The U.S Constitution vs Bio-Technology

Well recently thinking on how the constitution here and other similar documents in many nations are based on the idea of natural law, or the notion that a creator; or even nature itself created us with various rights necessary to our survival. And i realized that if corporations can patent modified seeds and such, then if humans start being modified in the future in a similar way, what would guarantee their rights since their creators would be corporations? would anything? will humanity one day be divided into the slaves owned by corporations and the unmodified elite controllers?

No, I think even if a person was created in a lab, they would still have their God given rights, because only God allows the creation of life.

Doesnt God create and give a person a soul as well like a package deal the question is if we created a human replica or whatever you want to call it would it be "born" with a soul if it is outside Gods creation wouldnt that be a big question, People replicated but since they werent born they lack souls and that justifies corporate authority to create slaves? I find Bio-technology interesting and often thought about possibilities of Bio-Mecahnical machines I think that making machines using Bio-technology would be more feesable then making Human replicas just because of the relation factor with naturally born humans and "test tube born" people

reply to post by ReVoLuTiOn76




Nice thread dude.
Actually I was thinking about this 2 weeks ago, and I gave your post a star. I would like to hear the thoughts of the smart guys on ATS regarding this, not the guys who will come here and talk about how unethical or ante religion this is.

I would like to ask some questions myself.

1 Let’s say you clone a loved one, would you need to get a license for this or how would that even work legally?
2 let’s say someone wishes to create a clone of himself, would that mean he will have all rights to that person? Since he is the one who placed the order and technically is the owner?

Cheers

reply to post by Mr.Jcury


I'm glad someone gets what i meant, indeed morality and whatever doesn't determine constitutional law or how its perceived in courts.

As it now stands, one cannot patent a human being. One can patent "nonnaturally occuring, nonhuman multicellular organisms" but humans.

See p. 2100-5
USPTO website

reply to post by Mr.Jcury


The law is murky as to whether you own the rights to your own DNA or whether you can commercially exploit your own DNA. There was a relatively famous case in the California courts in which a man had a tumor removed from his body. This man's tumor cells ended up becoming very valuable and a multi-million dollar industry sprang up as scientists all over the world were using the man's tumor cells in scientific research.

The man sued, claiming he had a right to a share of the profits his tumor cells made. The court rheld that he had no right to his tumor cells. The court reasoned by law, one is not allowed to sell blood or other tissues. It then followed, the man could not get profits from his tumor cells because he was not legally allowed to sell them in the first place.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint



I don't know about the us, but i know allot of countries where you can sell your blud and sperm includingRussia.

If a God thought we shouldnt be cloning, we wouldn't be cloning.