FEATURE ADJUSTMENT: The Flag button is temporarily unavailable for members. We are doing certain system adjustments as of the moment to prevent some users from abusing this feature. For reports, please message the moderators or email us at [email protected]
PEx Alert: Welcome to the new PinoyExchange. For access issues, bug reports and technical concerns, please email us at [email protected] Thank you!

First human embryo cloned--what are the implications?

EyeLashEyeLash Heresiarch PExer
The Advanced Cell Technology (research company) of Boston claims that it has successfully cloned the first human embryo.

What are your thoughts about cloning? Do clones have "souls"? Do you think it's acceptable to clone embryos in order to harvest their cells to cure diseases? If it were possible, would you have yourself cloned? Why and why not? How do you think will cloning change humanity?

No debate here, just want to hear your opinions about what I think is most momentuous scientific development since the theory of relativity.
«1

Comments

  • unified_theoryunified_theory megalomaniac PExer
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    The Advanced Cell Technology (research company) of Boston claims that it has successfully cloned the first human embryo.

    Can you provide us an article on this?
    What are your thoughts about cloning?

    It is a scientific discovery that can both benefit and harm humans depending on how it was used, just like all other scientific discoveries.
    Do clones have "souls"?

    Do HUMANS have souls?
    Do you think it's acceptable to clone embryos in order to harvest their cells to cure diseases?

    Well I am in dilema here! I am still trying to figure out whether we should consider embryos as human beings or just cluster of cells. If it's just a mass of cell then whether clone or not we can harvest their cells.
    If it were possible, would you have yourself cloned? Why and why not?

    Certainly... and put my consciousness in all those clones. Para kang isang tao na maraming katawan. Cool huh! But sounds unrealistic at this point in time.
    How do you think will cloning change humanity?

    We won't know unless we try.
    No debate here, just want to hear your opinions about what I think is most momentuous scientific development since the theory of relativity.

    Why fear the debates? This is Realm of Thoughts and there will always be clashing opposite ideas, besides debate is a good mental exercise.
  • WhirrledWhirrled Guess Who's Back? PExer
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    The Advanced Cell Technology (research company) of Boston claims that it has successfully cloned the first human embryo.

    Here's the article courtesy of MSN: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_371000/371378.stm
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    What are your thoughts about cloning?

    Powerful knowledge for humankind :)
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    Do clones have "souls"?

    same question as unified_theory
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    Do you think it's acceptable to clone embryos in order to harvest their cells to cure diseases?

    are embryos human beings?
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    If it were possible, would you have yourself cloned? Why and why not?

    Why would the world want another Whirrled?
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    How do you think will cloning change humanity?

    It will definitely revolutionize fields such as Medicine and Genetics. The change on humanity in general will greatly depend on the impact these fields have on Humanity
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    No debate here, just want to hear your opinions about what I think is most momentuous scientific development since the theory of relativity.

    Opposing opinions will definitely lead to debates. I just hope that these debates will be very rational and free from argumentum ad hominems.

    :)
  • tamisguytamisguy chocolate coated BAd BOY! PExer
    I mean, you will theoretically have the same brain and possibly memories, right? So who gets the soul? Or do the clone get a new soul? Does that make the clone a different person than you then? Can it be considered as like having a twin thereby having 2 distinct souls even though they look alike? However, the clone is artificially created and to procreation. Does that mean that it can't have a soul?

    The moral, ethical and religious implication of the cloning is simply astounding. It actually is getting me sad just thinking about it. It will be an ugly battle between the science community and the religious leaders. :(
  • TessariaTessaria Fan Forum's Finest PExer
    Originally posted by tamisguy
    I mean, you will theoretically have the same brain and possibly memories, right? So who gets the soul?

    Not necessarily the same memories. Memories are acquired through the environment and stimuli that the individual undergoes through life. If the clone is new, how can s/he have the same memories as you? Residual memories? Para namang reincarnation yun.

