Cloning?
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/27/human.cloning/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/27...ing/index.html</a><br><br><br><br>
I am not strongly against it, but I have some worries. First, like with all advanced reproductive techniques, it is emphasizing the importance of biological offspring over the option of adopting. Yes, adopting the perfect, US baby is difficult. But so are these reporductive treatments. Also very, very expensive, and they don't always work. So I question that people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a biologic baby when there are tons of other kids out there.<br><br><br><br>
Second, there is some reason to believe that clones may not be able to live as long and will be sick more often, etc. We will only know for sure once they start being produced. That is troubling. But this same argument was also made against test ube babies which we now know are normal, and happy children.<br><br><br><br>
It is important to remember that a clone is still a human with all the legal rights of other humans of the country in which they are born. So this idea of cloning people and forcing them to be an army of Hitlers or whatever is nonsense.<br><br><br><br>
I am not against cloning someone for therapuetic purposes but not letting it grow past 14 days, at which point it is just some undifferentiated cells. This may possibly cure all kinds of horrible diseases.
I am not strongly against it, but I have some worries. First, like with all advanced reproductive techniques, it is emphasizing the importance of biological offspring over the option of adopting. Yes, adopting the perfect, US baby is difficult. But so are these reporductive treatments. Also very, very expensive, and they don't always work. So I question that people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a biologic baby when there are tons of other kids out there.<br><br><br><br>
Second, there is some reason to believe that clones may not be able to live as long and will be sick more often, etc. We will only know for sure once they start being produced. That is troubling. But this same argument was also made against test ube babies which we now know are normal, and happy children.<br><br><br><br>
It is important to remember that a clone is still a human with all the legal rights of other humans of the country in which they are born. So this idea of cloning people and forcing them to be an army of Hitlers or whatever is nonsense.<br><br><br><br>
I am not against cloning someone for therapuetic purposes but not letting it grow past 14 days, at which point it is just some undifferentiated cells. This may possibly cure all kinds of horrible diseases.
The local news here states that DNA is being taken from the baby and the woman from whom the DNA was extracted to make sure that the baby is a clone. The results should be back within a week or so. The article also stated something that I wasn't aware of. It stated that it's not illegal to clone a human in the US. It did state however, that human experiments have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. A rep for Clonaid (the co. doing the cloning) said they plan to open clinics for the procedure used, at least one on each continent. She also said that there are several other pregnancies with cloned children right now, including one in North America and three in Europe.<br><br><br><br>
The rep also said that the baby in Europe is being carried by a woman in a lesbian relationship, and that two of the projects involve clones of children whose cells were taken before they died.<br><br><br><br>
Skepticism about the project is based not only on the scientific challenges, but on the fact the company has connections with a group called the Raelians. Its founder, Claude Vorilhon, claims aliens visiting him in the 1970s revealed they'd created all life on Earth through genetic engineering.<br><br><br><br>
In absence of originality, they've named the baby Eve (this bothers me). I've not made up my mind on how I feel about this, but I'm leaning towards not agreeing with it. It just doesn't feel like it's right to create life like this.
The rep also said that the baby in Europe is being carried by a woman in a lesbian relationship, and that two of the projects involve clones of children whose cells were taken before they died.<br><br><br><br>
Skepticism about the project is based not only on the scientific challenges, but on the fact the company has connections with a group called the Raelians. Its founder, Claude Vorilhon, claims aliens visiting him in the 1970s revealed they'd created all life on Earth through genetic engineering.<br><br><br><br>
In absence of originality, they've named the baby Eve (this bothers me). I've not made up my mind on how I feel about this, but I'm leaning towards not agreeing with it. It just doesn't feel like it's right to create life like this.
It should be noted that Clonaid was founded by a group that believes that humans where made from aliens. I cannot find out what the group is called, right now. If anyone knows please post it.<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.clonaid.com" target="_blank">http://www.clonaid.com</a> It appears (for me anyways) that their site is down now.
