• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is It Morally Acceptable To Kill A Clone?

Removable Mind said:
Your answer...No surprise. You still don't get the difference between morals and moral reasoning.
Click to expand...

They didn't use moral reasoning. They had a predetermined conclusion they wanted to reach and figured out a way to get there.
 
sangha said:
According to some anti-choicers, one of the things that makes it immoral to kill a newly conceived zygote is that it has unique DNA.
Click to expand...

That's a misinterpretation, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of the actual position.

The fact that there is unique DNA is not necessarially the issue so much as the fact that the newly conceived zygote has DNA unique from the mother.

The argument is against the tired and idiotic idea that a zygote is "part of the mother".

One woman's "parts" don't each have unique DNA, they all share the same DNA, thus, something living within the mother that has unique DNA is not part of her.

Aborting a zygote or fetus with unique DNA is not at all the same thing as a woman having her appendix removed.

Beyond that the DNA argument has no real relevance.
 
Henrin said:
They didn't use moral reasoning. They had a predetermined conclusion they wanted to reach and figured out a way to get there.
Click to expand...

More gibberish and you know this comment is based on your disdain for all 3 branches of government.

Oh, and there was no predetermined conclusion. The Justices had to fess up that the Constitutional provisions, which allow women to abort or not abort had existed since the mid 1800s, which gave women equal protection and due process UNDER THE LAW.
 
soot said:
That's a misinterpretation, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of the actual position.

The fact that there is unique DNA is not necessarially the issue so much as the fact that the newly conceived zygote has DNA unique from the mother.

The argument is against the tired and idiotic idea that a zygote is "part of the mother".

One woman's "parts" don't each have unique DNA, they all share the same DNA, thus, something living within the mother that has unique DNA is not part of her.

Aborting a zygote or fetus with unique DNA is not at all the same thing as a woman having her appendix removed.

Beyond that the DNA argument has no real relevance.
Click to expand...

Every pro-choice advocate in DP, that I'm aware of, sees the "yet to be born life" as an entirely different life from that of the woman who hosts its presence. That life does indeed has a unique "DNA identity" apart from its co-conceivers.

My question is: So what?
 
Removable Mind said:
Every pro-choice advocate in DP, that I'm aware of, sees the "yet to be born life" as an entirely different life from that of the woman who hosts its presence.
Click to expand...

If that's truly the case then you are either dishonest, blind, or have somehow inexplicably missed the many, many, many arguments being made by pro-choicers related to how a developing fetus is simply a part of a woman's body, to be excised like a pair of faulty tonsils or a cancerous tumor.

My question is: So what?
Click to expand...

Honestly? I'm not super concerned with what your questions are.

If you don't care that you're killing a unique human being via abortion then you don't care.

And I get that.

"So what?" is my go-to reply when talking about full grown adults who can't adequately earn enough income to support themselves in the modern word.

They'll go hungry?

So what?

They'll live in a box?

So what?

I support innocent, defenseless life.

Other people support degenerate scumbags who suck so badly at life that we're forced to maintain them as though they're our pets.

It takes all types I guess.
 
soot said:
If that's truly the case then you are either dishonest, blind, or have somehow inexplicably missed the many, many, many arguments being made by pro-choicers related to how a developing fetus is simply a part of a woman's body, to be excised like a pair of faulty tonsils or a cancerous tumor.



Honestly? I'm not super concerned with what your questions are.

If you don't care that you're killing a unique human being via abortion then you don't care.

And I get that.

"So what?" is my go-to reply when talking about full grown adults who can't adequately earn enough income to support themselves in the modern word.

They'll go hungry?

So what?

They'll live in a box?

So what?

I support innocent, defenseless life.

Other people support degenerate scumbags who suck so badly at life that we're forced to maintain them as though they're our pets.

It takes all types I guess.
Click to expand...

You can choose to make all of the derogatory comments that you wish, but it doesn't change the biological facts.
 
soot said:
That's a misinterpretation, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of the actual position.

The fact that there is unique DNA is not necessarially the issue so much as the fact that the newly conceived zygote has DNA unique from the mother.

The argument is against the tired and idiotic idea that a zygote is "part of the mother".

One woman's "parts" don't each have unique DNA, they all share the same DNA, thus, something living within the mother that has unique DNA is not part of her.

Aborting a zygote or fetus with unique DNA is not at all the same thing as a woman having her appendix removed.

Beyond that the DNA argument has no real relevance.
Click to expand...

And then there are molar pregnancies with their own unique DNA that will never become viable but can cause health complications or even death for the woman just as any pregnancy might.

A partial hydatidiform mole is also possible if conception doesn't take place normally. It is usually due to two sperm fertilising one normal ovum (which should not usually happen). This means that there is too much genetic material present. There is also too much trophoblastic tissue. The growth of the trophoblastic tissue overtakes the growth of any fetal tissue and the fetus does not develop normally.

Partial and complete hydatidiform moles will not produce a live baby. (They are 'non-viable' pregnancies.) A pregnancy that results in a hydatidiform mole is called a molar pregnancy.

A hydatidiform mole is part of a group of disorders called gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD). Partial and complete hydatidiform moles are benign (not cancerous) forms of GTD. However, there is a risk that a hydatidiform mole can develop into a cancerous (malignant) type of GTD, known as gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN).
Click to expand...
 
Removable Mind said:
You can choose to make all of the derogatory comments that you wish, but it doesn't change the biological facts.
Click to expand...

You're right, it doesn't change biological facts, and the biological fact is a mother is killing her own child when she has an abortion. Here is another little fact, poverty is not always permanent. She has nine months to change her income situation, so why doesn't she use it?
 
Henrin said:
You're right, it doesn't change biological facts, and the biological fact is a mother is killing her own child when she has an abortion. Here is another little fact, poverty is not always permanent. She has nine months to change her income situation, so why doesn't she use it?
Click to expand...

I don't care if poverty is not always permanent. What does that have to do with anything I've said?

The greater fact is that it's not illegal to be poor or in poverty. In case you haven't been following along. My latest argument with Trouble, who seems to believe a solution for women who are poor and pregnant who doesn't want to abort - the government takes the child away at birth. I also pointed out to him that that is illegal. There is no law that says a woman in poverty cannot give birth even if she lives in poverty.

But if you raise this issue because individual women choose to abort because they know that they can't afford to raise a child...that's their Constitutional and legal right to do so under the boundaries of the law. And to boot, that's really none of your business. Keep your side of the street clean based on your own moral beliefs and let your neighbor do the same.

You have established your own definition or title for the yet to be born to be "child". Good for you. The biological fact is that a woman is terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
 
Removable Mind said:
But if you raise this issue because individual women choose to abort because they know that they can't afford to raise a child...that's their Constitutional and legal right to do so under the boundaries of the law. And to boot, that's really none of your business. Keep your side of the street clean based on your own moral beliefs and let your neighbor do the same.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the vast majority of things that are made illegal are no one's business, right?

You have established your own definition or title for the yet to be born to be "child". Good for you. The biological fact is that a woman is terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Nope, using the word child towards the unborn is accurate. Why do pro-choice people always need to be reminded of definitions?
 
Pozessed said:
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

creating a clone is not ethical
 
Henrin said:
You do realize that the vast majority of things that are made illegal are no one's business, right?



Nope, using the word child towards the unborn is accurate. Why do pro-choice people always need to be reminded of definitions?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that the majority of things that are LEGAL doesn't require laws to force people to engage in doing those things?

What do you refuse to accept the United States Congressional definition of CHILD which is in complete conflict with yours?
 
Pozessed said:
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

It reminds of me the 2005 movie where clones were grown in case the original needed organs or body parts.

From wiki:

The Island (2005 film)

Release dates
July 22, 2005

The Island is a 2005 American science fiction action thriller drama film directed by Michael Bay, starring Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. It was released on July 22, 2005 in the United States, and was nominated for three awards, including the Teen Choice Award.

It is described as a pastiche of "escape-from-dystopia" science fiction films of the 1960s and 1970s such as Fahrenheit 451, THX 1138, Parts: The Clonus Horror, and Logan's Run. The film's plot revolves around the struggle of McGregor's character to fit into the highly structured world he lives in, isolated in a compound, and the series of events that unfold when he questions how truthful that world is. After he learns the compound inhabitants are clones used for organ harvesting and surrogate motherhood for wealthy people in the outside world, he escapes.
Click to expand...

Read more:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_(2005_film)
 
Removable Mind said:
...but it doesn't change the biological facts.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider your ignorance of some of the many asinine pro-choice arguments thrown around here a "biological fact", but agreeing to disagree always works for me.
 
Pozessed said:
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

It depends on where you draw the line between "blob of tissue" and "human being". When does an embryo become a person with rights? I know of no satisfactory answer to that question. The line as been drawn at various places, i.e., conception, beginning of 2nd trimester, beginning of viability, at birth, at leaving the hospital (Hillary's preference), and even at puberty in some societies. In most cases it just depends on convenience. Personally, I think the line should be drawn at "attains the ability to solve algebraic equations".

Obviously, if it's a human being then it can't be destroyed.
 
