# Human Cloning



## Dene (Apr 23, 2010)

Yes or no? I want straight answers. If you aren't sure, then just pick what your intuition tells you at present. Feel free to discuss.


EDIT: Sorry I wasn't clear on exactly what I was looking for. I was actually referring to the ethical concerns regarding cloning, and not the practical concerns. Please redirect discussion towards this end, thanks.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 23, 2010)

what benefit is there? Don't we have enough people already to not start copying the ones we have? All this will do is create more people, so no point.


----------



## Edward (Apr 23, 2010)

Depending on the use, yes (or no :s)
I guess I'll go with yes. Usually science like this at the very least has good intentions (i think).


----------



## iasimp1997 (Apr 23, 2010)

Nope. What Dan said.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 23, 2010)

I have to agree with Dan. I'm something of a Malthusian myself, so I think an extensive reduction in the human population by plague or some such disaster would be in humanity's long term interest.


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 23, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> what benefit is there?


I doubt people would be studying it right now if there were no use at all...


----------



## anythingtwisty (Apr 23, 2010)

I vote no. Something tells me that a new form of slavery might occur.


----------



## Dene (Apr 23, 2010)

I edited the original post to make clear what I meant by this poll. Sorry about the confusion.


----------



## Kian (Apr 23, 2010)

RyanO said:


> I have to agree with Dan. I'm something of a Malthusian myself, so I think an extensive reduction in the human population by plague or some such disaster would be in humanity's long term interest.



Malthus could not have possibly been more wrong about many things. His belief that disease or famine made the planet more tenable for human life was silly. He failed to account for many factors that allow us to sustain greater and greater populations with higher and higher quality of life.

Anyway to the questions at hand. There is no difference between a cloned person and a non cloned person, but frankly I don't see why cloning a whole person makes much sense. I understand the research implications in cloning organs, but I'd have a serious problem with cloning people and making them organ farms if that how they have to go about it. Basically I have no problem with cloning parts of people but cloning a whole person I just don't see how that is helpful.

Edit: Started this post before the edit from the OP. I don't really care about any ethical concerns (apart from using people as organ farms), if that's what you're getting at.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 23, 2010)

no, i think human cloning is bad. it violates much of our morals, from my point of view.


----------



## IamWEB (Apr 23, 2010)

It would be cuh-razey, of course!

We, humans, can reproduce on our own, and it's the only way we've ever made more humans. Essentially manufactured people just aren't the same (yet they are the same because they're clones), having them live amongst us like regular people is just a very weird thing to adapt to, knowing they didn't get here the way all of us have.

This probably isn't a very good basis, nor do I want to debate it, but I suck at conveying this in text.

Bottom line, nah. It'd be cool to know we could (and potentially dangerous), but why do it?


----------



## Weston (Apr 23, 2010)

Does human cloning include human organ cloning?
Because if it does, then yes.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 23, 2010)

Kian said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > I have to agree with Dan. I'm something of a Malthusian myself, so I think an extensive reduction in the human population by plague or some such disaster would be in humanity's long term interest.
> ...



Malthus' timeframe was wrong, but I would argue that many of his assertions still hold true. His failure to predict the Green Revolution made his claims seem debunked for a while, but as technology begins to plateau, the expansion of population in proportion to food supply once again becomes problematic. You may be content with your current quality of life, but for most people, living conditions are pretty poor.

I don't really have a problem with cloning body parts for medical use, but I do have a problem with cloning a full person. In general, I'm against most things that discourage diversity.


----------



## IamWEB (Apr 23, 2010)

Weston said:


> Does human cloning include human organ cloning?


----------



## Kian (Apr 23, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



By every measure we are better off then we were 100 years ago. My living condition may be much, much better than others, but life expectancy, general health, access to drinkable water, are up across the board. 

Anyway, we don't need a mass disease or anything of the sort to balance population. Success is doing that already. While we don't see the results quite yet in many places, economic prosperity lowers birthrates dramatically. As more and more nations reach that plateau we will essentially even ourselves off. In fact, we may see a great reduction in population in the next, say, 1000 years, if we don't do anything about it. 

Basically my point is this, there are obviously a limited number of nonrenewable resources on this planet, but technology continues to expand exponentially while population will eventually taper off. I see no reason to believe anything Malthus said was accurate.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 23, 2010)

Kian said:


> While we don't see the results quite yet in many places, *economic prosperity* lowers birthrates dramatically.