    Or do the clone get a new soul? Does that make the clone a different person than you then? Can it be considered as like having a twin thereby having 2 distinct souls even though they look alike? However, the clone is artificially created and to procreation. Does that mean that it can't have a soul?

    The moral, ethical and religious implication of the cloning is simply astounding. It actually is getting me sad just thinking about it. It will be an ugly battle between the science community and the religious leaders. :(

    There is already an ugly debate about this in the scientific community. Its a Pandora's Box.
  • TessariaTessaria Fan Forum's Finest PExer
    From the Website,Human Cloning, the process

    An excerpt:

    Ethical Concerns


    Outside the realm of religion there is great diversity of opinion over the ethical considerations posed by the possibility of human cloning. Society has not been able to reach a clear consensus on the morality of human cloning. Although these are secular arguments, many of them parallel religious viewpoints. In a society such as ours, which sharply divides church and state, laws governing human cloning will have to reflect ethical positions that are not based on any God or set of religious belifs. The following concerns have been raised and continue to be debated:


    Possibility of Physical Harm to the Embryo
    Opponents and supporters agree that at the current time the technology is not safe enough to use on humans. Some fear that clones will have an accelerated aging process since the cell used in the cloning procedure will have been "exposed to a lifetime

    Supporters argue that with additional experimentation on other mammals we can reduce the margin of error until it equals the current risk of miscarriage or infant death. According to them "no human activity is free of accidental death" and we should not put that burden on human cloning (Vere 4). Dr. Richard Seed, the scientists who has publicly claimed he would like to clone babies, believes that cloning technology could extend human life (Fox, Technology).

    Possible Psychological Harms to the Child
    Opponents argue that children may suffer a diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy. A cloned child may feel that their future is constrained by the life path of their gene donor.

    Supporters contend that children cloned from another person will not necessarily feel this way; these are merely speculations. Supporters may also argue that human clones will "have the advantage of knowing early in life what they are good at" (Vere 4).

    Possible Degradation of the Quality of Parenting and Family Life
    Opponents argue that cloning encourages parents to value their children according to how well they meet expectations, instead of loving them for their own sake (NBAC 69).

    Supporters contend that children created through cloning could still be loved unconditionally (NBAC 70). In addition, for some infertile couples cloning may be the only way they can reproduce (Vere 1).

    Possible Objectification of Children
    Opponents fear that giving parents complete control over the genome of their children might lead to the objectification of children (Shapiro 2). In other words, they fear that parents and larger society might begin to view children as objects and not recognize that they have worth in and of themselves. Objects derive their worth from how well they serve the needs of others. Opponents raise this objection when supporters argue that cloned children might be used to donate organs or replace a lost loved one for example.

    Supporters argue that legislation can be written to prevent this from happening. It is not a legitimate concern (Vere 3).

    Possible Social Harms
    Opponents fear that widespread practice of somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning will encourage a form of eugenics as people arbitrarily decide which traits are desirable (NBAC 74). Some have articulated fears that over time cloning might become "almost a preferred practice" and parents who choose to "play the lottery of old-fashioned reproduction would be considered irresponsible" (Cohen).

    Some supporters argue that the potential benefits to society of cloning exceptional people such as scientists and intellectuals would outweigh potential harms (Vere 2). They may also say that cloning is less radical than other technologies such as gene manipulation because "cloning takes a genome as it is" instead of manipulating it (NBAC 71).

    The Use of Scarce Resources
    Opponents argue that it is unethical to "divert scares resources. . .from more pressing social and medical needs" (NBAC 71). They argue that the nation's scarce resources should fund projects that are likely to benefit the common good. Cloning, they say, might only benefit infertile couples.

    Supporters argue that research into cloning might provide medical insight that could benefit larger society. For instance, they argue that aside from helping infertile couples, cloning might result in spin-off technologies that could improve current reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization. It might also help scientists discover cures for some diseases. For a more detailed discussion of potential applications of cloning please see Practical Uses.

