Originally posted by Cjais
This is contradictory. You're using the excuse that we shouldn't play Gods, while at the same time stating that there's no religious meaning meant by it.

The last paragraph is not a rational argument, and even if there's no religious intent behind it (which I somehow doubt), it still has no place in a debate. And debates are per definition rational.

my comments were not religious in general. when i said "i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one." and you replied back saying:

"Believe what you will. When the world is hanging in a thread because Christians can't accept that their morals are ignored, we'll see who can do better."

"This ceased to be a debate when people stopped using rational thought. Talk about souls and whatnot has no place in a rational debate. If you want this to be a debate, leave your religious "facts" far out of this.

first off i'm not even christian. what makes you draw the conlusion that my sayings where christian like. what makes you assume that. and what makes you say this is not a place to talk about religous beliefs in a rational debate. what do you have against christians? just because theres religion, it doesn't have to be a debate.

that whole statement right there is what i responded to. my comments where not, how do you say "religious facts".

and just because i said its not our place and its only in GOD's hands it didn't mean all my saying was for religous reasons.

you can't be so narrow minded here. expand your horizons of thinking. because you only have one perception of me. can't it be that my comments can go beyond religion.

Originally posted by s/<itzo
catholic here, dude.

Are these your words? If they are, you're a Christian.

my comments were not religious in general. when i said "i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one." and you replied back saying:

You're quoting me selectively. I did not reply the following to what you stated I did.

and what makes you say this is not a place to talk about religous beliefs in a rational debate.

Because religious beliefs aren't rational. Prove they are, and I'll reconsider.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
what do you have against christians?

Depends on their behavior. I have a problem with Christianity (and all other religion, save perhaps the shamanistic ones). My reasoning goes something like this: Jerusalem is taken by christians. The entire population is murdered. Now that isn't normal behavior in warcraft of that time, it was just senseless genocide. All religions have these ґfunnyґ little quirks (save, again, some or all shamanistic).

Originally posted by Cjais


Are these your words? If they are, you're a Christian.

yes they are but Catholic and Christians are totally different. i'm really surprise at you Cjais. i suggest you look for some info on this because i really don't have the time to explain all of this to you. i mean why do you think theres two seperate class for it. what you just said is like saying all religions are the same.

see what i mean. you don't even know your facts but you still ramble on.


You're quoting me selectively. I did not reply the following to what you stated I did.

well you made those comments after i said my statement.


Because religious beliefs aren't rational. Prove they are, and I'll reconsider.

Cjais, ill get back to you on this one. this is a very complex way of thinking so it will be long. its 12:04PM and i haven't slep yet. after i came home late last night i decided to go to Lucas Forums and athe next thing you know i was up arguing with you the whole mourning.

the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking.

so when i wake up i'll get back to ya' on this ASAP.

Catholic and Christians are totally different.

Catholicism is a subsect of Christianity, which is a subsect of Judaeism.

what you just said is like saying all religions are the same.

Aah, but they are... I haven't seen any material difference.

see what i mean. you don't even know your facts but you still ramble on.

C'Jais is generally more up-to-date on facts like you, if what I have seen so far is representative of the two of you.

well you made those comments after i said my statement.

Aah, but he responds to your suggestion of finding a workable alternative to therapeutic cloning, not to soul-less clones, as you claim that he does... Quoting like that is known as ґfraudґ in some circles...

...owch... Harsh topic... yet I see no blood... O_O :D lol You know... I see "God" all over the place... O_o



The idea of cloning is a moral choice... Just because others do it doesnt mean you have to... :( If you think what you think good... More power to you... :( but lets not forget... Others here think diffrently and dont hold the same views as you... :( You the indiviual... just because there is a clone of you doesnt mean its going to view things the same way... :( Its our views and concepts that make us individuals... :( a Human body is a Human body... :( doesnt matter where or how it was made... Just as long as it posses the few things that can define it as being human... :(


:( thanks for even reading my simple athiest views on cloning... :(

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Aah, but he responds to your suggestion of finding a workable alternative to therapeutic cloning, not to soul-less clones, as you claim that he does... Quoting like that is known as ґfraudґ in some circles...

goo points but FRAUD! give me a break here. comman, i'm tired as hell and i'm still debating with you guys. to some point my mind is not clear but i do know what i'm talking about.

it was really fun having this intelligent conversation with you guys.

so when when i wake up better get your thinking caps on cuz i have alot to say and i will be more specific next time.

