Cloning Your opinion on cloning

[iGuest 3]

illegal

Cloning

 

Animal cloning should be illegal in all states countries and countys because its in human to clone something that doesn't have a say in it.

 

-reply by kristy

[iGuest 3]

I think that cloning is not WRONG, but not the right thing to do, either. I mean our world has so many money problems as it is (with things we NEED) and we are wanting to spend money on CLONING?!?!?!? OMG that makes me mad. There are people who are starving out there, HELP THEM.-reply by Danielle

[mikeyboy63 0]

I support cloning. It's just like having a twin. Do we outlaw twins? A clone is a normal person. How that person came to be is irrelevant. They're people with Constitutional rights like the rest of us. Just like having kids.If it were possible to clone organs without the rest of the human being, then I support that. I don't support cloning people to harvest their parts or to transplant your brain into the head of a clone, since that's murder. The 'clone' is a person just like everybody else. Religious nonsensical arguments have no place in the discussion. Clones would not have souls, just like humans. To oppose progress on the basis that it will disprove your religious beliefs is a crime against our species. People's religious beliefs will simply change to accept the new truth. You can't disprove a religion. People will simply ignore the proof. That's why religion belongs in the home and the church, but not in science or the law. It's irrationality and schizophrenia.

[Aethix 0]

I think the moral and psychological issues behind this are to endless to ever really discuss fully. "Organ harvesting" could be the way to save millions of lives every year, at the cost of another. Whos life is more important, yours or the clones? Also, don't you think their are enough people on the planet already? Just what we need is going around creating new ones out of thin air, or out of a single strand of DNA. :DThis is an issue I really don't know how I feel on. There are so many positives, all with a downside that it really makes it hard.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

I am against cloning completely. Some of it is because of religious purposes and others are because it just doesn't seem right to "make" people. I understand we do "recreate" foods and stuff, but that is completely different...

To better illustrate my point is some information pulled from a website. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/cloning.html
It helps to better distinguish first of all what cloning is, and then relate it to a biblical sense.


A book titled, In the Beginning, There Was Dolly, says:


'The lamb has always been a symbol of innocence. This changed abruptly in the spring of 1997. "Dolly," a barely three-month-old sheep, hit the headlines, displacing politicians and pop stars from the front pages of newspapers and magazines. Overnight, the fluffy white lamb of innocence had become a symbol of threat to human society through an eerie new technologycloning.'1

Why all the fuss? Because 'Dolly' was a genetically identical copy of an adult sheepa clone. She was the first such clone of a mammal (see section on Dolly).

But how do we judge cloning according to the Bible? In answering, we will first give some biological background.

The cells of a living beingwhether in the skin, lungs, nose or elsewherehave a complete set of genetic 'instructions', known as the genome. From the very first division of the fertilized egg, the nucleus of each cell formed by successive cell divisions stores the complete genetic information.

At a very early stage of embryonic development, the cells specialize (or differentiate) so that some become nerve cells, some skin cells etc. Each performs different functions, based on different parts of the genetic code. That part of the genome which is not needed for the specialized function of a gland cell, for example, is not lost but is switched off or 'asleep'.

In 1996, Ian Wilmut succeeded in awakening the hidden information of the nucleus of such a cell from its slumber (see section on Dolly).

Dolly is a copy, a clone of the sheep whose udder cell was used. A clone (from Greek klon) is an individualplant, animal or human beingderived by asexual reproduction from another organism that has the identical hereditary components. Individuals could derive from the same cell (identical twins), or the clone could originate from the cell of another individual.

But, in spite of the fact that clones have the same genotype, they are never absolutely identical. The way an individual develops depends to a high degree on the surroundings, too (see section on Lenin).

Cloning is not a human invention. The Creator Himself planned this way of reproduction. When we plant potato tubers of the previous year, the potatoes we later harvest are just as nutritious and tasty. This is because there was no new combination of hereditary information, with one plant being pollinated with the DNA of another. They are in fact clones of the previous year's plant.


Strawberries are also propagated from runners which are actually clones of the parent plant, bearing fruit with the same color and taste.

We also see cloning in the animal kingdom. Aphids can reproduce both sexually and by cloning. In spring the first aphid generation hatches out of fertilized eggs. Later, the aphid lays eggs that start to divide without being fertilized. They are clones of the mother. Many other animals reproduce by cloning: certain bees, ants, crustaceans, and lizards.


