To Clone or Not

Ischaramoochie

Hey! let's start a debate thread on cloning. not necesarily like the other cloning threads which tackle the general info about the subject. this thread is aimed at implementation of the technology and its repercussions to society.

main theme: "We now have the technology to successfully clone humans. all we need now is to decide whether or not to do it."

Who's in favor, who's not? at least i can say that i am for it, and perhaps Yuri_prime. at least now all of us have a chance to air our thoughts regarding the subject and let ourselves be heard.

perhaps it better to follow the format of the "jesus is god-man/man" thread where only two speakers at a time may post and perhaps put in an improvement: each of the speakers are only allowed 4 posts.

ok, so who'se interested?

Hyperion

To clone. It is inevitable. Resistance is futile. :borg:

Ischaramoochie

are you up to it? the debate i mean...

Hyperion

If I have the time. But I will be busy in the next few days but who knows ... might drop by to inject an opinion or two. Hmm drop the rules/format, that might result to loooooooong posts that are difficult to read and digest.

Ischaramoochie

hmmm, ok. start projecting your thoughts.

Hyperion

I'd rather wait for the salvos of anti-cloning sentiments first.

These are good resources on the topic:

Benefits of Human Cloning

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering

Ischaramoochie

ok, let me give you some.

while cloning humans may seem very far off, cloning human components are a ready technology. we now have the ability to clone different parts of the body from any cell which has DNA, which coincidentally is every cell in the human body.

the thing is, to do this, the cell must regain its totipotency, its potential to become any cell in the human body (e.g. brain, cardiac, fat, etc.). scientists must first reverse the "age" of a call and so to speak "rewind the biological clockwork" inside. to do this, they must first reduce the cell into its embryonic stage. the problem here is that once reduced to that, the cell assumes the form of an embryo, and as with ethicists, a potential human. scientists are quick to assert that doing this procedure, the "embryo" does not have the time to divide its cells and produce all the parts necessary to form a complete human. rather, it only replicates its cells to form the desired class of cells needed. the moral dilamma here is that the mass of cells is already in an an embryonic stage once totipotency is restored, and that manipulation of the cells within it would be equal to making a natural embryo produce only desired cells. this being the case, would it still be justified to clone even if only for human components knowing that we are "killing" an embryo?

Hyperion

What would be ethically unsound would be taking a natural embryo (resulting from sexual conception) and then converting it into a bio-factory of sorts. However, this embryonic factory of spare parts is not really a naturally occuring embryo resulting from sexual union, is it? It is a result of an artificial process which cannot happen on its own. It is an existing cell taken from an existing individual, and then manipulated to degenerate into the embryonic stage. By all means, it is possible to recreate this embryo again and again and again which means that as long as the source of these embryos is still alive - these embryos (which are clones of the original anyway) are expendable.

Ischaramoochie

yes. but the thing is, these "artificial embryos" under the right conditions and without manipulation, would develop to be complete humans in the same way that an identical twin would be. the main pont here is that the embryonic stage of a cell would mean that it has no difference to a twinned naturally occuring embryo and thus must acquire all the rights hat a natural human embryo has.

consider the case of artificial twinning. is it justifiable to keep one of the split embryos in a petri dish and carry on the other in vitro? if so, then how come we deny to the other what has been granted to the original? or better yet, how do we determine which one is the original? both of them are products of the same embryo and each of them is as human as the other. by creating splits of embryos, we are not merely creatinc copies of the same organism, we are actually creating a new and numerically unique entity.

killing embryos, wether artificial or natural, would therefore be tantamount to killing human beings. or rather potential ones that is...

oh, and by the way, animal embryos have limited cytoplasm so that an initial embryo can provide material for only up to 8 splits. plant cells can do this indefinitely.

Hyperion

Although biologically and functionally identical - an artificial embryo is by no means equivalent to a natural human embryo. By artificial - it means it is man made, it is repeatable, it is not unique (not until it is born to develop into an individual). The point is it will not exist if it was not made to be what it is and it is in fact a manipulated cell, not an embryo.

Without cloning, an embryo is a potential human being. But with cloning - any nucleated cell with DNA is a potential human being. What now - would killing a cell be unethical?

Ischaramoochie

with regard to killing a cell, no. but a cell reduced to the embryonic stage, perhaps. this is why i forwarded the example of identical twins. ideally an embryo develops naturally into a human being, but through certain circumstances the embryo divides (articicially) creating a "twin". the artificial twinning that i have forwarded uses the same method. by splitting the embryo into half, what the doctor does is simply isolate one special cell from its partner thereby creating another human.

taking this back to the cloning of specific body parts, the cell that was "wound up" ceases to become the static cell that it once was and turns into this "special cell" which is of the same class to the cell that produces a new human being. now, this is contrary to what you have said that the process is repeatable. the original cell can only produce a number of identical copies which would not necessarily be "clones". by clone, we accept it as similar only in DNA, not in all other aspects such as cellular organization. also, even if the process were repeated, the emerging new embryo would be numerically distinct from the original ones and from the other copies. each of them would, provided the environment cooperated, grow into an individual human having his own traits and personality.