I was watching something on Sci-Fi the other day. Saying that there is proof that aliens where actually on Earth thousands of years ago. First off, the Egyptian temples have a bulb shaped with a snake inside. This symbol represents light/energy. Looks like a light bulb. Also in South America they found some plane toys. They made a electric model and flew it. Keep in mind that is thousands of years before aerodynamics. Thought, I mention it.
.Meaning that aliens had involvement with people.<br><br><br><br>
Another interesting thing was that a ancient civilization believe people from the sky were their Gods. That they came from the sky made humans as slaves to mine because they destroyed there atmosphere by mining their planet. Seems like that's what were doing now.<br><br><br><br>
I know I'm going off topic. But I thought I bring it up because of the Raelians.
Another interesting thing was that a ancient civilization believe people from the sky were their Gods. That they came from the sky made humans as slaves to mine because they destroyed there atmosphere by mining their planet. Seems like that's what were doing now.<br><br><br><br>
I know I'm going off topic. But I thought I bring it up because of the Raelians.
I believe I saw that show..what you mention sounds familiar. It is very interesting isn't it? If there is life on other planets, would the government let us know? I mean, I believe the is a vastly enormous undiscovered 'space' out there. We (humans on Earth) have only figured out how to go so far. So, who are we to say that there isn't something similar to Earth's atmosphere out there if we can't go further to find out?<br><br><br><br>
Oh, we better get back on topic, huh? It is interesting. Science in itself is facinating.
Oh, we better get back on topic, huh? It is interesting. Science in itself is facinating.
Yeah very interesting. I wonder what the date of this civilization is. It would make it more interesting if this was one of the first religions/civilizations. Since religions usually share something in common with one another. People always/usually associate/believe God is in the sky. Aliens come from the sky/space.<br><br><br><br>
I'll try to get back on topic now.
I'll try to get back on topic now.
Just read the article from CNN.com. One of the groups goals is eternal life!! They want to make clones, and then transfer brains to them, meaning that everytime a body got too old or sick they'd just pop their brains in a new body! Scary stuff!<br><br><br><br>
I am not sure whether to believe this claim or not. I know it is possible, and I know there are other groups working on cloning humans, but the Raeliens seem a bit off. I mean, their leader claims he visited an alien planet. No offense to them and all, but I think their credibility isn't the best.
I am not sure whether to believe this claim or not. I know it is possible, and I know there are other groups working on cloning humans, but the Raeliens seem a bit off. I mean, their leader claims he visited an alien planet. No offense to them and all, but I think their credibility isn't the best.
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by SilverC</i><br><br><b>Just read the article from CNN.com. One of the groups goals is eternal life!! They want to make clones, and then transfer brains to them, meaning that everytime a body got too old or sick they'd just pop their brains in a new body! Scary stuff!</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
In a way, aren't we trying to do that now? Only the Realiens are going about it differently. Scientists want to make artificial organs, fix muscle problems, spinal problems, etc. Aren't scientists trying to rebuild the old body or fix it? I mean in a 100 years if you have a heart problem or lose a hand, you can get a hand or heart transplant, cloned or artifical. I'm probably not explaining myself enough here but I hope you know what I mean.
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by SilverC</i><br><br><b>Just read the article from CNN.com. One of the groups goals is eternal life!! They want to make clones, and then transfer brains to them, meaning that everytime a body got too old or sick they'd just pop their brains in a new body! Scary stuff!</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
In a way, aren't we trying to do that now? Only the Realiens are going about it differently. Scientists want to make artificial organs, fix muscle problems, spinal problems, etc. Aren't scientists trying to rebuild the old body or fix it? I mean in a 100 years if you have a heart problem or lose a hand, you can get a hand or heart transplant, cloned or artifical. I'm probably not explaining myself enough here but I hope you know what I mean.
