Human Cloning - Support It Or Oppose It?

[THUNDER HANDS]

Poll question: Human Cloning - Support It Or Oppose It?

I say support it because other countries are going to do it, so we better not be left behind.

Plus, I have no doubts that in some secret government research lab somewhere there's already a bunch of cloned humans walking around.

What say you?

[LTR]

1. Opposed

People have proven time and time again that they're lousy at playing God.

From DNA-mutated crops to introducing foreign species, they have proven time and time again that there is truth to the saying "let nature take it's course".

[Spinzonner]

2. The Boys from Brazil

Say no more

[Forkboy]

3. Support it

Science doesn't go away just because some choose to ignore it.

[Solly Mack]

5. but no Bush clones, right?

we can ban them from cloning, right?


please say yes...

[Forkboy]

10. lol

let's just keep our fingers crossed :)

[leyton]

14. So we should manufacture nuclear weapons too...

and anthrax? Those are scientific endeavors.

I find human cloning to be detrimental to society. It's not exactly destructive like the measures I just mentioned but it's sick to start manufacturing people (I don't even like the idea of messing with genes to create beautiful people). Just because we can do it doesn't mean we should.

[Forkboy]

16. We already have

[Az]

4. Twins are clones

We just have to catch up with nature. Cloning is a natural thing in this world. Now letting an organisation control the cloning process is another matter. We seriously need to take back medical technology from the clutches of the corporations.

[Tina H]

7. one difference between twins and clones

is that twins are basically generated by nature and clones by deliberate actions of mankind.

Obviously, if a bunch of well-meaning, smart, benevolent people controlled cloning, then they could excercise this control better than nature. On the other hand, I would prefer that nature be in charge of cloning than, say, John Ashcroft or Walmart lobbyists. This concern makes me concerned about cloning in a way that I am *not* concerned about the birth of twins or triplets.

On edit: Interesting point about taking back control of medicine from corporations. I think if we broke those corporations into thousands of independently run corporations (using antitrust), then we would have our control back (like we used to). Corporations would still control medicine, in some sense, but this control would be better atomized and presumably more responsive to customers (due to increased competition).

[Cheswick2.0]

9. excellent point

I can easily see someone like bush deciding to create a master race.

[hertopos]

21. The real issue is not this level.

PLease read my post 18.
I am very much for reproductive technology as long as it is only trying to conceive her/his own baby in some way.

I have my baby with IVD. I did not have any other option. Don't tell me I should adapt.

Men can have a baby at the age of 70 or 80. Woman in 40's already are on very thin ground. Not to mention, there are lots of younger women who had trouble conceiving in natual way.
In some IVF, they may have to use edd donor.

So the cloning I support is to replace egg donor's DNA by mother's ( baby carrying) DNA. This is technically cloning and Fundies are already opposing this. Technology is almost there ( a sort of experimental level.) And this is actually the cloning what Fundies are trying to ban.

Hertopos

[Tina H]

26. Interesting points

As I said, I am personally undecided about cloning. It is situations like the one your reply describes that make me somewhat sympathetic to cloning.

However, I still do have issues. Who is going to separate you from bad parents, if cloning is an unfettered right. If David Koresh walked into the cloning clinic and wanted 100 clones, could we stop him? Who is this person deciding that you can have some a clone, but David Koresh cannot? What if this decider decides that you can't have a clone because you post on DU and might just be a liberal (while Fundies get gov't vouchers to enable them to have as many clones as they want)?

Cloning (if feasible) sure would have benefits in cases like the one you describe. It could also come to have unforeseen costs (economic and otherwise) and unintended consequences. The trick is balancing these speculative (and non-speculative) costs and benefits. Of course, this means looking well beyond your present circumstances and time frame. Your situation is relevant, but it is far from the only relevant consideration here.

This is why I urge caution and slow (if any) change in the human cloning area, even if means denying some good (would-be) parents the joy and fulfillment of having children who share your own genetic material.

[Scairp]

15. Twins are NOT clones

I'm no scientist, but I know that twins are not clones. They are not the exact copy of an already born human. A single fertilized egg splitting upon conception and making two different embryos, as far as I know, is not the definition of cloning.

As for cloning for or against, I think it is a bad idea to use it for cloning people. What's the point, since we can obviously still populate the earth the old fashioned way? If cloning could be used for growing organs needed for transplant and save lives, I'm all for that. The problem is, would it stop there? Some mad scientist with visions of the Nobel Prize dancing in his or her head would not be able to cease with just cloning human organs and go on to clone the whole human.

I also hear of people who wish to clone the beloved cat they have just lost, but this is an even worse idea than cloning people. There are just too many unwanted cats languishing in shelters and if a person loves cats that much, they will mourn the one they lost and go down to the Humane Society or whatever, and adopt a new one.

[Az]

22. Those are population problems

The ethical question of cloning hinges on the idea of taking control of the genetic code of the individual we are creating. Instead of the crap shoot entailed in sex and biology we are taking control of the situation and specifying which exact genetic code we want to use. Ie playing god.

As to whether a clone is the same as a twin consider this. The initial fertalized egg is a clearly defined unique set of chromosomes. Somewhere early in its developmental stage it splits apart. It is the creation of two identical sets of genetic data developing seperately. The only differences between this and cloning is time and interference by scientists.

Twins are genetically identical. There will be environmentally created differences but their genes are the same.

Clones are genetically identical. There will be environmentally created differences but their genes are the same.

As to the population issue cloning is the least of our worries. We are currently on the path to discovering how to turn off the aging process. If we manage to learn how to switch off the process of cropping the telemeres in our genes then we will have ended the primary cause of aging.

Death by aging is not inherant to life. It is actually a later developed evolutionary device. Early lifeforms were essentially ageless. But this created genetic bottlenecks. So death by aging was created so that diversity would be encouraged and potential sources for disease and illness could be culled from the system.

Even without the massive problems created by the removal of the aging process we are going to see advances that are going to increase our lifespan substantially. We have to start dealing with these issues now.

[Tina H]

6. you should add a box for undecided

which is what most people probably really are on the human cloning issue. I imagine that most people won't *really* make up their minds until they see what a cloned human looks and acts like -- even if they think their minds are made up now.

As far as the "keeping up with the Jones" (aka foreign nations) argument, I don't agree with that at all. I know that simple economics is and has been used to support ideas like slavery, eugenics and repressive "trade agreements." However, in some areas (like cloning) I think morality ought to trump economics.

That said: I myself am undecided on cloning at this point. I don't think the moral aspects have been sufficiently explored or explicated yet.

[trag]

8. Not opinion yet.

Anyone know the pros and cons? I've only heard negative things about it myself. Like deformation and short life span.

[Straight Shooter]

11. Add a gene here, take away a gene there, fiddle with the DNA

I appreciate the benefits of science, but am deadset against cloning. It is the ultimate slippery slope of scientific experimentation with the potential for disastrous results.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. well

wasn't the first test-tube baby technically the first slippery slope?

Once we start doing ANYTHING that isn't natural then we're on a slippery slope.

[EndElectoral]

13. I could not take another Bush-Cheney clone

[Jose Diablo]

17. Why use cloning?

The old fashioned way is efficient and has worked for a long time. Whats the need?

[hertopos]

19. Please read my post. I am talking about very specific case.

see my post 18.

[hertopos]

18. Does everyone understand at what level you support or oppose?

I don't support 'pure human' cloning.
However, the following case I will support whole heartedly!!

When woman cannot use her own egg to have a baby, she has to use a egg donor. Reproductive technology can swith genetic code from donor and put mother's genetic code in near future. This I definitely support. Men can have his own kids even he is rather old. However, woman's egg deteriorate very rapidly after age of about 35. Many woman want to have her baby in 40's and realize she can only do so with egg donor. ( So the baby is not genetically hers.) If the above DNA replacement is allowed, many healthy women in 40's can have her first baby even after her own eggs are too old.