Whether the embryo is alive is of no debating issue, but whether it is human is of great importance in solving all of these problems. the result of this method of "body part cloning" is not a manipulated cell, but an actual embryo!

you said that "it will not exist (as an embryo) if it was not made to be what it is and it is in fact a manipulated cell, not an embryo". however, we must not discount the fact that since it is made into an embryo, it is no longer a manipulated cell anymore. once totipotence has been restored, the cell becomes an embryo capable of splitting and forming distince cellular groups that would later turn out to be parts of a new human. tampering with this process to create only one king of cells or harvesting some of the already specialized ones would be equal to robbing an individual human being of body parts, something unacceptable in ethical situations.

even if it does not become a human being in the end, but a clump of skin tissue or any other. it has, at one point, bacome biologically human and distinct from others. there is no difference between an artificially "created" embryo and a naturally occuring embryo except the process which was involved in "creation". other than that, they are the same human substance.

Yuri_Prime

If what you guys called "artificial embryos" are of exactly the same components and structures as the "natural embryo" formed during bam-bang on the bed (or elsewhere if you're that adventurous), then that should lead us to the conclusion that an embryo, until certain phase of development is not a human being and thus should not be granted with the rights of a human being. Thus the union of ***** and ovum is not the beginning of human life.

And Ischaramoochie, are you sure you can divide the sides as simply pro-or anti-cloning? This side has many gray areas and not just black and white. Some self proclaimed "anti-human" cloning may say that they will favour human cloning under the following condition (like cloning only body parts and not entire human). Some self proclaimed "pro-human" cloning may say they oppose human cloning under the following conditions (like clones should be treated as individual humans and not as utilities).




Find your Role-Playing
Stereotype at mutedfaith.com.

Ischaramoochie

good point there yuri! perhaps yes, an embryo should not be treated yet as human until a "certain phase" of development has been achieved. however, the problem that arises with this is defining this "certain phase". some people would put it as early as the 8 cell stage where cell-specialization begins . yet, some people start with conception itself. true it is very difficult to provide answers to these such questions. and the riddle to these mysteries is but one of the arguments raised against cloning - it simply raises too much questions for its potential worth.

also, with regard to yeour "grey areas" the discussion started with your first classof people, the "anti-human" cloning. notice that i have been embphasizing that before the cells could become any of the parts needed, the cells must pass first through the embryonic stage, which would mean that we would be using a whole embryo as spare parts. of course using an embryo for reproductive purposes is much more acceptable than using its parts. specializing its cells to only a certain class is tantamount ti "killing" the potential human.

p.s. i have found info on Rael and the Raelian movement Clonaid. it seems that a Rael, a former french sports journalist, had seen himself as half human and half alien. this is because alledgedly, his mother was abducted by aliens and impregnated with their seed, thus producing rael in 1946, and because his "fathers" were beginning to contact him every now and then. contemporary genetics has been predicted by Rael at least 23 years earlier, saying that it is a necessary part of human evolution to do so. The raelians founded a company named "Valiant Venture Ltd" which advertises on the web and is supposed to be the world's first cloning firm.

suggested readings (very good books):

Rantala M.L., Milgram, A.J., Cloning For and Against,
Carus publishing Co., Ill., 1999

Kimbrell, A., THE HUMAN BODY SHOP: The Cloning, Engineering, and
Marketing of Life, Regenery Publishing Inc., Washington, 1997

Rolston H., Genes, Genesis and God., Cambridge University Press, 1999

Rorvik, D.M., IN HIS IMAGE: The Cloning Of A Man, J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1978

Cole-Turner, R. (ed.), HUMAN CLONING: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Kentucky, 1997

Ischaramoochie

good point there yuri! perhaps yes, an embryo should not be treated yet as human until a "certain phase" of development has been achieved. however, the problem that arises with this is defining this "certain phase". some people would put it as early as the 8 cell stage where cell-specialization begins . yet, some people start with conception itself. true it is very difficult to provide answers to these such questions. and the riddle to these mysteries is but one of the arguments raised against cloning - it simply raises too much questions for its potential worth.

also, with regard to yeour "grey areas" the discussion started with your first class of people, the "anti-human" cloning. notice that i have been embphasizing that before the cells could become any of the parts needed, the cells must pass first through the embryonic stage, which would mean that we would be using a whole embryo as spare parts. of course using an embryo for reproductive purposes is much more acceptable than using its parts. specializing its cells to only a certain class is tantamount ti "killing" the potential human. Those who assert that they would only favor cloning for "parts" disregard the fact, or simply do not know that the cells have to become an embryo first before it can be "programmed" to specialise. thus, it would be "killing" an embryo for one of its parts.

p.s. i have found info on Rael and the Raelian movement Clonaid. it seems that a Rael, a former french sports journalist, had seen himself as half human and half alien. this is because alledgedly, his mother was abducted by aliens and impregnated with their seed, thus producing rael in 1946, and because his "fathers" were beginning to contact him every now and then. contemporary genetics has been predicted by Rael at least 23 years earlier, saying that it is a necessary part of human evolution to do so. The raelians founded a company named "Valiant Venture Ltd" which advertises on the web and is supposed to be the world's first cloning firm.

