Playing God

[Xenocrates]

Questions:

What's wrong with scientists re-working the human genome using stem cells to create new organs for a long waiting list of sick patients who need them? What's so wrong about that? Is "Playing God" really such a bad idea?


What about creating designer babies? Wouldn't you want to have the perfect child?


What's so wrong with cloning humans?

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

:icon_arro Xenocrates

Ultimately I really do believe that there is nothing wrong with these things mentioned by you; it is a function of mankind to improve his condition of living, of health, quality of life whereby tipping the scales of mortality in his favour.

What faces us in this modern day livity, which I believe is the real question ; Who will have access to all of this? Who will live and who will die? And ultimately who choses?

This is the real fear behind all the contradictions that have been raised so far.
We are seeing this money for life policy of the big drug companies with their brand named drugs to treat aids and other mass afflictions.

Then there is the question of creating a mis-balance with natural selection; we all can't live forever and by improving the odds for life for more people than ever before, what are the implications of this?
History has shown us that the resulting effect of over-population has always lead to wars, domination and down-pression of the weak, disease and famine.

Can this generation and the next aviod all the mistakes and conditions to prevent history from repeating itself ? Can it stop the world from correcting itself?

Izemi-Clem

[BlackCryptoKnight]

In my opinion, the problem isn't so much with the things that are being done, but on the risk that people may become so focused on "perfecting" and fixing things themselves, that they forget about God, and get arrogant - even thinking that they are gods.

Such thinking may lead to the perversion of otherwise good things.

[Gillion]

In my opinion, the problem isn't so much with the things that are being done, but on the risk that people may become so focused on "perfecting" and fixing things themselves, that they forget about God, and get arrogant - even thinking that they are gods.

Such thinking may lead to the perversion of otherwise good things.

So ?

Man will get arrogant and fight GOD and his host in the end of days anyway... so we are destined to get arrogant and forget ourplace... StemCells or no stemcells.

I think Christians should stop trying to stop the prophecy from fullfilling iteself.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

So ?

Man will get arrogant and fight GOD and his host in the end of days anyway... so we are destined to get arrogant and forget ourplace... StemCells or no stemcells.

I think Christians should stop trying to stop the prophecy from fullfilling iteself.
Not everyone is destined to follow that path, and it's not about stopping prophecy from being fulfilled - no one can do that. It is about preparing as many people as possible for the fulfillment of prophecy.

The danger with all these advancements is that there is the risk that they will be subverted and used for evil. Genetic engineering may be used to reduce the likelihood of illness etc. or it could be used to make more efficient weapons. Genetic screening may be used to help, or it may be used to discriminate. That is where the whole morality things comes into play, in ensuring that the tools are not used to do bad things.

[ramesh]

Questions:

What's wrong with scientists re-working the human genome using stem cells to create new organs for a long waiting list of sick patients who need them? What's so wrong about that? Is "Playing God" really such a bad idea?


What about creating designer babies? Wouldn't you want to have the perfect child?


What's so wrong with cloning humans?

All the possible repercussions have already been explored in Sci Fi films and shows. If you want, I can give a list. ;)

[Gillion]

Not everyone is destined to follow that path, and it's not about stopping prophecy from being fulfilled - no one can do that. It is about preparing as many people as possible for the fulfillment of prophecy.

The danger with all these advancements is that there is the risk that they will be subverted and used for evil. Genetic engineering may be used to reduce the likelihood of illness etc. or it could be used to make more efficient weapons. Genetic screening may be used to help, or it may be used to discriminate. That is where the whole morality things comes into play, in ensuring that the tools are not used to do bad things.

But it eventually will and nothing can stop that.

We discovered the secret of the ATOM and the first practical use it was given was to make BOMBS. Two of which were used in Japan.

So... Military uses are always the first line of developing some technology... the INTERNET for example.

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro Ramesh

List away

:icon_arro BCK

Organ transplantation was invented to save lives, even though men have inevitably used even that for evil: There's a black market for organ donorship. Men will use any advancement for evil. It's our intrinsic nature. That doesn't necessarily make "playing god" immoral, does it?

[BlackCryptoKnight]

But it eventually will and nothing can stop that.

We discovered the secret of the ATOM and the first practical use it was given was to make BOMBS. Two of which were used in Japan.

So... Military uses are always the first line of developing some technology... the INTERNET for example.

Organ transplantation was invented to save lives, even though men have inevitably used even that for evil: There's a black market for organ donorship. Men will use any advancement for evil. It's our intrinsic nature. That doesn't necessarily make "playing god" immoral, does it?

The phrase "Playing God" to me refers to situations in which people take it upon themselves to make certain decisions which should be left to God, who has the requisite wisdom and understanding, to make those decisions. For example, taking the decision to end lives, or deny certain kinds of opportunities could be thought of as "playing God". The controversy with something like stem cell research is about the way in which the research is conducted. The debate is over whether the mechanisms currently used to harvest the stem cells (in the case of humans this means the destruction of a human embryo) justify the potential benefits. The "Playing God" part comes into play in the decision to sacrifice an embryo (a human life in the viewpoint of some) for the "greater good". Such a decision as to which life is worth "saving" or "terminating" is one best suited for God.

So a big issue with these scientific advancements is whether the ends justify the means. What sacrifice is appropriate? Is any sacrifice worth it? Is the risk and impact of the advancement being used for negative purposes something that is acceptable or not?

There are some things which may just not be worth the trouble.

In the case of organ transplant, it's not the development of the techniques etc. that is immoral, but the context in which such transplants are performed. If the approach to transplant research involved hurting people or performing procedures on them against their will, then questions of morality would come into play there.

[Xenocrates]

Is an embryo sentient life? Embryonic cells are ridiculously easy to clone and engineer into other simple biological machines. An embryo is nothing more than an organic machine. If it were anything more, then I think we should have a funeral for everytime we stub our toes, or burn our tongues, or bruise our skins. The only difference between embryos and other cells in the body is the stem cells they contain. I fail to see what the big deal is.

[Gillion]

Good points........................

[nuhsenutten]

suddenly i start thinking of that movie ............the island.........

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Is an embryo sentient life? Embryonic cells are ridiculously easy to clone and engineer into other simple biological machines. An embryo is nothing more than an organic machine. If it were anything more, then I think we should have a funeral for everytime we stub our toes, or burn our tongues, or bruise our skins. The only difference between embryos and other cells in the body is the stem cells they contain. I fail to see what the big deal is.
That's why it's a controversial topic. There are people who have a different viewpoint than you do.

[Xenocrates]

"The Island" took the idea far beyond stem cells to make for a more interesting plot. With stem cells you can grow specific organs without growing a sentient human consciousness. That way you don't have to kill anybody.

That's why it's a controversial topic. There are people who have a different viewpoint than you do. - This is why I HATE groupwork. What is their viewpoint?

[ramesh]

:icon_arro Ramesh List away

Movies about Clones
Anna to the Infinite Power (1983)
Blade Runner (1982)
Boys from Brazil, The (1978)
Critters (1986)
Human Duplicators, The (1965)
Island of Dr.Moreau, The (1996) & (1977)
Man's Best Friend (1993)
Multiplicity (1996)
Night of the Lepus (1972)
Primal Rage (1991)
Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler, The (1971)

This is not counting the numerous Outer Limits episodes dealing with the subject. :)

[ramesh]

The Top Ten Myths about Human Cloning (http://www.reproductivecloning.net/open/myths.html)

By Gregory E. Pence
Professor, Dept. of Philosophy & School of Medicine
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Author, Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? (1998)

1. Cloning Xeroxes a person.

Cloning merely re-creates the genes of the ancestor, not what he has learned or experienced. Technically, it re-creates the genotype, not the phenotype. (Even at that, only 99% of those genes get re-created because 1% of such a child's genes would come from those in the egg - mitochondrial DNA). Conventional wisdom holds that about half of who we are comes from our genes, the other half, from the environment. Cloning cannot re-create what in us came from the environment; it also cannot re-create memories. The false belief that cloning recreates a person stems in part from the common, current false belief in simplistic, genetic reductionism, i. e., that a person really is just determined by his genes. No reputable geneticist or psychologist believes this.

2. Human cloning is replication or making children into commodities.

Opponents of cloning often use these words to beg the question, to assume that children created by parents by a new method would not be loved. Similar things were said about "test tube" babies, who turned out to be some of the most-wanted, most-loved babies ever created in human history. Indeed, the opposite is true: evolution has created us with sex drives such that, if we do not carefully use contraception, children occur. Because children get created this way without being wanted, sexual reproduction is more likely to create unwanted, and hence possibly unloved, children than human cloning. Lawyers opposing cloning have a special reason for using these pejorative words. If cloning is just a new form of human reproduction, then it is Constitutionally protected from interference by the state. Several Supreme Court decisions declare that all forms of human reproduction, including the right not to reproduce, cannot be abridged by government. Use of words such as "replication" and "commodification" also assumes artificial wombs or commercial motives; about these fallacies, see below.

3. Human cloning reduces biological diversity.

Population genetics says otherwise. Six billion people now exist, soon to be eight billion, and most of them reproduce. Cloning requires in vitro fertilization, which is expensive and inefficient, with only a 20% success rate. Since 1978, at most a half million babies have been produced this way, or at most, one out of 12,000 babies. Over decades and with such great numbers, populations follow the Law of Regression to the Mean. This means that, even if someone tried to create a superior race by cloning, it would fail, because cloned people would have children with non-cloned people, and resulting genetic hybrids would soon be normalized. Cloning is simply a tool. It could be used with the motive of creating uniformity (but would fail, because of above), or it be used for the opposite reason, to try to increase diversity (which would also fail, for the same reason).

4. People created by cloning would be less ensouled than normal humans, or would be sub-human.

A human who had the same number of chromosomes as a child created sexually, who was gestated by a woman, and who talked, felt, and spoke as any other human, would ethically be human and a person. It is by now a principle of ethics that the origins of a person, be it from mixed-race parents, unmarried parents, in vitro fertilization, or a gay male couple hiring a surrogate mother, do not affect the personhood of the child born. The same would be true of a child created by cloning (who, of course, has to be gestated for nine months by a woman). Every deviation from normal reproduction has always been faced with this fear. Children greeted by sperm donation, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood were predicted to be less-than-human, but were not. A variation predicts that while, in fact, they will not be less-than-human, people will treat them this way and hence, such children will harmed. This objection reifies prejudice and makes it an ethical justification, which it is wrong to do. The correct response to prejudice is to expose it for what it is, combat it with reason and with evidence, not validate it as an ethical reason.

5. People created by cloning could be used for spare organs for normal humans.

Nothing could be done to a person created by cloning that right now could not be done to your brother or to a person's twin. The U. S. Constitution strongly implies that once a human fetus is outside the womb and alive, he has rights. Decisions backing this up give him rights to inherit property, rights not to suffer discrimination because of disability, and rights to U. S. citizenship. A variation of this myth assumes that a dictator could make cloned humans into special SWAT teams or suicidal bombers. But nothing about originating people this way gives anyone any special power over the resulting humans, who would have free will. Besides, if a dictator wants to create such assassins, he need not wait for cloning but can take orphans and try to indoctrinate them now in isolated camps.

[ramesh]

cont'd............

6. All people created from the same genotype would be raised in batches and share secret empathy or communication.

Pure science fiction. If I wanted to recreate the genotype of my funny Uncle Harry, why would my wife want to gestate 5 or 6 other babies at the same time? Indeed, we now know that the womb cannot support more than 2-3 fetuses without creating a likely disability in one. Guidelines now call for no more than two embryos to be introduced by in vitro fertilization, which of course is required to use cloning. Such assumptions about cloned humans being created in batches are linked to nightmarish science fiction scenarios where humane society has been destroyed and where industrialized machines have taken over human reproduction. But this is just someone's nightmare, not facts upon which to base state and federal laws.

7. Scientists who work on human cloning are evil or motivated by bad motives.

The stuff of Hollywood and scary writers. Scientists are just people. Most of them have kids of their own and care a lot for kids. No one wants to bring a handicapped child into the world. Movies and novels never portray life scientists with sympathy. This anti-science prejudice started with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and continues with nefarious scientists working for the Government on The X Files. People who call themselves scientists and grandstand for television, such as Richard Seed and Brigette Boisselier of the Raelians, are not real scientists but people who use the aura of science to gain attention. Real scientists don't spend all their time flying around the world to be on TV but stay at home in their clinics doing their work.

8. Babies created by cloning could be grown in artificial wombs.

Nope, sorry. Medicine has been trying for fifty years to create an artificial womb, but has never come close to succeeding. Indeed, controversial experiments in 1973 on live-born fetuses in studying artificial wombs effectively shut down such research. Finally, if anything like such wombs existed, we could save premature babies who haven't developed lung function, but unfortunately, we still can't - premature babies who can't breathe at all die. Thus, any human baby still needs a human woman to gestate him for at least six months, and to be healthy, nine months. This puts the lie to many science fiction stories and to many predictions about cloning
and industrial reproduction.

9. Only selfish people want to create a child by cloning.

First, this assumes that ordinary people don't create children for selfish reasons, such as a desire to have someone take care of them in old age, a desire to see part of themselves continue after death, and/or the desire to leave their estate to someone. Many people are hypocritical or deceived about why they came to have children. Very few people just decide that they want to bring more joy into the world, and hence create a child to raise and support for life as an end-in-himself. Let's be honest here. Second, a couple using cloning need not create a copy of one of them. As said above, Uncle Harry could be a prime candidate. On the other hand, if a couple chooses a famous person, critics accuse them of creating designer babies. Either way, they can't win: if they re-create one of their genotypes, they are narcissistic; if they choose someone else's genes, they're guilty of creating designer babies. In general, why should a couple using cloning have a higher justification required of them than a couple using sexual reproduction? If we ask: what counts as a good reason for creating a child, then why should cloning have any special test that is not required for sexual reproduction? Indeed, and more generally, what right does government have to require, or judge, any couple's reasons for having a child, even if they are seen by others to be selfish? Couples desiring to use cloning should not bear an undue burden of justification.

10. Human cloning is inherently evil: it can only be used for bad purposes by bad people.

No, it's just a tool, just another way to create a family. A long legacy in science fiction novels and movies make the word "cloning" so fraught with bad connotations that it can hardly be used in any discussion that purports to be impartial. It is like discussing equal rights for women by starting to discuss whether "the chicks" would fare better with equal rights. To most people, "cloning" implies selfish parents, crazy scientists, and out-of-control technology, so a fair discussion using this word isn't possible. Perhaps the phrase, "somatic cell nuclear transplantation" is better, even if it's a scientific mouthful. So if we shouldn't call a person created by cloning, a "clone," what should we call him? Answer: a person.

[RachieBabie]

suddenly i start thinking of that movie ............the island.........
oh ye me too.... but for the life of me couldnt remember the name,.... till your post:D:D:D

[silentburn]

1. What's wrong with scientists re-working the human genome using stem cells to create new organs for a long waiting list of sick patients who need them? What's so wrong about that? Is "Playing God" really such a bad idea?

Actually, I hope they perfect the art of growing organs. :eusa_shif I find it intriguing that they will be able to grow an organ using the recipients own DNA, that would mean there would be no need for rejection drugs. :) I'm still stumped on whether it is moral or not.

2. What about creating designer babies? Wouldn't you want to have the perfect child?

More than likely designer babies will only be physically perfect. I'm sure it will be much harder for them to develop a baby with a ''designer'' mind. :)

3. What's so wrong with cloning humans?

Cloning is a no no in my books. I wouldn't want someone else who looks exactly like me and who also has the same DNA as myself. Why would it be necessary to clone someone? I think this would definitely be taking this science thing too far. In my opinion it would be a rather boring thing to do since you would be recreating a person with exactly the same attributes. Its like recreating the wheel.

The only benefit is that the clone could grow up in a better environment than his/her predecessor which may allow the clone to be a more productive person, apart from that I don't see any other real benefit for cloning other than for scientific research or for organ farming. :icon_twis

[Bahama Mama]

Questions:

What's wrong with scientists re-working the human genome using stem cells to create new organs for a long waiting list of sick patients who need them? What's so wrong about that? Is "Playing God" really such a bad idea?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it in my opinion. We have already figured out all the pieces of our genetic makeup, logically the next step would be to put those pieces together in the best working order possible. The real issue is accessibility. The impact that stem cell harvesting will have on health care unfortunately will cause it to become an exploited venture for monetary gain. Rich and developed nations will more than likely reap the positive benefits from it, while poor and developing nations will get shafted.


What about creating designer babies? Wouldn't you want to have the perfect child?

What is perfection in this instance? A child that is free of any and all disease ailments is a reasonable standard of perfection in my opinion. Now when we get into the area of aesthetic perfection, then it becomes a slippery slope. Blue eyes over brown, straight hair over curly, skinny over fat? If we partake in selecting what we deem as 'positive' traits over 'negative' traits (eugenics), we may run the risk of eliminating an entire race of people. Good idea? I don't think so. Certain physical traits have developed over time to aid us in adapting our environment. For eg. High levels of melanin that acts as a natural sunscreen.

What's so wrong with cloning humans?


If it doesn't aid directly in improving the quality of human life, I don't see the need for massive cloning.

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro Ramesh

Great article dude. :eusa_clap I shall use text from there as a reference point for the rest of this thread if necessary.

I'm still stumped on whether it is moral or not. - Why would we even consider this a moral issue? Do we realise what a moral is?

More than likely designer babies will only be physically perfect. I'm sure it will be much harder for them to develop a baby with a ''designer'' mind. :) - The intention behind designer babies is not to make "perfect" children. It's to make children that cater to the parents specific desires in their child - all of which would be genetically controlled. So technically, even if the parents only carry a latent gene for a specific trait, they can influence the probability of the occurrence in that gene such that when the child is born those specific features would be prominent.

Technically, a parent can effectively change anything from the child's eye colour, hair type and colour, skin tone, propensity for height, musculature, symmetry in the face and body and even the race of their child through genetic manipulation. That's the idea behind "designer" babies - influencing what the child can look like and what genes they will have when born. Now that you have a better understanding of what the term "Designer Baby" means, re-evaluate the original question and answer again. Is there anything wrong with this process?

I wouldn't want someone else who looks exactly like me and who also has the same DNA as myself. - Twins are natural clones. Are you saying that you wouldn't like the idea of having a twin brother?

[MOAR?]

[Xenocrates]

Why would it be necessary to clone someone? - This is actually a very good question. I also have a very good answer:

If a couple lost a young child to some tragic event or illness, cloning the DNA of the original child will give them back the baby they had before. The memories will obviously not be there in the clone, but it's the same thing as if they had conceived again. However, unlike conception, they can get back the same genotype they had before. Cloning the original child gives them the opportunity to avoid that part of the grieving process where they had to relinquish their emotional attachment to the child that looks and behaves in exactly the same way. You completely avoid those feelings of regret and sentiments of "what would he be like when he grew to be 16"? Now they can get that opportunity so long as the DNA of the original child was not completely destroyed. ;)

I think this would definitely be taking this science thing too far. - Well that's the point of this thread: So long as sentient human life is not being endangered, Can science go too far? Is there such a thing? What if humans figured out how to become Gods themselves, would that be going too far? For what reason?

In my opinion it would be a rather boring thing to do since you would be recreating a person with exactly the same attributes. Its like recreating the wheel. - Being "boring" is hardly a justifiable or scientific reason to not pursue some objective. :icon_mrgr

...apart from that I don't see any other real benefit for cloning other than for scientific research or for organ farming. :icon_twis - That kind of thinking is a product of science fiction horror movies. Did you see the article Ramesh posted? ;)

[MOAR!]

[Xenocrates]

The real issue is accessibility. The impact that stem cell harvesting will have on health care unfortunately will cause it to become an exploited venture for monetary gain. Rich and developed nations will more than likely reap the positive benefits from it, while poor and developing nations will get shafted. - We should accept that by default, every invention developed for the good of mankind will be inexorably used for evil. Therefore control should be our first priority - not an abandonment of said initiative. If we thought like that all the time, most advances in medical science would never have been developed!

If we partake in selecting what we deem as 'positive' traits over 'negative' traits (eugenics), we may run the risk of eliminating an entire race of people. Good idea? I don't think so. - Do you think the current four major races on earth are the only possible races or the only ones that ever existed? The only reason we only notice four races is because the earth is only so big. If our planet was the size of Jupiter, we'd have many, many more races than just four conspicuous ones. Group Genetic Propagation is what creates races. An ethnic race is nothing more than an assembly of a specific set of genes that have stuck together in groups in environments in which they feel most comfortable. Nothing more.

Therefore, eradicating an entire race of humans through genetic pre-assembly is not intrinsically a bad thing. Nature would have done it one way or another. Controlling what we look like through genetic manipulation merely gives us greater control over what cards nature can deal to us - which is what we do in medicine anyway. As such I fail to see how such is immoral as it threatens no tenet of human existence and it is most certainly not a sin of any kind. In fact, if such genetic manipulation were legalized, it would boost longevity and literally quantum leap human existence to the next stage of enlightenment.