Originally posted by Camus
...owch... Harsh topic... yet I see no blood... O_O :D lol You know... I see "God" all over the place... O_o



The idea of cloning is a moral choice... Just because others do it doesnt mean you have to... :( If you think what you think good... More power to you... :( but lets not forget... Others here think diffrently and dont hold the same views as you... :( You the indiviual... just because there is a clone of you doesnt mean its going to view things the same way... :( Its our views and concepts that make us individuals... :( a Human body is a Human body... :( doesnt matter where or how it was made... Just as long as it posses the few things that can define it as being human... :(
thank you i thought id have to say it.

Your welcome... :( but it is true...

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
goo points but FRAUD!

I stand by what I said about selective quoting being fraud. I can even give you an example of why this is so: If you said that "Nazism is bad", and I responded with "yes it is", then, if taking a quote out of context was not fraud, someone could claim that, when asked whether "science is bad", I said "yes it is". Now obviously that is not viable...

BTW: People posting here should be aware that even reproductive cloning (which I do not support) only produces genetically identical individuals. Not even their appearance is alike (much to the surprise of the scientists who cloned a cow...).

the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking.

False. Big time. Really big time. Rationalism is clearly defined as being the philosophy of approaching every problem from a logical, empirical angle, and religion does not fit that bill. No way of thinking can remedy this.

*Sees C'Jais' explanation and realises that it is much more complete*
*Points down to C'Jais' post*

Also I think that a MOD should change the poll to reflect the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, because at the present state it can be impossible to cast your vote (if you are for one and against the other).

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
yes they are but Catholic and Christians are totally different.

If you really mean this, know that you're going up against the dictionary, inventing your own language or perverting the one already established. I'd like to see you win this one.

what you just said is like saying all religions are the same.

Even though I didn't imply that at all, what's the difference really? You worship a god. Sure, the rituals might differ, and even though you're technically the same grade of nutcase as the that Raelian dude, you're still convinced your dogmas are the best - without any proof whatsoever.

well you made those comments after i said my statement.

You've outright lied twice now. Go check where I made the comment you quoted. Go check which piece of text I quoted you from

the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking.

Rationalism is well defined. It's looking at everything from a reasonable/sensible perspective. If you want to change that definition, go right ahead. Sensible means you have to use your senses. This leaves God out. Reasonable means you have to be able to give reason for your opinion. And since reason is based on empirical evidence, it also leaves God out.

You take your pick: Pervert the language or make up your new, improved one.

Originally posted by Camus
Your welcome... :( but it is true... sadly yes.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Also I think that a MOD should change the poll to reflect the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, because at the present state it can be impossible to cast your vote (if you are for one and against the other).

Most polls in this place are so badly construed I rarely vote anymore. The Christian one was nice, however. Even though my name is Christian, which made me think twice about it.

Originally posted by Cjais
You take your pick: Pervert the language or make up your new, improved one.

I think that Orwell had an opinion on "language improved v. 1.2" or Newspeak, as he called it...

I recall something like: The perfect tool of oppression...

Originally posted by cjais
At that stage, they're cells of yourself. I suppose you cry tears of mourning too when you cut yourself, destroying hundreds of cells that could in fact be grown into clones of yourself.

If all scientists have to do is scratch there arms to get cells, why do they have to take cells from fertilized embryo's?

The embryo is developing into a fully grown human. My arm is not going to kill me the same way taking the stem-cells from a fertilized embryo (human in their very early development stages) would.

I see a very big difference here.

