|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2004 12:05:17 GMT -5
Oh no, I don't mean that at all! It's very hard to define what makes a soul, but I think you have to have sentience and self-awareness to have one. That's what I meant about the working mind bit, I should have made that more clear. Aaaand, on second thought, a body doesn't seem like it would be needed to have a soul. I believe the Earth has a soul, after all, and it's not 'living' in the conventional sense. But it doesn't really have sentience either... I'm confused now. I now have no idea what qualifies as something having a soul. I'll go shut up and retreat to my corner now.  Maybe defining a soul is'nt the best idea. I think you just get a vibe from something it it has a soul. Like a feeling. The earth has a collective soul everything on it contributes to. Trees have sould too I guess... |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jul 1, 2004 21:30:12 GMT -5
Yeah, but we meddled with nature when we started, for example, driving cars and curing diseases. I wouldn't define a soul, but clones would just be the same as any other human - they'd just be genetically identical to one person. You can't really live longer just because you have a clone. Similarly, they'd be a person, so you can't start cutting out organs willy-nilly But you could just clone organs from yourself. It would be like getting an organ transplant, with less chance of rejection. And I don't believe the organ would have a soul. It does, in fact, remove the moral objections for transplants too - as the organ would not be taken from anyone. Not exactly. Driving cars is just technology and basically looking for loopholes in the laws of physics. 500 years ago, people just weren't aware that if you combine the facts that gas will burn, therefore has energy, and therefore could be used to transport people. Now they are and have developed cars. Curing diseases? Well, I wouldn't exactly call that messing with nature. It's like... helping out with your natural immune system, and in say the case of diabete's, your just basically substituting what was missing with something that you made yourself and put in it's place. But cloning is different. You're mixing the unnatural with the natural, which is bad. It's like, life includes death. You can't have one without the other (read Tuck Everlasting, it ought to show you something about living forever). See, cars aren't "natural" but what you're really doing is just combining a lot of laws of physics into a practical invention. But just because people can do something, doesn't mean it's moral. Life never meant for there to be exact copies of people. Just because at the time the world existed there weren't cars, doesn't mean there never was meant to be. I don't think they were meant to be, but they came around and there's not much problem with them, except the pullution part. Am I making any sense? It's like, nature's course uninteruppted wouldn't allow clones. Nature's course however includes the gaining of knowledge, and the power to invent things (aka technology). Where they cross is that with cloning, your mixing what is in nature's course (humans learning and progressing) with what isn't (cloning). Sure, nature never intended for there to be half the pollution out there now, but see, humans see driving as a guilty pleasure. If not for the pollution, and any small problems I can't come up with off the top of my head, there's not much else that's so bad. But cloning has a lot more against it, because people with nasty intentions are using the idea to further divert from nature's course (aka taking a detour from the road to death). Cloning just strays way to far off the road (nature's course). To simplify, what human's DO and what humans CREATE are different. One could argue that humans CREATED cars, but like I said, it's just a loophole in the laws of physics. One could argue, so's cloning. But I'm gonna use that analogy of "nature's course" one more time. Cloning isn't in the laws of physics, I place it under nature's course, which we've established messing with is bad. When I say "What humans DO and what humans CREATE", I mean what humans create LIVING. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Jul 1, 2004 22:03:42 GMT -5
Not exactly. Driving cars is just technology and basically looking for loopholes in the laws of physics. 500 years ago, people just weren't aware that if you combine the facts that gas will burn, therefore has energy, and therefore could be used to transport people. Now they are and have developed cars. Curing diseases? Well, I wouldn't exactly call that messing with nature. It's like... helping out with your natural immune system, and in say the case of diabete's, your just basically substituting what was missing with something that you made yourself and put in it's place. But cloning is different. You're mixing the unnatural with the natural, which is bad. It's like, life includes death. You can't have one without the other (read Tuck Everlasting, it ought to show you something about living forever). See, cars aren't "natural" but what you're really doing is just combining a lot of laws of physics into a practical invention. But just because people can do something, doesn't mean it's moral. Life never meant for there to be exact copies of people. Just because at the time the world existed there weren't cars, doesn't mean there never was meant to be. I don't think they were meant to be, but they came around and there's not much problem with them, except the pullution part. What happened to identical twins? They are genetically exact copies of each other. A clone might not even share all its "parent's" DNA--the clone's mitochondrial DNA would depend on the donor of the egg. I'm also not sure what you mean by the Tuck Everlasting references. Cloning doesn't mean immortality or even a longer life; it may or may not lead to advances in medical technology, but certainly not to immortality. Cars have problems, too--what about all the people hit by cars? What about all the people who drive a car while intoxicated? What about people who steal cars or sell cars dishonestly? What about the horse-drawn wagon makers who were displaced by Henry Ford's cheap mass-produced cars? Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "loophole" in the laws of physics. Cars obey the letter and the spirit of all physical laws. So does cloning, although the process of cloning is considerably more complicated than the process of converting fuel to motion. Unless you're going to go tell off chimpanzees and otters for using hammers, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that humans' tools are inherently wrong. I'd also like to point out that cloning is a technology, just like an automobile engine. You do have a valid point: cloning does have a mass of ethical issues to deal with. However, so did the idea that the planets revolve around the sun and not the earth, and so did in-vitro fertilization. Now that these issues have been mostly worked out, heliocentricism and in-vitro fertilization are generally considered to be good things. Cloning may or may not be considered a good thing fifty years from now, but we may miss out on something potentially useful if we avoid the issues altogether. Cars are no more natural than cloning is. Cars were created by humans; anyone arguing that they are human creations would be completely correct. Cloning was created by humans. I'm not sure what you mean by your claim that cloning "isn't in" the laws of physics; biological matter is governed by the laws of physics just as much as inanimate matter is. I'm also not sure where we've established messing with "nature's course" is bad; I really doubt fire-fearing cavemen had anything comparable to our current quality of life. Also, have you considered that humans created dogs? I don't think chihuahuas would exist if humans didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jul 1, 2004 23:15:08 GMT -5
What happened to identical twins? They are genetically exact copies of each other. A clone might not even share all its "parent's" DNA--the clone's mitochondrial DNA would depend on the donor of the egg. I'm also not sure what you mean by the Tuck Everlasting references. Cloning doesn't mean immortality or even a longer life; it may or may not lead to advances in medical technology, but certainly not to immortality. Cars have problems, too--what about all the people hit by cars? What about all the people who drive a car while intoxicated? What about people who steal cars or sell cars dishonestly? What about the horse-drawn wagon makers who were displaced by Henry Ford's cheap mass-produced cars? Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "loophole" in the laws of physics. Cars obey the letter and the spirit of all physical laws. So does cloning, although the process of cloning is considerably more complicated than the process of converting fuel to motion. Unless you're going to go tell off chimpanzees and otters for using hammers, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that humans' tools are inherently wrong. I'd also like to point out that cloning is a technology, just like an automobile engine. You do have a valid point: cloning does have a mass of ethical issues to deal with. However, so did the idea that the planets revolve around the sun and not the earth, and so did in-vitro fertilization. Now that these issues have been mostly worked out, heliocentricism and in-vitro fertilization are generally considered to be good things. Cloning may or may not be considered a good thing fifty years from now, but we may miss out on something potentially useful if we avoid the issues altogether. Cars are no more natural than cloning is. Cars were created by humans; anyone arguing that they are human creations would be completely correct. Cloning was created by humans. I'm not sure what you mean by your claim that cloning "isn't in" the laws of physics; biological matter is governed by the laws of physics just as much as inanimate matter is. I'm also not sure where we've established messing with "nature's course" is bad; I really doubt fire-fearing cavemen had anything comparable to our current quality of life. Also, have you considered that humans created dogs? I don't think chihuahuas would exist if humans didn't. Wrong. They look more or less the same, but 1, some don't (trust me, there are some twins in my class, I can tell them apart from face, not necessarily hairstyle or something), 2, Fingerprints. They're not the same. On the Tuck Everlasting references, I mean people would love to live forever, or at least extend their life span, hoping that they wont die just yet. Tuck Everlasting says that you can't have life without death so don't try to "live forever". Cars are more natural than clones. They're made of completely natural substances found in the earth, sometimes combined. Cloning messes with life, cars mess with technology. I'll get to the rest, but I've got to go... fireworks call. Whatever... |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Jul 2, 2004 0:03:59 GMT -5
