• 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!

Which type of judges would support human cloning?

Which type of judges would support human cloning?

  • Total voters
    20
digsbe said:
Maybe. I really have no respect for their opinion since they lack a fundamental understanding of genetics.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should study ecology, agricultural dependence and sustainability.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I suppose you also want to ban older people from having kids while you're at it? They have a higher rate of problems.

The bottom line is it is none of your business to decide what level of risk is acceptable.
Click to expand...

The frequency of birth defects in cloned animals far outstrips any influence from the age factor in humans. It is entirely the business of society to decide what risks are acceptable, that is entire purpose of medical ethics. Allowing individuals to make poor choices regarding the potential health of their children is entirely different from doctors deliberately taking actions known to be harmful. Medical professionals are held to a much higher standard than the common citizen.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's only an "issue" to wing nuts, religious extremists, and other assorted nanny state bedwetters.
Click to expand...

No. In fact Desmond Morris talks about some of the issues in The Human Zoo where he details that our technical development has outpaced our ability to cope with the changes socially.

A whole raft of issues present themselves with the perfection of human cloning. Can we grow clones to harvest organs? Will they be treated to human law in it's fullness? Is it okay to make a few changes while we're at it (body form and function)? Where do we draw the line between human and lab grown animal, do we draw a line? Do clones have inheritance?

Just a small subset of the large bag of questions that we are unprepared to answer.

But, on the plus side, maybe they will be able to grow you a brain to replace that defective partisan machine you've got. :mrgreen:
 
rathi said:
The frequency of birth defects in cloned animals far outstrips any influence from the age factor in humans. It is entirely the business of society to decide what risks are acceptable, that is entire purpose of medical ethics. Allowing individuals to make poor choices regarding the potential health of their children is entirely different from doctors deliberately taking actions known to be harmful. Medical professionals are held to a much higher standard than the common citizen.
Click to expand...

The classic liberal nanny state justification: people are too stupid to know what is in their own interest.

I guess there are some liberals who want to ban cloning after all.
 
clownboy said:
No. In fact Desmond Morris talks about some of the issues in The Human Zoo where he details that our technical development has outpaced our ability to cope with the changes socially.

A whole raft of issues present themselves with the perfection of human cloning. Can we grow clones to harvest organs? Will they be treated to human law in it's fullness? Is it okay to make a few changes while we're at it (body form and function)? Where do we draw the line between human and lab grown animal, do we draw a line? Do clones have inheritance?

Just a small subset of the large bag of questions that we are unprepared to answer.

But, on the plus side, maybe they will be able to grow you a brain to replace that defective partisan machine you've got. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Sounds like you have a lot of irrational hang ups you need to overcome, to me.

Why would a clone not be treated exactly like a human being?
 
Last edited:
lol you know people are so illogical

It's ok to develop nuclear weapons but not ok to clone people or fund stem cell research.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The classic liberal nanny state justification: people are too stupid to know what is in their own interest.

I guess there are some liberals who want to ban cloning after all.
Click to expand...

The clone has no choice in their creation and it is they who will suffer from the mistake of another. That is not personal choice, you are condoning the deliberate victimization of the innocent by someone who fully understand the consequences of their actions.
 
ecofarm said:
Perhaps you should study ecology, agricultural dependence and sustainability.
Click to expand...

Genetic modification is just a technique like welding or riveting. You can use it to make good products or bad products depending on the circumstances and design. Some GM products are harmful and some aren't. You need to do specific research on the organism in question if you want an answer, not simply saying "frankenfoods are evil".
 
wolfman24 said:
I don't want to get into an argument. It would not matter if he did the result would not be HIM. Even if he wanted to live forever, the clone would not be him. They could teach him once he was old enough to think the same, act the same and walk and talk the same but it still would not be HIM. There are too many variable which would effect the equation. the age thing is the largest of them all. Clones don't come out as adults they come out as tiny babies.

As your /// commnent of course there is.
Click to expand...

O, no argument here. I can just easily picture some Howard Hughes type thinking such a baby is the "ultimate trophy".
 
wolfman24 said:
Thats what I thought. I doubt that this would past muster in our society it would be akin to the abortion debate.
Click to expand...

O, now c'mon. They scrape inside your cheek and grow a replacement ear for you on a mouse, and you think anyone will oppose this?

I can't picture the RCC showing for that argument even, unless they drug out the old "slippery slope" canard.
 
rathi said:
The frequency of birth defects in cloned animals far outstrips any influence from the age factor in humans. It is entirely the business of society to decide what risks are acceptable, that is entire purpose of medical ethics. Allowing individuals to make poor choices regarding the potential health of their children is entirely different from doctors deliberately taking actions known to be harmful. Medical professionals are held to a much higher standard than the common citizen.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I do not see this as a privacy issue at all.
 
Pinkie said:
The Op is a silly question. Medical ethics questions arising from emerging scientific and medical breakthroughs are going to dazzle everyone, and not always in a good way.

In my lifetime, an artificial heart, a pig heart and the heart of another human has been used to extend the life of a person with heart disease. At each advancement, the public thought the implications were sinister and you can still watch recently-made horror movies where a person is killed so their organs can be harvested. Probably 75% of the non-medical public is afraid to consent to donate their organs out of fear they'll be killed by doctors so someone else can live.

When we know what may be possible and have a chance to observe the unintended consequences, then we can discuss human cloning. Daisy the sheep seemed to live a healthy life, but how would we know whether a sheep was mentally ill?

Whatever we do, I imagine we can count on the Roman Catholic Church to condemn it and possibly, that will carry weight with a Justice or two (Scalia and Thomas, if they're still on the bench) but this will never, just as it has never, serve as more than a nuisance.

Progress will progress.
Click to expand...

Knowledge is like pandoras box, once opened its too late. Dealing with the consequences of technology is part and parcel. Cloning combined with quantom singling will end up giving humans the unique abillity to be in more than one place at the same time. Think about that for a moment. Brave new world indeed. Time is oblivious to you and I and keeps marching on.
 
rathi said:
The clone has no choice in their creation and it is they who will suffer from the mistake of another. That is not personal choice, you are condoning the deliberate victimization of the innocent by someone who fully understand the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

By your logic those who are genetically "undesirable" should not be allowed to breed, right?
 
Pinkie said:
O, now c'mon. They scrape inside your cheek and grow a replacement ear for you on a mouse, and you think anyone will oppose this?

I can't picture the RCC showing for that argument even, unless they drug out the old "slippery slope" canard.
Click to expand...

Its not quite that simple. For some replacements it would require "harvesting" fully formed human beings who are kept in a hibernetic or unconscious state. Thats where the objection would arise.

You cannot just take a DNA sample and then grow a piece. It is much more complex than that. You need to have the piece grown before you can use it and I do not see (at this point) how that can be done without growing the whole organism.
 
rathi said:
Genetic modification is just a technique like welding or riveting. You can use it to make good products or bad products depending on the circumstances and design. Some GM products are harmful and some aren't. You need to do specific research on the organism in question if you want an answer, not simply saying "frankenfoods are evil".
Click to expand...

I've actually done genetic modification of crops. From isolation to blot to selection etc, "the gene gun". It was a med-qualifying lab, phd level.

That's aside from ecology and agro-anthropological issues.
 
rathi said:
Genetic modification is just a technique like welding or riveting. You can use it to make good products or bad products depending on the circumstances and design. Some GM products are harmful and some aren't. You need to do specific research on the organism in question if you want an answer, not simply saying "frankenfoods are evil".
Click to expand...

Its one of the reasons the GMO's of all sorts should be labeled as such. They are not nessarrily bad but then again I would like to know what excactly I be eating. Case in point. Wheat is 60% gluten in the current varieties, back 20 years ago it was around 10%. It has NOT been genetically manipulated directly but though extinsive breeding programs. So the wheat your daddy ate aint the kind of wheat we are are eating. Gluten by the way is mostly indigestable. If we look at Corn which has been extensively modified directly, it now has its own pestisides and radically altered genetic makeup. It has never been tested long term to my knoweledge. If you compare heirloom corn vs. GMO corn there is substantial differance. They in my opinion should not be considered the same product and be labeled differnetly.
 
wolfman24 said:
Its not quite that simple. For some replacements it would require "harvesting" fully formed human beings who are kept in a hibernetic or unconscious state. Thats where the objection would arise.

You cannot just take a DNA sample and then grow a piece. It is much more complex than that. You need to have the piece grown before you can use it and I do not see (at this point) how that can be done without growing the whole organism.
Click to expand...

It can be done utilizing cartiledge scaffording tecniques which is partially how they got the mouse to grow a human ear. It can and is being done in the labratory, with main concenration on trying to build hearts. They are also pioneering the litteral printing of new organs with printers that arent too disimilar from a standard inkjet printer. Growing and harvesting people is a waste of time and resoarce. I am not saying they wouldnt do it just that it is not that likely.
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
It can be done utilizing cartiledge scaffording tecniques which is partially how they got the mouse to grow a human ear. It can and is being done in the labratory, with main concenration on trying to build hearts. They are also pioneering the litteral printing of new organs with printers that arent too disimilar from a standard inkjet printer. Growing and harvesting people is a waste of time and resoarce. I am not saying they wouldnt do it just that it is not that likely.
Click to expand...