Concerning people, we know that identical twins are real clones. The fertilized egg splits in two, and each of these two 'daughter' cells develops separately. They are individual people with an absolutely identical set of genes. Because of this they have the same innate gifts and talents, as well as the same predisposition to particular illnesses. They have the same color hair and eyes, the same shoe size and the same features. But, in spite of this, they are two different people: each of them experiences the world in a unique way, and each is uniquely molded by his or her individual experiences and choices. Both have their own personality, and their own soul.

So is humanity allowed to use the cloning technique? Humans are appointed rulers over 'the fish of the sea and over the fowl [birds] of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth' (Genesis 1:28). So I see no reason why it should not be used in plants and animals. Especially where there is a benefit to mankind, such as less hunger or disease. Christ's example indicates that things (such as healing, binding wounds, peace-making, and feeding the hungry) which oppose the effects of the Curse are 'blessed'.

When humans breed wheat that can be cultivated in cold areas, or use artificial selection to get cows yielding more milk, we are also 'manipulating nature'. But of course, few would (or should) oppose such intervention. I think that God's instruction to humans to subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28) also allows for cloning.

The world-wide fear of cloning derives from a vague and confused anxiety about a technology that seems out of control. Gunther Stockinger wrote in the German news magazine Der Spiegel, chronicling the year 1997:

Biologists and doctors anywhere in the world could hit upon the idea of generating genetically identical copies of geniuses, top-class athletes, artists or movie stars. The person off the shelf, or "*person* xerox", would no longer be mere fiction. Even Hitlers and Stalins could be produced in the labs of bio-modellers if only one usable cell of theirs could be found.

A major reason for this fear is that in today's 'evolutionized' world, there is no dividing line between the animal kingdom and humans, so the same ethical standards apply to dealings with both.

The Bible, however, draws a clear line between animals and humans, and gives us ethical guidelines:

Humans were created separately, in God's image, unlike the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:27). Our existence extends beyond physical death (Luke16:19-31, Philippians 1:23). This is nowhere indicated for animals.

God allowed humans to kill animals (Genesis 9:2-3). Concerning other humans, He gave the commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill [the Hebrew ratsach means 'murder']'(Exodus 20:13).

God entrusted humans with dominion over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26). But humans were never told to have dominion over other humans, nor manipulate them, as would be the case if cloning humans.

Furthermore, humans are meant to have fathers and mothers, to be where possible the offspring of a sacred marriage relationship, the family ordained by God. While unfortunate circumstances in a fallen world mean that sometimes children have to be raised by only one parent, a clone could never have two parents. Thus the artificial cloning of a complete human being, because it deliberately sets out to cause such a situation, is opposed to biblical principles.

There are further reasons for rejecting the artificial cloning of humans. Each fertilized egg, including those from cloning, is a new human individual. Yet perfecting the cloning technique requires many experiments. Many individuals would be enabled to commence life, only to be deliberately destroyed. The research director of a biotechnology firm recently said,

My own view is that the research [on human cloning] is immoral at the present time and should always be immoral. To make the technique more efficient would require a great deal of experimentation. And to get this more refined would be at the expense of having deformed babies, etc. To get it into a situation where you could clone humans efficiently would have such a history of misery associated with it.2

Thus, while it may be right under certain circumstances to clone animals to benefit people, I think it is absolutely wrong to try to clone humans.

HOW WAS DOLLY BORN?
Wilmut's experiment involved three adult female sheep. He first took an udder cell from sheep A, a six-year-old of the Finn-Dorset breed. He then fused the genetic information in its nucleus with an egg cell from sheep B, from which the nucleus had been removed. Tiny electric shocks were used to stimulate this new 'combination' egg cell to divide. Finally, the resultant embryo was implanted into the womb of sheep C, where it developed just like any other sheep embryo.


150 days, Dolly became the first sheep to be born without a father. Mice have now also been cloned from an adult. This was using a cumulus cell, a type which surrounds the ovary, and a slightly different technique. These clones have also been clonedand these againthree generations of healthy clones. Cattle have since been cloned as well.

Dolly was the first genetically identical copy of an adult. As a fertilized egg cell progressively splits, its millions of offspring cells specialize into muscle cells, skin cells or secretory cells, for example.

It was thought that a specialized cell could never revert to become a non-differentiated cell, with all the genetic instructions to form the entire creature 'unmasked'. However, we now know that even adult mammals can be cloned. Return to text.

WOULD A CLONE OF LENIN BE ANOTHER LENIN?