suggested readings (very good books):

Rantala M.L., Milgram, A.J., Cloning For and Against,
Carus publishing Co., Ill., 1999

Kimbrell, A., THE HUMAN BODY SHOP: The Cloning, Engineering, and
Marketing of Life, Regenery Publishing Inc., Washington, 1997

Rolston H., Genes, Genesis and God., Cambridge University Press, 1999

Rorvik, D.M., IN HIS IMAGE: The Cloning Of A Man, J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1978

Cole-Turner, R. (ed.), HUMAN CLONING: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Kentucky, 1997

Ischaramoochie

good point there yuri! perhaps yes, an embryo should not be treated yet as human until a "certain phase" of development has been achieved. however, the problem that arises with this is defining this "certain phase". some people would put it as early as the 8 cell stage where cell-specialization begins . yet, some people start with conception itself. true it is very difficult to provide answers to these such questions. and the riddle to these mysteries is but one of the arguments raised against cloning - it simply raises too much questions for its potential worth.

also, with regard to yeour "grey areas" the discussion started with your first class of people, the "anti-human" cloning. notice that i have been embphasizing that before the cells could become any of the parts needed, the cells must pass first through the embryonic stage, which would mean that we would be using a whole embryo as spare parts. of course using an embryo for reproductive purposes is much more acceptable than using its parts. specializing its cells to only a certain class is tantamount ti "killing" the potential human. Those who assert that they would only favor cloning for "parts" disregard the fact, or simply do not know that the cells have to become an embryo first before it can be "programmed" to specialise. thus, it would be "killing" an embryo for one of its parts.

p.s. i have found info on Rael and the Raelian movement Clonaid. it seems that a Rael, a former french sports journalist, had seen himself as half human and half alien. this is because alledgedly, his mother was abducted by aliens and impregnated with their seed, thus producing rael in 1946, and because his "fathers" were beginning to contact him every now and then. contemporary genetics has been predicted by Rael at least 23 years earlier, saying that it is a necessary part of human evolution to do so. The raelians founded a company named "Valiant Venture Ltd" which advertises on the web and is supposed to be the world's first cloning firm.

suggested readings (very good books):

Rantala M.L., Milgram, A.J., Cloning For and Against,
Carus publishing Co., Ill., 1999

Kimbrell, A., THE HUMAN BODY SHOP: The Cloning, Engineering, and
Marketing of Life, Regenery Publishing Inc., Washington, 1997

Rolston H., Genes, Genesis and God., Cambridge University Press, 1999

Rorvik, D.M., IN HIS IMAGE: The Cloning Of A Man, J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1978

Cole-Turner, R. (ed.), HUMAN CLONING: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Kentucky, 1997

Ischaramoochie

i guess no one's interested...

freakster2k1

i am not well read in this topic:

but the main problem as i forsee it is the 'uniqueness' of the individual. In that case we ought to question its validity based on the 'uniqueness' idea. if there is a way of which we can 'verify' the uniqueness of a person; then we ought to allow it.

the second point: is cloning for human parts. This might solve the problems we have today. If the clone is not conscious then let it be clone. However, the moment it has consciousness; then its blurry.

am i making sense?

Ischaramoochie

nope. you are making perfect sense. a person does not attain uniqueness simply by biological differences. twins will be more alike than clones will ever be (at least, with the current tech we have). furtheremore, individuality (existentially speaking) comes from unique experiences, so even if we clone a person and let his clone loose in society, it will become another person.

are you talking about headless humans? i've read something about that. if you want, we could set up a discussion about something of the sort

shaoron

Originally posted by Ischaramoochie
Hey! let's start a debate thread on cloning. not necesarily like the other cloning threads which tackle the general info about the subject. this thread is aimed at implementation of the technology and its repercussions to society.

main theme: "We now have the technology to successfully clone humans. all we need now is to decide whether or not to do it."

Who's in favor, who's not? at least i can say that i am for it, and perhaps Yuri_prime. at least now all of us have a chance to air our thoughts regarding the subject and let ourselves be heard.

perhaps it better to follow the format of the "jesus is god-man/man" thread where only two speakers at a time may post and perhaps put in an improvement: each of the speakers are only allowed 4 posts.

ok, so who'se interested?

One word: NO!!!
nuff said!

freakster2k1

no need to create one. we will continue discussing here. i am just writing a paper on something else. so i promise when i wake up.. or when i get back from school, ill write something that needs lots of pondering.

Ischaramoochie

One word: NO!!!
nuff said!

you'll have to give a reason for that. a simple "no" doesen't convince anybody. if you want, you could be on the "con" side though... start firing...

no need to create one. we will continue discussing here. i am just writing a paper on something else. so i promise when i wake up.. or when i get back from school, ill write something that needs lots of pondering.

okidoki, i'll do some research on this one...