With the recent news about South Korean Scientists successfully cloning a human and removing Stem Cells I would like to discuss the ethics of the practice.

What do you think? Are these Embryo's Human? Do they deserve to live? Is it murder to kill them? Do they have Souls?

There are many questions here to be answered, what do you think?

A few arguments for the practice:

It can increase the number of embryos transferred and avoid subsequent egg retrieval during in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures.

It may provide a way for completely sterile individuals (those not capable of producing gametes) to reproduce.

It may provide a way for homosexual couples to reproduce themselves.

It probably will provide valuable basic research and possible spin off technologies related to reproduction and development.

Our society has generally respected individual privacy and the general right to control ones body in regard to reproduction.

No one is clearly harmed by it.

Prohibiting it would violate the fundamental freedom of scientific inquiring.

A Few arguments against it:

Safety Concerns - This is the same as any new medical technology. Research is needed to quantify and reduce any risk. Current human subject norms (informed consent) should apply and be sufficient.

Individuality and Uniqueness - This ignores the normality of naturally born identical twins. Nurture is probably more important than nature in the development of human personality. Except in cases in witch an individual women provided both the somatic cell and the egg, mitochondrial DNA will differ between the progenitor and the clone. Even in these cases, X chromosome deactivation would differ.

Family Integrity - This is a ridiculous argument. Our society freely allows single people to reproduce sexually.

Destruction of Embryos - We do not now consider embryos or fetuses to have the status of full humans and therefore to be protected by a full compliment of human rights.

Treating children as Objects - In this regard, cloning does not differ from other reproductive technologies (such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization,).

Psychological harm to child due to diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy - this is very hypothetical and ignores the normalcy of naturally born identical twins.

It is impossible to obtain informed consent from the embryo/fetus - Cloning is not different that any other type of reproductive research or technology in this regard.

Slippery Slope to Eugenics - Cloning probably produces less concern in this regard than does genetic testing and screening. There are certain genetic traits that are harmful to individuals with them and removing them from the human gene pool is no different that eradication of a infectious disease (such as small pox).

Cloning (and abortion and reproductive technologies in general) Cheapens Life - Product liability litigation and work place heath and safety laws seem to indicate that we currently place a higher value on individual life and health than we did 50 years ago. This is the same time period over which many of the opponents of reproductive technologies have repeatedly voiced this concern.

Cloning is Playing God - This argument assumes that someone knows God's intentions. Even among Christians there is substantial disagreement as to what is God's will. Who is to say that it is not God's intention that we clone ourselves? At least one writer indicates that Hindu thought embraces IVF and other technologies

I'm against it, with many reasons similar to the first post said. I say don't mess with mother nature, because she'll always win. Next thing you know we'll come out with devices that can control the weather, and then start blackmailing countries with weather...

"if you don't give me all your land, then you'll freeze to death"

I was against cloning up until today and then I realized something, it is the only defense we have to save certain races that exist on this planet today. Now I am for it.

I'm also against cloning, I think it's murder.
It can be approached the same way as abortion can. we should respect life at all stages

Just another point to add. Who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

People die every day from things that can be prevented without cloning, such as hunger, yet nobody even cares. Now, many people say it will save many lives? Things happen for a reason, and sometimes you need to see the whole picture to make a decision.

what if Hitler was saved using cloning when he was a kid?

[Edited on 16-2-2004 by quintar]

Quintar,

all true but who is playing god now? The global politically correct that decide western nations are to be breeding grounds for a new race of mixed humans? While the third world remains pure blood? Why is the third world preserved? because it is to be destroyed, or are they to take over?

humans are already playing god and have been for a long time or at least the entities behind the people that are controlling us.

Originally posted by THENEO
humans are already playing god and have been for a long time or at least the entities behind the people that are controlling us.

I Agree

I honestly don't know whether to be for it or be against it.

On one hand, I like it because of all the possible benefits such as increased longevity, the cures for diseases, and new understanding of the human body. All of these are great things but at what cost.

On the other Hand, I don't like it because of all the atrocities that could happen because of it. The debate over whether a cloned human is really a human since it has no parents is a big one for me. Right now you can kill a clone off because it has no parents but just because it has no parents does that make it any less human? Does that Clone have a soul?(I know I am getting into more of a subjective side here but a real issue none the less)

All I am saying is that it has its pluses and its minuses and I don't know what to support.

Cloning is Playing God - This argument assumes that someone knows God's intentions. Even among Christians there is substantial disagreement as to what is God's will. Who is to say that it is not God's intention that we clone ourselves? At least one writer indicates that Hindu thought embraces IVF and other technologies

I think God's intentions on this are kinda clear in the first few passages of the bible:

Gen1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;...
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Couldn't these quotes be interpreted in any possible way of endorsing cloning?

I (like BlackJackal) am on the fence with cloning, as I can see the benefits and the downsides to cloning, so the only thing I know for sure is that I need to learn more about the subject before I could take a side...

You should all go and watch the Sixth day with Arnold Schwarggenaeger.

If we can clone humans, they can be used to replace things like livers and hearts, you could make a clone and remove what you needed and be done with it.

It doesnt have to be alive, you can make the clones already dead if it make it easier to destroy for you.

I personnaly am for cloning, but only for medical purposes, not to make a new human being.

whew is this one helluva topic!!

The future use of cloning technology is what I feel we should be worrying about,
as It could be argued that humans play god everyday,

To be honest I'm led to believe that Human cloning has been around for a lot longer than we've all been led to believe..

If we could make the clones already dead then I would be ok with it for medicinal purposes but how can you do that? In order for a clone to be worth anything it would have to grow an organ so it would have to be alive for some period of time?

Originally posted by psycosrus
To be honest I'm led to believe that Human cloning has been around for a lot longer than we've all been led to believe..

What gives you that Idea?

im against it, because pretty soon everybody will just be barbie dolls and the whole world will look the same, and that sucks

I think it should be used to clone organs. But I think I am against cloning people.

It may provide a way for completely sterile individuals (those not capable of producing gametes) to reproduce.

Why cant they adopt? Theres alot of homeless kids out there....


However, I think cloning animals is a good idea, in order to preserve their species.

Originally posted by ButtMonkey
im against it, because pretty soon everybody will just be barbie dolls and the whole world will look the same, and that sucks

dont overlook clone armies either

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
I think it should be used to clone organs. But I think I am against cloning people.

if you were to clone a person, would the "original" and the "clone" share the same likes, dislikes, etc?

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
Why cant they adopt? Theres alot of homeless kids out there....


However, I think cloning animals is a good idea, in order to preserve their species.

You know I agree with you there. I think that people should adopt more and worry less about the articial or test tube kind of reproduction. But you know people want to do it to pass on their genes, its a drive that is as old as mankind.

Also about the animals, I saw a documentary about bringing back extinct animals. They said that if they could get a complete sample of a Sabertooth DNA they could clone it using a tiger as a surregate mother.

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Originally posted by psycosrus
To be honest I'm led to believe that Human cloning has been around for a lot longer than we've all been led to believe..

What gives you that Idea?

I have no evidence or links to my theories on this subject,
but reading of articles and books on human experimentation performed on jewish civilians by the nazis in WW2 etc, and the current understanding that top secret military technologies may well be 20-30 years ahead of what is known to the civilian population, this suddenly starts looking like more of a possibility!.
Wouldn't it be safer for governments or general medical organisations etc to carry out this sort of research in total secrecy away from prying eyes, activists and such, and then releasing the information when they think the public can handle it..
I could be wrong though