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Apple</i><br><br><b>In a way, aren't we trying to do that now? Only the Realiens are going about it differently. Scientists want to make artificial organs, fix muscle problems, spinal problems, etc. Aren't scientists trying to rebuild the old body or fix it? I mean in a 100 years if you have a heart problem or lose a hand, you can get a hand or heart transplant, cloned or artifical. I'm probably not explaining myself enough here but I hope you know what I mean.</b></div>
</div>
<br>
I was supposed to read a book about this called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325&tag=veggieboards.com-20&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fexec%2Fobidos%2Ftg%2Fdetail%2F-%2F0374236437%2F104-0682758-2305512%3Fvi%3Dglance" target="_blank">"Our posthuman future"</a> by francis fukuyama. I will read it eventually.<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/05/21/fukuyama/" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/05/21/fukuyama/</a>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Apple</i><br><br><b>In a way, aren't we trying to do that now? Only the Realiens are going about it differently. Scientists want to make artificial organs, fix muscle problems, spinal problems, etc. Aren't scientists trying to rebuild the old body or fix it? I mean in a 100 years if you have a heart problem or lose a hand, you can get a hand or heart transplant, cloned or artifical. I'm probably not explaining myself enough here but I hope you know what I mean.</b></div>
</div>
<br>
I was supposed to read a book about this called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325&tag=veggieboards.com-20&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fexec%2Fobidos%2Ftg%2Fdetail%2F-%2F0374236437%2F104-0682758-2305512%3Fvi%3Dglance" target="_blank">"Our posthuman future"</a> by francis fukuyama. I will read it eventually.<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/05/21/fukuyama/" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/05/21/fukuyama/</a>
Joined
·
445 Posts
I heard about the scientists wanting to clone the mammoth or something but never thought they meant people. I dont think its right though.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Edited to add: what if they bring back the dinosaurs with their silly experiments then we would be history!!!!
Edited to add: what if they bring back the dinosaurs with their silly experiments then we would be history!!!!
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by MsRuthieB</i><br><br><b>two of the projects involve clones of children whose cells were taken before they died.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I find this incredibly sad. For the same reason that I feel sorry for people who've been preserving their deceased animal companions' DNA to try to clone them, I feel sorry for people who would take this route. I think that, regardless of what they may say, that they're hoping for replicas - physical, emotional, mental, etc. - and that they'll be sorely disappointed. There's no sense of closure with death if people think that they can clone the dead.<br><br><br><br>
What about people whose spouses die and who use DNA samples from when the spouse was alive to have children? I think that's something else with which I wouldn't feel completely comfortable.<br><br><br><br>
As an adoptee who intends to foster and likely to adopt in the future, I also think that this does not bode well for the thousands of orphans in North America who are in need of homes and families. There are so many children who are unwanted because of physical conditions, and even more so who've been diagnosed with emotional trauma and mental conditions who are on the "special needs" lists and being bounced around from group home to foster care. I mean, we can hardly manage to feed all of the people we already have on the planet and there are kids all over the world who need parents. Why would I want to try to clone an exact image of myself when I could do so much good and be a mom to someone else who so desperately needs it?<br><br><br><br>
I dunno. Just my ramblings on it, I guess.
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by MsRuthieB</i><br><br><b>two of the projects involve clones of children whose cells were taken before they died.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I find this incredibly sad. For the same reason that I feel sorry for people who've been preserving their deceased animal companions' DNA to try to clone them, I feel sorry for people who would take this route. I think that, regardless of what they may say, that they're hoping for replicas - physical, emotional, mental, etc. - and that they'll be sorely disappointed. There's no sense of closure with death if people think that they can clone the dead.<br><br><br><br>
What about people whose spouses die and who use DNA samples from when the spouse was alive to have children? I think that's something else with which I wouldn't feel completely comfortable.<br><br><br><br>
As an adoptee who intends to foster and likely to adopt in the future, I also think that this does not bode well for the thousands of orphans in North America who are in need of homes and families. There are so many children who are unwanted because of physical conditions, and even more so who've been diagnosed with emotional trauma and mental conditions who are on the "special needs" lists and being bounced around from group home to foster care. I mean, we can hardly manage to feed all of the people we already have on the planet and there are kids all over the world who need parents. Why would I want to try to clone an exact image of myself when I could do so much good and be a mom to someone else who so desperately needs it?<br><br><br><br>
I dunno. Just my ramblings on it, I guess.