The world is over populated the last thing we need is more people. If your gonna clone something, clone things like healthy organs for transplants and endangered species of animals and plants. As for stem cell stuff I spose its cool to clone fetuses for research in helping people with disabilities like paralysis. Thats a good thing.

The world is over populated the last thing we need is more people...As for stem cell stuff I spose its cool to clone fetuses for research in helping people with disabilities like paralysis. Thats a good thing.

Isn't feotus just the impersonal term for a human being. After all weren't you just a 'foetus' once? Perhaps scientists should have cloned you. :rolleyes:

Then again, wouldn't you just be attributing to the overpopulation of the planet. :rolleyes:

However, I don't have a problem with 'theauropetic' cloning as long as we aren't growing another living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being strictly for the purpose of having there organs harvested. There is already enough of that in third world countries going to rich countries. :(

If you think it hasn't been done you must be crazy...and with our technology I'm sure there are countless labs where they **** with genes and have mutants of every shape and form....why wouldn't there be?....it's like if we had a warpdrive technology and never used it....to much to explore not to....

I support Theraputic Cloning for stem cell research. I do not approve Reproductive Cloning which is what they did with Dolly the sheep. I think its foolish not to research Theraputic cloning, the advantages would be endless. Think of all the patients that will be saved by not having to take anti-tissue rejection medication from transplants. If that arsehole Senator Brownback gets his way, that dream will be scattered into the wind....

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-

if you carefully read what i posted i'm all for the technology part. you know to get get rid of birth defects, viruses and for organ replacement/spinal regeneration, etc...




Using cloning to remove natural diseases, etc is still saying reprodutcive cloning is fine. That is picking and chosing what attributes get to passed on into the future human genome....

The amount of wrong, IMO, about chosing a "better" baby than others is unbelievable. It is no better than the "Saddam creates an army of super humans" type of event, as it only perpetuates those things that people believe should be continued in humans...

Many of us talk about far fetched events, but so far human history has told us that if people can think of it, then people are stupid enough to try it.

Therapeutic cloning, is still something I am not convinced about. To me, it still gives the "who gives a stuff" attitude where people do not have to care as much for the way they treat their bodies, since they can have organs replaced.
"Hon, I drunk too much alcohol, about time I got that kidney cloned" - There are people out there that would use it that way, and they would have the money to pay for it.

Currently there is no legislation in any country in the world to stop many of the weird and wonderful things that we come up with here on the LF's. It is a technology that is in such an infancy, that we have no idea where it will lead...

no hes sayin that like a dude is born with a small liver he can go in and get his liver cloned but made normal and then gets it transplanted into him

Theraputic cloning is not physically possible at this point, only theory. A human embryo has been cloned but it did not last very long. Basically you clone the embyro and remove the dna and use it to make stem cells which could be used to more or less grow organs that match a particular tissue make up. However the research has been put on hold until some polititions get they're heads out of they're asses.

well i heard that the first clone, dolly the sheep aged very fast, 2 times faster than normal, so i think it might have the same outcome on humans,so it is basically,if they did clone people would lower life expectancy. cloning humans also kills the original.....um whats the word.... embrio?

Originally posted by Nerd_Annhilator
well i heard that the first clone, dolly the sheep aged very fast, 2 times faster than normal,

No.

so i think it might have the same outcome on humans,so it is basically,if they did clone people would lower life expectancy.

No.

cloning humans also kills the original.....um whats the word.... embrio?

No.

Originally posted by FunClown
If all scientists have to do is scratch there arms to get cells, why do they have to take cells from fertilized embryo's?

Here's how it's done: You take a cell from the person you wish to clone. You insert the DNA "core" of that cell into an egg cell which has had its DNA removed. Conception otherwise proceeds as normal, but with the slight difference that it's only going to be the DNA from the person you wish cloned that is going to be used. Here's an interesting factoid: In the egg cell, there are mitochondries(sp?) which have DNA of their own. These are not removed, and as such, a small part of DNA remains in the egg cell otherwise sucked dry from that. This results in a clone that cannot be currently better than 99% clone. Which is still fairly impressive.