This is true. However, one of the the problems with things like humanitarian aid is that we are increasing life expectancy without improving economic conditions in the developing world. While quality of life may have improved for the average poverty stricken individual there are an ever increasing number of those individuals.

Humans are pretty much the top of the food chain, seeing as there aren't any natural predators that remove humans from the population with anywhere near the rate of replacement. This leaves things like disease, natural disatsers, family planning, or war to keep the population in check. If the population were low enough, it would actually be feasible to eliminate poverty and hunger.

I know we're supposed to be discussing moral rather than practical issues regarding cloning, but for me it's hard to seperate the two. I feel a moral obligation to do what is practical.


----------



## SebCube (Apr 23, 2010)

No! The clones might turn against us, lol.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Apr 23, 2010)

My gut says it's unethical. But my mind says it would be useful. Then it tells me we already have overpopulation problems. So I go with a tentative "no" here.


----------



## Edward_Lin (Apr 23, 2010)

Just don't clone Feliks.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Apr 23, 2010)

I thought this forum was against knockoffs.


----------



## Edward (Apr 23, 2010)

Edward_Lin said:


> Just don't clone Feli*x*.



Who?


----------



## sequencius (Apr 23, 2010)

Not a good idea. See stories like "Brave New World".


----------



## Zane_C (Apr 23, 2010)

There's already too many people in this world, we don't need to clone.


----------



## Thomas09 (Apr 23, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> There's already too many people in this world, we don't need to clone.


+1. What about all the people who are then unemployed? But it's also a matter of _who._ For example, you won't clone an old person, they'll die soon.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 23, 2010)

Thomas09 said:


> For example, you won't clone an old person, they'll die soon.



Learn how cloning works. :fp


----------



## riffz (Apr 23, 2010)

JBCM627 said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > what benefit is there?
> ...



If this were true then Pure mathematicians and philosophers would be out of jobs. Sometimes we do things out of curiosity and for the sake of furthering our understanding of how things work, regardless of the benefits.

But I think the purpose of human cloning research is more for the purpose of organ farming like Kian said, rather than making copies of ourselves. I agree with Dan about population issues.


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 23, 2010)

riffz said:


> JBCM627 said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt people would be studying it right now if there were no use at all...
> ...


Sure, but this isn't one of those cases. Cloning is expensive.


----------



## Escher (Apr 23, 2010)

Yep. In regards to ethics, all cloning really is is giving somebody a twin. I don't believe in any sort of 'sanctity of life' so it does not particularly worry me.

Will edit later with a bit more.


----------



## sequencius (Apr 23, 2010)

Imagine if they cloned the gingers.. =O


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Apr 23, 2010)

sequencius said:


> Imagine if they cloned the gingers.. =O



Or even worse, stupid people.

I say no to the cloning thing until a really good reason is proposed.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Apr 23, 2010)

Inf3rn0 said:


> Or even worse, stupid people.




*Shudder*
There are FAR too many of those in the world as it is.


----------



## r_517 (Apr 23, 2010)

no. never.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 23, 2010)

Escher said:


> Yep. In regards to ethics, all cloning really is is giving somebody a twin. I don't believe in any sort of 'sanctity of life' so it does not particularly worry me.



This.

If someone wants to create a genetic duplicate of themselves (and they have the resources to do it), I say go ahead. Remember that clones need to be raised, fed, etc. as much as any other children, so it's not like you can realistically cause overpopulation by cloning, and it's not like someone's gonna go create some kind of clone army. Nowadays there are two options for kids (naturally create or adopt) and if you introduce cloning all it means is there is a third option (naturally create, adopt, or copy someone).


----------



## Edward (Apr 23, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> Inf3rn0 said:
> 
> 
> > Or even worse, stupid people.
> ...



You're not born stupid (assuming there's no brain disorder), you're only raised stupid.


----------



## Dene (Apr 23, 2010)

Edward said:


> Hadley4000 said:
> 
> 
> > Inf3rn0 said:
> ...



Actually, the potential to become smarter is largely genetic. For example, levels of attention, and natural ability to learn. These two factors strongly affect an ability to become intelligent.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 23, 2010)

Dene said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Hadley4000 said:
> ...



Yep, the assertion that all people are created equal is ridiculous.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 23, 2010)

Why not? If the reasoning goes along the lines of 'its not natural', then you might as well throw away your cubes, ditch your computer, car, clothes etc and go live in a cave. 