    In addition, people that support further research into human cloning argue that respect for personal autonomy, freedom of reproductive choice, and freedom of scientific inquiry should prohibit lawmakers from making such research illegal.

    Opponents believe that the government has the authority to override these rights as it has done in the past, with polygamy and abortion for example.
  • TessariaTessaria Fan Forum's Finest PExer
    from Guardian Unlimited:

    Even the maker of Dolly, Ian Wilmut, is against human cloning.

    ====

    Why ban human cloning?

    Most mainstream scientists are set against attempts at reproductive human cloning, including Ian Wilmut, the British embryologist who led the team which cloned Dolly the sheep, and Richard Gardner, who chaired a Royal Society working group on human cloning. The most persuasive argument is that the risks are far too great at present. It is feared that human cloning would be cruel, because the process may result in a large number of miscarriages and deformities before a human could be successfully cloned. For instance, it took 272 attempts to create Dolly. Even then, the child could not be guaranteed ongoing good health.

    As Prof Gardner put it: "Our experience with animals suggests that there would be a very real danger of creating seriously handicapped individuals if anybody tries to implant cloned human embryos into the womb."

    Many religious groups, including some Roman Catholic and Muslim organisations, also object to cloning. There are many ethical arguments for a ban, including fears that cloning humans will lead to "designer babies" with genetic traits selected by their parents, or a black market for embryos, and the creation of a "genetic underclass".
  • unified_theoryunified_theory megalomaniac PExer
    posted in wrong thread but related topic sorry!
  • SpartanSpartan Member ✭✭✭
    One thing that I would like to know is if this cell was left alone, could it grow to be human? If so I am against it. I see it as robbing a lifeform a chance at life. Stem cells can be harvested in other ways. The stem cells that are available now can be replicated to produce as much as needed.
  • WhirrledWhirrled Guess Who's Back? PExer
    Originally posted by Tessaria
    Many religious groups, including some Roman Catholic and Muslim organisations, also object to cloning. There are many ethical arguments for a ban, including fears that cloning humans will lead to "designer babies" with genetic traits selected by their parents,

    What's wrong with designer babies? Isn't it natural for parents to want the best for their children?
    Originally posted by Tessaria
    or a black market for embryos,

    so? what's wrong with a black market for a bunch of cells which may be used to save individuals?
    Originally posted by Tessaria
    and the creation of a "genetic underclass".

    in the words of Glock, there will always be some sort of racism around. "Genetic Underclasses" will sooner or later be resolved as with the issue on Black people

    :)
  • brownpaubrownpau Member PExer
    Also refer to this topic by PanDeMonay in the Issues forum:
    http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=70133
  • tabachuchuytabachuchuy live to eat PExer
    Originally posted by EyeLash

    What are your thoughts about cloning?
    positive. to progress and beyond!!!!!
    Ethics does not come into the picture. has science ever listened to ethical considerations?
    moreover, isn't just man applying the universal rule: elimination of the weak (survival of the strongest/fittest)?
    Do clones have "souls"?
    none. they will not be 'humans' in the sense that they were created by God. these clones will be man's creation: 'robots' who are living & breathing-- doc frankenstein's dream come true.
    Do you think it's acceptable to clone embryos in order to harvest their cells to cure diseases?
    yes. the end justifies the means.
    If it were possible, would you have yourself cloned? Why and why not?
    nope. one tabachuchuy in this world is MORE than enough. thank you. i personally believe i will not qualify in the 'superior' race category.
    How do you think will cloning change humanity?
    humanity as we define it will drastically lose its meaning. with cloning comes dehumanization only our nightmares will dare to thread!
    No debate here, just want to hear your opinions about what I think is most momentuous scientific development since the theory of relativity.
    and once it has begun, no amount of debate & lobbying can stop the experimentations. man is too ambitious to be stopped with this BIG possibility (developing into reality).
  • frenchkisserfrenchkisser Am back. PExer
    Originally posted by EyeLash
    The Advanced Cell Technology (research company) of Boston claims that it has successfully cloned the first human embryo.

    What are your thoughts about cloning? Do clones have "souls"? Do you think it's acceptable to clone embryos in order to harvest their cells to cure diseases? If it were possible, would you have yourself cloned? Why and why not? How do you think will cloning change humanity?

    No debate here, just want to hear your opinions about what I think is most momentuous scientific development since the theory of relativity.

    i am not against cloning but now, upon hearing that they are going to use parts of the cloned one to cure another being, then, i doubt the goodness of this one. probably clones would have souls ...they are human anyway and this case is almost (just almost) the same as the case of using artificial insemination to create another. from where do souls come from? how are these created (or are these created by God or scientifically), i don't know and neither do i have a clue but a being, a human in the long run do have this ...that is what i am sure of.

    about the idea of cloning me, hmmm ...i would not have myself cloned for the clone wouldn't EXACTLY be me so why should i bother. :devious:

    how will cloning change humanity? still i do not have a certain clue but one thing's for sure, chaos and infinite debate over this matter would erupt between most people. :smiley_skull:
  • EyeLashEyeLash Heresiarch PExer
    Originally posted by unified_theory

    Why fear the debates? This is Realm of Thoughts and there will always be clashing opposite ideas, besides debate is a good mental exercise.


    I don't fear debates. What I meant when I said "No debate here" was that I did not pose a single question to debated upon like in other threads (do you agree or disagree, is this true or false, etc.). What I did was just ask for opinions on cloning. Thanks, everyone, for your interesting insights.

    As for the "do clones have 'souls'" business, I just realized that it's a very vague question. Depends on how you define "soul", di ba? Whether you think of it as the breath that God infuses you with at conception, or you think of it as conscience or sensitivity shaped by the way you are socialized. If you take the former definition, e di wala ngang soul kasi hindi created by God. If you take the latter definition, then a clone could "grow" a soul. And if we consider the environment to be a huge factor in an individual's development, then it would turn out to be quite a different soul from the one possessed by its gene source.

    Other scientists have ganged up on Advanced Cell Technology, saying that its claims are exaggerated. That the thing they cloned was hardly an embryo, that what has been achieved is merely preliminary work, etc.

    My concerns about cloning have to do with that impending future when human cloning becomes a full-fledged possiblity:

    1) Who is the "parent" of a clone? Or who is responsible for a clone? To me, it's a frightening possibility that scientists and laboratories will assume control over the clones they produce. In the case of a cloned embryo being implanted in the womb of woman X, I guess it would be safe to say that woman X and her partner would be that clone's parents even if the embryo were not taken from their cells. However, can you imagine a scenario where the gene source of the embryo would see "him/herself" walking around and yet have no relationship at all with that other self?

    2) What rights would a clone have? Can it vote? Why then, a politician would simply clone himself many times over and have his clones vote for him.
    :p

    NO, but seriously. I ask this question in the context of clones produced for research and other scientific purposes. They wouldn't have the right to life, basically, much less to liberty and happiness. If some authority chooses to terminate their existence, it could very well do so, couldn't it?

    3) What if cloning shapes up to be a commercial endeavor? Buy your own personal clone! Stem cells for sale! etc.

    I think that the question at hand is not whether to ban human cloning or not. I think that the technology will be developed and perfected regardless of a ban. Any self-respecting scientist would attempt it.