For therapeutic cloning, you wait until the embryo has developed to the 4 cell stage, and then take these stem cells for further research and (in theory) to implant in the clone host as a way of healing the spine.

It's called an embryo for a reason. At that stage of it, you can't distinguish between a pig embryo and a human one. If you were to examine the DNA in the cell, it'd kill it. The stem cells at this stage cannot be considered an individual. Trust me, in the dictionary sense of the word, I'm right.

Your beliefs are hindering scientific progress which might save people. If the whole world believed the way you do, all the Mr. Smiths would never be able to walk again. The Christian church was once against abortion, sexual prevention and sex before marriage (it probably still is, but it holds no real power today) - the world has changed. It's morals are not the same as yours. At this stage of history, it's much easier to change your beliefs and morals, than try to change the world's. For the latter cannot be done anymore. This isn't the dark ages anymore, where religious belief decided your life in the entirety of Europe. The world has awakened. Excepting perhaps Ireland and the Bible belt.

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
"Hon, I drunk too much alcohol, about time I got that kidney cloned" - There are people out there that would use it that way, and they would have the money to pay for it.

People said much the same things about condoms and sexual prevention: "It's ourageous, imagine the consequences, people can have sex without worrying about the uncomfortable side-effects!" Pathetic. Look at the world's current over population. Most of it is the result of religious dogmas, illegalizing sexual prevention. People starve in some places because the pope has condemned them to keep the baby they're going to have. The intent of it was good, to secure healthy morals. But it has failed. Morals are changed today, but the aftereffects of this preaching has not yet stopped.

Currently there is no legislation in any country in the world to stop many of the weird and wonderful things that we come up with here on the LF's.

Cloning in Denmark is strictly prohibited - all you can do is have a 2 week research period, after which it must be terminated. And that's for therapeutic cloning only. Reproductive cloning is outlawed.

Hey Cjais --->http://www.lucasforums.com/images/edit.gif<---)

Are you for or against cloning?
Yes and no to what? For or against. I'm against it.
I think cloning animals is fine and hope to see some clones of fine show dogs in the future. But of course they'd cost a lot and cloning needs to be refined to the point of the Kaminoans. Well, not that sofisticated I guess...

Cjais,

This isn't about my spiritual beliefs. Everyone has different morals.

Think of this question. In the four cell stage, because you cannot tell if the embryo contains a human, does it make it right to treat the embryo as though the embryo is insignificant/meaningless. Weren't you once composed of four cells? Are you more special than other humans currently consisting of four cells? I guess this is where we differ. If those four cells are developing into a human I don't want to disrupt and kill the human.

I actually don't really care if some guy in the bible belt or Ireland says cloning is the devil or something. Hasn't a moratorium been held or anything on this issue? I'm not trying to hinder scientific progress. What does scientific progress mean if we stop caring about morals and ethics? I'm just not differentiating between a 4 celled human and a 1,000,000,000,000 cell human. I'm sure you were destined to be a human even before you were 4 cells big.

For your interest, in Australia there is ten years worth of stem cells that scientists may use as long as they get permission from the dare I say it Mother and Father of unused IVF eggs. What ever I say will not hinder so called 'scientific progress' for that amount of time.

Originally posted by FunClown
Cjais,

This isn't about my spiritual beliefs. Everyone has different morals.

It is very much about your beliefs and morals. You think 2 celled organisms are somehow individual, human life. If people start preaching their beliefs to the wrong people, we end up with a scientific halt on our hands. This is what happened in the dark ages - it was immoral to even assume the Earth was not the all-important center of the universe.

Think of this question. In the four cell stage, because you cannot tell if the embryo contains a human, does it make it right to treat the embryo as though the embryo is insignificant/meaningless.

Exactly because it is cells, and cells alone makes it insignificant in this case. The embryo is not human life yet at that stage, it is only a collection of basic elements. If you view this as life, don't even dare to breathe oxygen or eat salt. That's inhuman.