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
"I am not against cloning someone for therapuetic purposes but not letting it grow past 14 days, at which point it is just some undifferentiated cells. This may possibly cure all kinds of horrible diseases."<br><br><br><br>
I question whether "undifferentiated cells" are really as undifferentiated as they look.
I question whether "undifferentiated cells" are really as undifferentiated as they look.
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by soilman</i><br><br><b>"I am not against cloning someone for therapuetic purposes but not letting it grow past 14 days, at which point it is just some undifferentiated cells. This may possibly cure all kinds of horrible diseases."<br><br><br><br>
I question whether "undifferentiated cells" are really as undifferentiated as they look.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Well at or before 14 days, they can still split into an identical twin, and if they are too differentiated, then they wouldn't be useful to researchers. I am not exactly sure when the embryonic cells are not longer considered "stem cells" but 14 days is the general limit for embryo experimentation used by all kinds of ethics and policy committees. I am not sure of the exact science.<br><br><br><br>
It's possible that from cloned cells maybe one day they could get those stem cells from a sick person to differentiate into a specific tissue needed by some one who say, needs liver tissue, or bone marrow, etc.<br><br><br><br>
But here is some info I found:<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm#3" target="_blank">http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm#3</a>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by soilman</i><br><br><b>"I am not against cloning someone for therapuetic purposes but not letting it grow past 14 days, at which point it is just some undifferentiated cells. This may possibly cure all kinds of horrible diseases."<br><br><br><br>
I question whether "undifferentiated cells" are really as undifferentiated as they look.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Well at or before 14 days, they can still split into an identical twin, and if they are too differentiated, then they wouldn't be useful to researchers. I am not exactly sure when the embryonic cells are not longer considered "stem cells" but 14 days is the general limit for embryo experimentation used by all kinds of ethics and policy committees. I am not sure of the exact science.<br><br><br><br>
It's possible that from cloned cells maybe one day they could get those stem cells from a sick person to differentiate into a specific tissue needed by some one who say, needs liver tissue, or bone marrow, etc.<br><br><br><br>
But here is some info I found:<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm#3" target="_blank">http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm#3</a>
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Tsila</i><br><br><b>I find this incredibly sad. For the same reason that I feel sorry for people who've been preserving their deceased animal companions' DNA to try to clone them, I feel sorry for people who would take this route. I think that, regardless of what they may say, that they're hoping for replicas - physical, emotional, mental, etc. - and that they'll be sorely disappointed. There's no sense of closure with death if people think that they can clone the dead.<br><br></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I totally agree. While deciding to have children is not a completely selfless act, (people have their various "wants" that motivate them to have children, nothing wrong with that.) By becoming so picky about what child, one starts drifting further and further away from raising a child for the child's sake and more for the parent's sake. There are some situation when this may be OK, like if they have a living child desperate for a bone marrow match so they have another kid. (although I can totally understand if people are against even that). Or acknowledging that one doesn't have the ability or resources to say, adopt a child with certain disabilities.<br><br><br><br>
I think many people set on a biological child would be surprised to realise how much love can be exchanged with a non-biological child. I don't know this first hand, but our adoptees here can attest to that, I'm sure.<br><br><br><br>
Not to mention, are we not getting a little spoiled as humans that we are no longer able to grieve over death and instead want to try to revive the dead? Death of a child is absolutely horrible. No doubt about it. But you will never bring that exact same child back. You are just creating an identical twin. A totally different person. Cloning the child is just a bad case of denile if you ask me.
