Yes, good option, accepting others but keeping our thought about the issue and respecting others of course

The last thing we need is MORE people. Also, why clone people when you can multiply the fun way? I say do the nasty any day.

Haha, yeah. I hope you know better, then what you just posted.

We clone because we always want progress in science, and cloning can help us replacing our vital organs when they're old. That's only one of the reasons.. so please, stay on topic.

I am strictly against cloning. The world is already overpopulated enough and making "replacement-organs" for dying people is sure as hell not going to limit the human growth. Another and more obvious way that speaks against it is the fact that I dont want no "replacement" for someone dead by cloning or such crap another thing is the fact that (kinda futureistic hookey pookey but...) it wont be a problem to get recruits for different countries armys anymore, and when many countries have biiig armies, I really doubt the world would like to be called "safe" anymore.

Even though cloning might intresst and actually may have several good impacts on society in future, I still dont like it at all, please let the natural selection work instead a now and then "Humancontrolled Natural Selection"

The only advancement cloning provides is the advancing doom of our society. If we find a successful way to clone humans there will just be more sick people that survived from an organ transplant that will procreate and have sick children. We'll all be a bunch of wusses with weak immune systems, tethered to IVs. Well I doubt it would be that bad but you get my point. Plus, the world is already overpopulated. Cloning is a step in the wrong direction, and even though it appeals to those who fear death, in the long term it will destroy us all. the human race has survived and become great through the process of death. A group of people with an iq of 70 or with bad eyesight would fall off cliffs or eat a bad batch of berries and the stronger and smarter would survive. This doesn't happen anymore, sadly due to a society that must agree that everyone is of equal value, and thus the life of ALL people should be supported, strong or weak. But it seems that the strong are now the last of a dying breed....

As a result of cloning evolution could be disturbed.

@CrematorY: Dear that was a very good point what you said I didn't thought of that , about the soul and stuff , and yes you are right , ...so this is even worst therefore a clone is nothing but a living corpse because God gives us soul , so the clone it just something put together , uhmm but how weird dear I was thought that maybe the soul is connected to the mind and a person without soul , maybe is a person without mind uhmm how weird , well no wonder , the so many animals they have tried to clone die ..because they don't have a soul either uhmm well dear interesting , thanks for the post .

@Nervel: Dear about your question is very interesting and is very simple as this , we fear what we don't know , therefore they fear death ..I think that's the reason and I'm not sure if a clone could live forever , but interesting fact , scientist just found the age gland meaning that if they take it out from someone they would never get old , how weird is that I don't agree I think life is a process we all need .thanks dear ...

@Immortal Plague,KryptoN: Yeah I was reading and well a clone is the same person but in genes nothing else , in mind or soul of course not , no one is like another person , we are individuals and we should respect that is the law of life , nothing can be the same ...but well guys I respect your opinion and like Krypton said if you are against it you are against and yes guys I'm against it and I don't want to look at the posititves sides simply because I believe in spirituality , and of course I respect you and is good you do this , but I don't know cloning doesn't sound good to me at all ...

@LethargyMan: I agree with you I really can't see any discoveries on this ...

@The alchemist : I agree with you my dear , I think that death has to comeone day , and when it comes we shouldn't avoid it ..good point ....

@Erosive Offals: Lol uhmm I'm glad you see it that way .....yes I'm against too ...

@ Basso: Very good point my dear , and you know what I think that even if they made cloning possible and acceptable I think that nature will find a way to CLEAN '' this overpopulation so ...forget it ..cloning is not the option ..

@deathmor:Very true dear , very true , let nature do it's thing , much better like that .....

Thanks guys and well I respect every opinion you are free here to talk anything you want ....

Let mother-earth do the work, if your organs don't work, you'll just die, easy as that.

Against cloning definetly. I hate it when humans are trying to play God and stuff.

Ohh well the thread is getting kind of boring , if you guys want to discuss deeer go ahead ok ....

@ BlackSneaky: Indeed , mother nature knows what she is doing ...

@DLMokoma: Yeah me too , how something so unperfect think could create something so perfect !

Written by [user id=14228] on 04.08.2006 at 12:34

Let mother-earth do the work, if your organs don't work, you'll just die, easy as that.

Uh... Are you opposing electricity either? Because that's another form of life support made by mankind. It's much easier to freeze to death when you don't have a house with heating turned on.

Anyway, seeing as this thread is filled with "cloning sucks!" posts, here's some counter-arguments:

1) Cloning may allow healing of people with physical disabilities. That means people who otherwise wouldn't be able to perform any jobs and would simply suck the funds off the rest of society, might be given another chance to earn money on their own and support the economy.

2) Healing and rehabilitation in general would be much faster and cheaper, which gives possibility of good health care for those of lower social classes.

3) People born with disabilities might be able to face equal opportunity, and not have their life screwed up.

4) In future cloning might allow support of endangered species and revival of extinct ones. Like in many other fields of modern science, we are given possibility to clean up what we screwed up in the past.

As long as we just clone animals I am okay with it, to clone fishes is a great idea IMO since many species are dissappering.

well i used to be against cloning, but then i really thought hard about it. As an atheist materialist, i believe that all ethics, morality, right and wrong are subjective constructs of our cultures. I also believe that there is no guiding force behind anything, no soul and no damned mother nature. So why the heck not clone? If it will make people happier (and not just in the short term!), why should we not? Of course we would need to ensure that the clones were not maltreated, or even better ensure that they were of vastly subhuman (nonsentient) intellect, in which case they could be farmed as animals are. They would simply be a breed of beasts of burden tailor-made to suit our needs. What's wrong with that? We already modify rice to be sturdier, we modify grain to grow in harsher conditions, and we clone sheep. If we ensure that the clone retains no more brain function than a sheep or dog, it's pure sentimentality over the shape of the body that causes all the objections. And that's just irrational. Not to mention silly.

Of course it is a completely different ball-game if we are to bring it to the clones having human sentience. That would require clones to be given all rights of a human, foster care and possible therapy for inevitable problems of identity. also clones would need to be indistinguishable from an ordinary person.

In my opinion it really depends on whos using the technology for cloning.
If humans are responsible (we're not), cloning would be benificial for mass producing animals for meat.
The thing is with cloning is that it has a use to help mankind, but on the other side of the coin, it could do irrepairable damage.

i don't really see how? What damage could we possibly do?

We are not yet capable of cloning sentient humans (or so i am told), so pray tell what could possibly happen that does "irreparable damage"?

Well, I support cloning for medical purposes, but not cloning for fun or military use. Also I'm against using this tactic in industry to create "improoved" products (see genetic engineering in food)

Written by iaberis on 27.10.2006 at 16:41

Well, I support cloning for medical purposes, but not cloning for fun or military use. Also I'm against using this tactic in industry to create "improoved" products (see genetic engineering in food)

Cloning for "fun": How many ways can a clone be used for fun? Even if you manage to fully clone a human being, you're going to be waiting for 18 years for it to reach adulthood. So unless you have any good games we can play with babies (I was thinking human darts) I don't think cloning for fun is an issue.

Cloning for Military Use: A Clone Army? That would be so cool. They could dress in white suits and everything. So long as they don't fall under control of the wrong master...

Cloning for Improved Products: Then again, a Clone Army would be great on a factory production line. But if we want a cheap labour force there's no need for clones: we already have China.


The thing is, anyone suggesting that a clone is going to be the same person as it's, er, "mother", - that it would have the same soul, or not a soul at all (apparently God hands out souls, and only to Christians) - anyone suggesting this is proposing that what makes up a human soul is purely DNA. I guess environment, upbringing, social background and life experience mean nothing, then.

Clones are people too.
Clones are people too.

See what I did?

You made a hole into the water. Clones are not real persons and do exist at the moment so any talk about what they are is wortheless, since they're something fictional for this time... And who told you that only Christians have souls? Every human has a soul... but will a clone considered to be a human?

Okay, so you're christian and you believe that every person has a soul (i'm not saying you're wrong or right btw.) Do you know for a fact that you're soul is not in your genes? Or how soul gets into human body.. like does it have to be sexual intercourse and natural fertilization and nine months in the womb? What about people that got start in a lab? yes, there are millions of them.. what about people who didn't spent nine months in the womb? again, there are millions of them.
So clones doesn't exist at the moment and it's not even sure if it's possible to clone a human being (atleast with this technology) but what on earth makes you think a clone of certain human being, lets say a clone of you wouldn't be a real person? That's just absurd.

For example, if we'd clone an embryo and put them into two different women's womb each other side of the world, they'd both survive and born, they'd be indentical.. absolutely identical but do you think the clone would be thinking the original one's thoughts?

I think Angelique really hit it there, she's totally right. But then again, I've never been positive against cloning humans, cloning animals, like fish, though would be a great way for us to handle the food crisis.

I don't like cloning, We have WAY too many people here, So why should we add any more?

Maybe we should euthanise people we don't want, cull the population a bit, then start cloning to make a better place. Would that work, morbid_freak?

I'm for cloning for medical purposes, and perhaps food. I gotta eat, and I gotta be healthy.

"Healthy and viable mice that survive until adulthood have, for the first time, been cloned from adult stem cells. Scientists from Rockefeller University, including Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator Elaine Fuchs, used cells called keratinocyte stem cells, which represent a new model system for cloning. Keratinocytes come from the skin, making them a particularly attractive stem cell source because of their ready accessibility. One day, they could be used to tailor therapies, as well as to better understand and treat diseases.

Fuchs and her colleague Peter Mombaerts published their laboratories' findings online February 12, 2007, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. " hhmi.org

Hey everyone , thank you so much for your thoughts and well you know this topic never ends but well I heard something new , I heard they have discovered the gene of age !!! so they explained if they take it away people would be ageless , I mean I think we are spiritually , but some day we have to die I think this is somehow connected is like I don't don't agree with the idea of playing with life I mean yeah it has its purposes like cloning and stuff but no it just , science can only go to a certain point , so well I still wit my idea ...

Okay..so I think cloning a human or an animal is completely wrong. It's sick genetic engineering and I think it is like humans are trying to be god. If you don't believe in god then what I'm trying to say is that cloning is wrong because it is doing something that is unnatural to life's circle. I would think organ cloning was great if bodies wouldn't reject new organs so much. I don't just mean cloned organs; I mean even donated organs. Anyways sometimes people are just supposed to die. We've already become much too advanced.

Written by [user id=24489] on 26.08.2007 at 05:01

...cloning is wrong because it is doing something that is unnatural to life's circle.

An absolute fuckload of stuff we do is "unnatural to life's cycle", but we do it anyway.

Written by Hyvaarin on 27.08.2007 at 17:35

Written by [user id=24489] on 26.08.2007 at 05:01

...cloning is wrong because it is doing something that is unnatural to life's circle.

An absolute fuckload of stuff we do is "unnatural to life's cycle", but we do it anyway.

Obviously..but this discussion is about cloning.

Written by [user id=24489] on 27.08.2007 at 18:26

Written by Hyvaarin on 27.08.2007 at 17:35

Written by [user id=24489] on 26.08.2007 at 05:01

...cloning is wrong because it is doing something that is unnatural to life's circle.

An absolute fuckload of stuff we do is "unnatural to life's cycle", but we do it anyway.

Obviously..but this discussion is about cloning.

You completely missed my point. If you have no qualms about other stuff that is "unnatural to life's cycle", but are against cloning because of this reason, it's either not the real reason you're against cloning or your opinion is massively inconsistent.

Written by Hyvaarin on 28.08.2007 at 03:52

Written by [user id=24489] on 27.08.2007 at 18:26

Written by Hyvaarin on 27.08.2007 at 17:35

Written by [user id=24489] on 26.08.2007 at 05:01

...cloning is wrong because it is doing something that is unnatural to life's circle.

An absolute fuckload of stuff we do is "unnatural to life's cycle", but we do it anyway.

No, you are just putting words in my mouth because you are interpreting something completely wrong.

Obviously..but this discussion is about cloning.

You completely missed my point. If you have no qualms about other stuff that is "unnatural to life's cycle", but are against cloning because of this reason, it's either not the real reason you're against cloning or your opinion is massively inconsistent.

Written by [user id=24489] on 28.08.2007 at 03:59

Written by Hyvaarin on 28.08.2007 at 03:52

Written by [user id=24489] on 27.08.2007 at 18:26

Written by Hyvaarin on 27.08.2007 at 17:35

Written by [user id=24489] on 26.08.2007 at 05:01

...cloning is wrong because it is doing something that is unnatural to life's circle.

An absolute fuckload of stuff we do is "unnatural to life's cycle", but we do it anyway.

No, you are just putting words in my mouth because you are interpreting something completely wrong.

Obviously..but this discussion is about cloning.

You completely missed my point. If you have no qualms about other stuff that is "unnatural to life's cycle", but are against cloning because of this reason, it's either not the real reason you're against cloning or your opinion is massively inconsistent.

No; I didn't. You are putting words in my mouth because you interpreted what I said completely wrong.