Cloning

[neggler]

Before I start the debate, I would like to lay down some ground rules:

1. No attacking people for their beliefs
   
2. Back up your belief, don't just state it, WHY do you believe that?
   
3. If you do not agree with someone's idea, please debate it in an adult way
   

 

First I'd like to start off by saying the laws on cloning enacted by the government are there to protect the people, not limit their rights. I'd also like to discuss the two different types of cloning for this debate: reproductive which is creating an exact whole copy of the original; and therapeutic which is creating a whole copy of the original, but not allowing the clone to move on past the embryonic stage. The world today is a scary place, what with our nuclear weapons and our wars raged through the centuries. Luckily cloning will not be added on the list anytime soon as of March 2005 the United Nations passed a non-biding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning calling for a ban on anything human cloning related. However countries are not forced to follow this Declaration, for example Australia passed a bill in 2006 legalizing therapeutic cloning in some parts of the country. In the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union it explicitly prohibits reproductive cloning, but allows therapeutic cloning. Contrary to those two entities the United States has no explicit laws on reproductive cloning or therapeutic cloning, thus leaving it entirely to the states under the 10th amendment. 15 states currently have laws against cloning, one of them being the state of Arizona. In the state of Arizona any type of cloning, be it therapeutic or reproductive, is legal as long as the group is using privately funded money. Our neighbor California has legalized therapeutic cloning but has prohibited reproductive cloning. Unlike Arizona though the state of Missouri allows the use of state funds for research of therapeutic cloning, but requires private money to be used for reproductive cloning as well. While some states are more lackadaisical on the issue of cloning there are others which are completely strict like Indiana who threatens to revoke a hospitals license if found to be involved in any sort of cloning research. Cloning is forbidden for a reason, if cloning were to be allowed, then what's to stop the clones from interbreeding with the non-clones? If this were to happen it could cause the end of the human race as we know it. Evolution would cease, new disease could potentially arise from the mixings of artificial DNA and natural DNA. How would we distinguish the differences between the clones and the original copies? They both would have the exact same finger print and tongue print. I believe cloning needs to stay illegal and all funding whether it be private or public should be ceased and outlawed.

[siniri]

Cloning is forbidden for a reason, if cloning were to be allowed, then what's to stop the clones from interbreeding with the non-clones? If this were to happen it could cause the end of the human race as we know it. Evolution would cease, new disease could potentially arise from the mixings of artificial DNA and natural DNA. How would we distinguish the differences between the clones and the original copies? They both would have the exact same finger print and tongue print. I believe cloning needs to stay illegal and all funding whether it be private or public should be ceased and outlawed.

There's no such thing as "artificial DNA." Allowing clones to "interbreed" would not cause the end of the human race nor of evolution. Nor would clones have the exact same fingerprint and tongue print. Look at identical twins, who have the same DNA -- and yet they never look completely identical, nor do they have the same fingerprints, retinal scans, etc., etc. (though I suppose some may have similar enough "face prints" that they could be misidentified, but that's true with other people as well). Clones would also be younger than their "parent" (since they would age at the same rate as any other human), which would also limit the possibility of misidentification.

 

Clones would still be human beings; their bodies would be made of human cells, derived wholly from another human. Therefore, they would still rely on human proteins for their cellular reproduction, allowing mutations (and thus "evolution") at the same rate as any other human being. The easiest way for them to have children would be with another human partner (although more clones could be made).

 

Now that we've gotten some science straight, I will say that I agree cloning should be illegal. I believe that human rights should extend to all humans, regardless of their stage of life, ability to reason, etc., out of respect for our species. Cloning is inherently dangerous, resulting in early death and painful abnormalities, especially in early stages of cloning for a species.

 

Science must obey certain rules, one of which is to cause no harm to subjects -- unless there is the potential for greater good to result for the subjects themselves (e.g., cancer patients can help test harmful chemotherapies that might cure their cancer), and the subject is capable of providing informed consent (or assent in the case of minors, with consent from their parents), without coercion or inappropriately large compensation (c.f. the Willowbrook Hepatitis study).

 

Clones cannot consent to experimentation on themselves. The idea of "therapeutic cloning" -- creating a human only to destroy them so that someone else can have a better life -- is utterly repugnant to me; it is a violation of the clone's human rights.