While unlikely, the mummified body of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin just might still provide a complete genetic blueprint of his DNA. What if someone with sufficient technology were to use this to make a clone of the 'father of the Russian Revolution'?

Many people are unaware that Lenin was one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants of this whole evolutionized century. As a recent Time article3 said, his total ruthlessness was the model for Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot. It cites one of the key Soviet dissidents of the era as stating that from Lenin's 'neat pen flowed seas of blood'. 4 The same writer gives us a clue as to how this scholarly intellectual could be responsible for the ruthless extermination of tens of millions: '[Lenin] was a rather kind person whose cruelty was stipulated by science ...'.

Further insight comes from a speech by a self-professed admirer of Lenin, the late Australian historian, Manning Clark, while in Moscow to receive the Lenin Jubilee Medal.5 Lenin, said Clark, belonged to the 'post-Darwinian world [he] tried to tell people about life without Godthere was no God.' Consistent with Lenin's being persuaded by 'science' that evolution was fact, he 'completely rejected the Judaeo-Christian view of the world and its conception of man's place in the universe. He not only rejected the religious version of the creation of the universe and man, but, more importantly, of man's creation in the image of God and man's fall, or to use the words of Lenin's opponents, human sin.'6

So Lenin was only being logicalif Genesis is myth, we must discard all notions of absolute standards of right and wrong. So why not kill as many people as necessary to help bring about the imagined future socialist utopia?

A clone of Lenin would not necessarily give rise to a similarly murderous individual. The interaction of his (identical) genetic blueprint with the countless differences in his environment and opportunity means that Lenin's (hypothetical) offspring would likely be very different from his 'parent'.

As a human being, he would have a unique soul. He could make his own choices in all manner of areas, including rejecting the evolutionism which turned Lenin into a mass killing machine. He might even become a born-again believer in the risen Lord Jesus. So, while not justifying human cloning, (see main text) common fears about 'armies' of identical, ruthless dictators lack a factual basis.

[magic 0]

Hmmm, if its for organs for people who need them is one thing but to just make a person well I dont think that would be right. It seems sensable for kidney and liver, hearts or any organ that can be properly replaced and they should clone only organs that are in popular demand that thousands of people everyday are wating to recieve to continue there life.

[Striker9 0]

What is everyones stance on cloning and why. In my health class today we had a big disscution on this.
I think for some perposess it should be illegal like organ harvesting or medical testing.

Ok, well I always wanted to study genetic engineering at the university (but couldn't because it needs ALOT of money). But anyway, I am impressed of what this science can provide to humans. Let me give you some examples and some point of views concerning this issue...

First of all, cloning has been used before and we all know that but it's not perfect yet because cloned animals either grow with huge organs or die shortly after they are born/created. But let's assume that scientists could clone any animal or maybe human perfectly, what's better than changing one cow into a herd of cloned cows?! This would greatly increase the productivity and maybe help solve alot of starvation problems and even nutrition problems that have a financial base (when there are ALOT of cows in the world, meat won't be expensive relative to some poor countries).

Also, it doesn't stop here, genetic engineering has found great solutions for cancer treatment, and they've shown effectiveness recently. Moreover, genetically improved plants give great productivity and of much better strains. In addition to all that, using some genetic engineering techniques we can detect genetically transmitted diseases (bad genes) through FISH technique and many others, and thus we can replace those bad genes with healthy ones that do not express those diseases. Therefore, after 2 or 3 generations we might be able to abolish all genetically transmitted diseases.

Now, religion and social morals reject most of those techniques for some reasons personally I do not find them eligible. For example, they totally refuse human cloning for the reason that in case that cloned embryo died then we'd be killing a human and as we know there's a big chance that the embryo might die. Also, they claim that we have no right to "create" life by cloning an embryo. But the way I see it, it's "creating" life with the help and supervision of God just like FERTILIZATION! So in brief, I'm totally with cloning, maybe not with human cloning, but I'm definitely with animal cloning and any other genetic engineering technique that would help increase productivity and abolish diseases.

[etycto 0]

if you mean cloning like cloning people for like military purposes or for testing purposes ( effects of certain drugs or whatever) i think that's wrong and shouldnt be done because human life is unique and people shouldnt be used as lab rats. if you mean cloning like animals like chicken, cow and watever so we could have a lot of food, it think that's ok.for organs i dont think they'de use cloning for that, but i dont see too much wrongs with that, even though i dont think the organ would function as well as an original.

[~Nick[; 0]

I would like clones, because the clones could do the stuff we don't want to do Also because they can help us with our work and go to work/school for us so we arent marked absent when we are sick

Edited June 1, 2008 by ~Nick[; (see edit history)

[heavensounds 0]

I think that it is worth mentioning that there are several kinds of cloning that already exist in nature, and some of them are already widely used by humans. Most people think that this is something new and "in the future" but it is not..it is here with us!Take fruit trees. If one is particularly productive, farmers might take a cutting from it and grow a whole new tree... or a whole orchard. They are producing a genetically identical adult from a part of an existing adult. Cloning. And they've been doing this for thousands of years. If we stopped doing it and eliminated all the crops produced in this way, I would be surprised if there was really much left...Next example is something called parthenogenesis. Some female animals can produce offspring without a sperm. They just become pregnant or lay one of their own modified eggs. Since there is no genetic material involved other than their own, the offspring is again effectively a clone of the mother.To suggest, then, that cloning itself is immoral would be like saying feeding people is immoral or that a bolt of lightning is immoral. It happens naturally, it is very useful to us, and is so far largely without harm.Which isn't to say NO harm. I would by lying if I said there were no drawbacks. Genetic diversity is usually a good thing, and having a lot of genetically identical individuals makes a population more vulnerable to disease and less able to spontaneously adapt to external pressures. There is also some concerns about issues surrounding cloning, if not cloning itself: Should clones be property? Should people be allowed to clone others without their permission? Should the government prevent gender ratios (or other traits) from getting unbalanced?So although I would say that cloning itself is absolutely NOT wrong, there are still many ethical issues involved that need to be resolved before such a practice can become even more widespread than it already is, or those issues might cause even greater problems down the line.

[iGuest 3]

hmm,,, I think that cloning has its advantage and disadvantage, if we cloned a human being, that clone... Would it be treated as a human? or a second class citizen... And the thing about having the clone as a "back up" and that they will be a donar if your heart failed or something like that, would we have the right to force them to? After all, they are a human being just like us,  so human rights would apply to them as well. Also, would the mother of the clones treat "them" the same way as a mother would treat her original children?

The thing about cloning, I think it will cause more problems than it would solve, clones would probably rebel due to being treated unfairly (a possibility), religious people will protest, the DNA might somehow get infected, causing the clones to suffer, and being disabled as the result.

-reply by Fenix

 

[zakaluka 0]

I think that most people just jump to the extreme scenario where there are legions of clones being used as slaves and second-class citizens. That is a ways away and it would be very hard for governments or private companies to do something like this without there being quite a lot of moral outrage from around the world.For the more immediate future, if there is a way to grow organs using a limited form of cloning, I fully support it. I don't support cloning a fully conscious human being just to kill him / her for the organs. In addition, if cloning can be used on rare species to increase their numbers, I am in support of that as well (although, we don't want to end up in a scenario where all the current members of a species come from one parent / set of parents -- see problems with purebred dogs for details). Also, if we can find a good specimen of cattle / goat / sheep / etc. and clone it in order to increase food yield, I am thoroughly for the idea.The whole point is to take baby steps. Until we can see what the result is from an incremental action, we will always be hard pressed to correctly guess the effects of the more extreme scenario.Regards,z.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Cloning should stay illegal because it is playing God....That's my religious side that says that, mostly due to society.But in all honesty....I wonder if God isn't the one who taught people how to clone in the first place.My issue with it really...Is that cloned beings can not really have a "soul." I mean there is only one of each person, right? Imagine an exact copy of you running around. It would be thinking like you, acting like you, etc. To me that's not a "clone," it's a robot without feelings.I guess for me it's a very touchy subject because I can see both sides of it: for and against cloning. Personally I'm against it but it's very hard to justify the feeling, it just doesn't feel right to me.(For the record, cloning of other organisms has been going on for tens of years, from plants to animals. I consider the genetically mutated cows - that bring more meat or more milk - and genetically mutated fruits to be clones as well. Because technically that's what they are.)

[jayzeed 0]

First we should start with the definitionDefining Cloning:

Cloning is the production of two or more beings that are complete genetic copies of one another. There are two types of cloning:
I. Cloning by induced identical twinning. As the fertilized egg splits into two cells, each of them is then induced to make a fresh start and behave as if it were the original fertilised egg. Each half would then grow into a separate foetus, and having come from the same fertilised egg, they would be carrying exactly identical genetic components.

II. Ordinary cloning, which is achieved by injecting a nucleus from a somatic cell of an adult animal into an egg whose nucleus had been removed. The cell would then grow into a foetus that would be a true genetic copy of the adult living animal from which the somatic cell nucleus was taken.