I think there is no problem with doing it from an ethical point of view, so long as the clone is given a proper up-bringing and treated the same as anyone else. From the clone's perspective it would be little different to being an IVF'd twin sibling.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 23, 2010)

Clone organs, don't make whole humans for an organ farm. Anyone read "House of the Scorpion?"


----------



## RyanO (Apr 23, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> Hadley4000 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this forum was against knockoffs.
> ...



I'm assuming most clones would be made with the permission of the original, so the clone isn't really a KO. Besides, I don't recall any cases of people copywriting their DNA.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Apr 23, 2010)

Just no.


----------



## EE-Cuber (Apr 23, 2010)

NO. And its not an ethical / moral question for me. I dont think human kind is mature enough to handle such a feat of science. we can't even preserve our own planet.. more of us is not a good thing.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Apr 23, 2010)

i think there's nothing wrong with cloning, because you have cloned neither the memory nor the age of the original person. 
It's a totally different person, just that he/she have identical DNA with someone else.

PS: cloned human will have a shorter lifespan because the telemeres (lol spelling?) on the chomosomes are worn out to a degree, compared to a normal newborns' chromosomes.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 23, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > Clone organs, don't make whole humans for an organ farm. Anyone read "*House of the Scorpion*?"
> ...



You could ask the same question about naturally born humans. The idea of a soul is pretty abstract.


----------



## a small kitten (Apr 23, 2010)

But he is obviously Ichigo from Bleach. 

I don't have a very strong position but it leans towards "no".


----------



## riffz (Apr 23, 2010)

JBCM627 said:


> riffz said:
> 
> 
> > JBCM627 said:
> ...



Universities all over throw millions of dollars into pointless research. But I do agree that cloning is extremely costly.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 23, 2010)

It seems a large majority of the people posting in this thread do not understand how cloning works. It's not like I would just step into a tube with a bunch of flashing lights and ten seconds later two 20 year old David Woners with the exact same physical features and memories walk out. Cloning is basically just creating a fetus with the exact same DNA as myself, and it would be born naturally as an infant. And given what a large influence environmental factors has upon a child's development, my clone would likely be very dissimilar from how I am now by the time it is 20. It's diet and level/type of exercise as a child would not be the same as mine, so we may be physically different as well. And since we would have different scarring, we wouldn't even have matching fingerprints!

And since clones are born the same way as humans are currently born, it wouldn't have an effect on the birth rate.

Personally, I find nothing ethically objectionable about it. If we can use it to clone organs and shorten the donor waiting list, then that's great. I can't think of any other applications that aren't kind of pointless though.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Apr 23, 2010)

So, you're saying "Family Matters" lied to me. I don't buy it.


----------



## shelley (Apr 23, 2010)

I really don't see any point in cloning an entire human. It's not like making a new human being is hard, plenty of people do it without even intending to (which can sometimes bring us to this thread, but that's beside the point.)

Okay, I can see one reason for wanting to create a human being with the same genetic information as another - guaranteed match for transplants. But most people would see that as a big ethical no no, not to mention excessively unnecessary if cloning just a single organ is possible.


----------



## beingforitself (Apr 23, 2010)

Having two genetically identical humans violates my sense of religious morality. Ergo, I believe all currently existing identical twins should be rounded up and one of them eliminated.


----------



## Dene (Apr 23, 2010)

Ok here's a scenario (might we bear in mind the fact that 1 in 6 couples is infertile):

Me and my hot azn wife want a baby. We try the "natural" (lol) way for a whole year, but no results. So we go to a doctor, take some tests, and it turns out that we are among the other (1 in 6) couples that cannot conceive. Say, for example, it turns out I have an abnormally low sperm count. What are our options?
Adoption: But it turns out I am an ex-con, and they reject us from being allowed to adopt on that basis.
IVF: I simply don't have enough money for this risky experiment.
Surrogacy: Again, not enough money.

The only option left is to clone myself and for my wife to give birth to mini-Dene. Is this not a good enough reason to allow for cloning?


----------



## Escher (Apr 23, 2010)

Dene said:


> Ok here's a scenario (might we bear in mind the fact that 1 in 6 couples is infertile):
> 
> Me and my hot azn wife want a baby. We try the "natural" (lol) way for a whole year, but no results. So we go to a doctor, take some tests, and it turns out that we are among the other (1 in 6) couples that cannot conceive. Say, for example, it turns out I have an abnormally low sperm count. What are our options?
> Adoption: But it turns out I am an ex-con, and they reject us from being allowed to adopt on that basis.
> ...



This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Also, even if you could afford IVF, would you really want it? 
From the point of view of the male parent, your bond with the child might be different (i.e. possibly worse) if they are the product of another man's sperm. In a biological sense it isn't your child. 
And from the point of view of the child; not knowing who your 'real' father is, or having anything to do with them, could well be psychologically damaging. 

In these circumstances, I know what I would choose.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 23, 2010)

@Dene: Why do you think cloning will be cheaper than IVF or surrogacy?


----------



## shelley (Apr 23, 2010)

Cloning would be like IVF, but with additional complex steps. If you can't afford IVF you probably can't afford cloning either.


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Apr 23, 2010)

shelley said:


> It's not like making a new human being is hard


Not to mention much more fun than cloning


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 24, 2010)

Hadley4000 said:


> Inf3rn0 said:
> 
> 
> > Or even worse, stupid people.
> ...



If we're looking way into the future, people might eventually start being breeded, which would be much more practical with clones. I'd like the think that would mean less stupid people, although I don't think humans should be breeded--we're not animals.




beingforitself said:


> Having two genetically identical humans violates my sense of religious morality. Ergo, I believe all currently existing identical twins should be rounded up and one of them eliminated.



That seems rather cruel. What kind of religious morality gives you that belief?




Cride5 said:


> *cubes*, ditch your computer, car, *clothes* etc



Just wanted to point out the order they're placed in.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 24, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > *cubes*, ditch your computer, car, *clothes* etc
> ...



Haha ... ordered by entertainment value. Clothes lowest because sometimes _no clothes_ can be more entertaining


----------



## aronpm (Apr 24, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> we're not animals.


Yes we are.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 24, 2010)

Absolutely. Yes.
Like, apart from religion, and Dan's initial reason, I really can't see why not.
But I'd only like to make a few, like 5. Then we can do awesome genetic altering.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 24, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Clone organs, don't make whole humans for an organ farm.


Obviously. Unless you're looking for infant organs for some reason, raising someone just for organs would be incredibly cost/time inefficient.



koreancuber said:


> If we cloned a human, does it have a soul?


Um, DUH? It's just a person who happens to have the same DNA as someone else. Your question is like asking if identical twins both have souls.



Chapuunka said:


> I don't think humans should be breeded--we're not animals.


Sure we are.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Apr 24, 2010)

Cloning would be so much more boring than the original method.


----------



## TacoCube (Apr 24, 2010)

being able to clone yourself would be pretty badass. but it'd be weird at the same time.


----------



## nck (Apr 24, 2010)

with a million people having brad pitt's genes in their blood stream, goodluck to those who arent as pretty

kinda off topic, but current medical research is in the long run making the human race weaker. for example people with generic heart conditions are treated in ways that were not possible naturally(with the aid of high tech stuff) they live on rather than dying at a young age and reproduce to pass their genes on. so we have this situation where normal evolution does not take place as not only the strongest survive, and in the long run, the human race is "evolving" into a weaker specie. 

as far as that is concerned, i would say cloning is not beneficial 


but i would still love to see cloning made possible because just because we have the ability to clone brad pitt doesnt mean that we have to do it that way. producing organs would be pretty lovely as most of us today are concerned about living a happy life rather than humanity's future blahblah.


----------



## Dene (Apr 24, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> @Dene: Why do you think cloning will be cheaper than IVF or surrogacy?



I don't necessarily think cloning would be cheaper, but I see no reason for it to cost more. Surrogacy is so expensive because of the payment of the surrogate. This payment would be removed with cloning. IVF is so expensive because there is a large fail rate, so repeat attempts are usually expected. Each attempt costs in excess of $10,000.

The great benefit of cloning is that it would be an all-round solution to the problem, and then as methods improve and accuracy increases the costs would come down. While we banter around with all the silliness no progress is made.


I may as well just make it clear that my own personal view is pro-cloning. I'll go more into detail why I made this thread at a later stage, but for now I can't be bothered.



nck said:


> with a million people having brad pitt's genes in their blood stream, goodluck to those who arent as pretty


You clearly do not understand how cloning would work.




nck said:


> kinda off topic, but current medical research is in the long run making the human race weaker. for example people with generic heart conditions are treated in ways that were not possible naturally(with the aid of high tech stuff) they live on rather than dying at a young age and reproduce to pass their genes on. so we have this situation where normal evolution does not take place as not only the strongest survive, and in the long run, the human race is "evolving" into a weaker specie.



Weaker in what sense? By living longer and being the most dominant and advanced species on the planet?


----------



## nck (Apr 24, 2010)

Dene said:


> You clearly do not understand how cloning would work.



there is a reason why we say that genes can affect your looks(duh)
you may not grow up looking exactly like the person you are cloned from but to say that a child looks like his/her parents is not purely based on psychological factors



Dene said:


> Weaker in what sense? By *living longer and being the most dominant and advanced species on the planet*?


by weaker i mean there are and will be more people with generic diseases as people with these diseases produce instead of dying off like in the past (dont get me wrong, i think this is great in the sense of equality but...)

im not comparing *human* to *other species *but to *humans* if we dont have technological support

there is a reason for you to read the thing you quote and try to comprehend before you quote it and ask things like"Weaker in what sense?"


----------



## Dene (Apr 24, 2010)

Dude I was trying to be nice but it's on.



nck said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly do not understand how cloning would work.
> ...



Why in hell would a million people get access to Brad Pitt's DNA? We are talking about cloning oneself, not cloning the hottest guy on the planet a million times over so that all the pretty girls have a pretty guy to stand next to them. Also, as per DavidWoner's post, not everyone is going to look exactly the same because they have the same DNA. Environment plays a key role in development.



nck said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Weaker in what sense? By *living longer and being the most dominant and advanced species on the planet*?
> ...



I read what you said, but I didn't think it made any sense, nor do I still think it makes any sense.

Firstly, by "generic" I assume you mean "genetic" (please learn to spell, and also learn some grammatical skills, before you come here trying to own people).
Secondly, why is it that by keeping people alive they are going to spread their genetic disease? What diseases do you have in mind exactly? Most people with serious genetic diseases still do not stay alive long enough to reproduce. If they do, they would have whether we could do anything about the disease or not. Before you try to counter argue I expect you to provide a good example of a genetic disease that would otherwise kill, but due to us keeping these people alive they are able to reproduce and spread their disease.
Thirdly, in what way does living longer compared to previous generations of humans involve other species? I mean, sure I did mention that in the second part of the sentence. But the first part of the sentence still stands, and I am yet to see you attempt to counter argue that point.

Please, give me ONE GOOD REASON why we are becoming "weaker" and not stronger. I cannot see any disadvantage to us gaining more knowledge about genetic diseases, possibly to the point where we can eradicate them altogether through negative eugenics.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 24, 2010)

I say no to anything that has to do with Human Cloning. btw There is a difference between a clone and a human... that should be obvious..


----------



## qqwref (Apr 24, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> I say no to anything that has to do with Human Cloning. btw There is a difference between a clone and a human... that should be obvious..


:fp


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 24, 2010)

qqwref said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > I say no to anything that has to do with Human Cloning. btw There is a difference between a clone and a human... that should be obvious..
> ...



Oh, you're cool...?:fp


----------



## shelley (Apr 24, 2010)

Dene said:


> Secondly, why is it that by keeping people alive they are going to spread their genetic disease? What diseases do you have in mind exactly? Most people with serious genetic diseases still do not stay alive long enough to reproduce. If they do, they would have whether we could do anything about the disease or not. Before you try to counter argue I expect you to provide a good example of a genetic disease that would otherwise kill, but due to us keeping these people alive they are able to reproduce and spread their disease.



Easy: Myopia (not a disease I guess but certainly a condition that is hereditary). Back in the day people with bad vision would have been eaten by saber tooth tigers. Now with corrective lens technology they can all live to pass on their genes.


----------



## Dene (Apr 24, 2010)

shelley said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, why is it that by keeping people alive they are going to spread their genetic disease? What diseases do you have in mind exactly? Most people with serious genetic diseases still do not stay alive long enough to reproduce. If they do, they would have whether we could do anything about the disease or not. Before you try to counter argue I expect you to provide a good example of a genetic disease that would otherwise kill, but due to us keeping these people alive they are able to reproduce and spread their disease.
> ...



I know you're only playing with me shelley, but in case others don't pick up on that I need to explicitly make clear that this is not a legitimate disease for the present purposes. Firstly, it's not "serious", secondly it doesn't kill as of itself (so death is not guaranteed).


----------



## irontwig (Apr 24, 2010)

I don't really see why it would be immoral; all you get is is twins with different birth days (which you get naturally anyway, my grandmother and her twin sister were born on different days).


----------



## shelley (Apr 24, 2010)

Myopia by itself doesn't kill, but without modern technology it certainly reduces an individual's reproductive fitness. If we're dealing with evolutionary forces, that's all that's needed. Death isn't explicitly required, it just happens to be the most obvious and effective way to reduce reproductive fitness.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 24, 2010)

shelley: I'm not sure myopia is genetic at all - there are probably genetic factors involved, but I think most cases tend to be based on behavior. At least in my case, a childhood spent mostly looking at books (as opposed to relatively far-away things) is almost certainly the cause.



jackdexter75 said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...


Oh, you still don't understand...? The only important difference between a clone and an identical twin is that a clone would be born many years later. I don't know how you could say a clone isn't human.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 24, 2010)

shelley said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, why is it that by keeping people alive they are going to spread their genetic disease? What diseases do you have in mind exactly? Most people with serious genetic diseases still do not stay alive long enough to reproduce. If they do, they would have whether we could do anything about the disease or not. Before you try to counter argue I expect you to provide a good example of a genetic disease that would otherwise kill, but due to us keeping these people alive they are able to reproduce and spread their disease.
> ...



Sickle Cell Anemia.
Haemophilia.

Plenty of diseases are considered "treatable" now due to modern medicine, even though natural selection would dictate they be eradicated.


----------



## blade740 (Apr 24, 2010)

I have nothing against it. I, like many others in this thread, don't believe in any sort of sanctity of life. The "soul" is nothing more than the product of a conscious mind (which a clone would have, same as any human being).

Now, obviously, cloning is an expensive procedure, and it's not the kind of thing you would just use willy-nilly. The medical uses would be incredible (though I agree that a cloned baby is still a baby, and to raise a baby for the soul purpose of slaughtering it and harvesting its organs is wrong).


----------



## MTGjumper (Apr 24, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> Sickle Cell Anemia.



I was under the impression that sickle cell anemia hadn't been "eradicated" as it offered resistance to malaria, so individuals, especially in Africa, were at a selective advantage if they actually had the sickle cell anemia.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Apr 24, 2010)

No. It would be unsafe.


----------



## Edmund (Apr 24, 2010)

No


----------



## beingforitself (Apr 24, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> btw There is a difference between a clone and a human... that should be obvious..



Yet another proponent of my ingenious identical twin eradication scheme.


----------



## shelley (Apr 24, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> btw There is a difference between a clone and a human... that should be obvious..



Is there now? What is this obvious difference, for those who aren't as enlightened as you are? What do you call it if it's not a human?


----------



## Dene (Apr 24, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



I'll tackle Haemophilia since sickle cell anemia has already been accounted for:

Whilst in severe instances you are probably correct in saying that by natural selection these people would be killed. But the less severe cases are unlikely to kill before reproductive age in a "natural selection" scenario anyway. 

But this is nice because it illustrates the other point I was trying to make: while there is no actual cure for haemophilia at the moment, the knowledge we have of it will allow for us in the future to eradicate the disease entirely, while anyone that would have died would be able to live a healthy life without the disease at all.


----------



## TheMachanga (Apr 25, 2010)

Instead of cloning people we should be killing people because of overpopulation right?


----------



## daniel0731ex (Apr 26, 2010)

i sense some Nazi logic here.....


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 26, 2010)

Dene said:


> If you aren't sure, then just pick what your intuition tells you at present.



My intuition tells me that I'm not sure.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 26, 2010)

qqwref said:


> koreancuber said:
> 
> 
> > If we cloned a human, does it have a soul?
> ...



That kind of depends on what how you define a soul. It could also be seen as the ability to think, react, have instinct (what sets an animal apart from say, a rock), which would give clones souls. But personally, I see it as the part of us that makes us "in the image of (the Christian) God." With that definition, I think you'd have to go through the more traditional process, a God-sanctified sort of thing. We ourselves can't make a being that's God-like, seeing as how we're not God. I think that's also what sets us apart from animals--in the spiritual sense, not the scientific sense.

But, y'know, Christianity; not science.


----------



## Dene (Apr 26, 2010)

daniel0731ex said:


> i sense some Nazi logic here.....



By whom?


----------