    I think the more realistic and the more important thing for governments, societies, philosophers, etc. to do would be to start conceiving new social and political arrangements to anticipate the advent of cloned beings.
  • TessariaTessaria Fan Forum's Finest PExer
    Human Cloning: The Religious and Ethical Debate

    Its not just Catholics who feel this way, apparently, other religions condemn human cloning. Excerpt from the website:


    ===========

    1. The official opinion of the Roman Catholic Church is that "every possible act of cloning humans is intrinsically evil" and could never be justified (NBAC 54). Their religious and ethical tradition informs this viewpoint which is largely based on their interpretation of the creation story. Following are several examples of specific traditions supporting this opinion.

    From the story of creation Roman Catholics infer an ethic of stewardship which dictates that humans are responsible for maintaining and preserving what nature has created (NBAC 46).
    Roman Catholics believe that all men have dignity because they were created in the image of God. Cloning violates this dignity in several ways. First of all, cloned humans are manufactured in the image of existing people instead of created by a "unique creative act of God." Also, cloning objectifies children by treating them as objects of manipulation. It would also "jeopardize the unique and personal identity of the clone (or clones) as well as the person whose genome was thus duplicated" (NBAC 49, 50). These affronts to human dignity lead many Roman Catholics to fear that clones might not be treated as equals or respected as unique individuals.

    The Roman Catholic Church is concerned that having cloning technology could tempt humans to violate the sanctity of life. If clones are seen as less than equal, people might sacrifice them for the benefit of their creators, perhaps to provide organs for transplant.

    Roman Catholics
    The Church argues that just ends do not justify immoral means. The possibility that cloning may ease the suffering of sterile individuals or those with life threatening diseases does not justify using inherently immoral technology (NBAC 54, 55).

    The Southern Baptists Convention's ethics agency supports the Roman Catholic view and supports an "outright ban on the production of cloned human embryos from fertilization to birth, regardless of how the research is funded."

    Many Christians partly base their opposition to human cloning on their belief in the existence of a human soul, unique to each person. They oppose cloning on the grounds that no one knows if "it will be possible to clone the human soul, along with the human" (NCGR 4). Others, such as Ingrid Shafer of the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma argues that "there is no reason to assume that sexual reproduction is a prerequisite for ensoulment" (Shafer 1).
    A statement issued by the Vatican succinctly sums up the Church

    2. The Jewish religion takes the position that "cloning humans could conceivably be justified in some circumstances, however few they may be" (NBAC 54). This view is largely based on historical tradition and sacred writings, which largely focus on human destiny.

    The Jewish tradition emphasizes that man is in a partnership with God. Some Jewish thinkers find justification for this view in the story of Genesis which says that Adam and Eve were "to work it [the garden] and to preserve it" (Genesis 2:15). Man is obligated to care for what He has created and to improve upon creation in order to meet human needs.

    Man
    Jewish scholars do not believe that potential violations of human dignity are reason enough to prohibit human cloning. They believe that the likely benefits of developing cloning technology outweigh the potential costs, provided man fulfills his obligation to minimize violations of human dignity. For instance, they would require a commitment to care for the "mistakes" that are likely to occur as scientists try to perfect cloning technology. This would ensure that society respects the human dignity of these children and does not merely treat them as objects.

    Some Jewish thinkers fear that cloning humans might harm the family by changing the roles and relationships between family members that define their responsibilities to one another as well as patterns of inheritance.

    Furthermore, in Judaism religious status is passed down through the mother and tribal designation is passed down through the father. Thus, a child needs both a mother and a father.
    However, many regard cloning of a family member as more acceptable than donor insemination or egg donation which raise concerns over consanguineous relationships (NBAC 54).
    Rabbi Elliot Dorff summarizes the Jewish view: "The Jewish demand that we do our best to provide healing makes it important that we take advantage of the promise of cloning to aid us in finding cures for a variety of diseases and in overcoming infertility" with supervision and some restrictions (NBAC 56).
    3. Protestant Arguments against cloning are often similar to those of the Roman Catholic and Jewish traditions. Since there is no teaching arm of the Protestant Church to interpret scripture, followers look directly to the texts themselves for guidance. While the Bible does not explicitly address human cloning, its teachings about marriage, parenthood, and childhood relate to this technology.

