The Ethics of Cloning

USincognito · Dec 15, 2006

kopilo said:
Cloning humans seems fairly pointless when there is a perfectly good way to procreate already and it seems to be more fun then playing with petri dishes.

Exactly. I wonder the same thing about people who use Meth when Weed is just fine and all natural (well, assuming it's not contaminated by herbicides or PCB).

chaoschristian · Dec 15, 2006

But you are against cloning, therefore your post doesn't make any sense.

Did you read what I wrote?

USincognito said:
Kittens, puppies and lambs are cute a priori. Babies can be ugly. I hate to admit that, but they can so what happens if a ugly person choses to manufacture 20 or 30 clones? I would be better if only nature and alcohol allowed them to procreate.

USincognito · Dec 15, 2006

chaoschristian said:
But you are against cloning, therefore your post doesn't make any sense.

Did you read what I wrote?

Yes. But since I'm against the creepy potential of creating Frankenhumans who would - and should - be socially marginalized that doesn't mean I'm inherently opposed to the cloning of mere animals, not humans, which are the apex of creation.

A million Shamu's, Lassies, La Cucarachas swimming, running or crawling around doesn't bother me. A dozen Penn Jillettes populating Las Vegas is a nightmare.

chaoschristian · Dec 15, 2006

USincognito said:
<snip baseless blather> humans, which are the apex of creation.

And thank you for proving me point for me.

Humans, being the apex of creation, are awarded dominion over all of creation, as it plainly and clearly states in Genesis for those of us who actually read The Holy Bible. And as God's appointed viceregents we are to exercise full authority over all of creation. And as such we have a mandate to clone humans in order to fulfill God's will.

Not having a dozen, nay - hundreds, of Penn Jillettes running around Las Vegas is only playing into Satan's hands.

Willtor · Dec 15, 2006

chaoschristian said:
If you are against cloning, you are against kittens.

As no rational person is against kittens, all people who are against cloning are irrational.

Ipsofacto, all people who are against cloning are incapable of articulating an argument to support their claims or refuting the claims of any person who loves kittens.

I love kittens.

I win the thread!!!11!1!

I'm not against kittens! I'm not! Maybe USincognito is, but I'm not! Cloning is awesome!

ravenscape · Dec 15, 2006

If I mention The Boys from Brazil does that count as Godwin's law?

chaoschristian · Dec 15, 2006

It's good to see you have seen the light.

I am glad you agree. There is great diversity in cloning.

Willtor said:
I'm not against kittens! I'm not! Maybe USincognito is, but I'm not! Cloning is awesome!

BigToe · Dec 15, 2006

How is there great diversity in cloning?

chaoschristian · Dec 15, 2006

There is great difference in sameness.

BigToe said:
How is there great diversity in cloning?

xladyfayre · Dec 15, 2006

interesting subject.
i think cloning a human is wrong- but i also think that it is okay to clone body parts only.

-waiting lists for transplants would be reduced
-people would be able to recieve transplants faster
-less death as a result.

Macrina · Dec 16, 2006

I'm imagining a future where there are "cloning clinics" people can go to when they need a double to do their household chores, visit the in-laws, or other tedious responsibilities. A la Michael Keaton in the movie Multiplicity.

The clinics would have to advertise based on the precision of their cloning technique, yet maintain sufficient emotional distance from the clones that they would remain in subordinate status. "I Can't Believe It's Not Human!"

chaoschristian · Dec 16, 2006

What about cloning exceptional people?

Take Stephen Hawking. Surely we as a society would benefit from his continued presence and brilliance, a brilliance born out of biological ability, not just social circumstances.

But then again, once cloned, would the clone in question have any moral or contractual obligation to fulfill the role he or she was cloned for?

What is Stephen Hawking Mark 2 decided instead to run the ponies?

Macrina · Dec 16, 2006

chaoschristian said:
What about cloning exceptional people?

Take Stephen Hawking. Surely we as a society would benefit from his continued presence and brilliance, a brilliance born out of biological ability, not just social circumstances.

But then again, once cloned, would the clone in question have any moral or contractual obligation to fulfill the role he or she was cloned for?

What is Stephen Hawking Mark 2 decided instead to run the ponies?

Yes, I think we have to realize that the clones, while similar in many respects, would be distinct individuals. The human person is made up of a mysterious mix of nature, nurture, and soul -- and at least one of those things cannot be duplicated.

The Ethics of Cloning

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Free Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member

You are my itchy sweater.

Well-Known Member

Pixie Sunbelle

Macrinator

Well-Known Member

Macrinator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency