Human cloning.

[Kuchen Fairy]

village midget

and if that's truly the case then what makes anyone think that cloning is the answer?

Cloning would be more similar to adult stem cells than embryonic, though still unrelated. Embryonic stem cells are taken from an embryo, obviously, whereas adult stem cells are taken from the person, thus originate from that individual, as would a clone.
Are you asking why people think cloning is the answer when there are alternatives? Because people get drunk off science and more so want to see it happen than actually use it.

village midget

which is what i meant when i said about ethical sameness between stem cell and clone...(although i am in the pro choice camp and don't view embryos as little people), if a clone's human rights are debatable that puts it in the same basket as embryos...and doesn't that swing the whole thing into a similar dilemma as abortion?

No, because clones are persons while embryos are not. The abortion debate is not whether or not an embryo is human, because almost everyone agrees that an embryo is, in fact, human (though not to be confused with a human being). The debate is whether or not a woman must carry what many consider a parasite to term. Ever heard of the Violinist? It's a shitty-a** argument, but whatever.
Cloning is not the same as abortion ethics-wise. Cloning would be on par with a combination of slavery/human trafficking and a medically ethical debate, mostly concerning the whole "do no harm" bit. Human rights and the like. I can't imagine it would be easy to prove that a clone, an exact replica of a human being, is not in and of his/herself a human being as well, because then that would render the original a lesser human as well, would it not?

God... how the ******** do I remove words from my Firefox dictionary? I accidentally added "woudl" and since it's a common misspelling for me, I sometimes don't notice it because there's no damn red line to point it out.  

[Zambimaru]

I believe in population control. So I think putting more people on this planet is a bad idea.  

[Archaic Thought]

Zambimaru

I believe in population control. So I think putting more people on this planet is a bad idea.

Unless, of course, this Person is Theodore Roosevelt. That's the kind of politician we need, these days.  

[village midget]

Silver Screen

village midget

and if that's truly the case then what makes anyone think that cloning is the answer?

Cloning would be more similar to adult stem cells than embryonic, though still unrelated. Embryonic stem cells are taken from an embryo, obviously, whereas adult stem cells are taken from the person, thus originate from that individual, as would a clone.
Are you asking why people think cloning is the answer when there are alternatives? Because people get drunk off science and more so want to see it happen than actually use it.

qft:

silver screen

midget

which is what i meant when i said about ethical sameness between stem cell and clone...(although i am in the pro choice camp and don't view embryos as little people), if a clone's human rights are debatable that puts it in the same basket as embryos...and doesn't that swing the whole thing into a similar dilemma as abortion?

No, because clones are persons while embryos are not. The abortion debate is not whether or not an embryo is human, because almost everyone agrees that an embryo is, in fact, human (though not to be confused with a human being). The debate is whether or not a woman must carry what many consider a parasite to term. Ever heard of the Violinist? It's a shitty-a** argument, but whatever.

no, will look it up.. there are those who argue that an embryo is a being and has a right to life...i think they are twits but there you go...just saying...

silver screen

Cloning is not the same as abortion ethics-wise. Cloning would be on par with a combination of slavery/human trafficking and a medically ethical debate, mostly concerning the whole "do no harm" bit. Human rights and the like. I can't imagine it would be easy to prove that a clone, an exact replica of a human being, is not in and of his/herself a human being as well, because then that would render the original a lesser human as well, would it not?

god i never thought of that...but wait there is always more value in the original? and if we are talking cloning a nation of people to harvest biological goodies from then surely they will be on par with farming livestock? i return to one of my previous points about who are a clone's parents, and whether they are property or not since a pharmaceutcal corporation or government body will undoubtedly own some patent which is intrinsic to the clone's creation...the clone will surely been seen as property before being seen as human (which relates i guess to slavery, but more in my mind to genetically engineered crops and livestock)

silver screen

God... how the ******** do I remove words from my Firefox dictionary? I accidentally added "woudl" and since it's a common misspelling for me, I sometimes don't notice it because there's no damn red line to point it out.

no idea razz  

[Fresnel]

mistercombine

Zambimaru

I believe in population control. So I think putting more people on this planet is a bad idea.

Unless, of course, this Person is Theodore Roosevelt. That's the kind of politician we need, these days.

The man who oppressed the Filipino and laid down the groundwork for modern gun control?

I ******** swear, once you do research there's not a single decent politician in the history of the world.  

[Misses Brinks]

Silver Screen

I'm not talking about in-vitro fertilisation in general (or at all, really). I'm talking about genetically constructing/cloning a human being for the sole purpose of using them in the name of science - harvesting their organs, testing medicines on them, using them for other means of research, things like that.

I find it silly to have to make a whole knew human just to harvest their organs. I remember watching Oprah and how a man managed to regrow his finger, and a scientist who made part of an artery. I'll be honest and say, it's human.

Quote:

I can imagine support for such a practice is relatively slim, but I want to hear what you guys have to say. Do you think this sort of utilitarianism is ethical? Do you think we should invest in such research? Why or why not?

We should, yes. But if we can create life, we should legally be able to destroy it aswell. Plus, it'll have harmfull effects on our population.

Quote:

My friend writes stories, and one of her most recent concepts was a civilisation of artificially created people who were used to bear the burden of hard labour so that the naturally born people, unknown to them, could live lives of leisure. It was so ******** depressing I felt sick to my stomach.

Ouch... but it sounds like a possibility for real clones. Then when they come close to death, just snag their organs. Kind of sounds like the ex-spheres in one of the games I played.

Now if these "clones" weren't put as humans and allowed to develop, then by all means let's make them.  

[Kuchen Fairy]

Misses Brinks

We should, yes. But if we can create life, we should legally be able to destroy it aswell. Plus, it'll have harmfull effects on our population.

Why should we? Why should we be allowed to create a human being, take its organs, and kill it?

Quote:

Ouch... but it sounds like a possibility for real clones. Then when they come close to death, just snag their organs. Kind of sounds like the ex-spheres in one of the games I played.

Now if these "clones" weren't put as humans and allowed to develop, then by all means let's make them.

What would make them less human? How would we go about justifying such a practice?  

[Fresnel]

Silver Screen

Misses Brinks

We should, yes. But if we can create life, we should legally be able to destroy it aswell. Plus, it'll have harmfull effects on our population.

Why should we? Why should we be allowed to create a human being, take its organs, and kill it?

Quote:

Ouch... but it sounds like a possibility for real clones. Then when they come close to death, just snag their organs. Kind of sounds like the ex-spheres in one of the games I played.

Now if these "clones" weren't put as humans and allowed to develop, then by all means let's make them.

What would make them less human? How would we go about justifying such a practice?

What if you could grow a clone with only certain organs in it, or just grow one cloned organ? You might even grow essentially a body with no brain in it. Need an eye? You've got spares. Skin graft? Kidney? Liver? Heart? Veins? Plenty of spares. It's literally got no brain in its skull, so it hardly classifies as human. It's not sentient, it's not even alive.  

[Yoshpet]

black_wing_angel

Yoshpet

Taking advantage of clones for reaping organs or slavery is about as ethical as doing it to their naturally born counterparts.

They are still humans and they deserve the same civil rights that everyone is ensured.

Hey, if marriage can be defined as "between man and woman" than humanity can be defined as "having been born from incubation in a woman's uterus.

Ergo, they would NOT be humans. Just humaniod cattle.

I'm not sure what the sexist definition of marriage has to do with the personhood of biological clones...

But I don't see how a perfectly functioning clone of a person is less human than the one that was born naturally.

To discriminate by something as uncontrollable as the circumstances of our birth is unfair.  

[magmayoshi]

Yoshpet

To discriminate by something as uncontrollable as the circumstances of our birth is unfair.

Tell that to deer, fish, cattle, etc. They also have pulses, free will, the ability to feel pain and organs to pillage. Beings which will likely continue to have less rights than clones in the end, even if we get the technology to create human hybrids. Just because of being born not human they barely get s**t.  

[black_wing_angel]

Yoshpet

black_wing_angel

Yoshpet

Taking advantage of clones for reaping organs or slavery is about as ethical as doing it to their naturally born counterparts.

They are still humans and they deserve the same civil rights that everyone is ensured.

Hey, if marriage can be defined as "between man and woman" than humanity can be defined as "having been born from incubation in a woman's uterus.

Ergo, they would NOT be humans. Just humaniod cattle.

I'm not sure what the sexist definition of marriage has to do with the personhood of biological clones...

But I don't see how a perfectly functioning clone of a person is less human than the one that was born naturally.

To discriminate by something as uncontrollable as the circumstances of our birth is unfair.

My point was that, if they can "specify" a "rule" in marriage that limits who qualifies, then they can do the same with the concept of humanity, to discriminate against clones.  

[village midget]

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Misses Brinks

We should, yes. But if we can create life, we should legally be able to destroy it aswell. Plus, it'll have harmfull effects on our population.

Why should we? Why should we be allowed to create a human being, take its organs, and kill it?

Quote:

Ouch... but it sounds like a possibility for real clones. Then when they come close to death, just snag their organs. Kind of sounds like the ex-spheres in one of the games I played.

Now if these "clones" weren't put as humans and allowed to develop, then by all means let's make them.

What would make them less human? How would we go about justifying such a practice?

What if you could grow a clone with only certain organs in it, or just grow one cloned organ? You might even grow essentially a body with no brain in it. Need an eye? You've got spares. Skin graft? Kidney? Liver? Heart? Veins? Plenty of spares. It's literally got no brain in its skull, so it hardly classifies as human. It's not sentient, it's not even alive.

exactly, and i think they are already trying it out...that photo up above is of a human ear which was grown on the back of a mouse...ewwwww  

[black_wing_angel]

village midget

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Misses Brinks

We should, yes. But if we can create life, we should legally be able to destroy it aswell. Plus, it'll have harmfull effects on our population.

Why should we? Why should we be allowed to create a human being, take its organs, and kill it?

Quote:

Ouch... but it sounds like a possibility for real clones. Then when they come close to death, just snag their organs. Kind of sounds like the ex-spheres in one of the games I played.

Now if these "clones" weren't put as humans and allowed to develop, then by all means let's make them.

What would make them less human? How would we go about justifying such a practice?

What if you could grow a clone with only certain organs in it, or just grow one cloned organ? You might even grow essentially a body with no brain in it. Need an eye? You've got spares. Skin graft? Kidney? Liver? Heart? Veins? Plenty of spares. It's literally got no brain in its skull, so it hardly classifies as human. It's not sentient, it's not even alive.

exactly, and i think they are already trying it out...that photo up above is of a human ear which was grown on the back of a mouse...ewwwww

A mouse with an ear growing on it.

Why am I suddenly reminded of South Park....?  

[Kuchen Fairy]

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Misses Brinks

We should, yes. But if we can create life, we should legally be able to destroy it aswell. Plus, it'll have harmfull effects on our population.

Why should we? Why should we be allowed to create a human being, take its organs, and kill it?

Quote:

Ouch... but it sounds like a possibility for real clones. Then when they come close to death, just snag their organs. Kind of sounds like the ex-spheres in one of the games I played.

Now if these "clones" weren't put as humans and allowed to develop, then by all means let's make them.

What would make them less human? How would we go about justifying such a practice?

What if you could grow a clone with only certain organs in it, or just grow one cloned organ? You might even grow essentially a body with no brain in it. Need an eye? You've got spares. Skin graft? Kidney? Liver? Heart? Veins? Plenty of spares. It's literally got no brain in its skull, so it hardly classifies as human. It's not sentient, it's not even alive.

If it looked like a sack of organs then it wouldn't be a human. It'd be just as human as a developing organ in a lab. It'd be human, but not a human.
As for it being alive, I'd have to say yes, it would be. To maintain the lives of the organs, the host blob would have to have all the essentials to live.  

[Fresnel]

Silver Screen

Fresnel

Silver Screen

Misses Brinks

We should, yes. But if we can create life, we should legally be able to destroy it aswell. Plus, it'll have harmfull effects on our population.

Why should we? Why should we be allowed to create a human being, take its organs, and kill it?

Quote:

Ouch... but it sounds like a possibility for real clones. Then when they come close to death, just snag their organs. Kind of sounds like the ex-spheres in one of the games I played.

Now if these "clones" weren't put as humans and allowed to develop, then by all means let's make them.

What would make them less human? How would we go about justifying such a practice?

What if you could grow a clone with only certain organs in it, or just grow one cloned organ? You might even grow essentially a body with no brain in it. Need an eye? You've got spares. Skin graft? Kidney? Liver? Heart? Veins? Plenty of spares. It's literally got no brain in its skull, so it hardly classifies as human. It's not sentient, it's not even alive.

If it looked like a sack of organs then it wouldn't be a human. It'd be just as human as a developing organ in a lab. It'd be human, but not a human.
As for it being alive, I'd have to say yes, it would be. To maintain the lives of the organs, the host blob would have to have all the essentials to live.

But no more alive than the millions of bacteria you kill when you wash your hands.