Cloning: Is it a problem?
 

What are people's ideas about cloning humans? Is it good or bad? Why?
Are there any clones on the forum that could comment on their experiences?

I'm inclined to think there is no theoretical problem with cloning. There are lots of practical, utilitarian questions about how successful we can be in the process and whether there will be unanticipated side effects, but in principle I can't see why it would be wrong.

Who would want to do it? What would be the benefit?

Wouldn't those research dollars be better spent finding cures for cancer or other desease?

Ah, another one of Kerry's "make ya think" threads:D I'll do my usual jump in eary, withdraw early stunts here.
Were I to have no religous beliefs, I'd say "why not"?
Since I do, I say "no way". It's messing with what I believe to be the natural god-given method of reproduction.
Ok. I stirred the hornets nest. Let it rip!:D

Brief moment of levity: Everytime I hear somebody on TV talk about cloning, I think of that song, "Clowns."
<Gosub>
Isn't it bliss, don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around
One who can't move
Where are the Clones?
Send in the Clones.
<Return>

Everytime I think about cloning I get confused.

I start with growing spare parts. Its not such a big deal. I'd sure like to have a wardrobe of spare parts from which to draw portions when needed. It would be fun to take-up risky sports like lion wrestling or parachute-less skydiving. With parts on hand, what would it matter? The crime of assault would probably have reduced importance.

Similarly with full-being cloning. Why not a secondline Botnst, or a lawyer Botnst or a "John Holmes enhanced" Botnst for thsoe special moments? We could live as a team.

Of course, since I'm the original, I get priority and all those clones are secondary beings. That would be tres cool.

Then I have second thoughts.

B

I do have religious beliefs, but I seriously doubt anyone can be cloned in the strictest sense of the term.

There are too many factors into the shaping of a personality. A clone will turn up being a complete individual person. Not a clone at all.

Cloning can be created through DNA manipulation, but what shapes a person is their personal environment. That's it, plain as PB+J with marshmellow spread.

Perhaps we can learn to alter genetic coding to eliminate heridatary diseases and increase our lifespan. Does cloning offer this?

I see your point, but must point out that we're already doing that, aren't we? Test tube babies, frozen sperm and eggs, using medical practices to save babies and fetuses headed for the scrap heap... Is this really so different? To me, it's just a matter of degree, I suppose.

One of the best arguments I can think of in favor of cloning people (as opposed to tissue for medical use) is the life of twins. I have known a few twins in my life, and they really seem to like being twins and garner a lot of benefit from the experience. For instance, twins have a substantially lower suicide rate than non-twins.
So, let's imagine that two male twins decide to marry two female twins because they can increase the odds of having twins as offspring. That's interfering with reproduction but it doesn't seem unreasonable and it is unimaginable that the government would forbid it.
How is that different than fertilizing one egg and then cloning it, implanting both and producing twins for the purpose of enriching their lives?

Must be a slow classroom day....kerry got to come fishing in the forum for a class topic/discussion?

The problem with cloning is the inevitable short leap to eugenics.

Actually, the topic is about to come up in an Ethics class so I'm curious about the general range of ideas and rationales. I can always count on getting a broad range of ideas here with some interesting justifications.

From a practical point of view . . . is there a shortage of human beings or problems with normal reproduction so that cloning a whole human being, rather than cellular or tissue cloning, is necessary? The worst application of complete human cloning would be "harvesting" or "vanity." The harvesting argument is that the richest or most influential would commission clones as a parts warehouse of their own body parts. The vanity application would be the preservation of a particularly admirable "human." Neither of these applications would seem to warrant cloning.

I agree that vanity is a bad reason to clone. But people have children all the time with similar kinds of rationales, but we don't forbid it.
I'm not so sure about the replacement parts issue. If a couple has a second child to give a bone marrow transplant to a first child that is sick; as long as they love and care for the second child in a similar manner to the first child, I don't think there is a huge problem in doing that.

At least you are honest. I can respect that :)

Agree 100%.

My opinion is that Bush (Jeb) should have kept his nose out of the Schaivo case.

apart from sci-fi clones, any clone would be simply a genetic identical able to live as an independent being. That is if the clones are intended to become people... 'harvest bodies' or frontal lobe deficient organ/limb donor clones have every chance of being available, but it sure is hard to imagine.

Clones would allow for the proverbial last man or woman on earth to repopulate, would he or she be privy to the cloning technology. I can envision a kid-cu-bator in a couple hundred years that accepts hair from both parents, male or female, and in several months the clone baby is ready for 'birth'. No more messy pregnancy, and paternity/maternity test would be a sinch.

DNA evidence would be impacted to some degree...
"So, mr. Forensic scientist, how sure are you that this man is guilty due to DNA evidence?"
"100% sure, er... unless he's been cloned"

But, since identical DNA still produces cells that look/act differently, I'm sure they'd get over that hump.

I can also immagine the potential for classism regarding clones, or the discrimination by 'first bloods'....

Still, no clones would posess the personalities of the constituent donor(s), so the potential to inadvertently run into one's own clone on the street is rather slim.

I'm curious as to the scientific findings of recent cloning experiments. With Dolly the sheep, even though it was born new, the cells had the behavior of cells that were the age of the donor sheep... So that could be a problem for hopes to establish a vibrant population of human-lifespan clones.

As for the 'ought' or becoming a creator question, I guess it seems hard to prove either way... what kind of God would be caught off guard with the intellect of humanity so that He'd will mankind to screech to a halt all technological progress? If there is a God, She'd have seen this coming a mile away. But, it does seem a little unnatural on a gut reaction...

Interesting topics. I miss philo classes!