Weren't you once composed of four cells? Are you more special than other humans currently consisting of four cells?

If "I" (there is no I at that stage) were killed when I were but 4 cells, I wouldn't hold anyone responsible at all. You don't exist at that point, so it is pointless to ask this question.

What does scientific progress mean if we stop caring about morals and ethics?

Grrrr..... we don't stop caring about morals and ethics because we view 4 cells as something other than human life. You can't stop science from developing things. You can stop their use, but not the development.

Look at plants. That's certainly more than 4 cells. Yet I doubt you have no qualms killing the odd plant. Or wiping your arse with paper. Life is sacred, yet plant life isn't?

Millions of bacteria and other parasites are killed every time you use the shower. Are they sacred too? Billions of life forms could live for months if you just layed down and died - is your life somehow more holy than their? Is human life superior to other life? This is ridiculously immoral.

Humans can only survive by killing other life. And no, you vegetarians aren't sacred. Plant life is EXACTLY the same life as animal and bacterial life.

It's kill or be killed no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by JediNyt
Hey Cjais --->http://www.lucasforums.com/images/edit.gif<---)

One reply to one person.

I don't care whether you're annoyed by this, I hate viewing huge posts.

In medicine today, it is still difficult to define exactly when a person is deceased, but doctors believe our current signals such as no EKG activity or a flat EEG to be a very definite sign of when a person has stopped living. If this test for life is used for lack of life, then similarly we should be able to use this method to test for the very first presence of life in a foetus. We know now from medical research that this constant brainwave activity is not present in the pregnancy until approximately the 24th week after conception. This is the beginning of the 3rd trimester. Therefore, the use of a fertilized egg for scientific purposes cannot be classified as murder, because murder, as defined by the Webster dictionary, is “the unlawful killing of one human being by another”, and at the point where they use the foetus, which is quite soon after conception, the foetus is not a human being.

Dr Garrett Hardin, an American ecologist believes the foetus not to be a person, but a merely a blueprint of DNA of the person-to-be. The following quote is his opinion expressed in the words of Michael Crichton.

“It’s like a blueprint. The blueprint of a building is worthless, only the building has value and significance. The blueprint can be destroyed with impunity, for another can be easily made, but a building cannot be destroyed without careful deliberation.”

How does the presence of 1 sperm, out of hundreds of millions which are wasted, in an egg, of which another is wasted every 28 days, make it suddenly more important. Sure, it's got the sudden potential to grow into a human child, but all eggs and sperm do. More pregnancies than you can imagine are naturally aborted soon after conception occurs.

All these monthly eggs going to waste. Why should they have to go to waste when they can be used for research to aid in disease curing and treatment.


And I object to the claim that we treat the embrionic cells as unimportant. We treat them with the exact same respect as if they were growing into a human child. We are just using them for a different cause. A great cause I might add. One of the all time great causes. Medical research.

Originally posted by FunClown
However, I don't have a problem with 'theauropetic' cloning as long as we aren't growing another living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being strictly for the purpose of having there organs harvested.

That's not going to happen. There is absolutely no reason for growing an entire body just to nick an organ or two. By the time that cloning is stable enough for this to be at all possible, my guess is that we'll have grafts for creating organs.

Besides, once the clone is born (not fertilized) it is protected by laws that would make the scenario you describe murder, one of the most heavily punished crimes in the civilised world.

BTW: Science has to be impersonal, in order to be objective. If it wasn't objective, it would be useless.

Originally posted by RoguePhotonic
If you think it hasn't been done you must be crazy...and with our technology I'm sure there are countless labs where they **** with genes and have mutants of every shape and form....why wouldn't there be?....it's like if we had a warpdrive technology and never used it....to much to explore not to....

Sure... And the US government is hiding aliens in the Nevada deserts... And the Apollo program was just a big fake...

Those are called "conspiracy hypothesises" and usually don't hold.

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Using cloning to remove natural diseases, etc is still saying reprodutcive cloning is fine.

Cloning can't be used to remove natural diseases. You are talking about gene-engineering, which is just stupid for a whole lot of reasons. Some of the techniques are dublicated, but far from all.

Note that replacing an organ with therapeutic cloning doesn't remove the problem, only the effect.

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
The amount of wrong, IMO, about chosing a "better" baby than others is unbelievable.

Add to that the amount of stupidity in it. Our world is an everchanging place, and what is an asset today can very well be a liability tomorrow.

An example where gene-engineering would have done no end of harm is the countries where malaria is widespread: In the populace in those places, a certain genetic defect is more common than on average.

I don't know the English name for it, but it causes the red bloodcells to sort of "fold over", which makes them less able to bind oxygen. A liability in temperate climates, as this means that the person tires more easily. But it also offers some degree of protection against malaria.

Now imagine, if you please, what the effect would be if some noble-minded, but unknowledgeable, person started to "cure" the people living in tropical climates...

I belive that gene-engineering will result in a less diverse gene-pool, as I believe humans to be incredibly narrow-minded. This will be a liability in itself.

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Therapeutic cloning, is still something I am not convinced about. To me, it still gives the "who gives a stuff" attitude where people do not have to care as much for the way they treat their bodies, since they can have organs replaced.

But antibiotics already have that effect (who cares about hygiene, when we can just kill the disease). But we wouldn't want to loose that (that we just may loose it due to exactly that attitude is a different question).

i think human cloning is kool i just hope they don't go to far

Originally posted by Darth Groovy
A human embryo has been cloned but it did not last very long.

Hate to correct you, but that was exposed as fraud soon after. They only made it grow to the 8- or 16-cell stage, or something like that, before it died. Eggs without DNA can be prompted to do that. So it kinda wasn't convincing...

Originally posted by Darth Groovy
Basically you clone the embyro and remove the dna and use it to make stem cells which could be used to more or less grow organs that match a particular tissue make up.

No, no, no. You take the DNA out of the cell that you want to clone, put it in an egg-cell whose DNA has been removed, give it an electric shock, and viola, you have a clone. Then you let it develop a little, and extract the stem cells.

At least that's how it works on paper...

Originally posted by Cjais
This ceased to be a debate when people stopped using rational thought. Talk about souls and whatnot has no place in a rational debate. If you want this to be a debate, leave your religious "facts" far out of this.

Now, if you're so concerned about the overpopulation -- Abortions, birth control, condoms.

I'm not correcting your opinions. I'm pointing out that it is your beliefs, your religion that hinders scientific progress which might save people.

You go boy! I have, for quite some time, been a critical Atheist. Being as such, I lack certain beliefs that had once clouded my judgement, but anyway.......enough about religion or lack thereof.

In any event, I am all for cloning, though I do feel that no clone should be allowed to grow to maturation. I don't want a duplicate of me running around, I already have kids. As far as for scientific experimentation, I am all about that. Stem cell research, organ growth and the like. Go science, maybe we'll get lucky and they will find cures for many diseases and ailments affecting us today. I saw a sepcial in which they grew a human ear on a mouse using stem cells. Amazing stuff. Admittedly, such things can, in the wrong hands bring about very very bad things, but what can't?

Originally posted by Cjais
People said much the same things about condoms and sexual prevention: "It's ourageous, imagine the consequences, people can have sex without worrying about the uncomfortable side-effects!" Pathetic. Look at the world's current over population. Most of it is the result of religious dogmas, illegalizing sexual prevention. People starve in some places because the pope has condemned them to keep the baby they're going to have. The intent of it was good, to secure healthy morals. But it has failed. Morals are changed today, but the aftereffects of this preaching has not yet stopped.

Gah! You beat me to say just that, though I was going to say it in the abortion tread, if it resurfaced...

Originally posted by Cjais
Cloning in Denmark is strictly prohibited - all you can do is have a 2 week research period, after which it must be terminated. And that's for therapeutic cloning only. Reproductive cloning is outlawed.