Wrong. They look more or less the same, but 1, some don't (trust me, there are some twins in my class, I can tell them apart from face, not necessarily hairstyle or something), 2, Fingerprints. They're not the same. Identical twins share their DNA and in many cases the environment in which they grew up. A clone shares only the original's DNA--not the environmental influences. I realize identical twins are not truly identical. A clone and her DNA donor would not be identical either--they would actually be much more different than identical twins would be. I still don't understand the relevance to the current discussion. Where did immortality come into play? Cloning a full creature has nothing to do with immortality; cloning individual organs would extend life, but no more than an organ transplant from another human except the lower chance of rejection. I have to disagree with you on that. A clone is made only from the combination of slightly altered biological substances: namely, an egg cell missing its nucleus and a nucleus from another cell. When combined, these compose something that occurs in nature--a fertilized egg, which develops normally into a full organism after implantation in a surrogate mother's womb. By your argument, in-vitro fertilization is wrong as well. After all, it "messes with life," creating life that would not have existed without interference, and is essentially the same process as cloning after the fertilized egg is produced. Still, you haven't explained why "natural" is better. Why is recently-developed technology inherently evil? I will be awaiting the rest of your reply  |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Jul 2, 2004 7:08:37 GMT -5
Firstly, there's no way cloning could guarantee you live forever - it wouldn't be you. It would be another human, who happens to be genetically identical to you. And they wouldn't live forever either - they'd die like anyone else. It would be like having an identical twin - that's all.
And cloning is technology. It's no different from driving a car. You can't say cars are in nature's path and cloning isn't. Cloning is made from natural materials - someone's DNA - with a hand from technology. As are cars. Sure, it does have a lot of ethical implications, as many other sciences have had too.
Cars aren't "in" the laws of physics. They just obey them, like a clone would (eg gravity etc.) Clones are a science too - science has allowed us to create clones, much as we created cars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 2, 2004 9:59:07 GMT -5
You do have a valid point: cloning does have a mass of ethical issues to deal with. However, so did the idea that the planets revolve around the sun and not the earth, and so did in-vitro fertilization. Now that these issues have been mostly worked out, heliocentricism and in-vitro fertilization are generally considered to be good things. Cloning may or may not be considered a good thing fifty years from now, but we may miss out on something potentially useful if we avoid the issues altogether. Right there. That's it. Cloning is really nothing more than creating a twin! Really! Actually, the two are almost one in the same! The only difference is that the clone would be much much younger and have a different mother, instead of being the exact same age/having the same mother. I truely don't see the concept of cloning catching on. I mean, if you could create an entirely different person, why would you want a clone of yourself? There's really no reason that I can see that people would want - there's no gain in any real aspect. However, it's the pursuit that really matters to me. Think of how many guilty men sent to prison - and how many innocent ones set free - by genetics. that came out of the pursuit to crack the human genome and, ultimately, clone a human. Most believe that the cures for such terrible debilitating diseases as alzhiemers (sp?), Parkinsons, diabetes, and maybe even some or all cancers, will come out of genetics - the search to clone people. I don't care whether or not we clone people. It doesn't really matter to me. I doubt I'll ever utilize the technology anyways. Its the possibilty of curing these diseases that sounds great to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jul 2, 2004 10:36:41 GMT -5
Mweh. I personally don't like the concept of cloning. (*cough*prejudicedbytoomuchStarWars*cough*) I mean... like Buddy said, why create a twin of yourself when you could create an entirely new person?
What about a clone of a murderer? A clone of a rapist? Would they be just as bad as the original? Maybe not, but it would sure complicate matters if the police were searching for one and caught the other, right? (throwing out mad theories here)
|
|
|
|
Post by teghan62 on Jul 2, 2004 10:40:23 GMT -5
What about a clone of a murderer? A clone of a rapist? Would they be just as bad as the original? I don't think so. The clone has the same DNA of the murderer or rapist, but it's not like a murderer or a rapist past down their murdering or raping genes. If a rapist had a kid, the kid wouldn't become a rapist too, would they, just because one of their parents was one? Being a rapist or murderer isn't heredity, it's something picked up in their environment while growing up. The clone doesn't have the exact same environment as the murderer or rapist and therefore might not become one. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jul 2, 2004 11:38:45 GMT -5
I don't think so. The clone has the same DNA of the murderer or rapist, but it's not like a murderer or a rapist past down their murdering or raping genes. If a rapist had a kid, the kid wouldn't become a rapist too, would they, just because one of their parents was one? Being a rapist or murderer isn't heredity, it's something picked up in their environment while growing up. The clone doesn't have the exact same environment as the murderer or rapist and therefore might not become one. Concede point. That was why I said I was throwing out mad theories. |
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Jul 2, 2004 14:18:25 GMT -5
There are certain species of animals - a certain kind of lizard is one I know about - in which every member is a female. Their reproduction yields clones through asexual reproduction. Every member of the species has the same DNA. But since there is no variation in the genes - and, if you go the evolution route, no chance of furthering the species - these lizards are at a disadvantage.
There's a reason why most species reproduce sexually, including humans - it strengthens the offspring because their genes are mixed, so they get the strengths of each parent. It makes their immune systems more effective and, again if you go the evolution route, there is gene variation that can be passed down to strengthen the species.
So why would cloning ever really come in handy that much? It can be used to replenish an endangered species, but the species would still be weaker than before (for a while, anyway). Maybe cloning hearts or whatever could be useful, but it will be a long time before that's possible.
I've also briefly skimmed an article about technology that may be used to let parents decide what their child will look like - what color eyes, hair, etc. I believe that's wrong. Again, it's tampering with evolution, if that's what you believe in, so those random variations that happen from generation to generation that could help us might not even happen (I only know this stuff because we had to watch a bunch of videos on evolution and such in the eighth grade).
Anyway, a clone, I think, would act just like a normal person, would have a soul, etc. And if the kind of thing that happened in that story happened in real life, I would be very frightened; that is just wrong, to create life just to sustain it in another person.
I'm also a little wary of the term "playing God." Cloning isn't really playing God, really; it's creating life, just like people do every day with normal reproduction. After all, God was the one who made the world so that it's possible for cloning to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Jul 4, 2004 10:11:38 GMT -5
I truely don't see the concept of cloning catching on. I mean, if you could create an entirely different person, why would you want a clone of yourself? There's really no reason that I can see that people would want - there's no gain in any real aspect. I'd totally agree. I don't see why people would want clones of themselves. Cloning is a by product of genetic science. The screening process for embryos is contraversial though. After all, you can have IVF, then screen them for potential terrible diseases - great, right? But soon, you might be able to screen for the prettiest, or most confident, or most intelligent... |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Jul 5, 2004 1:53:29 GMT -5
Something like that would never happen. Ever. It would never be allowed. It would never even come close. Ever. Maybe, but then again... You see, one of the reasons that such a barbaric procedure was allowed in House of the Scorpion was that a lot of influential people thought like that. If enough people believe that clones don't have souls, why WOULDN'T they be allowed to be killed for their organs? Other than that, I agree with everything Buddy and the people on his side of the debate say. It's just in-vitro fertilization meets identical twins. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jul 5, 2004 23:53:38 GMT -5
What happened to identical twins? They are genetically exact copies of each other. A clone might not even share all its "parent's" DNA--the clone's mitochondrial DNA would depend on the donor of the egg. I'm also not sure what you mean by the Tuck Everlasting references. Cloning doesn't mean immortality or even a longer life; it may or may not lead to advances in medical technology, but certainly not to immortality. Cars have problems, too--what about all the people hit by cars? What about all the people who drive a car while intoxicated? What about people who steal cars or sell cars dishonestly? What about the horse-drawn wagon makers who were displaced by Henry Ford's cheap mass-produced cars? Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "loophole" in the laws of physics. Cars obey the letter and the spirit of all physical laws. So does cloning, although the process of cloning is considerably more complicated than the process of converting fuel to motion. Unless you're going to go tell off chimpanzees and otters for using hammers, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that humans' tools are inherently wrong. I'd also like to point out that cloning is a technology, just like an automobile engine. You do have a valid point: cloning does have a mass of ethical issues to deal with. However, so did the idea that the planets revolve around the sun and not the earth, and so did in-vitro fertilization. Now that these issues have been mostly worked out, heliocentricism and in-vitro fertilization are generally considered to be good things. Cloning may or may not be considered a good thing fifty years from now, but we may miss out on something potentially useful if we avoid the issues altogether. Cars are no more natural than cloning is. Cars were created by humans; anyone arguing that they are human creations would be completely correct. Cloning was created by humans. I'm not sure what you mean by your claim that cloning "isn't in" the laws of physics; biological matter is governed by the laws of physics just as much as inanimate matter is. I'm also not sure where we've established messing with "nature's course" is bad; I really doubt fire-fearing cavemen had anything comparable to our current quality of life. Also, have you considered that humans created dogs? I don't think chihuahuas would exist if humans didn't. OK, I'm back. Call it the longest fireworks in the entire world... yeah... hehe... When I say "a loophole in the law of physics" I mean humans are doing something they didn't think before possible. Sure, you could say clones are the same thing, but they're not. You're dealing with LIFE here. When I also say that humans are creating life, I mean new life... how can I put this politically correct... without the natural mating system. That's what's unnatural. Humans aren't, weren't, and never will be meant to exist like clones. Back to the tuck everlasting thing, I mean, ultimately, that's what humans are talking about trying to do. Extend their lifespan, and, I can imagine many if they had a choice would choose to life forever. (with youth... but anyway) I'll admit that I don't have a firm grasp on how cloning is done, but I know it's not with the natural mother and father. I know that the laws of physics apply to both, but the problem comes with the fact that with clones, you have both the laws of physics, and then the laws of nature (or life, either way, they're not official). I mean, humans were never meant to be created like that. Never! It's not natural! That's a law of nature! Same as life including death! As well as the balance. AKA circle of life. You kno the old lion king speech. When animals die, they go back to their nutrients, as well, rot, or compost basically, and go back to enrich the soil. Other animals will eat the grass that grows there, the same animals that the lions ate before. They're ALL LAWS OF LIFE/NATURE! But cars are simply applying several things we know for a practical invention! Sure, it has it's bad sides, but what doesn't? OK, so you're using the "we could potentially advance our lives if we go through with it". Personally, I find that kind of like a last plea. Anyway, oh yes, we could, but how many mistakes might we make? I'm against ALL genetic modifications (yes, cloning counts, even though it's not a modification). Roses were never meant to not have thorns! Chickens were never meant to live featherless! And pigs genes should never have been crossed with tomatoes! (That one might not have actually happened, I don't recall, as people are just talking about it all the time) These little things I all put under natures law. They weren't meant to be, but humans made it so anyway. Genetic mutations... or "modifications" as some call them, are completely uncalled for. They have major domino effects. (you know, you do something, and then as a result something else happens) See where I'm coming from? Nature never intended it to be! (And again, when I say nature, I mean life, when I say physics I mean inanimate) What if in the process of coming up with some miracle we do something terrible! There are major consequences when you mess with nature. Picture this. Remember those featherless chickens? That causes whoever used to be paid to pluck them to lose their jobs. What might they end up doing for a quick buck? Endless possibilities. Sure, it might be just 100 more people homeless cause they can't pay bills. But 100 people homeless can do a lot of damage. So think about what could happen if we clone someone. NOBODY KNOWS. We might make a terrible mistake in their genetics and they might grow up freaks! Humans are by no means skilled enough to prevent some kind of mistake from going out of control. The only thing of any importance that anyone remembers of being cloned successfully is Dolly the Sheep! Do you think that gives us any closure to be creating people in ways we were never meant to? All I know is messing with life is the last thing we should ever mess with. (I'm against probing aliens too if they ever land) |
|
|
|
Post by kittykid101 on Aug 3, 2004 8:18:02 GMT -5
When someone dies, we DO cut out the organs to give someone in need, like a heart. If someone needs a liver, soemone gives a piece of their liver to them, that's basically what the whole "living longer" thing is to my undersadning. When your create clones of yourself (only a theroy of mine) you'll have the same blood type, same organs sao they will be compatable with the original. I think we shouldn't meddle with cloning. I'm not a scientist or a doctor or anything bnut that's just my opinon.
|
|