    Some Protestants interpret the creation story to mean that humans are created co-creators who have a responsibility to "participate with God in shaping a better future" (NBAC 48). They agree with theologian Nancy Duff's argument that "in some exceptional cases. . . cloning might be ethically justified" (Cohen).
    Protestants who support further research into human cloning distinguish between the "morally neutral" technology and its potentially immoral applications. They qualify their support by limiting it to certain instances and maintaining that research should not proceed if it will only benefit a few infertile people. Its applications must benefit the common good (Cohen).

    Protestants also believe that "the Bible says that children should be conceived within a marital union between opposite sexes" (Cohen). Some Protestants believe that this divine command overrides man's responsibilities as created co-creator. Man should not allow human cloning because it violates God's intentions by allowing man to reproduce without a sexual partner.

    Protestants, as well as Christians in general, oppose cloning because it allows humans to choose the genes of their children instead of leaving it up to God. In this sense humans are playing God.

    Protestants believe that when children are turned into "projects" whose genes we can bend to our will, their existence is degraded. Their existence becomes "a project we undertake of if it promises to meet our needs and desires" (Meilaender 3).
    Protestant theologian Gilbert Meilaender clearly articulates the major Protestant objections to human cloning when he says that in comparison with other reproductive technologies human cloning is "far less a surrender to the mystery of the genetic lottery which is the mystery of the child who replicates neither father nor mother but incarnates their union, far more an understanding of the child as a product of human will" (Meilaender 4).

    4. Islamic attitudes regarding human cloning stem from deeply held Muslim beliefs and interpretations of the Koran. This holy book governs every aspect of Muslim life and is believed to contain the word of Allah (the Arabic word for God). Islamic thinkers disagree over which traditions to emphasize when they come in conflict.

    Some Islamic thinkers, such as Dr. Maher Hathout of the Islamic Center of Southern California, argue that there should be "no limits on research because knowledge is bestowed on us by God
    Other Islamic thinkers emphasize how human cloning could affect kinship, which is a key concept in Islamic law. Some thinkers are "not categorically opposed to cloning" because they believe it "would not rob a child of his roots" as adoption does (Cohen).
    Others scholars argue that cloning would result in a loss of kinship because it creates children who lack either a mother or a father (Ideological Implications 2). This would be inimical to Islamic society; many of its laws, such as those affecting inheritance and marriage, are predicated on the assumption that children have two parents and that there is a clear line of genetic inheritance.
  • TessariaTessaria Fan Forum's Finest PExer
    Originally posted by EyeLash

    As for the "do clones have 'souls'" business, I just realized that it's a very vague question. Depends on how you define "soul", di ba? Whether you think of it as the breath that God infuses you with at conception, or you think of it as conscience or sensitivity shaped by the way you are socialized. If you take the former definition, e di wala ngang soul kasi hindi created by God. If you take the latter definition, then a clone could "grow" a soul. And if we consider the environment to be a huge factor in an individual's development, then it would turn out to be quite a different soul from the one possessed by its gene source.

    The question you raised is valid. Its been raised by other religions as well. And so far, pro-cloning people have not answered this question head-on. Which is a shame.
    1) Who is the "parent" of a clone? Or who is responsible for a clone? To me, it's a frightening possibility that scientists and laboratories will assume control over the clones they produce. In the case of a cloned embryo being implanted in the womb of woman X, I guess it would be safe to say that woman X and her partner would be that clone's parents even if the embryo were not taken from their cells. However, can you imagine a scenario where the gene source of the embryo would see "him/herself" walking around and yet have no relationship at all with that other self?

    The issue of parentage has been a strong one. What is the clone's relationship to the Original? And the Original's family and friends? The question also applies to arguments against Artificial Insemination.
    I think that the question at hand is not whether to ban human cloning or not. I think that the technology will be developed and perfected regardless of a ban. Any self-respecting scientist would attempt it.