Only true for human cloning. Law allows you to make a clone of an animal, but you have to terminate it before it is born, even if it is just a day or two before. Now, even our politicians can see that that is silly, and we may have a law legalising animal cloning for research purposes within the forseeable future.

cloning anything is wrong, as for Episode II its just a movie that i like, but that doesnt mean cloning is right.

Originally posted by GonkH8er
I think some people are just scared because if we do, it brings us a step closer to their precious god, which makes their god a step less incredible in the eyes of the world.

Just what the rest of us have been dying to say for quite some time...

Originally posted by GonkH8er
Our environment controls how we think and feel.

True... and false: This is not quite as well understood as we would like. Last time I checked the standing theory was that it was a little of both.

What a load of religious... well, religiousness (in the worst possible sense of the word).

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
But If we cloned people, we would no longer be unique individuals like God made us.

God didn't make us. And clones would still be individual (as has already been explained).

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
I don't see any good reason to have cloning, except to use it as technology to get rid of birth defects, viruses and for organ replacement/spinal regeneration, etc...

Which is pretty much covering all the areas that we claim will benefit humanity. You really need to learn to tell the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
I believe that people are given souls at the moment the sperm touches the egg, be that in the womb, a petri dish, a test tube or where ever else that do that. Is sperm touching an egg. it is the joining of two people, animals, etc in order to create another. cloning is just copying some dna. i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one.

The human does not have a soul. The conciousness is in the central nervous system. Besides, bacteria reproduce by cloning themselves...

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
i believe that things other than dna make up the core of who a person is. things such as personality and character. yes, these things are also shaped over time, but people are born with the general outline of them. i really don't think that personality and character can be defined by amino acids, proteins, nucleotide chains, etc. there is much more to people than that.

Two words: Non Sense!

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
i don't particularly believe in cloning. it just seems arbitrary

I do not believe in cloning either. Because it is not something that can be believed in, just like you cannot believe that a rock will fall if you drop it.

But God is a hell of a lot more arbitrary than cloning.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
God made man NOT man made man.

More irrelevant religion. God did not make man. Period.

And haven't you read in magazines and newspapers that in 10 embryos that undergo cloning experiments, only one is expected to be a success. Imagine 9 lives wasted and sacrificed* for only 1!

human cloning is beset with moral and ethical issues. In trying to come up with one succesful clone, a number of embryos are destroyed.

Take this one:
Doctors will get abt. 400 eggs from up to 40 women donors. They'll suck out the nucleus of each egg with a fine needle. Then these DNA-free eggs and the donor cells from the person to be cloned will be placed next to one another and zapped with electricity. This will cause the cell and the egg to fuse. Then the rebuilt eggs would divide to form embryos. these embryos would be then implanted to another set of women that would act as surrogate mothers. Because embryos often fail to implant, each surrogate mother will get several embryos at once. Up to 50 surrogates would be needed to ensure nine or ten pregnancies. Of these, most will terminate early by miscarriage or by medical intervention. Then it is HOPED a normal baby clone would be born.
Now, think, people...

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
cloning anything is wrong, as for Episode II its just a movie that i like, but that doesnt mean cloning is right.

One word: Why?

And don't give me any religious BS. I am sick and tired of hearing self-proclaimed champions of a god of their own invention bash other people over their heads with self-invented morals, and saying that they have some right to do so. That they had a mandate from heaven. AS IF!

Skitzo:

Read what was written about regarding embryos as human life. In all seriousness, I doubt you read it before posting this. If you did, tell us which parts you disagree with.

What you described is pretty much the cloning technique. But it is not flawless right now. Unless we continue to improve on it, there'll always be this huge waste. The cloning technique will get more refined with time.

If you're so concerned about the waste of human life, I suggest you out right now and advocate the use of condoms, abortion and sexual prevention. And stop showering. And don't ever step anywhere, you might just kill some bacteria or insects. In fact, if you're so concerced, lay down and die - that way you can be sure to not hurt anyone. Because merely living hurts other life forms.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
And haven't you read in magazines and newspapers that in 10 embryos that undergo cloning experiments, only one is expected to be a success. Imagine 9 lives wasted and sacrificed* for only 1!

Where is the asterisk pointing to?

Anyway, you are commenting on a technology that is currently under development. And you want to stop that development because it is not safe yet?

Consider vaccines. They were unsafe when they were being developed, because doctors didn't have enough knowledge of how to dose the vaccine. Now we have, and just look how big a help it is.

On a different note, in therapeutic cloning you don't kill any cells. You just reprogram them.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
human cloning is beset with moral and ethical issues. In trying to come up with one succesful clone, a number of embryos are destroyed.

While there will always be a waste, that problem will be less pronounced with time and research. Besides, it's just embryos. It happens alot when women get pregnant (they have some fault and are aborted naturally). That is not a problem exclusive to cloning.

And again: The ethical concerns involved in destroying an embryo are small indeed.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
Take this one: [example follows; see original post]

You are talking about reproductive cloning, not cloning in general. Get your terminology right FFS!

And again: That is a worst-case scenario, which does not take technical improvements into consideration.

You promised something more impressive than your previous post, now that you are more awake... I am not impressed.

Cjais:

thanx for the lecture, i surely needed it.

why do you feel the need to embarrass me. can you respond to my comment and not at me (you do this with everybody).

so you're saying two wrongs make it right. yeah i'm aware with condoms, abortion and sexual preventions and the only thing this will do is add more to the problem.

you're not even getting my point.

how are you going to compare human life to bacteria or insects. its whole different concept.

and you're right its not flawless and it'll never be, simply because its human.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
why do you feel the need to embarrass me. can you respond to my comment and not at me (you do this with everybody).

While I cannot speak for C'Jais, when someone starts kicking religious veiws about, I feel the very strong urge to bash his head with a rock, because religion is the single greatest problem in human history.

Besides, I don't see anyone insulting you anywhere. Point it out, if you please.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
so you're saying two wrongs make it right. yeah i'm aware with condoms, abortion and sexual preventions and the only thing this will do is add more to the problem.

Blatantly false: Those things would actually solve every worthwhile problem you point out (ie.: Those that are not only problems to you because you are religious).

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
how are you going to compare human life to bacteria or insects. its whole different concept.

Read a Biology textbook. I am not going to go all through the first four years of my biology classes here (though it would certainly boost my post count).

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
Cjais:

thanx for the lecture, i surely needed it.

What lecture?

why do you feel the need to embarrass me. can you respond to my comment and not at me (you do this with everybody).

To the contrary, I sticked to the point. Please be specific where I attacked you ad hominem.

I'll disregard this attack myself.

so you're saying two wrongs make it right.

Oh, did I?

yeah i'm aware with condoms, abortion and sexual preventions and the only thing this will do is add more to the problem.

Will abortion and condoms ADD to the problem? Why?

you're not even getting my point.

Of course I'm not. But even though I don't get it, please be so kind to state where I'm wrong.

how are you going to compare human life to bacteria or insects. its whole different concept.

It is not. You're placing human life on a piedestal above everything else. I suppose you find the part in the Bible where it says that "Man shall hold dominion over every other forms of life" (paraphrasing) really sound and true. It couldn't possibly be more immoral. The Bible is good wisdom in some places, but this part of it makes me rebuke in disgust.

Sorry to bring the Bible up again, but I feel you've got a fair bit of inspiration from it if you regard human life as something different from plants and insects.

And you're right its not flawless and it'll never be, simply because its human.

Hmmm... since you aknowledge the existance of something "flawless", please be so good as to point out something in nature which is perfect. And no, God doesn't count - we have to sense it for it to count as proof.

Originally posted by Cjais
The Bible is good wisdom in some places,

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Bible contains some codes of conduct that are probably good wisdom because those are common sense that is not introduced by the Bible. And where it doesn't apply common knowledge of how to survive as a tribe it is probably the most hate-filled book on the market.