Malchik Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Three points to contemplate. 1. Would you like to be arrested for a crime your clone had committed (the unscrupulous won't wait to ask if you want to be cloned)? And indeed will there be any prosecutions at all if visual evidence and DNA is too unreliable? 2. Would you trust a geneticist to modify a child the way you want it when there is no way it could be established for several years just what had been done and the geneticist might have an agenda of his/her own? 3. When you have a designer child, what do you do with it when the fashion changes? Sorry to appear cynical but I have little faith in human nature. The profit motive rules. I will not be in favour of cloning until there are a hell of a lot more controls available. (And yes I am not deaf to the arguments in favour.) But, of course, cloning is already going on, without shadow of a doubt. Somewhere, probably high in the Idaho Rockies, a modern day Sauron is building his army of orcs! If anyone is interested I'll email them my black comedy 'New Jeans' which is all about this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 1) It's not too likely. People aren't going to clone you for no reason, it's just too much work for no benefit compared to the traditional method. And if they cloned you intending to blame you for a crime, they'd still have to convince the clone to do it. And don't you think that's a bit obsessive anyway, cloning someone to get them punished for a crime? 2) Absolutely not! Especially with our limited knowledge of genetics. Maybe far in the future when it can be done reliably, but not now. 3) You put up with them, just like people do now. And I'd hope it wouldn't end up something like "fashion says brown hair is best, let's edit the genes to get one"... Perhaps the more important question here: what does the child do if they are created to match an image they don't like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohGr Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 well, i am against cloning, for several reasons, i am not religious (obviously) nor stupid enough to protest on the streets, its just that, every choice that is made, there will be protestors on the street, complaining and whinging, holding up traffic, causing more trouble then what their trying to stop, and regardless of what we do, there will always be someone against it, here in australia, some idiot decided to paint "no war" in big bold letters on the Sydney Opera House, now he got fined for more than 100,000 dollars, it seems, that whoever complains, gets bashed, and they wont stop whinging, which is stopping this, but another reason why im against it, it the fact that we sit there going "i want that, i want that, if he isnt a pornstar he wont make any money, ohh thats big, imagine the father choosing the daughter, if he was someone like Jeffery Dhamer, he would be, now, i want her to start at 18 years old, nice big...ooo...melons....a nice...round...oo...watermelon" itll be far too weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 1) It's not too likely. People aren't going to clone you for no reason, it's just too much work for no benefit compared to the traditional method. And if they cloned you intending to blame you for a crime, they'd still have to convince the clone to do it. And don't you think that's a bit obsessive anyway, cloning someone to get them punished for a crime? I wasn't suggesting they would clone those who are adult now. But if cloning were commonplace, arranging a whole series of identical people for criminal purposes does not seem far-fetched to me - especially if genetic modification would make these workers loyal and dependable (and expendable if needs be). I'm not talking about tomorrow but a litte way down the line. Like designer kids for child-molesters. I'm sorry, the whole idea freaks me out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldowan Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 we sit there going "i want that, i want that, if he isnt a pornstar he wont make any money, ohh thats big, imagine the father choosing the daughter, if he was someone like Jeffery Dhamer, he would be, now, i want her to start at 18 years old, nice big...ooo...melons....a nice...round...oo...watermelon" itll be far too weird. That would put a new perspective on it. For the designer child to be born, you would need to pick traits for you kid. Then any 'parent' picking out a beautiful baby would be subjected to many torments about why they picked each trait. 'You pedofile' 'You pervert' 'Incest', etc... On another note, this would prove to be a definitive answer to the nature vs nurture debate about a person's personality. Yes, I am against cloning, but I cant help to wonder what questions it would answer about the psychology of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 About when hell freezes over... unfortunately, Bush is going to win. And his position on the issue is clear. I am a Republican, therefore I support Bush, and do believe that he is going to win. But I do agree with human cloning; but not for things such as organ donors. I believe that the clones should be able to live their lives normally. I think there should only be a few clones, if any at all. Just enough to find out how to cure certain diseases, like the things mentioned above. Then, figure out some way ot clone jus tthe organs needed for transplants.... Those are my feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 'successful' cloned animals live only roughly 2/3 of the normal life-span for that animal, and at this point, scientists have no clue as to why that is This is what I heard from science class: Cells have a strand on them, not sure what it's called, and everytime that cell divids and dies the new cell's strand is a bit smaller. After 120 years of dividing that animals cells strands are usually too tiny and cells stop dividing. When an animal is cloned the strand of the cloned animal is required for the cloning process but the strand is all ready shortend by the parent animals life span. Then agian what do 5 scientists who wrote the text book know? the theory of relativy was used to create the atomic bomb I thought the theory of relativity stated that time and space were relative to each other? So that if you move at the speed of light you'll be in slower frame of time. Though I don't agree with that bull, I do think that you may have mixed up your theories. After all: nutrons smashing into other atom's nuclieses doesn't seem to have much to do with time. But on the other hand, I could be wrong. 2. Would you trust a geneticist to modify a child the way you want it when there is no way it could be established for several years just what had been done and the geneticist might have an agenda of his/her own? I serisly doubt a single person would be able to plot out a child's DNA for thier own plots. After all there are millions upon millions of protiens (or what ever they call the G,T,C, and A's now) in DNA and I'm sure it would require scores of brillient people to make a child that will do their will. 3. When you have a designer child, what do you do with it when the fashion changes? The parents of the geno-child would have gotten what they ordered. If they were planning on having a child soley to keep with fashions I doubt that they would have origanly desided they would put up with the hassle of a child. I would hope there would be a few year waiting period to have the child crafted after you pick out all their attributes, after the years if the tiem comes if you still want that child then they'll make it, if not then you'll have to design a new one and wait another few years. what does the child do if they are created to match an image they don't like? Life sucks, everyone knows that. And so far no one has been able to choose what they came out as. The child would have to deal with it like everyone else has had to do for millions of years. Although I'm sure extensive surgery would be avialable in the futecher so it wouldn't be a big problem. More of a money issue. imagine the father choosing the daughter, if he was someone like Jeffery Dhamer, he would be, now, i want her to start at 18 years old, nice big...ooo...melons....a nice...round...oo...watermelon" itll be far too weird. In a world where people can choose their childs look I would hope that there would be... whats a good term... "Predesigned Professional Sexual Beings" that were created with traits that not only make them perfect for sexual encounters but also with traits that make them want and seek such encounters. They could be created inhertitly unable to bare children, but also they wouldn't want them. The list of traits countinues... With these PPSBs there would be little reseon to cultivate a child soley for sexual desiars. Why have a daughter that you'd have to suduce when you can buy a PPSB designed to your tastes that would allways be willing?* *From the mentality of soem one that would get a daugther just to do her if PPSBs were not around As for the first post that said that the DNA is all mapped out now: That was never told to me. Last time I checked a clock radio knew about as much as genetisists do when it comes to the entire list of human DNA GTCAs.------------------------ Now for my own view: You first must under stand that I hold little value in human life, in part or in the entire race. So if we have to geneticly alter thousends of babies, only to have them turn out wrong and have to abort them or what ever, in order to prefect gentic manipulation then I say "Ok, do it." Do not misintriprit me though. Killing is wrong. I do know what is wrong and what is right, and I know that it is right to do wrong to do right. And curing endless disease, deformitys, and mental disabilities is right. In this case the end justifies the means. Next, I think that who ever wants to have a geno-child that can afford one and will care for it, should be able to have it. If every child then born is a GC then so be it. I doubt they would all look the same, and even so if two GCs were to have a baby natrally then that child it not in any way a GC. When the mommy DNA and daddy DNA first mix to create the child's DNA there are some times mutations. Not always huge one like green skin or a third eye, but tiny ones, like less body hair, or slightly shorter. THis is after all how evolution works. Next, I think that the parents would basicly sit down and use a computer sculpting-type program to biuld a face/body of what their child would look like. The parents could chose from a huge list of features like predesigned facial structures. The program would be kinda like makeing a custom wrestler on the most advanced wrestling game you've ever seen (I only like making chars in wrestling games, not using them...). When finished the program would compute what the DNA would be and then save the info and it's ready to be used to make the GC. Well, I'm talking to much. I'll stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Hmmm...so many pros and yet, so many cons. Cloning, in my mind, offers great potential as well as horrifying mistakes. I fear back alley cloning and genetic modification...with terrible results. I think that cloning will probably never be the instant respawn we're all so familar with, though I believe strongly that cloning should be pursued for the purposes of curing disease and supplying reserve body parts. I'm not talking about body farms here but rather an individuals right to go to a cloning clinic, supply a sample of DNA and have the doctors grow them a new heart, or eyes without cataracts, or to replace a limb lost to accident or disease. Therein lies clonings true benefit. The dark side is rampant clone experimentation. Clones illegally produced with only a spinal cord and primitive brain in order to test physiological effects of drugs. Mindless sex slaves or hunting toys...military super soldier programs....the list goes on. Cloning must be strictly regulated so that it provides the maximum good for humanity. Like it or not, it is becoming reality. We just need to learn how to deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebecad Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Just how moronic are you people?!!!!!!!!! Cloning will not really advance for another 25 years minimum. Untill then, we are just creating another human life to experiment on! What is the point of making precious life if it is not going to be used in the way it is supposed to be used in? I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to be the 3 week-old test-tube baby getting shocked and injected with 1000 needles a day, only to die and not only waste my life, but the valuable time in the lives of others. We think being told we're adopted is bad!!!! Imagine getting home from school and having your "parents" tell you that you were made from another person who is better than you now, anyway!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakkara Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I read that only 1 in about 30-60 clones will be succesful, and the rest will die sooner or later due to defects. As for clones animals, you only hear the successtories, not the thousands of failures. Cloning and/or genetic modification of animals or humans not only appears useless to me, but also downright dangerous. However, there is one thing that I do find useful, and that is growing new organs from stemcells of a person whose current organs are damaged (no more organ shortage or rejection problems, and less moral issues). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.