Certain physical traits have developed over time to aid us in adapting our environment. For eg. High levels of melanin that acts as a natural sunscreen. - Black people were developed through group migration patterns, not our environment. With each progressive generation and migration, the offspring of those left behind had fewer other genes to saturate the pool, leaving only those with a higher propensity to produce darker skin behind. Several generation later, black folks were given the general look they have today.

If there was no migration in the original group of humans, you wouldn't have a black race today. We'd all be moderately tanned in complexion, not resembling any particular known race at all.

If it doesn't aid directly in improving the quality of human life, I don't see the need for massive cloning.
- We wouldn't need to clone massively per se - unless we're creating an army, which is unethical in its own right. I'm talking about cloning in ways that'd benefit mankind, not destroy it.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Parents who want to create "Designer Babies" are less likely to love their children unconditionally.

[Xenocrates]

Why do you think so?

[Manu]

Do we really have to love unconditionally?????

[Xenocrates]

Humans don't love unconditionally. There's always a condition. Love is intrinsically selfish, remember?

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Why do you think so?

By choosing the features of the child, they are placing conditions on their affections for the child instead of just accepting the child for what they are.

[Xenocrates]

By choosing to marry each other, they are effectively doing the same thing. So what's your point? :eusa_thin Do you think guys and girls are attracted to pulchritudinous people for no reason at all? Think about it: It's to make pretty babies. Nature designed us that way. ;)

[BlackCryptoKnight]

By choosing to marry each other, they are effectively doing the same thing. So what's your point? :eusa_thin Do you think guys and girls are attracted to pulchritudinous people for no reason at all? Think about it: It's to make pretty babies. Nature designed us that way. ;)

No Xeno. Not everybody marries with the primary intention of "making pretty babies". Some people actually marry because they love each other in spite of their traits and characteristics, and consequently, however their children turn out, they love them and accept them for who they are.

[Xenocrates]

No BCK. Irrespective of the reason why people marry, the core driving factor is that which is dictated by nature. Nature is so designed that only the best genes are given first priority for procreation. This is why people are naturally more drawn to those which are beautiful as opposed to those which aren't. Beauty in a specie is not a purpose in and of itself. Beauty facilitates procreation. Without it, humans wouldn't be drawn enough to each other to create offspring.

As such, creating "designer" babies only increases the facilitation of this purpose and is thus not in or of itself immoral or wrong. Furthermore, being "unattractive" is really just a result of having some of your genes being bad. Designer babies would have most (if not all) of those genes corrected, thus introducing more humans that are physically comely and healthy into the gene pool. Over a few generations, we would saturate the gene pool with people who are very attractive, since their genes would be passed on to others, thus replacing their bad genes as well.

Thus, how could having designer babies possibly be immoral?

[Bahama Mama]

- This is actually a very good question. I also have a very good answer:

If a couple lost a young child to some tragic event or illness, cloning the DNA of the original child will give them back the baby they had before. The memories will obviously not be there in the clone, but it's the same thing as if they had conceived again. However, unlike conception, they can get back the same genotype they had before. Cloning the original child gives them the opportunity to avoid that part of the grieving process where they had to relinquish their emotional attachment to the child that looks and behaves in exactly the same way. You completely avoid those feelings of regret and sentiments of "what would he be like when he grew to be 16"? Now they can get that opportunity so long as the DNA of the original child was not completely destroyed. ;)




I don't agree that a cloned baby will allow for parents to bypass the grieving process, or even discard feelings of regret or sentiment entirely. It may in fact invoke strong feelings of guilt on the part of the parents. The emotional bond that is created between mother and child is not purely genetic, but very psychological in nature. A lot of women that suffer miscarriages or have their kids die in infancy or toddler hood, testify that the mother-child bond is unique with each child. An exact genetic replica will not likely recreate that unique psychological bond, especially if time permitted some maternal bonding after the child was born.

I still don't think bypassing grief is a valid enough reason to clone humans. Only if our emotions were a purely genetic element, but its not.

[silentburn]

- The intention behind designer babies is not to make "perfect" children.

The intention of creating designer babies is to iron out (physical faults, flaws and susceptability to disease) or (to create children with genes that will allow them to be above average in some or all areas. Ofcourse it is to create perfect babies, the only reason why they won't create 100% perfect babies is because its not possible.


- Twins are natural clones. Are you saying that you wouldn't like the idea of having a twin brother?

I wouldn't mind having a twin but a twin does not have the same DNA as his/her other twin.
- This is actually a very good question. I also have a very good answer:

If a couple lost a young child to some tragic event or illness, cloning the DNA of the original child will give them back the baby they had before. The memories will obviously not be there in the clone, but it's the same thing as if they had conceived again. However, unlike conception, they can get back the same genotype they had before. Cloning the original child gives them the opportunity to avoid that part of the grieving process where they had to relinquish their emotional attachment to the child that looks and behaves in exactly the same way. You completely avoid those feelings of regret and sentiments of "what would he be like when he grew to be 16"? Now they can get that opportunity so long as the DNA of the original child was not completely destroyed. ;)

Good scenario, but there is still a loss involved, it still will not be the same child.

- Well that's the point of this thread: So long as sentient human life is not being endangered, Can science go too far? Is there such a thing? What if humans figured out how to become Gods themselves, would that be going too far? For what reason?


No matter how far science goes it still will be unable to correct the fabric of life, its just not humanly possible.


- That kind of thinking is a product of science fiction horror movies. Did you see the article Ramesh posted? ;)

I was just joking in regard to the organ harvesting part of my statement.

[Bahama Mama]

:icon_arro Ramesh

- The intention behind designer babies is not to make "perfect" children. It's to make children that cater to the parents specific desires in their child - all of which would be genetically controlled. So technically, even if the parents only carry a latent gene for a specific trait, they can influence the probability of the occurrence in that gene such that when the child is born those specific features would be prominent.

Technically, a parent can effectively change anything from the child's eye colour, hair type and colour, skin tone, propensity for height, musculature, symmetry in the face and body and even the race of their child through genetic manipulation. That's the idea behind "designer" babies - influencing what the child can look like and what genes they will have when born. Now that you have a better understanding of what the term "Designer Baby" means, re-evaluate the original question and answer again. Is there anything wrong with this process?

It seems rather outlandish that parents would want to genetically modify their offspring, such that their child/children would possess traits that in some cases would make them look entirely different from their parents. Isn't that part of the pride of parenthood to produce kids that will bear some physical resemblance to their parents? Which parents truly would want a child that barely resembles them? :eusa_thin Why would two black parents want a child that looks Oriental?

I wouldn't say that their is something wrong with this process per say, but it seems to diminish the notion of self acceptance.

[Bahama Mama]

I wouldn't mind having a twin but a twin does not have the same DNA as his/her other twin.



Identical twins do in fact possess the exact same DNA makeup, fraternal twins don't.

[silentburn]

Oh yea, that's true. I still don't think cloning is right. Something about it doesn't click.

[Xenocrates]

I still don't think bypassing grief is a valid enough reason to clone humans. - You may not feel that way as you've never had a child before. ;) You will become a different person once you give birth to your first child.

Ofcourse it is to create perfect babies, the only reason why they won't create 100% perfect babies is because its not possible. - It is VERY possible, just not very probable. Improbability doesn't imply impossibility. It's all a matter of how much of the human gene structure we fully understand.

I wouldn't mind having a twin but a twin does not have the same DNA as his/her other twin. - What?! Identical twins DO have the same DNA. Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins#Identical_twins).

Good scenario, but there is still a loss involved, it still will not be the same child. - Loose a young child (esp if it's only a few months old) and it won't make a difference. That's your target market.

No matter how far science goes it still will be unable to correct the fabric of life, its just not humanly possible. - That's what they also said about craft escaping the earth's gravity. Thoroughly manipulating the human genome is only a matter of when, not how. We already know how. It's just that we have tonnes of data to process. The possible permutations of the human genome are enormous.

Oh yea, that's true. I still don't think cloning is right. Something about it doesn't click. - That's because you're letting your emotions do your thinking. :eusa_thin

[BlackCryptoKnight]

No BCK. Irrespective of the reason why people marry, the core driving factor is that which is dictated by nature. Nature is so designed that only the best genes are given first priority for procreation. This is why people are naturally more drawn to those which are beautiful as opposed to those which aren't. Beauty in a specie is not a purpose in and of itself. Beauty facilitates procreation. Without it, humans wouldn't be drawn enough to each other to create offspring.

As such, creating "designer" babies only increases the facilitation of this purpose and is thus not in or of itself immoral or wrong. Furthermore, being "unattractive" is really just a result of having some of your genes being bad. Designer babies would have most (if not all) of those genes corrected, thus introducing more humans that are physically comely and healthy into the gene pool. Over a few generations, we would saturate the gene pool with people who are very attractive, since their genes would be passed on to others, thus replacing their bad genes as well.

Thus, how could having designer babies possibly be immoral?

Even if it is in our nature to behave as you have described, people can, and do, conciously choose to marry or copulate with persons for reasons other than making pretty babies. Remember also, that beauty is a subjective perception, which is based largely upon socialization and environmental influence. Peoples attitudes and behaviour can impact on persons perception of their beauty. As such, people may find others beautiful not just because of their physical attributes, but because of their character. From a designer baby standpoint, that perception wouldn't do much for making the pretty babies of which you speak.

The designer baby concept is borne of a value system which is centered around selfishness. "I want a baby under the condition that it looks like this and like that so that I can feel gratified". This is opposed to what I believe is the more wholesome scenario in which "I don't care what the baby looks like, I'll love them with all my heart regardless." The difference in these mentalities will manifest in the upbringing and social conditioning of the child. It will impact their self-esteem and values.

Maybe "immoral" is a bit strong of a word for it, but I would say that the concept is flawed.


Loose a young child (esp if it's only a few months old) and it won't make a difference.

Breddrin, loosing a child, no matter how young, makes a big difference. When you have children, you will realise this to be true. You cannot just swap one out for the other and carry on like you've just replaced an FRU in a PC.

[Bahama Mama]

Breddrin, loosing a child, no matter how young, makes a big difference. When you have children, you will realise this to be true. You cannot just swap one out for the other and carry on like you've just replaced an FRU in a PC.

:eusa_clap Men unfortunately have a limited grasp on the grief produced by the loss of a child.

The only way to bypass grief and other emotions involved in the process of producing and raising a child, is if we were all robots. In that case cloning would be perfect.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

:eusa_clap Men unfortunately have a limited grasp on the grief produced by the loss of a child.
Not all men BM. Most fathers know what it would be like. If you've ever lost a family member, you'll know that losing someone, anyone, is not a trivial thing.

[ramesh]

:eusa_clap Men unfortunately have a limited grasp on the grief produced by the loss of a child. That's not quite true. Men display grief in different ways from women. Reader's Digest had an article about this a few months back. Men generally build up rage and grief inside them and this usually ends up with them becoming angry at seemingly little things and lashing out at people, usually their spouses.

[Bahama Mama]

Not all men BM. Most fathers know what it would be like. If you've ever lost a family member, you'll know that losing someone, anyone, is not a trivial thing.

I am not saying that men don't grieve at the loss of a child, but a woman who bears the task of carrying a child in her body for nine months, sharing the same life line, experiences a particularly sensitive and unique loss. Literally a part of their physical being has been lost, and only they experience the full extent of that loss. Chalk it up to hormones. Its like men trying to grasp the full extent of labour pains.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

I am not saying that men don't grieve at the loss of a child, but a woman who bears the task of carrying a child in her body for nine months, sharing the same life line, experiences a particularly sensitive and unique loss. Literally a part of their physical being has been lost, and only they experience the full extent of that loss. Chalk it up to hormones. Its like men trying to grasp the full extent of labour pains.

Sure there is a difference in the nature of the relationship and consequent grieving process, however, men feel it pretty bad to. The child is also a part of them. Then there is the issue of the need to fill the role of protector. When the person you are responsible to protect dies, it seriously hurts.

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

I am not saying that men don't grieve at the loss of a child, but a woman who bears the task of carrying a child in her body for nine months, sharing the same life line, experiences a particularly sensitive and unique loss. Literally a part of their physical being has been lost, and only they experience the full extent of that loss. Chalk it up to hormones. Its like men trying to grasp the full extent of labour pains.


BM

I would have to disagree with you on that, a man begins the bonding process with his child during the middle stages of pregnancy; especially if there a strong bond with the mother.

While I'll the agree that the level and strength of the emmotional bond developed will not be as strong as the mother's; whose body by now is being physical prepared to facilitate this bond, the father's bond with his unborn child is equally as strong and just as important, especially to the child; who by now has become sensitized and recognises the voices of his/her parents and anyone else that is constantly around them.

Izemi-Clem

[Xenocrates]

Even if it is in our nature to behave as you have described, people can, and do, conciously choose to marry or copulate with persons for reasons other than making pretty babies. - I never denied that reality. I merely alluded to the fact that people keep pretending that the most basic instinct of humans, the most primal laws of attraction, almost always takes first precedence before any other form of evaluation occurs between potential mates. The harsh reality is that most people care that their intended is physically attractive. I'll prove it:

Don't you ever wonder why you keep hearing a lot of women complaining that there are no good guys out there? What they're cleverly omitting from their complaint is that the guy has to be pulchritudinous - physically attractive. The reason why they don't mention that is because they don't want to appear to be shallow. Most women (especially the younger ones) tend to ignore the large number of great guys out there because they're ignoring the physically unattractive ones (which as you and I know, makes up the larger percentage of the "good guy" population).

Therefore, the propensity to which you you infer never takes first priority - ever. The ID always trumps Super-Ego in the first analysis - you can't deny that. Do the survey yourself if you don't subscribe to the satistics of human behaviour. Most people highly value physical attraction or at least use that as the first gauge for determining a future mate. Their not mentioning it is only a form of denial. I deliberately created that "Shopping List" thread to prove that point. ;)

Maybe "immoral" is a bit strong of a word for it, but I would say that the concept is flawed. - To say that the concept is flawed is fallacious. That would be the same as assuming that it is wrong for people to not want to improve themselves one way or another - which is similarly wrong. That would be like telling people not to eat right and exercise, because other people should just accept and love them the way they are. I can think of a million people in the world that'd say that such an idea is utterly unacceptable. Achieving the same effect through genetic manipulation is just as artificial as eating right and exercising - just a heck of a lot more efficient.

Breddrin, loosing a child, no matter how young, makes a big difference. When you have children, you will realise this to be true. You cannot just swap one out for the other and carry on like you've just replaced an FRU in a PC. - I think you've misread me. It doesn't make a difference because it's the same DNA. What you're afraid of is the possibility that there would be some cheapening of the emotional attachment should one clone their dead baby into a newer healthy one. It's the emotional attachment that is making this seem more difficult than it really is. Furthermore, some of you might have been socialized into thinking that it's wrong to tamper with what God has made (as was taught by men in Christendom since the time of Christ) - but there is no scriptural basis for this whatsoever. This teaching is 100% man made. If that's your issue, then let me tell you something fascinating:

People used to say the same thing just before:

The first medically practiced amputations (1600's)
The first kidney transplant (1954)
The first heart transplant (1967)
The first liver transplant (1967)
The first seriously invasive brain surgeries (1970)
...and now, genetic manipulation.

All of these profound advancements in medical science were greeted with the same much-ado-about-nothing, and "science is going too far". But I tell you; In 50 years, this very debate will be obsolete.

So far, I've not seen one genuinely convincing argument in defence of the idea that gene manipulation is a bad thing.

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

-
So far, I've not seen one genuinely convincing argument in defence of the idea that gene manipulation is a bad thing.

:icon_arro Xeno

Because objectively there isn't, the arguments are about the potential for it to be abused and the speculations as to how far man will go with this technology.

However I'm still undecided about the moral questions of stem cell research.

As for "Playing God" aren't we made in his own image?
Do we not have a mandate and a licence to control and manipulate the factors that influence our, health and our environment; securing our own future and livity?
His will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven?

Izemi-Clem

[Xenocrates]

That's what I've been saying. I can understand why someone would feel that way, but I object to the premise of using emotional rejection of the idea as a basis for logical or even moral rejection. That kind of rejection is not airtight and is nigh impossible to justify.

[Bahama Mama]

I see the logic in manipulating a gene responsible for a persons rate of metabolism. Obesity is one of the major contributing factors to early death in developed countries. That is substantial enough to warrant 'extreme' measures.
However manipulating a gene that controls eye color is less substantive in my view point. It is certainly not a threat to quality of life if one has brown eyes instead of blue. I understand that the breadth of manipulation is so vast and scientifically appealing, but is there a point when we can go too far? I guess if and when we do, it may be too late, because we may have essentially nuked ourselves.

[ramesh]

After a while we may just find ourselves talking to ourselves....

http://j-walkblog.com/old/images/4pamns.jpg

[Xenocrates]

Choosing your kid's eye colour through gene manipulation would be like a woman with brown eyes preferring to marry a man with the requisite colour. It's the same thing. With gene manipulation, you can marry whomever you choose and still influence which genes come out on top of others. This would cater to you guys' need for marrying just about anybody and completely eliminate those less than superficial reasons for selecting that person. Don't you see that? It actually works in your favour! ;)

[silentburn]

- It is VERY possible, just not very probable. Improbability doesn't imply impossibility. It's all a matter of how much of the human gene structure we fully understand.

Can science really make the perfect human? They have been trying that for yearssssssss. What is perfect?

- What?! Identical twins DO have the same DNA. Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins#Identical_twins).

Yea yea, Bahama Mama already set me straight on that point.

- Loose a young child (esp if it's only a few months old) and it won't make a difference. That's your target market.

I know women who have lost children, they all remember the experience and they even sometimes wonder how it would have turned out if the child had remained alive. Having another child with the exact same DNA will not stop them from wondering about what might have been. Is this your only reason for justifying the usefulness of cloning?

- That's what they also said about craft escaping the earth's gravity. Thoroughly manipulating the human genome is only a matter of when, not how. We already know how. It's just that we have tonnes of data to process. The possible permutations of the human genome are enormous.

Science alone cannot create perfect humans!!!! They may be able to create physically perfect humans but the mental aspects of humans will need some socialization, that's where it gets tricky. What exactly is perfect?

- That's because you're letting your emotions do your thinking. :eusa_thin

Cloning will not solve the problems of mankind. It will not solve the issue of death and it will not solve the issue of perfection. Plus we will be dead before any of these things happen so what is it to you? This is just for brain exercise, it really has no relevance to life in our generation. We will be long gone. ;) Emotions are sometimes necessary, even for men Xeno. :rolleyes: Both males and females have emotion, its just that females are wired to think with their emotions more.

[Xenocrates]

Can science really make the perfect human? They have been trying that for yearssssssss. - Not with genetic manipulation. Human Rights conventions in Geneva populated by people who think like you keep shooting it down. So we'll never be able to realise the true potential of that now, will we? ;)

What is perfect? - Anything that maximises the fulfillment of its intended purpose. Failing that, it's not perfect.

Having another child with the exact same DNA will not stop them from wondering about what might have been. - You don't know that. None of those mothers have ever had the opportunity to have their dead babies cloned before. That kinda makes this argument intrinsically void, doesn't it?

Is this your only reason for justifying the usefulness of cloning? - Ofcourse not:

Cloning via stem cells allows scientists to clone and grow a healthy organ with your own DNA that you might not be able to find a compatible donor for.


The issue of a human body rejecting a donated heart / liver / etc. would be completely eliminated. The cloned organ will have already had the exact same DNA (and thus blood type) of the person who needs it - since it would've come from their own DNA.


Many people on organ donor lists have to wait until someone dies so that they can get an opportunity to live - yet you people have a problem with splicing stem cells which are not even sentient. This double standard would be completely eliminated and no waiting lists would ever exist. People with bad hearts / liver / whatever could get the organs they need right away.


Nobody has to die (tragically or otherwise) for the organ to become available. You just CAN'T beat this!

I'll let you chew on those for a while and consider the backwardness of not taking advantage of this brilliant advancement in medical technology.

[You wanted MOAR?! Ok!]

[Xenocrates]

Science alone cannot create perfect humans!!!! They may be able to create physically perfect humans but the mental aspects of humans will need some socialization, that's where it gets tricky. What exactly is perfect? - Genetic manipulation speaks specifically to physiological perfection (and to a lesser extent, psychological perfection as every new born child is psychologically a blank slate). Therefore bringing that into a discussion about the possible physiological benefits of genetic manipulation is the equivalent of saying that a bicycle is faster than a skateboard, when debating on whether Hondas are faster than Toyotas. You're attacking the straw man, meine freund.

Cloning will not solve the problems of mankind. It will not solve the issue of death and it will not solve the issue of perfection. - I neither made any such claim nor alluded to any such thing. That's a construct wholly of your making. ;)

Plus we will be dead before any of these things happen so what is it to you? This is just for brain exercise, it really has no relevance to life in our generation. We will be long gone. ;) - We'll also be long dead before any of the measures we've put in place to stop fossil fuel consumption and the ban of other environmental hazards from the manufacturing process can be realised in our environment. Does that mean we should likewise not do something about it now? That sounds like an incredibly selfish argument to me. If we pass laws to allow genetic manipulation on humans, we'll be securing a brighter future for our grand and great grand children. But clearly you don't see it that way.

Emotions are sometimes necessary, even for men Xeno. :rolleyes: Both males and females have emotion, its just that females are wired to think with their emotions more. - I never said that men can't have emotions. I implied that you're allowing your emotions to cloud your thinking.

[silentburn]

- Genetic manipulation speaks specifically to physiological perfection (and to a lesser extent, psychological perfection as every new born child is psychologically a blank slate).

Ok so we are speaking specifically to physical perfection.

- I neither made any such claim nor alluded to any such thing. That's a construct wholly of your making. ;)

Ok, so your only reason for justifying cloning is because it will help the emotional loss a woman suffers when she looses her child. :confused:

- We'll also be long dead before any of the measures we've put in place to stop fossil fuel consumption and the ban of other environmental hazards from the manufacturing process can be realised in our environment. Does that mean we should likewise not do something about it now? That sounds like an incredibly selfish argument to me. If we pass laws to allow genetic manipulation on humans, we'll be securing a brighter future for our grand and great grand children. But clearly you don't see it that way.

We are all selfish in someway or another. what's your point? You said so yourself in some other thread. Its natural to be selfish, that's why we all want the hottest girl. The scenario you mentioned above is different. The steps being taken are in response to man screwing up the environment due to his inventions. The genetic manipulation is a whole new research that may or may not have detrimental consequences for healthy human life as we know it today. If they were thinking about the possible repercussions maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but they won't bump into problems until they have gone too far.

- I never said that men can't have emotions. I implied that you're allowing your emotions to cloud your thinking.
Too much reason and logics can cloud thinking too. Remember the French revolution.

[RachieBabie]

THRS ntn wrong wit playing God... just dnt profess tht you actually are

[silentburn]

- Not with genetic manipulation. Human Rights conventions in Geneva populated by people who think like you keep shooting it down. So we'll never be able to realise the true potential of that now, will we? ;)

Weak excuse. The reason why science has not been able to create a perfect human is because they have not figured out how to do it yet.

- You don't know that. None of those mothers have ever had the opportunity to have their dead babies cloned before. That kinda makes this argument intrinsically void, doesn't it?

You don't know that cloning a dead child will help the mother recover either. Having a second child naturally could also help the mother recover just as efficiently as a cloned child would. Actually it would be more efficient because less resources would be used.

- Ofcourse not:

Cloning via stem cells allows scientists to clone and grow a healthy organ with your own DNA that you might not be able to find a compatible donor for.


The issue of a human body rejecting a donated heart / liver / etc. would be completely eliminated. The cloned organ will have already had the exact same DNA (and thus blood type) of the person who needs it - since it would've come from their own DNA.


Many people on organ donor lists have to wait until someone dies so that they can get an opportunity to live - yet you people have a problem with splicing stem cells which are not even sentient. This double standard would be completely eliminated and no waiting lists would ever exist. People with bad hearts / liver / whatever could get the organs they need right away.


Nobody has to die (tragically or otherwise) for the organ to become available. You just CAN'T beat this!

I'll let you chew on those for a while and consider the backwardness of not taking advantage of this brilliant advancement in medical technology.


No No. If you go back to my first post in the thread you will see that I was actually looking forward to the possibilities of stem cell research. I was referring to the cloning that produces a conscious human being.

[Bahama Mama]

You don't know that cloning a dead child will help the mother recover either. Having a second child naturally could also help the mother recover just as efficiently as a cloned child would. Actually it would be more efficient because less resources would be used.



Putting aside the inherent value of cloning, most people will still probably opt to conceive again, for the likelihood is that doing it the old fashioned way will probably be a heck of alot cheaper. If and when cloning technology for reproductive purposes becomes mainstream, it will probably carry a hefty price tag. Heck in-vitro has been mainstream for about 25 years, and couples still can spend upwards of $20,000 (US) for treatments.

[Xenocrates]

Ok so we are speaking specifically to physical perfection. - Indeed. But as a side, there is a corelation between psychological and physiological perfection. Many forms of abnormal behaviour in humans are attributable to chemical imbalances in their brain. Genetic manipulation can correct these imbalances decrease the probability for destructive antisocial behaviour.

Ok, so your only reason for justifying cloning is because it will help the emotional loss a woman suffers when she looses her child. :confused: - You didn't like the four I gave you earlier? Well here are 5 MOAR: :icon_mrgr

Couples that can't conceive - either because the man's sperm cells are too inactive (most neither reach nor pierce the ovum), are too active (too many of them reach and destroy the ovum) or the woman is barren (no ovum at all), could have their baby cloned from their own DNA vis-a-vis a stem cell (i.e. using none of the cytoplasm from the momma). This gives these couples new hope in making themselves a beautiful little junior.


Couples that have trouble conceiving - either because the female has an abnormal váginal canal, has irregular ovulation periods or wants to have a specific ratio of male/female children, can all continue to enjoy the sex and splice themselves a cloned baby (a designer baby in the latter case) and have incredibly precise control over their family development. No more "let's try again" incidences, or running home from the doctor to copulate once they find out that the woman is ovulating, or "deep missionary" positions for the woman (which is uncomfortable for the woman if she isn't particularly flexible).


Black People - who have the sickle cell trait (or where at least one parent has the full blown anaemia) can now marry each other without fear of passing on their bad DNA to making a sick baby. I have a friend has the trait who married his girlfriend who also has the trait. When you people shoot down human cloning, you are effectively telling these two people that they can't marry for love! I'm sure he and his wife would rather spend the $1 million Jamaican cloning themselves a healthy baby than taking a sick baby to the hospital everytime it has an anaemic attack or when the weather gets cold - spending the same 1 million dollars anyway, and making themselves both miserable at the new hassle they've conceived.


People with degenerative genetic disorders - such as Lupus Erythematosus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus_erythematosus), Down Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome), Huntington's Disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntingtons_disease), Cystic Fibrosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis), Tay-Sachs Disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease) and the particularly vicious Spinal Muscular Atrophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_muscular_atrophy) can not only now have their own bad dna cloned for good ones, and injected into the areas in which they are most affected, but they can completely eradicate the bad genes with a cloned baby! All of these people are being denied an opportunity at life because a bunch of emotionally driven religious zealots who have too much power, can't think straight because of their own baseless "convictions". It infuriates me to no end. People are dying, science can help them, but the science is being outlawed for silly reasons. Stem cells are NOT sentient and are thus not constituent of human life! Make sure you click on all those links and learn of the suffering of these people which are being unnecessarily prolonged because of religious or emotional over zealousy.


Spotting DNA flaws early - If human cloning were legalised, when a couple conceives, extremely rare dna disorders could be spotted early in pregnancy and a healthy foetus could be cloned from the badly developing one so that only a healthy baby is born from the get go. People will never give birth to children with lupus or cystic fibrosis ever again. Period.

Try those on for size and report back to me at 0900 hours. ;)

[Did you say you wanted MOAR?]

[Xenocrates]

We are all selfish in someway or another. what's your point? You said so yourself in some other thread. Its natural to be selfish, that's why we all want the hottest girl. - Wanting the hottest girl doesn't prevent other people from having an equal opportunity at life because they were born sick. This comparison is the equivalent to comparing apples and river rocks. :icon_neut

The scenario you mentioned above is different. The steps being taken are in response to man screwing up the environment due to his inventions. The genetic manipulation is a whole new research that may or may not have detrimental consequences for healthy human life as we know it today. If they were thinking about the possible repercussions maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but they won't bump into problems until they have gone too far. - You say that as if humans never learn from their mistakes. If humans were to halt every form of development because we might make a mistake, we'd still be stuck in the stone age. Airplanes still crash, but it doesn't mean we can't fly. Cars still crash, but it doesn't mean we can't drive. Factories still pump toxic H2SO4 (sulphuric acid) into the atmosphere to create acid rain, but we still enjoy products like air conditioning units, polyester clothing, mag-alloy rims, cleaning agents and plastic cups. That doesn't mean that we should shut down all factories. That's why there's research my boy. Research & Development always makes sure that we're doing the right thing. The more we know, the better we can make it. ;)

Too much reason and logics can cloud thinking too. Remember the French revolution. - Actually, that was the result of too little reasoning, not too much. There can never be too much reasoning. That's how we become more intelligent. ;)

Weak excuse. The reason why science has not been able to create a perfect human is because they have not figured out how to do it yet. - WRONG! Scientists can't perform certain types of R&D into human cloning because it is ILLEGAL. It has been outlawed via the Geneva Convention, the United Nations and now (very recently - like two days ago) a bill to legalise this science has officially been vetoed by president George W. Bush. Read the official White House press release (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-5.html). Don't you follow the news? Abortion, Human Cloning and Stem Cell research have been hot topic issues for overzealous christians and scientists for a long, long time. Read more about the legality of cloning humans here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#The_current_law_on_human_cloning).

If we were given the opportunity to legally continue R&D into human cloning, we'd have been making perfect humans since the 1990's. But noooo... We have to deal with BS arguments like: "stem cells are human life, using stem cells to grow new life is the same as killing a human being, blah blah blah..." :eusa_hand We are wasting time arguing about the "morality" of playing God when no such moral implication exists, while we allow people with genetic disorders to continue their suffering. Isn't that actually immoral as opposed to splicing DNA into stem cells which are not sentient? Stem cells can't suffer! They have no feelings! They're just tiny organic machines.

[Because there's MOAR!]

[Xenocrates]

You don't know that cloning a dead child will help the mother recover either. - Well we'll never know now will we? Human cloning is still illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#The_current_law_on_human_cloning). Catch 22? I think it is. Touché :p

Having a second child naturally could also help the mother recover just as efficiently as a cloned child would. Actually it would be more efficient because less resources would be used. - Not necessarily! Cloned babies aren't grown in a vat y'know (too much sci-fi movies I tell ya). Cloned embryos are re-inserted into the mother's womb. The embryo grows into a foetus, gestates and comes to fruition just like a baby conceived through intercourse. The only difference is that the original baby's DNA genotype was "copied" instead of being re-created from scratch as a newly fertilized egg.

However, to be completely impartial, I have to give credit to your argument about conceiving a second time - but not for resource reasons. If the child was lost tragically, a second conception may help the parents move on. But if the child was lost through genetic imperfections, reconception is not an option. Cloning a live healthy (designer) baby solves that problem. The psychological benefits of being able to conceive a healthy child from unhealthy DNA far outweighs everything else - including the cost.

No No. If you go back to my first post in the thread you will see that I was actually looking forward to the possibilities of stem cell research. I was referring to the cloning that produces a conscious human being. - See my five pretty darn good reasons for live human cloning in the previous epistle.

[QED]

[silentburn]

Look, they have not even perfected the art of cloning animals, atleast allow them to perfect that before they start screwing with humans. I'm just worried about the possible consequences in the testing phase. Why should they test on human DNA?

Humans can only play God and if they go too far in their game I'm sure they will be stopped.

[Xenocrates]

Look, they have not even perfected the art of cloning animals, atleast allow them to perfect that before they start screwing with humans. - There's actually a company out of California that has started cloning dead pets for families. It's not cheap, but it's a start. They've been in business for a while now. Animal cloning has all but been perfected. Human cloning isn't any more difficult. I'll admit that the first clones they made didn't live very long. But they've perfected it so much these days that it's become something more of an art. Even the technology has become relatively ubiquitous.

I'm just worried about the possible consequences in the testing phase. Why should they test on human DNA? - Because they've perfected cloning on animals and because of the benefits to be derived from the science on humans. Two pretty darn good reasons.

Humans can only play God and if they go too far in their game I'm sure they will be stopped. - Who's going to stop us? God? :rotflm:

No but seriously SB, nothing is going to stop the progress of science. It's only a matter of time before all the people vetoing this cloning thing get old and retire - well, actually they're old already. So right now we're just waiting on them to retire. It will get passed. It's inevitable. I have forseen it. http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/xenocrates/Smilies/mwahaha.gif

[silentburn]

Ohhh, so you tek it for joke?? is alright, gwaan laugh man.

Tell your girlfriend/wife to donate some of her eggs for the research. :rofl:

[Xenocrates]

Do you realise that at least one of those eggs get washed out of a woman's uterus and destroyed everytime she sees her period? Maybe we should have a funeral service everytime a woman sees her period. Now that'd be ridiculous. Everytime someone has sex with a condom, they are destroying life. That's 300 million possible human lives that are being flushed down the toilet. Why don't we have a funeral for those too? It is just as retarded as the Catholic Church's position of saying that using condoms is a sin. It's dumb because hundreds of millions of cells are going to die ANYWAY... (God, how dumb can religious people get?!) Even when they don't use a condom, 299 million of those sperm cells will die. That's a little more than the entire population of the United States. If that were a sin, or was somehow immoral, we should be charged with genocide everytime we have sex. That's what makes any argument that doesn't support stem cell research absolutely ridiculous - So yes; I do think it's funny - and profoundly silly. :rolleyes:

The only reason why you people can take your position is because none of you guys are actually dying of any serious genetic disorders. :thumbsdown:

[silentburn]

Yes I know that dude. Bwoy just because I crack a little joke about egg harvesting the man get uptight, bwoy. :icon_mrgr

Oh and for the record, I never said I had an issue with the use of embryos for stem cell production, I specified that I was contemplating the necessity of human cloning to create conscious life.

[Xenocrates]

Not uptight at all. Just making sure my point is well driven home. Furthermore, you already have your reasons for live cloning right there masterchief. ;) I need not say more. This discussion has served it's purpose.