Cloning?

[Mayflower1]

Is cloning moral? Human beings have altered land to make canals and earth to create mountains. It doesn't mean that God still didn't make them. Same with a human being... Scientists don't make life, they "alter" it. God still made the cells. Blood cells are just earth and water, that is what we are made up of.

Sorry, the third choice is NOT SURE

 

[Athene]

I put not sure but my answer would have to be yes and no, yes because just imagine if we could clone healthy organs for people needing transplants, or using cloning technology to cure people with Cystic Fibrosis . . it would be amazing.

No because sooner or later somebody is going to try and clone a human, if they haven't done so already, only a fraction of cloned organisms are viable and generally they die young sometimes from unknown causes. The human genome project has some good info if anyones interested.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Assuming cloning technology improves greatly over time, and clones become just as viable as the original version, would your not sure change to a full yes?

 

[Trigger]

Cloning organs is fine.

Cloning people is playing God.

 

[UberLutheran]

My wish list: five clones of me.

One to direct music, play chamber music and give recitals.
One to do my IT job.
One to go to seminary.
One to be a professional storm chaser.
One to coordinate the other four clones.



(Actually, I'm fine with cloning organs. I have real problems with the idea of cloning people.)

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I don't find cloning morally acceptable. Granted, cloning organs is one thing but it will lead to possible human cloning. Here's why.

Each person is different. Not physically, but mentally and socially. Animals can be just alike, because they do not have the brain capcity and ability to reason as we humans have. How can you program someone to have a conscious? How can you create someone who can think on their own? A clone is obviously going to think like the person they were cloned from, if that at all. The brain is too complex a machine to perfectly match and clone from. Therefore, cloning humans will never happen.

 

[Adriac]

I don't get the whole "playing God" thing. By that logic, isn't having sex playing God?

 

[Caylin]

I don't find cloning morally acceptable. Granted, cloning organs is one thing but it will lead to possible human cloning. Here's why.

Each person is different. Not physically, but mentally and socially. Animals can be just alike, because they do not have the brain capcity and ability to reason as we humans have. How can you program someone to have a conscious? How can you create someone who can think on their own? A clone is obviously going to think like the person they were cloned from, if that at all. The brain is too complex a machine to perfectly match and clone from. Therefore, cloning humans will never happen.

No they wouldn't be exactly like the first one. It would be exactly like if the first one had a twin. Twins have differnt personalities.

Also, you would say its wrong to clone organs cause it *might* lead to cloning people? Thats prolly the worst excuse I've ever heard to say its alright to let people die.

 

[SummerMadness]

There is nothing immoral abotu cloning, it's not playing God, it's just cloning. The clone will be different from you, all it has is the same genetic material, but it will be completely separate from you in mind because it will have different experiences. There may be some similarities is personality, but it will still be a different person. Most new scientific breakthroughs are considered playing God. Guess what people said when they perfected in vitro fertilization?

 

[Trigger]

The fact that it isn't another you isn't important. You can't clone the soul, and no clone will ever be a perfect mirror image. That isn't the point.

The only, only way I'd forgive cloning is if every woman on the entire planet simultaneously stopped being able to have babies.

 

[Harlan Norris]

I voted no.Frankly I can't see what good it would do.That is unless we think we will use these clones for spare parts.Now that would be truly evil.

 

[Adriac]

The fact that it isn't another you isn't important. You can't clone the soul, and no clone will ever be a perfect mirror image.

Has to come from somewhere, eh?

 

[Caylin]

I voted no.Frankly I can't see what good it would do.That is unless we think we will use these clones for spare parts.Now that would be truly evil.

You can clone just the part... How is that evil?

 

[Texas Lynn]

To say it's immoral is equivalent to saying the Wright Brothers were immoral.

 

[TooCurious]

Cloning organs, tissues, stem cells, and other various bits is perfectly fine by me.

Cloning entire humans will only become morally-permissible in my estimation when and if we develop cloning technology and methods to the point at which cloned organisms do not suffer medical problems as a result of being clones. At that point, it's just very specific in-vitro fertilization.

 

[Moros]

Organs, yes; people, no.

 

[tocis]

Is cloning moral?

Depends on two things, as I see it.
First, how "safe" is the cloning technique? Will it in all likelihood produce a healthy human being, or is it more likely to result in something malformed, disabled, barely able to survive without constant medical aid? After all, while the successful cloning experiments attract all the attention, there were many more failed attempts as far as I know, and no, you don't want to know what exactly "failure" meant...

Second, assuming the human clone is healthy, how will she be treated? Will she be respected and mostly treated like any other fellow human, with the possible exception of special medical conditions? Or will she, in the worst case I can imagine, be seen as walking breathing property of the "original", maybe even destined to eventually be vivisected when the original needs a spare liver or heart?

If a clone is "produced" by means of a surefire procedure and treated with all the respect a human deserves, I think it's okay.

 

[kopilo]

It depends on the reason for cloning, such as those who pay millions to have their pets cloned, using such an expensive technology on a house hold cat seems selfish.
source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0324_040324_catclones.html

If a couple of parents wanted to clone thier dead son/daughter, it seems very suspecious, will they expect the same things of the clone as they did for their lost son/daughter, (it also seems selfish).

However cloned transplant vs farmed animal transplant.... The cloned transplant looks like a much better option.

 

[SummerMadness]

I think the thread assumes that side effects will be seldom with cloning of humans because there is no doubt it's immoral to clone a person knowing fully well the clone will not survive.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Couple points that need to be debunked here.

When you clone a person, this does not mean you produce a fully grown exact copy of the person with the same memories and thoughts.

A clone developes no different than a normal person. You start with a single cell, except instead of being comprised of a sperm and egg from a seperate mother and father, you take either 2 X Chromosomes or an X and a Y from the person to be cloned. Then thiszygote grows into a person in the exact way a normal person does, 9 months or so of gestation, then 16-20 years for full physical maturity.

Though the clone will have the same genetic material, they won't grow up to be exactly like you. Far too much of your personality and thought process is based on the enviornment you are raised in.

Cloning has many medical uses, but making exact copies of people is not one of them.