I am 50% catholic, but i have nothing wrong with cloning. the main problem with cloning would be overpopulation.

Roman Catholicism and other Christian denominations believe that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception when the sperm and egg unite. They feel harvesting cells for embryonic cloning is tantamount to live human experimentation and contrary to God's will. Further, they maintain producing cloned zygotes that are unlikely to survive is tantamount to murder. Some Christian conservatives express concern that cloned embryos would have no soul, since it was, in their view, born outside of God's parameters. (Even though some believe Eve was a clone of Adam via Genesis 2:22. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.)
Other Christian traditions like the United Church of Christ do not believe a fertilized ovum constitutes a person. They believe that cloning can be conducted ethically in order to help treat disease and improve the public health.

Cloning for recreational use would be a BAD THING, cloning to reproduce important world leaders, or dinosuars would be helpful, important people, would be a serious thing to use this for, cloning to have children for people who cant would be helpful. Cloning should be kept TOP-SECRET confidential to only world leaders, and Government scientists. also for target training would be good for government use, but cruel
----

In any case, human cloning is still a long way away, and the evaluation of its immediate advantages and disad- vantages may vary with the passage of time. It would, even, be premature to say that after so many years of genetic engineering in plants, its safety for humans has been definitely established. Its applications in animals is as yet in its very early stages. Unpredictability is probably the greatest concern in this respect. Mankind should not forget the lessons of splitting the atom whose unexpected consequences emerged only after some time. Close monitoring of plant and animal cloning experiments must, therefore, continue for a considerable time.

Rev. Demetri Demopulos, Greek Orthodox pastor and geneticist:
As an Orthodox Christian, I speak out in opposition to any attempt to clone a human being because humans are supposed to be created by acts of love between two people, not through the manipulation of cells in acts that are ultimately about self-love.

Notice from truefusion:

All copied material must be placed within QUOTE bbcode.

Edited May 31, 2009 by truefusion (see edit history)

[IamAg 0]

Some of my cloning ramblings in a nutshell

No one will be an exact copy of another (unless you [somehow] incorporate their memories and personality as well). However, psychological development, as well as physical treatment, DO NOT factor into cloning. If you kick a baby (never have), they might have a scar there for the rest of their life. Just because you clone someone DOES NOT mean that they will, inevitably, grow up, maybe not even go through the same developmental patterns, the same way.BUT!!!
"cloning" is not what it seems. It is NOT duplicating a person. It is merely using that persons genes and not combining them with another's. This will be subject to many gene replications and environmental factors and the person will be very different. Much like that of identical twins, they have the same genes but can be very different. The only problem with cloning now, is not advanced enough to create a person without risk. If you take a 50 year olds cells and clone them, then you are cloning a cell that is 50 years old, so the clone will start off from a cell that is 50 years old. This is the reason dolly had her problems. However, it would be very possible to clone a new born.( even though the cells were freshly created by the body )


Cloning will also releive childbirth somewhat, pick someones genes you want, go to a "cloning bank" FUTURE... and clone their cells:)

I think that there is a clearly evident ethical problem with the type of cloning described in this post. Under this type of cloning, the parents wish to clone a new child to replace an old one. As if the clone of deceased 8 year old Billy is going to spring out of the womb and say "golly ma and pa, I sure missed ya!" Cloning a child to be a replacement of a lost one would place an unfair burden on the cloned child. The child would be made to exist for the main purpose of being someone who he or she is not, and could very conceivably be held to aritificial and impossible-to-meet standards, HOWEVER
Discussing the "ethics" of cloning in such a case is utterly pointless.

The only thing which is relevant are the long-term effects of any decision.

In the case of a single couple using cloning to 'get their son back', there really aren't any remarkable long-term effects, so the only wasted effort is that of those parents and anyone who discusses the aforementioned ethics of such a procedure.

However, if tens of thousands or more people (not necessarily couples) were to use cloning for reproductive purposes, the surge in the human population we observed during the 20th century might very well look like a minor increase.

Hence the scientifically acceptable answer: reproductive cloning is a big no, unless the 'natural' way somehow doesn't work anymore for the entire human population (very unlikely).
Therapeutic cloning, however, is worth every single effort, as its long-term effects are more than likely to be overwhelmingly positive.

Notice from truefusion:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-cloning-ethical.13711/
First time i've seen someone take several posts from a topic from another site.