[sintralin]

From what I've seen/read about/heard, the reason why cloning is illegal is mainly because of the shortened life span and higher risk for disease of the clones. From the experiments with Dolly, the clone lived for a significantly shorter period of time, and since science still hasn't been able to solve such problems I don't think it's ethical to bring someone into the world if they're only going to live such a life.

 

Speaking of ethics, I might be wrong, but isn't the main reason for reproductive cloning that parents/loved ones/etc can "have their children back"? There seems to be something inherently wrong with allowing parents to "replace" their child, even if he/she died from some accident, etc. The clone would only be seen as a replacement for the original, even when the clone him/herself felt themselves as a whole, individual human being. They would always have to deal with some sort of bias or expectations that are just unfair to project onto someone who is functionally a different person.

[neggler]

Speaking of ethics, I might be wrong, but isn't the main reason for reproductive cloning that parents/loved ones/etc can "have their children back"? There seems to be something inherently wrong with allowing parents to "replace" their child, even if he/she died from some accident, etc. The clone would only be seen as a replacement for the original, even when the clone him/herself felt themselves as a whole, individual human being. They would always have to deal with some sort of bias or expectations that are just unfair to project onto someone who is functionally a different person.

 

 

I agree with you, it dehumanizes the original child. Everyone has their opinion on how long someone should grieve for, but I believe to replace a child is going a step too far. It's not healthy, physically, to grieve for long periods of time and certainly not healthy, mentally, to replace a child. Not to mention, there is no research which says the clone will be the exact copy of the original. While it may be physically, mentally, not so much. Our personality is based on where and how we grow up, those raised in the 1960s are certainly different than those raised in the 1990s. So for a child who was born in 2000 and died at the age of 7 then replaced by 2008, so much has changed and progressed in our world in such a little amount of time that the child would be fundamentally different.

[hipy_chicky]

I don't feel like typing up a long post explaining my views on this... but just for the gist of it: The thought of creating a clone to save another life disgusts me. A clone is still living being, you can't treat it as medication. Science needs to know its boundaries. Most clones wouldn't even make it through birth, and the chances of them being born with diseases and deformations is alarming. I just don't think it's right to put a living being through that in order to benefit another.

[Olivia_D]

Cloning is a really interesting topic for me. on one hand, the idea of cloning can be good. It can allow scientists to develop new ways of curing diseases and promote the general well fare of human kind.

 

However, the word IDEA is key.

 

Although cloning may have undeniable benefits and may lead to valuable information needed for medical advancements, clones would still be human beings. Even cloning animals for scientific research can be considered inhumane, similar to testing products for human use on animals. Cloning can provide a painful and miserable experience for the organism in this situation and definitely outweighs the benefits. The advancements that would be made by use of cloning should be discovered and used in a different, more humane way.

[neggler]

Well as far as therapeutic cloning goes it's against the Geneva Convention to do harm onto another human, so therapeutic cloning has a long way to go to get around the Geneva Convention

[geoterza]

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on whether cloning should be allowed or banned. But as far as therapeutic cloning goes, I remember hearing about a family that decided to have a second child because their first one needed some bone marrow cells transfered and neither parent was a match. The second child wasn't a match either and when the article came out they were debating about having a third child to try again. (This was back in the 90s) So even without cloning, people will find ways to try and help their children.

[Shiina]

Well cloning occurs anyway in monozygotic twins naturally.. So it shouldn't be considered "unnatural" .. But as far as hundreds of embryos being destroyed goes, it's a moral debate. Cloning hardly succeeds and I'm not so sure it's worth the hundreds of lives lost, to clone one. I suppose there are positive medical externalities, such as being able to clone stem cells for treatement of lukemia and other cancers, but it can also cause psychological issues of identity for the cloned species.

 

What do you guys thinks?

[Mason]

I'm totally 100% for cloning, stem cell research, and all the likes. I agree that it could be dangerous in the wrong hands, but I don't think thats a good enough excuse to hold back science. There are way too many important discoveries waiting to happen with this kind of research. Seriously...it gets me excited.

 

 

This topic has been edited by a member of staff (Spritzie) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Please do not bump topics over 21 days old.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

Per the reason above, this topic has been LOCKED. Please contact Spritzie if you have any questions regarding this action.