    Whether or not the technology is developed should not be an issue. If we can send a man to Mars, why not investigate our own genes, right? The question is if this is the direction medicine and science should go. The question is being able to answer the ethical questions head-on before slicing any cell.

    Experimentation has always been the bread and butter of science. Without testing and experimentation, there would be no vaccines, no penicillin, no reason for us to believe that we should boil drinking water to make the water safe. On the other hand, experimentation also took place with DDT, Thylamide, cyanide, radiation, and look where it got us: amputated babies and unexplained sicknesses we didnt know how to treat until it was there. Science has always been, and should always be, for the service of mankind. What is cloning, then? In the service of mankind, or for the glory of the scientists that engage in it?

    Mind you, we're talking about the human cell, and the human gene. This is (in Jean-Luc Picard's voice) "The Final Frontier'. The issue of human cloning raises more questions than answers. I can't imagine why the proponents of human cloning refuse to answer these questions and instead brush them aside and describe them as "backward and afraid" of technology. The claims to the benefits of cloning are speculative at best.
    I think the more realistic and the more important thing for governments, societies, philosophers, etc. to do would be to start conceiving new social and political arrangements to anticipate the advent of cloned beings.

    Now, where would the fun be in debating that, when the legislation to prepare for cloning has already been in place?

    Kidding.

    If the issue was all in black and white, then there should be no debate. But since its a huge swatch of gray, then it is unavoidable that there will be two sides to this. As it is, different First World countries have made legislation ranging from outright ban to regulation of scientific methods that lead to cloning. A recent US poll showed that most Americans are against cloning. (dont have that poll, Im looking for it). There has not been a country that advertised they support human cloning. Now, with these in mind, how do you propose we go about human cloning when governments and people generally are against it?

    As for social and political arrangements. They are already in place. Its just that society has been thrown out of whack with the announcement that a human embryo has been cloned. Hell, society has been thrown a loop since Dolly came out of her birth mother.
  • TessariaTessaria Fan Forum's Finest PExer
    Originally posted by tabachuchuy

    positive. to progress and beyond!!!!!
    Ethics does not come into the picture. has science ever listened to ethical considerations?
    moreover, isn't just man applying the universal rule: elimination of the weak (survival of the strongest/fittest)?

    How very glib.
    none. they will not be 'humans' in the sense that they were created by God. these clones will be man's creation: 'robots' who are living & breathing-- doc frankenstein's dream come true.

    But, we dont know that, do we? Well, if you do, kindly post a link that says, categorically, that clones have no souls.
    yes. the end justifies the means.

    Habaan mo naman sagot mo, please. Thanks.
    nope. one tabachuchuy in this world is MORE than enough. thank you. i personally believe i will not qualify in the 'superior' race category.

    So, by virtue of society moving into one which "eliminates the weak", due to cloning, are you saying that you yourself will not be an exception-?
  • gastrocnemiousgastrocnemious ang paboritong apo PExer
    Off topic:
    What is a soul anyway?? I mean, no one has really ever proved it exists... (don't get me wrong, I am not an antiChrist!!) so maybe we should not consider it as a fact.

    i am a science student but i have not taken my bioethics yet. pero surely you don't need bioethics to have your own opinion ryt?!

    here goes.. i think that it depends on the intention. i mean, if you clone a human being, it means that "it" will have a mind and life of its own. what i am thinking is that, those who cloned him might consider him as their property, removing all his "human rights". for example, if the original needs brain operation??? (extraordinary case) who will they turn to to get brain?? yes, the clone ladies and gentlemen... the thing is, will he give his brain to the original?? or will he have the choice not to??

    but of course this is just an example... there are still millions of things to consider, which i cant enumerate in a span of one day....

    let us just remember, once a human is cloned, that clone will have a mind and life of its own... makin him HUMAN who feels, thinks, and deserves equal share of rights... morally responsible for his being.
  • KINSKYKINSKY Member PExer
    CLONING - PROHIBITED, IMMORAL AND TANTAMOUNT TO ABORTION DAW IYAN SABI NI VERY BRAVE PRESIDENT NA SI GEORGE W. BUSH.

    :)
  • tabachuchuytabachuchuy live to eat PExer
    Originally posted by Tessaria


    How very glib.
    if that's what your reaction to my opinion .... thanks anyway for your reaction.
    But, we dont know that, do we? Well, if you do, kindly post a link that says, categorically, that clones have no souls.
    kaya nga thoughts & opinion lang ang nire-require ni EyeLash e. kasi, the process is so new & revolutionary, we still don't know that much about the result/implications of the cloning of human embryo.
    we do not really know about the existence of souls, will links help us know?
    yon ngang link mo on this thread (excerpt, Human cloning, the process), puro speculations & may/may not arguments which do not really give us answers but mere opinions din.
    Habaan mo naman sagot mo, please. Thanks.
    less words, less mistakes. and some answers are self-explanatory, further explanation might muddle the basic answer.
    So, by virtue of society moving into one which "eliminates the weak", due to cloning, are you saying that you yourself will not be an exception-?
    nope. maybe it's a blessing in disguise. :D
  • EyeLashEyeLash Heresiarch PExer
    Originally posted by Tessaria


    Whether or not the technology is developed should not be an issue. If we can send a man to Mars, why not investigate our own genes, right? The question is if this is the direction medicine and science should go. The question is being able to answer the ethical questions head-on before slicing any cell.
    Science has always been, and should always be, for the service of mankind. What is cloning, then? In the service of mankind, or for the glory of the scientists that engage in it?


    As for social and political arrangements. They are already in place.


    Could someone please teach me to quote line per line like you guys do? I don't like to butcher other people's messages when I quote them. :(

    1. About cloning and the direction/purpose of science: I think it's tricky to assess cloning in terms of the motives of scientists. I mean, how feasible is it to ask geneticists whether they are doing their cloning experiments to serve mankind or for the thrill of it? I think the technology itself should be the focus of questioning, its drawbacks, its potentials, etc.

    2. I agree with you that we should be asking the ethical questions but I'm not sure they can all be answered before "the first cell in sliced". In fact, they haven't been. Science always outstrips philosophy ( and politics, for that matter). But should we wait for all the dilemmas to be resolved before embarking on scientific inquiry? I don't think it works that way, it never has. The last century shows us how rapid techonological develelopment can be--and how long-winded is the angst that always follows it.

    This also relates to your last remark about social and political arrangements being already in place. The laws regulating genetic experimentation are in place but the parameters haven't been set as to how to actually deal with human clones. So there's a ban in many Western countries, but a human embryo is cloned anyway. What to do with that embryo? Whose "property" is it? If it could grow into a human being, would it be allowed to do so? And what identity would it assume? If it is defective, can it be destroyed by Advanced Cell? While I wouldn't stop people from raising ethical, moral or whatever kind of questions about cloning, the reality is, it's here. So what do we do now?

    You know where I've encountered the more advanced thinking about cloning? (Don't laugh. ) In sci-fi stories. Because they deal with the scenarios as if they were actual. That way, many issues are brought to the surface. Try looking for Ursula Le Guin's "Nine Lives" , an old piece about a team of 10, all cloned from the same person, sent into other planets to mine for uranium. It's a story about identity and human interaction, not about exploitation the exploitation of clones.

    Thanks for the different religious perspectives on cloning. I usually don't listen to the religious but hey, this is life we're talking about here. Judaic thinking on cloning interests me particularly because there's a parallel to cloning in Jewish folklore: the golem. Made from earth by a rabbi, who breathes life into it. It looks like a human being ( and may in fact be physically superior) but doesn't have a mind of its own.
«1

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file