If it were possible to clone another you from your cells, would it be ethical to keep that clone as spare parts for you? Or would the clone have a soul?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Cloning
- Thread starter Beanieboy
- Start date
- Status
Presumably the clone would be just as much a living person as I am. It would be completely unethical for me to demand spare parts off them against their will. When or if the technology is there to make human clones, they should be given the same rights as the rest of us and should be treated as individuals.
Upvote
0
The clone would be like an identical (and presumably younger) twin. If all they're there for is to be an organ bag, I don't see how in anyway that would be ethical.
However if it were to form a clone embryo to harvest stem cells from, that's a different kettle of fish.
However if it were to form a clone embryo to harvest stem cells from, that's a different kettle of fish.
Upvote
0
It would be moral and ethical. They would get life because of the need for their organs, other wise they would never have been. Hence, they owe their life/organs to that fact.
Upvote
0
The only way I could even consider something like this being ethical is if the clone had no brain, or you only cloned the parts you needed. If a whole person is cloned, basically you end up with a baby with your genes. Just like a twin born later. As soon as its born, it has its own life, just as a twin has, and you then have no rights to its organs.
Upvote
0
People are made for God's amusements. Is it so hard to believe that clones would be made for people's amusements? Its a moral question to be sure.
Upvote
0
They would get life, only for you to take their organs and then they possibly die. SO you're creating a new person to kill them as soon as possible basically. Doesn't sound too ethical to me, seeing the clone has no say in the matter.
Upvote
0
Wow, I would have never been if my Mum and Dad had never slept together, that doesn't give them the right to my organs though. What you are essentially saying is that if you create a life you reserve the right to do what ever you want with it. May I remind you that slavery has been abolished.
Upvote
0
lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
By default, a clone would get older much more quickly, as you DNA has already undergone great changes in all but your reproductive cells (pre-sperm/egg cells). So the 'stereotypical' clone would be short lived, and one could say it is about as ethical to create a clone from 'used' DNA as it is to create a clone which already has cancer.
Upvote
0
jayem
Naturalist
- Jun 24, 2003
- 15,426
- 7,164
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Ethics aside, the maintenance costs of your clone would make it a pretty expensive proposition. It's quite true that the cloned mammals produced so far have had shortened life spans and were susceptible to degenerative diseases. So they may not make the optimum organ donors in the first place. Certainly, you'd want your clone as healthy as possible to be an organ donor--so you'd have to foot all the medical bills. And
at the minimum, you'd need to provide a safe residence, a wholesome diet, and some exercise. And as I think about it, normal human beings need some social interraction for optimum health. How much socialization you'd allow for your organ donor clone becomes rather dicey. Education may not be needed. Overall, it might be similar to the costs of raising a child who required life-long custodial care. And even then, your clone may not live long enough or be healthy enough to donate. You may need to have several clones, of different ages, in reserve. I'd think only the very, very wealthy could even think about such an undertaking. As was noted, a much more practical approach would be to grow a needed organ in vitro from cloned stem cells.
at the minimum, you'd need to provide a safe residence, a wholesome diet, and some exercise. And as I think about it, normal human beings need some social interraction for optimum health. How much socialization you'd allow for your organ donor clone becomes rather dicey. Education may not be needed. Overall, it might be similar to the costs of raising a child who required life-long custodial care. And even then, your clone may not live long enough or be healthy enough to donate. You may need to have several clones, of different ages, in reserve. I'd think only the very, very wealthy could even think about such an undertaking. As was noted, a much more practical approach would be to grow a needed organ in vitro from cloned stem cells.
Upvote
0
Haha, you've put a fair bit of thought into that, as handy as it might be in later life to have spare organs on tap, you'd have to be monster to consider keeping clones of yourself for that purpose.
Upvote
0
Zeena
..called to BE a Saint
He/she would have a soul, for the life is in the blood.
Leviticus 17:11
Leviticus 17:11
- American Standard Version (ASV)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.
Upvote
0
If you follow the money in cloning research it goes back to organ transplant research and ethics. At the end of the day the people with the money buy what they want and the rest of us get residual benefits.
Upvote
0
Citation please. From what I've read about cloned specimens, advanced aging hasn't seemed to be the source of death. For example with Dolly, even though she lived half the normal life expectancy, it's due to a cancer that is common in sheep that have to be kept indoors, rather than age related issues.
Upvote
0
The genes of cloned animals have shorter ends, telomeres, because everytime a gene copies itself part of the ends get used up. Since the genes to make clones come from older people the ends are partly used up when the clone is made. When genes get too short they end up going bad in form of transcription/translation errors where the proteins are incorrectly made. This translates into all kinds of diseases which cause early death and sickness. If science learns how to rejuvenate the telomeres, which they might have figured out by now, this problem may be resolved which would allow for healthy clones.
Upvote
0
Degenerated telomeres don't make them age more quickly though, it just shortens the life span. lawtonfongle was saying that they would age more quickly.
Upvote
0
I know the the theory behind premature aging but I haven't seen any examples of premature aging, hence why I asked for one.
EDIT: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=305328 seems to show that telomere length can be shorter, longer or similar to the organism from which the DNA was taken.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If telomere degeneration causes people to get sick and die then its relation to premature aging is obvious.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