If it is a clone of Rosie O'Donnel then you probably have a moral obligation to kill it. Otherwise, it is probably not a good thing.
 
soot said:
I wouldn't consider your ignorance of some of the many asinine pro-choice arguments thrown around here a "biological fact", but agreeing to disagree always works for me.
Click to expand...

My ignorance...? Regarding what? And your condescending comments aren't winning you any points here. So, yep, let's agree to disagree. Obviously you can't be civil.
 
Is it morally acceptable? Oh yeah it is. You gotta take out your clones, before they take you out.

latest


:mrgreen:
 
LowDown said:
It depends on where you draw the line between "blob of tissue" and "human being". When does an embryo become a person with rights? I know of no satisfactory answer to that question. The line as been drawn at various places, i.e., conception, beginning of 2nd trimester, beginning of viability, at birth, at leaving the hospital (Hillary's preference), and even at puberty in some societies. In most cases it just depends on convenience. Personally, I think the line should be drawn at "attains the ability to solve algebraic equations".

Obviously, if it's a human being then it can't be destroyed.
Click to expand...

That's not really an honest accessment. Very few pro-choice advocates regard any stage of development of an yet to be born as a "blob of tissue". And no yet to be born stage is yet entitled to be considered as "human being" according to the Congressional definition of "human being", "individual", "person", "child", or "Infant".

A lot of born human beings are destroyed all of the time (and many legally), so I don't understand you saying that if "a yet to be born" is designated as "human being" it can't be destroyed?

If you're implying that if abortion is against the law, it can't be destroyed. Well, actually all that will change if laws that outlawed abortion came into existence (don't know how that's possible) but if they did, women would simply continue to get them like they did prior to Roe v Wade.
 
Henrin said:
You do realize that the vast majority of things that are made illegal are no one's business, right?



Nope, using the word child towards the unborn is accurate. Why do pro-choice people always need to be reminded of definitions?
Click to expand...

Calling a fetus a child is like calling a block of steel a Cadillac. It takes a lot of very Jesus-y imagination to redefine the terms so ignorantly.
 
soot said:
That's a misinterpretation, or perhaps a misunderstanding, of the actual position.

The fact that there is unique DNA is not necessarially the issue so much as the fact that the newly conceived zygote has DNA unique from the mother.

The argument is against the tired and idiotic idea that a zygote is "part of the mother".

One woman's "parts" don't each have unique DNA, they all share the same DNA, thus, something living within the mother that has unique DNA is not part of her.

Aborting a zygote or fetus with unique DNA is not at all the same thing as a woman having her appendix removed.

Beyond that the DNA argument has no real relevance.
Click to expand...

Actually, the DNA argument is of no real relevance whatsoever. It is used, as you point out yourself, as an argument that the ZEF is an entity distinct from the mother. However, as the clone and the identical twin examples demonstrate, unique DNA has never been a way to distinguish one entity from another. Neither the legality nor the morality of abortion has anything to do with DNA.

PS - all of the cells of our body do not have the same DNA.
 
sangha said:
Actually, the DNA argument is of no real relevance whatsoever. It is used, as you point out yourself, as an argument that the ZEF is an entity distinct from the mother. However, as the clone and the identical twin examples demonstrate, unique DNA has never been a way to distinguish one entity from another. Neither the legality nor the morality of abortion has anything to do with DNA.

PS - all of the cells of our body do not have the same DNA.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree...

Identical Twins do have the same genotype because they come from the same fertilized egg. Recent some studies have shown that identical twins have very "similar" not "identical" DNA, but for the most part, according to basic biology it is identical. Identical twins aren't completely identical because DNA is essentially like instructions to building something, how your body decides to build that is random. This is why, as you pointed out, that not all cells have identical DNA.

But the differences in DNA from twin to twin is why identical twins can have differences - like say fingerprints.

I wonder if clones would have the same fingerprints?

But I do think it's also important to point out that Pro-choice advocates don't need to refer to biology or science to make their argument(s) - period. In fact, the argument(s) can be made without the use of the words abortion, zygote, embryo, or fetus.
 
minnie616 said:
It reminds of me the 2005 movie where clones were grown in case the original needed organs or body parts.

From wiki:



Read more:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_(2005_film)
Click to expand...

I remember that flik, Minnie...where Scarlet and Ewan try to escape. But it's kind of like some other movie combined. People were thinking they were were winning the right to go to "the island" or some special place, but were being selectively picked out to kill. That'd be a hell of a situation to be in.

That's worse than George foreman naming all of his male children George Foreman. Foreman has 12 children, five sons and seven daughters. :lol:
 
Pozessed said:
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

What would be the ethical defense for killing a clone? This seems like a "gimme."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom