http://www.msnbc.com/news/770094.asp?0cb=-11288446 Interesting story here: The two kinds of Cloning - therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning I think Reproductive Cloning is the biggie. The problem is limitations. I'm for it for people that have issues conceiving. . . BUT we know that the egotist will take it over and that is the great issue. Or worse it becomes like Gattaca . . genetic manipulation and eventually that not being a clone will be seen as ... uncivilized and with disdain. Therapeutic Cloning i have no problem with at all. [while i oppose stem research using abortive fetuses . . . YES THEY IS A DIFFERENT IN MY MIND] Rocket River
I am in favor of both aas long as there are limits on both. A rich person like Mr. Burns shouldn't be able to clone himself just because he wants to or to create personal slaves, etc. (Reproductive) Also a ballplayer that shoots himself full of steroids for 15yrs should not be able to make himself a new liver because of his own abuses. (Therapeutic)
How do you limit the ball player from doing it? It is right. That is the issue that bugs me. When making legislation it is mainly about looking out for the ABUSES rather than the GOOD uses. The movie with Arnold was about clones [6th day] What kind of rights does a clone have? Full human rights ?. . then there goes the making them for spare parts. Rocket River
I against cloning in any shape for or fashion. Its a slippery slope. What right does the clone have. Is he just a ginnepig, are they a full person, what? If I needed a new heart, could I just kill my clone and take his? I'm pretty sure the clone would be pissed. The problems would only get worse from there and so many questions would arise that its just not worth it IMO.
I'm sort of split on this one. If they could somehow clone a body part, like a heart or liver, I would definitly be for it. But if they had to clone someone and wait for them to be "born" then I feel it is wrong to create a person just for that. For me, it depends on how far along the clones are. IMO, we should try something tha a game I played did. In it, people around the world couldn't reproduce, and had diseases. One man was able to create a nanomachine colony. Basically, what they would do, it recreate parts for somebody. If your arm was torn off, you could use those to recreate your arm. No humans used. The only problem I could see is messing with our genes, but that's a lot better than making people. Not to mention it will take forever, if ever, to get that technology. As for as making clones for uses, no. We all saw SW:Ep 2, right? It will lead to the dark side...
I don't think anyone is actually proposing clonging and then raising a cloned child, and just stripping body parts and organs from them are there? Of course a cloned person who's alive shouldn't just be killed to take parts from them, but if they can develop stem cells from clones, it would be a great idea. It would heal a lot of people and possibly cure several medical conditions such Parkinsons, diabetes etc. I think banning all cloning is not a very educated approach.
I kind of come out on this the same as RC Cola...I can't see creating human being just to kill them off because the person they were cloned from needs a liver. If we could use cloning technology to create just the liver...I'm fine with it. Never ok with reproductive cloning though. The interesting thing to note here is that they have found that adult stem cells are more useful in research. They provide more strains of cells. That aids in seeing how they exactly work. Using this technology, we are just a few years from knocking down diseases like diabetes, etc. That makes me very happy.
My stance on cloning is representative of how I feel about many things - I am personally against it except in supervised and documented cases where it is being used for medical purposes (and not cosmetic or simply therapeutic, either - it needs to be a legitimate case), though I will respect the decision of anyone who chooses to participate in cloning. I may not like their choice, but if they want to - in my opinion - mess with what doesn't need to be messed with, that's their problem and not mine.
I'm against human cloning, totally. I was thinking the other day about the following situation: Some rich guy gets himself cloned, so when he dies he can keep control of his money. So this guy is murdered, and the murderer is never caught. A few years later the murderer kills the guys clone, so where does this go in court? Does the guy get a double sentance for two murders? Or just for the first one? Can he get convicted of murdering the same person twice?? But I'm for the stem cell research. Which is kinda like cloning.
Well first of all a clone would just be another person, who would even look different, because of different nutrition, exercise habits, childhood diseases or accidents that disfigure, or leave scars. Of course the guy would be arrested for two murders. Like the article says twins are the result of natural cloning. They are both individual people, though. If one was killed and then the other, two murders would have been committed. The clone in your scenario may also have totally different ideas, likes and dislikes, than the original rich guy. It wouldn't be like he gets to keep his money. The original guy is dead and a totally different person, who would be like a younger twin would get the money. I don't know if you know any twins, but they are different people, and when one gets something the other doesn't always get to experience it.