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Tsila</i><br><br><b>I find this incredibly sad. For the same reason that I feel sorry for people who've been preserving their deceased animal companions' DNA to try to clone them, I feel sorry for people who would take this route. I think that, regardless of what they may say, that they're hoping for replicas - physical, emotional, mental, etc. - and that they'll be sorely disappointed. There's no sense of closure with death if people think that they can clone the dead.<br><br></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I totally agree. While deciding to have children is not a completely selfless act, (people have their various "wants" that motivate them to have children, nothing wrong with that.) By becoming so picky about what child, one starts drifting further and further away from raising a child for the child's sake and more for the parent's sake. There are some situation when this may be OK, like if they have a living child desperate for a bone marrow match so they have another kid. (although I can totally understand if people are against even that). Or acknowledging that one doesn't have the ability or resources to say, adopt a child with certain disabilities.<br><br><br><br>
I think many people set on a biological child would be surprised to realise how much love can be exchanged with a non-biological child. I don't know this first hand, but our adoptees here can attest to that, I'm sure.<br><br><br><br>
Not to mention, are we not getting a little spoiled as humans that we are no longer able to grieve over death and instead want to try to revive the dead? Death of a child is absolutely horrible. No doubt about it. But you will never bring that exact same child back. You are just creating an identical twin. A totally different person. Cloning the child is just a bad case of denile if you ask me.
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">In a way, aren't we trying to do that now? Only the Realiens are going about it differently. Scientists want to make artificial organs, fix muscle problems, spinal problems, etc. Aren't scientists trying to rebuild the old body or fix it? I mean in a 100 years if you have a heart problem or lose a hand, you can get a hand or heart transplant, cloned or artifical. I'm probably not explaining myself enough here but I hope you know what I mean.</div>
</div>
<br>
Don't worry, I understood you just fine. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="
"> And yeah, you're right. I dunno, maybe it's just the whole idea of eternal life. Science has extended the natural life span of humans (a bit too far, IMHO) but I don't think the intention is to live forever. That just seems really sick to me. Why would anyone want to live forever? How would we control the population? And acheiving it by brain transplants just seems a bit too Dr. Frankenstein to me.<br><br><br><br>
Cloning body parts is one things, but making entire bodies is another. At least, to me. And what would the next step be? Only cloning physically perfect and attractive bodies? Getting rid of bodies once they reach a certain age? Maybe I watch too much sci-fi, but to me, the whole eternal life thing is treading into some very dangerous territory.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I find this incredibly sad. For the same reason that I feel sorry for people who've been preserving their deceased animal companions' DNA to try to clone them, I feel sorry for people who would take this route. I think that, regardless of what they may say, that they're hoping for replicas - physical, emotional, mental, etc. - and that they'll be sorely disappointed. There's no sense of closure with death if people think that they can clone the dead.</div>
</div>
<br>
I agree. How are these parents supposed to grieve properly? Very sad. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">
<div class="quote-block">In a way, aren't we trying to do that now? Only the Realiens are going about it differently. Scientists want to make artificial organs, fix muscle problems, spinal problems, etc. Aren't scientists trying to rebuild the old body or fix it? I mean in a 100 years if you have a heart problem or lose a hand, you can get a hand or heart transplant, cloned or artifical. I'm probably not explaining myself enough here but I hope you know what I mean.</div>
</div>
<br>
Don't worry, I understood you just fine. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="
"> And yeah, you're right. I dunno, maybe it's just the whole idea of eternal life. Science has extended the natural life span of humans (a bit too far, IMHO) but I don't think the intention is to live forever. That just seems really sick to me. Why would anyone want to live forever? How would we control the population? And acheiving it by brain transplants just seems a bit too Dr. Frankenstein to me.<br><br><br><br>Cloning body parts is one things, but making entire bodies is another. At least, to me. And what would the next step be? Only cloning physically perfect and attractive bodies? Getting rid of bodies once they reach a certain age? Maybe I watch too much sci-fi, but to me, the whole eternal life thing is treading into some very dangerous territory.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I find this incredibly sad. For the same reason that I feel sorry for people who've been preserving their deceased animal companions' DNA to try to clone them, I feel sorry for people who would take this route. I think that, regardless of what they may say, that they're hoping for replicas - physical, emotional, mental, etc. - and that they'll be sorely disappointed. There's no sense of closure with death if people think that they can clone the dead.</div>
</div>
<br>
I agree. How are these parents supposed to grieve properly? Very sad. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="
">1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!