Now, do you support the above case or not? This is technically called cloning. Fundies are very against it.

Hertopos

[FlaGranny]

20. Weeelllll,

I oppose cloning to grow entire new human beings, but I would support cloning for individual body parts, if that were possible. So I couldn't vote "yes" or "no" in your poll.

[hertopos]

23. Your poll is misleading!!

What really matters to many couple is the following.
When women's eggs are too old or not good, a couple can use egg donor. In addition, donor's DNA in her egg can be replaced by 'mother''s DNA so that mother can use donor egg with her own DNA.

This is the only 'techinical cloning' available at least experimentally right now. And this is exactly Fundies are targeting to ban.

Unless you are 'mad scientist', majority of people don't see the point of 'cloning' as it tend to be described in SciFi.

However, that tend to mislead the real issue. Can a mother allowed to put her DNA into donor's egg. This also enable older woman to have her genetically own baby. Men can have his genetically connected off-spring even he is in 70's and 80's. Women, on the other hand, face difficalty having her genetically connected baby after 40 something.
Most of healthy middle-aged women have an ability to carry their babies to full term.

Please confuse people who knows nothing about reproductive technology. We are not talking about SciFi or mad scientist desire to recreate. The real issue is to extend an option in reproductive technology.

Hertopos

[Kazak]

24. We don't need any new ways to make people...

:crazy:

[hertopos]

25. Please read my post *18

The real issue is not creating a new way to make people.
The real experimental technology availabel is to replace DNA of egg donor by mother to be 's DNA.

This is the real option Fundies are trying to ban.

Hertopos

[shanti]

27. oppose it

the ramifications are too frightening to consider!

[enki23]

28. ignorance of science rules even on the left

as in real life, it's your responsibility to understand what you vote for, or against. of course, as in real life, that doesn't actually happen.

[fujiyama]

29. .

[fujiyama]

30. The question

is a bit simplistic. If I remember correctly, there are two different kinds of cloning...Theraputic and the other kind, which I forgot the name...I support the theraputic cloning, which is what is used for stem cell research, etc...

However, I am against cloning humans, for the simple reason that that the process is full of problems, and I don't think humans have the right to experiment with other humans. For example, many of the animals that were cloned have had several problems (I think I read that some became morbidly obese), often dying at an early age. I wouldn't want to see any gueanie (sp?) pig humans.

Also I don't see any practical purpose for it. Couples that have fertility problems can usually adopt or find other ways -- artificial insemination, etc.

If the cloning technique were perfect (and I don't see how it's possible to verify it would be), I wouldn't really care. A clone, just as any other human, would really not be a replica...It would be more shaped by the environment around him/her.

I still oppose legislation put forth by congress banning it. The wording is too broad and I'm afraid it would stifle scientific research in stem cell research and other legitimate areas.

Ultimately, I'm in favor of the scientific community putting forth ethical guidelines. I don't like the broad brush GOP legislators like Sam Brownback of KS are taking on this issue.

[Trillo]

31. No, unless individual ownership is granted the source human.

I really wouldn't mind cloning if I was granted ownership over my own unique DNA. As an owner, I should be able to say in my will that no one may clone my DNA combination. Identical twins would have to share ownership.

Without such ownership, and with DNA banks, it entirely possible to imagine a future at some point in time where someone else might decide to clone me. I have chosen not to have children, because I love them and I absolutely would not voluntarily bring anyone I love to this hellhole called earth. I should be able to control my own reproduction.

That someone else, likely a greedy corporation, might bank my DNA for future use disturbs me greatly.

Without such individual ownership, I'm afraid I have to side with the complete ban on cloning. Therefore, I voted, "No."

My intent is not to disallow others to clone themselves, I really don't care about that. I care about not bringing my loved ones to a place they will be exploited in every imaginable way and lied to with impunity by others in authority.

edit: removed duplicate sentence.

[SarahB]

32. I'm for growing necessary spare parts on animals for transplantation..

That's something in the works I hear science-wise, but otherwise, it seems to set up wacked out "Boy From Brazil" possibilities.