I accept the idea about organs. Your description seems plausible. But I guess I did not make myself clear. I was not refering to organs but to limbs, sex organs, and the like. this would require a harvestable human. I also agree that it would be a waste of time. At some point the technology will exist to "duplicate" human tissue and use synthetic parts for limbs.

I doubt we will ever (yes I know never say never) have the ability to replace the human brain.

BTW I am for the most part agreeing with you!
 
Guy Incognito said:
Sounds like you have a lot of irrational hang ups you need to overcome, to me.

Why would a clone not be treated exactly like a human being?
Click to expand...

You'll need to have at least a base understanding of the issues and cloning itself to discuss this. You haven't met that bar yet. Stick to political issues where you can spitball the answer as is your MO.
 
Last edited:
wolfman24 said:
Its not quite that simple. For some replacements it would require "harvesting" fully formed human beings who are kept in a hibernetic or unconscious state. Thats where the objection would arise.

You cannot just take a DNA sample and then grow a piece. It is much more complex than that. You need to have the piece grown before you can use it and I do not see (at this point) how that can be done without growing the whole organism.
Click to expand...

Well everyone of your cells has all the dna information to make the entire you. However most cells only have a portion of that DNA active so heart cells only make heart cells, lung cells only make lung cells. I have no clue how that actually works but thats what I hear. I agree to be able to grow stem cells and control which parts of the DNA activate is very challenging.

To grow entier humans to harvest parts crosses even my moral boundaries, hibernated or not, and I'm a fairly open minded person. Right now you have to have no moral compass what-so-ever to think that's acceptable.
 
wolfman24 said:
I accept the idea about organs. Your description seems plausible. But I guess I did not make myself clear. I was not refering to organs but to limbs, sex organs, and the like. this would require a harvestable human. I also agree that it would be a waste of time. At some point the technology will exist to "duplicate" human tissue and use synthetic parts for limbs.

I doubt we will ever (yes I know never say never) have the ability to replace the human brain.

BTW I am for the most part agreeing with you!
Click to expand...

I find the subject to be quite facinating. I am amazed constantly by all the new tecniques and technology the comes out of the biotech field. Everyday its something new. Its a bit faster than my field at the moment thats for sure. If I didnt have a fear of blood or needles I would be mucking about in a lab somewhere. The really interesting part is were they are combining technologies and making the beginings of cybernetic implants. Bleeding edge scifi stuff. I am looking at non invasive thought controls for fine attitude position adjustment for spacecraft to help simplifiy the control sceme, and for remote drone control. The real kicker is a lot of this stuff is now on the shelf so to speak.
 
Guy Incognito said:
By your logic those who are genetically "undesirable" should not be allowed to breed, right?
Click to expand...

Meaningless strawman. A comparable situation would be a doctor performing IVF for a couple where both parents are known carriers of Tay Sachs. The government cannot reasonably prevent two people two from having sex. It damn well can prevent doctors from knowingly performing treatments that are harmful.
 
how in the hell does on group stem cell research with cloning? LMAO :lamo
 
wolfman24 said:
I accept the idea about organs. Your description seems plausible. But I guess I did not make myself clear. I was not refering to organs but to limbs, sex organs, and the like. this would require a harvestable human. I also agree that it would be a waste of time. At some point the technology will exist to "duplicate" human tissue and use synthetic parts for limbs.

I doubt we will ever (yes I know never say never) have the ability to replace the human brain.

BTW I am for the most part agreeing with you!
Click to expand...


This is the hollywood fearmongering BS I can't stand. There are people walking around right now with cloned bladders. On the reproductive cloning front, we can't even get viable primate clones. Harvesting people for organs happens today, but using Chinese convicts not clones. You might as well argue against building robots because of they will take over the world like in the matrix.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I find the subject to be quite facinating. I am amazed constantly by all the new tecniques and technology the comes out of the biotech field. Everyday its something new. Its a bit faster than my field at the moment thats for sure. If I didnt have a fear of blood or needles I would be mucking about in a lab somewhere. The really interesting part is were they are combining technologies and making the beginings of cybernetic implants. Bleeding edge scifi stuff. I am looking at non invasive thought controls for fine attitude position adjustment for spacecraft to help simplifiy the control sceme, and for remote drone control. The real kicker is a lot of this stuff is now on the shelf so to speak.
Click to expand...

YOu and me both. Its just fascinating so long as you understand the real science behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom