperm bank). That would be a time in which cloning could be good.
DeleteThe example would be an aunt of mine.
Deletei also agree with you Devan, it is cruel. sure it has some benefits, but it is cruel and most clones don't even survive. yes it can help other people with diseases and other things that is wrong with a person if you do clone but people have to realize, when you clone someone, you have just created another human being or animal and you have to treat with the same respect. clones or not, it is still alive with the feelings and such things like that. if you clone something so you can save other people,a person dies either way,except, this is murder because most likely, the clones didnt sign up to die.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Fleener: I thought you said that in the library, if you were to clone Terrell, Ashtan, and I, you would be arrested because the original people would die?
ReplyDeleteEven if that is untrue, I still believe cloning is unethical and should not be done.
On what basis do you claim that "cloning is unethical and should not be done."?
Deletehttp://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=3&hid=7&sid=6036d28d-36de-4eac-b87c-a95cf1072008%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=12436956
DeleteThis article illustrates some reasons explaining why cloning should not be done. It has some reasons why cloning could be beneficial, but overall, their points against it are very important and help show why I think cloning is unethical.
Your article states that "The cloning of fetal stem cells is particularly immoral, because it requires cells from aborted fetuses."
DeleteThis is absolutely not true. The Stem Cell Basics page from NIH clearly states that "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
The page can be found here:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Your article states that "The cloning of human beings, however, should be permanently banned, as an offense to human dignity. The practice raises the possibility of babies born... to serve as providers of "spare parts" for sick relatives."
DeleteThis is a clear use of both the slippery slope and straw man fallacies. Human cloning has never necessitated that organs be harvested from clones. This blatant mischaracterization is not supported by any evidence that the article provides.
Additionally, there are ethically justifiable reasons for the use of human cloning technology. This article from the Journal of Medical Ethics presents an ethical justification of the use of human cloning in order to produce biological children for homosexual couples.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
Your article states that "The cloning of human beings is particularly distasteful, and shows humans' desire to 'play God' regardless of the risks to the people born in this manner."
DeleteThis is another blatant straw man mischaracterization found within your article.
Your article states that "This is also an area in which the world's great religions need to speak authoritatively, as in the case of other human rights issues."
DeleteAs I am sure you are aware, the scientific method is a secular process that does not involve religious beliefs. While the world religions are free to speak as they see fit, their words have no authority in the scientific community.
Allow me to make one thing very clear.
DeleteThe practice of human cloning will not necessarily lead to organ farms, designer babies, or anything else of the sort. To claim otherwise is to make use of the slippery slope fallacy.
While these practices are indeed unethical, as I am sure we will both agree, their possibility alone does not provide a valid basis for the anti-cloning viewpoint. You would not argue, for example, that because we have car accidents, we should ban cars. In both cases, a negative possibility outweighs many potential benefits.
As I have brought up with you many times in the past, there are ethically justifiable uses of human cloning. Until you can address these uses, I will contend that human cloning technology has real uses that deserve research.
There appears to be a contention from the anti-cloning circle that the cloning of humans is unethical. This claim appears to be based on the assumption that clones will only be harvested for organs or kept for scientific experimentation. This is simply not the case.
ReplyDeleteCloning technology can provide benefits which are morally and ethically justifiable. For example, a homosexual couple that wishes to have children is not able, with current technology, to produce a baby that is theirs biologically. Cloning would allow this. It can be argued, even, that not allowing them to have children is the ethically unjust position.
This paper from the Journal of Medical Ethics provides ethical justification for reproductive cloning when used with genetic modification.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/654.full
i can see how many people would be for and against cloning. i myself am against the whole idea. yes, "You can also clone stem cells to repair damage caused by cancer, spinal cord injury, stroke or burns" as Sara said. however, if scientists continue their research in this study, that should be their stopping point. succeeding in cloning a human leads to less genetic diversity, possible genetic deffects in the clone, and possible over populating since the human race is possibly near its carrying capacity already.
ReplyDeletePlease provide evidence substantiating your claim that "cloning a human leads to... possible genetic deffects in the clone". If the cloning procedure is done correctly, it seems to me that the clone would only have the genetic defects the original human had.
DeleteIn addition, your claim that "cloning a human leads to less genetic diversity" can be addressed by using genetic modification in the cloning process. This possibility also addresses the previous concern, as any genetic disorders in the original human can be engineered out in the clone.
Cloning is an interesting subject for me. I am a Catholic and the Church has quite an issue of it being humans playing god. I see no issue with the cloning of other animals due to its uses for science. I think that the cloning of human organs could be extremely beneficial for those who need an organ yet can't find a donor (this could make having a donor obsolete).
ReplyDeleteThe cloning of entire human beings is something that I can't say I agree with. There is no way I can defend that belief; I just simply don't agree with it, but I can't really explain why.
If there is no way you can defend your own beliefs, perhaps it is time to rethink them.
DeleteIt's not really good practice to a critical debate with no backing for your position.
Excuse the typo; I meant to say "It's not really good practice to enter a critical debate with no backing for your position."
DeleteI fully understand what you are saying. I just felt it would be best to cover that topic due to it being a generally controversial subject, even if I could not defend the statement. But yes, I agree, it is not good practice to make a statement you can't defend.
DeleteCloning is wrong because, what if someting goes wrong a person winds up with radiation in their systems?
ReplyDeletePlease present evidence substantiating your claim that cloning will lead to radiation poisoning.
DeleteI went and found http://www.humancloning.org/essays/tae.htm.
DeleteThe only time the word radiation appears on that page is in the sentence "Infertility is caused by genetic defects, injuries to the reproductive organs, congenital defects and exposure to toxic substances and radiation."
DeleteThat sentence states that infertility can be caused by radiation. It makes no statement concerning cloning.
Again, please present evidence substantiating your claim that cloning will lead to radiation poisoning.
I agree with Sara to an extent. Cloning is absolutely necessary, but it depends on the situation of the cloning process. If you are cloning someone's healthy cells to replace the bad cells they may have, or in the case of cloning my sisters so that they will not have to go to Japan, but their clones will. Anyway, if someone was just cloning to clone or to satisfy his or her piqued curiosity, then it is wrong.
ReplyDelete