• 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!

Cloning and genetic manipulation of humans?

Should Cloning and genetic manipulation of humans be outlawed?

  • Yes, no exceptions allowed

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • Yes, except to correct a known birth defect of genetic disease flaw

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • No, allowed for science but not allowed to become a living human

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, that would up to the woman/parents

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Maybe, depends upon why

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Help us all if they cloned me

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • Total voters
    9
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This article again raises serious ethical questions about human cloning and manipulating human genetics - generally or on an individual level. The articles suggests someone to use cloning to make a Neanderthal. Neanderthals: Smarter than us?

Since it is claimed that "Neanderthal" genetics is found in many humans, in theory this could be isolated and selective bits from different people to make Neanderthal dna, and the use that for test manipulating a human egg, then to be put into a woman. (Not discussed to that degree in the article. )

Should genetic manipulation - except possibly to correct birth defects - be made illegal? Should a wanna-be parent(s) be able to "create" the genetics of a child they want via genetic manipulation? What if the person was a "freak" deliberately.

I think genetically manipulated and altering human dna - individually on a personal level (except to address a genetic flaw) should be outlawed entirely - and that science certainly should be banned from doing so.

(multiple choice poll)
 
Last edited:
From article:

The Neanderthal brain was larger than man’s, although it was believed that large parts were devoted to vision and simple function, producing different thought processes. But recent discoveries have led to a new debate on the species’ capacity and even efforts to clone one for public interest purposes, This has had the support from Harvard genetics professor George Church, who claimed that “Neanderthals think differently than we do. They could even be more intelligent than us.”

Comment, if not considered "human," could they then be pets? Slaves? Considered "livestock?" Scary stuff.
 
joko104 said:
This article again raises serious ethical questions about human cloning and manipulating human genetics - generally or on an individual level. The articles suggests someone to use cloning to make a Neanderthal. Neanderthals: Smarter than us?

Since it is claimed that "Neanderthal" genetics is found in many humans, in theory this could be isolated and selective bits from different people to make Neanderthal dna, and the use that for test manipulating a human egg, then to be put into a woman. (Not discussed to that degree in the article. )

Should genetic manipulation - except possibly to correct birth defects - be made illegal? Should a wanna-be parent(s) be able to "create" the genetics of a child they want via genetic manipulation? What if the person was a "freak" deliberately.

I think genetically manipulated and altering human dna - individually on a personal level (except to address a genetic flaw) should be outlawed entirely - and that science certainly should be banned from doing so.

(multiple choice poll)
Click to expand...

With respect, I feel just the opposite. I would like to outlaw "natural childbirth" unless a permit was issued and both partners were tested for sound genetics. Those who failed the test could still buy a permit for a cloned, high quality baby.

We could use more Einsteins and fewer morons. Plus, the $5K permit fee would start of the mandatory education account.

I'm well aware most don't agree. All I can say is look at the mess we have now, the criminals, the endless mentally ill and physically disabled we have to support.
 
Personally, I think the ability to compare the reasoning processes of a living modern human and living Neanderthal (who is just as "human" as we are) would be invaluable to the development of the science of psychology.
 
As long as we don't start mixing animal and human DNA too willy-nilly, or breeding up Sauron Supermen or an army of clones, it doesn't bother me much.


So yeah, do it... just apply a little common sense and a smidge of restraint...
 
joko104 said:
This article again raises serious ethical questions about human cloning and manipulating human genetics - generally or on an individual level. The articles suggests someone to use cloning to make a Neanderthal. Neanderthals: Smarter than us?

Since it is claimed that "Neanderthal" genetics is found in many humans, in theory this could be isolated and selective bits from different people to make Neanderthal dna, and the use that for test manipulating a human egg, then to be put into a woman. (Not discussed to that degree in the article. )

Should genetic manipulation - except possibly to correct birth defects - be made illegal? Should a wanna-be parent(s) be able to "create" the genetics of a child they want via genetic manipulation? What if the person was a "freak" deliberately.

I think genetically manipulated and altering human dna - individually on a personal level (except to address a genetic flaw) should be outlawed entirely - and that science certainly should be banned from doing so.

(multiple choice poll)
Click to expand...

Why is here no option for 'full steam ahead'?

All of the poll options are a variation on not allowing it except in some cases. I would have voted to increase funding and research, with no boundaries. Science is the most important human field of research by any reckoning.
 
joko104 said:
This article again raises serious ethical questions about human cloning and manipulating human genetics - generally or on an individual level. The articles suggests someone to use cloning to make a Neanderthal. Neanderthals: Smarter than us?

Since it is claimed that "Neanderthal" genetics is found in many humans, in theory this could be isolated and selective bits from different people to make Neanderthal dna, and the use that for test manipulating a human egg, then to be put into a woman. (Not discussed to that degree in the article. )

Should genetic manipulation - except possibly to correct birth defects - be made illegal? Should a wanna-be parent(s) be able to "create" the genetics of a child they want via genetic manipulation? What if the person was a "freak" deliberately.

I think genetically manipulated and altering human dna - individually on a personal level (except to address a genetic flaw) should be outlawed entirely - and that science certainly should be banned from doing so.

(multiple choice poll)
Click to expand...

Genetic engineering, therapeutic cloning, and the like are tools in our arsenal for taking control of our biology and transcend the flaws and limits nature imposed on us. It is one of the most rapidly advancing and exhilarating scientific fields in the world today. There is nothing inherently good about something being 'natural' bring on the transhuman please. Aside from cloning a human without respecting its human rights I vote no, no, no.
 
I think it should be outlawed.I do not believe there should be any exceptions. Because a child's DNA should not be manipulated on the whims of the parents or their sense of beauty and other **** forced onto the child. If you allow exception for known birth defects then those exceptions will get redefined and then having freckles, brown eyes, red hair or something else becomes a "birth defect". Plus I would be worried about the long term effects human genetic manipulation can have on the overall population.
 
jamesrage said:
I think it should be outlawed.I do not believe there should be any exceptions. Because a child's DNA should not be manipulated on the whims of the parents or their sense of beauty and other **** forced onto the child. If you allow exception for known birth defects then those exceptions will get redefined and then having freckles, brown eyes, red hair or something else becomes a "birth defect". Plus I would be worried about the long term effects human genetic manipulation can have on the overall population.
Click to expand...

Why not? I don't mind at all if parents want to design their children so long as they don't do it to the detriment of their health.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom