Cloning

[kikaown]

Should cloning be allowed on animals or humans?

 

I am not talking about cell cloning or organ cloning. This is about cloning something, not killing it for its parts, and letting it live as a true creature (or human, as the case may be).

 

I was reading an article in school (This cloning did happen 4-5 years ago):

 

Scientists in Texas have successfully cloned a cat, opening the way to replicating pets and other valued animals once the technique is perfected.

 

The kitten, called CC (the old typist's abbreviation for carbon copy) and now almost two months old, appears healthy and energetic, although she is completely unlike her tabby surrogate mother, Mark Westhusin and colleagues at Texas A&M University, College Station, announce in the February 21 issue of Nature.

 

The cat was cloned by transplanting DNA from Rainbow, a female three-colored (tortoiseshell or calico) cat into an egg cell whose nucleus had been removed, and then implanting this embryo into Allie, the surrogate mother.

 

"CC's coat color suggests that she is a clone, and a genetic match between CC and the donor mother confirms this," the researchers say.

 

She is not, however, identical to her DNA donor. The reason for this is that the pattern on cats' coats is only partly genetically determined‚€it also depends on other factors during development.

 

Out of 87 implanted cloned embryos, CC is the only one to survive‚€comparable to the success rate in sheep, mice, cows, goats, and pigs, the scientists say.

 

"If these odds can be shortened and CC remains in good health, pet cloning may one day be feasible," the scientists reported.

 

This one is only about animal cloning. I think that, while animal cloning is okay under certain circumstances, such as the loss of a beloved pet (You have to actually lose a pet to understand this), human cloning is never okay. My stance is based mostly on my spiritual beliefs, because I believe each person to have a unique soul, and cloning violates this soul of each person.

 

Take into account that asexual reproduction is cloning, and there are some animals, not to mention bacteria and fungi, that do reproduce asexually, and therefore clone themselves by definition. Even when an individual cell splits in a human, that cell is cloned, even if the entire person is not cloned.

[Dillon]

No i dont think it should be on either.

One becuase It unatural.

Two because its not one hundred percent Guarentee.

[Meeptroid]

Cloning humans is something that I would be against. Animals, on the other hand, I sort of agree with. See, cloning an extinct animal (No, not something as old as a dinosaur) can really be helpful for reasearch. Also, endangered animals can at least be saved by cloning.

[Dillon]

Listening to metroids argument i decided to change my clonign should be done to extinct animals only.

[Awesome_Paul]

for the animals it depends, like metroid says, they shouldn't clone the extinct animals like dinsoaurs because they're not really cultured animals and don't know how to live with the humans (and may also eat the smaller animals :P )

 

But to clone the endangered animals, such as the eagle, panda, Humboldt Penguin, and my favourite, Komodo Dragon, would be a good thing, mainly because amny animals hold agriculture, medicinal, economic value and so that the future generations can witness such animals.

 

But humans, i would have to disagree with that (even though i love to be cloned, 2 of me :D ) but its cruel and unnatural, it just somethign that humans aren't meant to do, if we cloned, the population would go really high and then the world hunger would increase due to more people wanting more food and even worse more diseases

[Ellie_Penguin]

Cloning animals that are on the verge of extinction could be useful, but not humans.

[Dillon]

I know dont clone dinosaurs or we'd be extinct XD. Any who. I mean mabey cloning animals like Dodos or other animals like the panda.

[.Dan.]

Why not? It's not unethical. It's just a method of avoiding death, something mankind has been attempting to do for years.

[Meeptroid]

The people in the novel (and film) Jurassic Park had issues with avoiding death also. If dinosaurs were cloned, I suppose it depends on what species it is. For example, a procompsognathus, if cloned, would probably be alright considering that it's the size of a chicken. Containing the dinosaurs may be a problem also. The Chaos Theory was mentioned many times in that book...

[Dillon]

Why is cloning unethical. Anywho its not away to "avoid" death but more a way to go back in time and see what animals were like back then.

[Chipmonker]

I've always have believed that messing around with human DNA is just not something that should be done - which inculdes embryotic, reproductive, and therapeutic cloning. This is all in relation to fertilized human eggs, I don't have a problem with other types of cloning an the such. Like how bacteria is used to produce insulin.

 

I have no problem with scientists cloning animals. Unless of course, there is excessive amounts of damage and abuse done to the animal for no apparent reason. I basically agree with what Vivi has said. However, I don't think that cloning pets will be anything that will ever be used more than a couple dozen times. Of all the time, equipment, scientists and luck you need to clone something, it would cost more than a normal person would make in 10 years.

[Awesome_Paul]

Why not? It's not unethical

Why is cloning unethical.

 

I thinks its unethical, i think that cloning = cheating. we all meant to die at some point, but if you clone yourself it be cheating death and thats just not the way of life,

 

and i quote the definition

 

1. unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices"

 

2. unethical - not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds"

 

you can only live to death and cannot live past it, cloning would be immoral and wrong, and these are some good quotes i found about death

 

It is as natural to die as to be born; and to a little infant, perhaps, the one is as painful as the other. - Francis Bacon

 

The fear of death often proves mortal, and sets people on methods to save their Lives, which infallibly destroy them. - Joseph Addison

 

the second one is interesting, the method we're talking about is cloning, so cloning could destroy us

[Lutarist Jake]

Nothing should be cloned even though the species may die out. I also agree that cloning could destroy us.

[Eric]

I, for one, believe that cloning should be allowed, though definitely controlled. When I say this, I mean it in both aspects - animals and humans. Having double standards is unethical. Cloning isn't. The human race has remained unchanged for so long because we alter the environment to suit us. Call us cocky, but we're damn good at it. Forest in the way? Fell it. Your part of the world too cold? Turn up global climate.

 

Regarding the 'playing God' point that has cropped up often in this debate, I think it's absolute rubbish (with all due respect to those believe this). Like I said above, we've been doing it for years. Why is cloning any different? Mind you, I'm agnostic, so I don't believe in God. It's Darwinism - survival of the fittest. If altering genes and cloning is what is needed to survive, why not?

 

Cloning is used for great things. Salt resistant wheat? Growing human tissue? Yay, I say.

[Meeptroid]

With Christianity being the highest religion in the world, I doubt human cloning will proceed without a fight. Cloning endangered or extinct animals is alright in my opinion. As long as it's controlled and not misused. See, growing human tissue and organs is fine for saving lives. But cloning humans to create new life? That's absolutely wrong and unnatural. Besides, with human population increasing every few seconds or so, why in the world do we need clones? It's not like the clone will have the same knowledge as the original and act the same. What if the clone comes out deformed? Kill it and try again? I don't know about you, but that's murder right there. Science is certainly becoming too advanced nowadays. Heck, cloning can be our destruction. If in the wrong hands, something is bound to go wrong.

[Guest Levy]

I completely disagree. A theory just popped into my head. What if God gave man the knowledge to clone thy selves? A clone will never be the same as the original. DNA is merely a blueprint. Take a baby, for example. If we take a few cells from the baby, implant them in a blank egg cell. Then insert that egg into another mother. Give a few years of the original and the clone being apart, then bring them together when they are, say, six years old. Study their personalities, their physical and psychological differences. Granted they will have the same hair color, eye color, and possibly their faces may be similar. But their personalities would be completely different. Tabula Rasa, the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no innate or built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world. If two individuals share DNA, does that mean one doesn't have a soul? Who's to say the clone doesn't have a mind uniquely his or her own. Does that make him or her an abomination to God?

 

Disagree with my thoughts, you may. But consider this, cloning may someday save the human race from certain extinction.

 

Also, I would like to bring up. Cloning dinosaurs is not possible at this current day and age. For the current uses of cloning, we need nucleic DNA. We only have mitochondrial DNA from dinosaurs, which is not enough. As we only have bits and pieces at best.

[Meeptroid]

If anyone read Jurassic Park, apparently they found Dinosaur DNA inside of insects preserved in amber. Sure, you would spend millions of dollars on truckloads of amber just to find a bit of DNA, but at least you MAY find some. They also filled in the gaps with frog DNA. Which turned out disastrous because frogs can have the ability to change gender...

 

Oh, and the thing about saving human extinction? If one believes in God, humans shall be extinct one day on the planet earth. Including all sources of life.

[Guest Levy]

Earth will die one day, that is fact. Many extinction theories suggest, if you cannot save Earth you must find a new.

Solution: Create clone eggs of human beings whom have made a significant impact on Earth. Celebrities, don't count. I'm talking leaders, philosophers, scientists, teachers, etc... Humans, if cloned, can make a positive impact on a new world. We would launch these eggs frozen as zygotes, to be unfrozen and born on a planet suitable for human life. Sure it is a long shot. Launch a barrage of these Last Hope crafts to thousands of systems believed to house life. Our robots, hopefully advanced enough to complete this task, will rebuild humanity. Thus saving the Human species.

 

Again, if God is allowing us to clone ourselves, is it truly unethical?

 

And frog DNA would not work. Firstly, is was a FICTIONAL book. And secondly, Dinosaurs are more closely related to modern day birds than reptiles and amphibians. And Raptors are not 9 feet tall, they are barely 3 feet in height.

[Meeptroid]

Obviously, Jurassic Park is a fictional book. Actually, it's science fiction. Considering that the book was written years ago, nobody knew that dinosaurs were more related to birds. Bird DNA? And about the raptors, why not enlarge them for a book thriller? However, you can't get cocky and be too sure about these things....

 

Also, I sorta meant human life in general. I highly doubt it'll ever be saved. For Christians, it is believed that Jesus shall come again and take EVERYBODY with him.

[Guest Levy]

EXCEPT, for the sinners, whom will suffer a fate worse than death.

 

But that is beside the point, try to stay on topic.

[Chipmonker]

Yay! Debate! Go post on the progressive tax board now >.< Or post new topics!

 

One thing I need to point out though...

 

I'm talking leaders, philosophers, scientists, teachers, etc... Humans, if cloned, can make a positive impact on a new world. We would launch these eggs frozen as zygotes, to be unfrozen and born on a planet suitable for human life. Sure it is a long shot.

 

Granted they will have the same hair color, eye color, and possibly their faces may be similar. But their personalities would be completely different. Tabula Rasa, the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no innate or built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world.

 

Doesn't that contradict?

[bub156]

i dont think humans should be cloned, this may involve the risk of changing genetic matter, also the human population would exceed limits on earth,(wow that was alot of big words)

 

 

animals however, may be cloned in desperation to save an endangered species

[Meeptroid]

EXCEPT, for the sinners, whom will suffer a fate worse than death.

 

But that is beside the point, try to stay on topic.

 

I am in no way getting off topic. I am stating that the human race will never last forever. Therefore, why clone humans?

[Ellie_Penguin]

Thing is, we don't know what could happen if we alter humans' DNA or if scientists won't abuse that power. Humans are humans and we are destined to make tons of mistakes that we will regret. Better safe than sorry. I think it should only be allowed on species who are almost extincted.

[Guest Levy]

I agree with cloning endangered and/or extinct species. I remember reading something about using Tasmanian Devils to clone the extinct Tasmanian Wolf. And I saw something about cloning a type of endangered wild cat by using domestic cats.

 

But I have to bring my opinion back to Human cloning. Setting religious and ethical beliefs aside, cloning is a good thing. The ability to do this enhances our abilities as a race, the Human race.

 

On another subject, but still relating to cloning;

Science has proven something surprising. The Y chromosome is decaying, or disappearing. One day, Humanity will be one gender, female. Known as Adam's Curse, it is a hypothesis that the Y chromosome will disappear in 5,000 generation. I haven't read the book but the theory make sense. Atrophy of the Y chromosome will result in the extinction of the male gender of the human race. How else will we reproduce then? Cloning will be the only option.

 

 

One thing I need to point out though...

 

I'm talking leaders, philosophers, scientists, teachers, etc... Humans, if cloned, can make a positive impact on a new world. We would launch these eggs frozen as zygotes, to be unfrozen and born on a planet suitable for human life. Sure it is a long shot.

 

Granted they will have the same hair color, eye color, and possibly their faces may be similar. But their personalities would be completely different. Tabula Rasa, the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no innate or built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world.

 

Doesn't that contradict?

Yeah, I guess that does. I didn't notice that until now. ^_^;