Cloning

[kopprophet]

Political Hot Potato
Yugioh Abridged Comunity, your turn to catch.

[klokwerk]

Well, cloning. If god didn't want us to do it then why did he/she give us the ability too. Cloning could save many species that are about to go extinct and cloning could also bring some extinct species back. Cloning could also create spare organs, arms, legs, and the lot that could be used to heal the sick and to give new legs to someone that has lost them. The only time when cloning could cross the line is when living, thinking creatures of any kind are cloned and then killed for there parts.

[OverMind]

If god didn't want us to do it then why did he/she give us the ability too.
Argument by analogy:
God "gave" us the ability to reproduce ... so why is premarital sex sinful? Because you are misusing God's gifts.
Similarly, if God gave us cloning, there's probably a few rules, or procedures, to follow that avoids the whole sin and blasphemy jarble.Cloning could save many species that are about to go extinct and cloning could also bring some extinct species back.
Isn't this reverse-Darwinism making it contrary to the ideals of Evolution?Cloning could also create spare organs, arms, legs, and the lot that could be used to heal the sick and to give new legs to someone that has lost them. The only time when cloning could cross the line is when living, thinking creatures of any kind are cloned and then killed for there parts.
This is subject to morality. I'm assuming the "clones" you are talking about are not conscience, yet living. So ... why does non-consciousness get the green lights, while consciousness does not? To many people (or, for argument's sake, me), if the individual is living, it is immoral to take organs without consent.

[ZakFrost]

The real way to save someone who is dying with cloning is to download their memory on to a computer then transfer them to John Smith's clone then kill the original one. So you have John Smith2 which is John Smith, but healthier.

[OverMind]

That sounds like an integral component of the storyline for The Sixth Day.

[klokwerk]

it is

[xellos88]

but i dont think it's the sae person, just a copy of him. So you didnt save him....he's dead :P

[xellos88]

Isn't this reverse-Darwinism making it contrary to the ideals of Evolution?
what if the animals were extinct because of human action? (overhunting or destroying their habitat). I dont think he was talking about making a "Jurassic Park " XD

[OverMind]

I was talking about the overall implications. Sure, it makes sense to bring back species that have become extinct due to human action ... but it's a little more complicated than that.

For starters, you mentioned destruction of habitat. Well, if the habitat is already destroyed ... how do you expect the species to thrive in the first place? Is this not a lost cause? Perhaps it is warranted if the habitat is recreated and prevented from future human interference. But, the habitat may be unique to only one place on earth (i.e. see the Amazon) and difficult to re-create, or Governments where the species originates from are unwilling or unable to support such a program (Many exotic, but now extinct, species originate in poor, developing countries ... Unless there is a worldwide effort in extinct species repopulation, I don't see these particular countries seeing the matter as eminent).

Having said that, it just makes more sense (to me at least) to use whatever money and resources available to preserve already endangered species, as opposed to trying to bring back already extinct ones.

Don't get me wrong, if the complexities can be worked out, and the extinct species can thrive, I'm all for it. For some species, like the Dodo or the Passenger Pigeon, there is a likelihood that they can thrive, given that they were deliberately overhunted. Cloning may work for some extinct species, but there's more challenges with others.

[xellos88]

you have a point there =/ without other efforts (like recreation of the habitat) it would be pointless to bring animals backs. But how about animals that are endegered? cloning could be used to help in increasing their numbers

[OverMind]

Actually, there are a few cases for which that would make sense. Consider the California Condor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Condor), a species with roughly 300 individuals left. This is a great example because it is native to the United States and, for reasons which I cannot understand, Americans take pride in conserving their native bird species (See the American Bald Eagle). A developed country, presumably, has the resources to take on a cloning initiative.

The immediate advantage I can see with cloning is that the population number has increased. One disadvantage I can pinpoint is that, by cloning, there is little genetic diversity in the population. Perhaps if this clone population is left to breed, and generations pass, genetic variability could form. But, just like the present, some Condors would need to be bred in captivity and humans would need to ensure that the population thrives.

[Zairak]

Am I the only person in this thread who saw the potential for extending the lifespan of people? Also, in regards to OverMind's comment about the morality of taking organs from clones: If they are not conscious and indeed do little besides laying there waiting for the organ reaping, then can they be considered anything other than nature-made incubators for the organs? I see no real difference, honestly.

[spencer43]

But this also poses the question religiously you can not clone the spirit. The personality for that matter you can clone organs but not the same person. So what if you clone that person then they understand that they can possibly be immortal they go on wrong doings and just clone them selves so they are not the one that gets caught.

Sure overmind covered the basics on immoral and moral decisions but you must then talk about society's outlook and what the human is capable of. As cloning could be great at the same time can be ridden with evil and wrong doing.

It is humans fault that human activity's that killed the extinct creatures then we must live with that burden. Not try and make it right by brining back a dead species and clearing our concious. Whats dead is dead its not going to make it right by brining back the species as a human experiment. Then what you think they would release this dead species back into the wild? No they would study them keep them in a closed off environment so we can study them. Think of it this way we kill a criminal then bring them back to life only to keep him in prison. Doesnt it sound better to just stay dead?

Whats done is done leave the dead rest in peace, dont mess around with the higher intention by saving people that are dying or bringing back the dead. Its better to put the money into studies to save people and save what is left on earth rather then waiting for them to die then fix it.

[V2NT1]

Hmm, as far as extending a human lifespan, it has become possible to grow and cultivate some types of individual human organs, for transplant in the human body should something happen to them.

No, this is not like "The Island", in which people were cloned as mere insurance policies of the wealthy. The human organs do not have to be grown in an actual human body, but rather through a manipulation of cells taken from the original body and cultivated in a laboratory.

I honestly do not see anything wrong with this particular area of study, as it could eventually lead to extending human life a good few decades, as well as assist with the discovery and creation of many new types of medicines and medical theories, with no sacrifice of life or limb to others.

And no, I am against attempts at cloning full organisms. There is a stark difference between creating a lone kidney to be used in a transplant, and killing a cloned human for the sole purpose of harvesting said kidney.

As for cloning the human spirit/soul, I believe that is indeed in the realm of God (or whatever deity/divine existence you might believe in or worship).

[killshot]

Cloning for the purpose of extending human life is a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion. I think cloning individual organs would be more beneficial than cloning an entire organism, but not for any moral reasons. It would simply be a waste to only use one body part out of a fully functioning human. On the matter of cloning souls, I don't believe anyone has what I would call a soul to begin with. I don't believe there would be any difference in a clone and a regular human being.

I would also like to point out that I think transhumanism and nanomachines would be more beneficial to prolonging human life than clones, but that is a subjuct for another thread.

[Chidori]

If I could clone myself, it would become far easier to kidnap people.

[Chidori]

Why would it be so horrible to kill a mindless replica that isn't actually human and is merely a sack for growing organs. If they were to clone people in order to harvest organs and save lives then there's nothing morally wrong about it. Unless you're religous and have something against playing god then saving lives at the expense of something that never had emotions shouldn't have anything wrong with it. If you could cure incureable illnesses through methods like this then using cloning in that way would be an amazing thing for those in need.

[spencer43]

We live then we die, why should we decide our own fate.

I say dont mess with higher intention. If its available then it would be available to anyone with money. Who wants people like Ossama Bin Larden to be able to cure his own diseases so he can continue raining terror on people.

Seriously think about all the consequences to possible outcomes before rushing into a conclusion about human and organ cloning. Even people such as George bush I mean who wants more of them, or for people like him to live on.

[DarkWarrior]

Why would it be so horrible to kill a mindless replica that isn't actually human and is merely a sack for growing organs
A clone would have the same exact same maximum mental capacity, as its source. The same emotions, the same everything. It's just as human as its source. That makes your whole argument void.I don't believe there would be any difference in a clone and a regular human being.

Then following your logic, you would advocate the forced transplant of one person's organs to another person to extend the others life.Am I the only person in this thread who saw the potential for extending the lifespan of people?
The clone, as a person, would then have the right to decide where its organs go. Doesn't matter what the creators/source want. It is then the clone's right, as a human individual, to make that choice. So the potential does not really exist, unless you want to push for forced transplants. Which would extend from clones to traditionally created people as well.

[killshot]

Then following your logic, you would advocate the forced transplant of one person's organs to another person to extend the others life.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say. I have already stated that I approve the cloning of idividual organs and it would be wasteful to clone full humans. If in the event a full human clone was necessary to prolong one's life, then my approval would depend entirely on how the clone was raised. There is no difference between a cloned human and a normal one if the clone was raised and cared for in the same manner as a regular human. I believe that a person's humanity comes from the experiences aquired from living. If the clone was kept in a coma-like state it's whole life and had never had any experiences of its own, then I see no problem with using the clone's organs to benifit the original human the clone was created from.

[darkarcher]

There is no difference between a cloned human and a normal one if the clone was raised and cared for in the same manner as a regular human. I believe that a person's humanity comes from the experiences aquired from living. If the clone was kept in a coma-like state it's whole life and had never had any experiences of its own, then I see no problem with using the clone's organs to benifit the original human the clone was created from.
So despite capacity, anything that cannot gain the experience of a normal person cannot be considered such? A full human clone would have the same capacity for humanity as a normal person, so you're saying that as long as we don't give it a chance to be considered human, then it's okay? I have a hard time seeing the justification in what would be considered torture to a person as a means to validate the cloning then donating of a full human clone.

[killshot]

A clone can't miss something it has never had. I feel the same way about this as I do about abortion. The clone/fetus can either experience life as a normal human being, or it can die without experiencing life. Dieing without experiencing life would be the same as never existing in the first place.

We seem to disagree on a fundamental level here. I don't think anything I say will change what you believe is right. You seem to believe that every creature with the capacity for life deserves to have a chance to live. I, on the other hand, feel that the world can do without a few potiential lives in order to benefit those already living here. Don't misunderstand, I am not advocating "torture," as you put it. The clones used in transplants would not have the emotional capacity to feel tortured. The way I see it, clones could benefit humanity by prolonging the human lifespan, or the clones could grow up to be ordinary people and no progress would be made.

[darkarcher]

You say that they would not have emotional capacity, but they also are to be exact replicas of humans. Would you consider a normal child, secluded from society, to not be a human being? This would not be any different from raising a clone in seclusion. If your answer is "yes", then there's little more that we can debate on the matter.

[killshot]

Secluded not only from society, but from every form of stimulus a normal human being would encounter. The clones should not be allowed to gain consciousness. To answer your question, if a human was kept in the same conditions I am proposing, the person would still technically be a human being, but they would not have a "life" that could be taken from them. It would be like a person existing in a persistant vegitative state with the only difference being the clone/person has always existed in that state and was never aware of its own existance. To simplify, humans or clones living in this state are merely "potential humans" and I would not consider them to be what most people would call "human."

[darkarcher]

Well, it does indeed seem that we're divided on the basis of fundamentals, then. I will abstain from conversing until someone else brings up a new aspect to discuss.

[DarkWarrior]

Not quite sure what you are trying to say. I have already stated that I approve the cloning of idividual organs and it would be wasteful to clone full humans. If in the event a full human clone was necessary to prolong one's life, then my approval would depend entirely on how the clone was raised. There is no difference between a cloned human and a normal one if the clone was raised and cared for in the same manner as a regular human. I believe that a person's humanity comes from the experiences aquired from living. If the clone was kept in a coma-like state it's whole life and had never had any experiences of its own, then I see no problem with using the clone's organs to benifit the original human the clone was created from.
Except it's morally unacceptable to suppress a clone's existence that way. We would never, ever allow that same thing to happen to a normal-born person, and a clone has that exact same right to existence. You, nor anyone else have the right to suppress another's existence in that way.A clone can't miss something it has never had. I feel the same way about this as I do about abortion. The clone/fetus can either experience life as a normal human being, or it can die without experiencing life. Dieing without experiencing life would be the same as never existing in the first place.
Other than that it has the right to experience life. Again, no one has the right to suppress the life of another that way. The life belongs to that person, and every effort should be made to ensure that the individual has the ability to make its own decisions.We seem to disagree on a fundamental level here. I don't think anything I say will change what you believe is right. You seem to believe that every creature with the capacity for life deserves to have a chance to live. I, on the other hand, feel that the world can do without a few potiential lives in order to benefit those already living here. Don't misunderstand, I am not advocating "torture," as you put it. The clones used in transplants would not have the emotional capacity to feel tortured. The way I see it, clones could benefit humanity by prolonging the human lifespan, or the clones could grow up to be ordinary people and no progress would be made.
Yes, we do disagree on that issue. But my point is still one that makes a bit more sense: That person deserves to be able to make its own decisions, if it is at all capable of making such choices. We should not hinder that person's ability. It's not in our realm to do so. It does have the rights of a living, breathing human being. I don't understand how anyone would want to suppress a person that way. That person is still a person, whether or not you'd want it to be.Secluded not only from society, but from every form of stimulus a normal human being would encounter. The clones should not be allowed to gain consciousness.
They exist, and they have consciousness. It'd just be suppressed. The only way to prevent that consciousness would be to remove the brain. And that's also unjustifiable. If it were cloned without the brain in the first place, maybe. But if that brain is there from the first step, and later eliminated, that is wrong, and denying that person their existance.To answer your question, if a human was kept in the same conditions I am proposing, the person would still technically be a human being, but they would not have a "life" that could be taken from them. It would be like a person existing in a persistant vegitative state with the only difference being the clone/person has always existed in that state and was never aware of its own existance. To simplify, humans or clones living in this state are merely "potential humans" and I would not consider them to be what most people would call "human."
Not in the traditional sense, no. But they still are. And forced coma is very different from PVS (Which I believe is still human, but this is besides the point), it's deliberate prevention of existance that you are forcing on another. This is wrong.

[killshot]

Except it's morally unacceptable to suppress a clone's existence that way.
According to who? Almost everthing you have said is based on the assumption that everyone shares the same morality. If morality was set in stone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Who are you to decide what is right and wrong? I personally believe that potential life has less value than a living person. Feel free to disagree, but don't act like your morality is the only one that is valid.

[DarkWarrior]

Individual rights trump public opinion every time. That clone has the right to determine its own existence, whether or not anyone else thinks it should be able to. The fact is that there is some moral issues set in stone. Just because a few individuals will speak out against it does not mean that it isn't a set-in-stone moral. Killing, for example, in cold blood, is morally wrong. It does not matter who says what. It is.

[killshot]

The fact is that there is some moral issues set in stone.
Ok, you got me here. Some morals are hardwired into the human brain. However, very few of them are black and white 100% of the time. Even something as horrible as murder can be justified in certain situations. I doubt my opinion is held by only "a few individuals." Using clones to greatly enhance the quality of life for an aging population seems like an opportunity many people would be willing to get behind.

As for your "individual rights" statement, I would not consider dormant clones to be individuals. To be an individual, one must have a consciousness and be distinguishable from others around them. A dormant clone is just a pile of organs that could be used to save lives. You may find it cruel, but I believe established life takes priority over potential life.

[Omega]

I agree with killshot entirely, here.

[spencer43]

Like you say who is Dark to determine what it rite and what is wrong. Who are you to decide that people with a conscious or not are classes as human beings?

What if your parents were in a coma then by your logic they are no longer alive and are useless just a pile of organs ready to save another few people. Before you can say, but they can wake up. That is not the fact, the fact is they are at the time in a coma.

If they are able to clone people then they are able to clone organs alone. You do not need to clone an entire human being in order to get one organ. Plus cloning full beings starts them off as infants. You can not just make a full adult appear, so then they have to be alive for at least 18 years before the organs are at the same full size as what you need. Then in order for them to grow they need to exercise and be alive. Its a fact they without stimulus of life a person can not grow. So they can not be just a vegetable they have to actually be alive. After you can not force them to give you the organs they are then a normal living being.

[DarkWarrior]

Ok, you got me here. Some morals are hardwired into the human brain. However, very few of them are black and white 100% of the time. Even something as horrible as murder can be justified in certain situations. I doubt my opinion is held by only "a few individuals." Using clones to greatly enhance the quality of life for an aging population seems like an opportunity many people would be willing to get behind.

As for your "individual rights" statement, I would not consider dormant clones to be individuals. To be an individual, one must have a consciousness and be distinguishable from others around them. A dormant clone is just a pile of organs that could be used to save lives. You may find it cruel, but I believe established life takes priority over potential life.
The problem is that they aren't lacking that individuality because of their own nature. They lack it because it is being suppressed. There is a massive difference between the two. Honestly, to say "We should suppress consciousness to make our lives a little more comfortable/longer" would be selfish, given that you're removing another's ability to live a life to prolong your own. In this future situation, you've lived, the other hasn't. Step aside and let them live.Like you say who is Dark to determine what it rite and what is wrong. Who are you to decide that people with a conscious or not are classes as human beings?
...It's an exact genetic replica. How is that not human?What if your parents were in a coma then by your logic they are no longer alive and are useless just a pile of organs ready to save another few people. Before you can say, but they can wake up. That is not the fact, the fact is they are at the time in a coma.
I fail to see how that renders them somehow less human. Also, yeah, so what if they are in a coma in that moment? The fact that they can wake up makes a world of difference.If they are able to clone people then they are able to clone organs alone. You do not need to clone an entire human being in order to get one organ. Plus cloning full beings starts them off as infants. You can not just make a full adult appear, so then they have to be alive for at least 18 years before the organs are at the same full size as what you need. Then in order for them to grow they need to exercise and be alive. Its a fact they without stimulus of life a person can not grow. So they can not be just a vegetable they have to actually be alive. After you can not force them to give you the organs they are then a normal living being.
They're a normal human being from Day #1. You're not magically more human at 18. It doesn't work that way. Either you are human or not. So I'm failing to understand your argument here.

[spencer43]

...It's an exact genetic replica. How is that not human?
I am saying they are human. I was saying who was he to decide what was human or not. Not you dark it was in your defense, if you looked at my entire post twice you would probably understand.I fail to see how that renders them somehow less human. Also, yeah, so what if they are in a coma in that moment? The fact that they can wake up makes a world of difference.
No it does not. The fact they are unconscious is exactly the same as the argument where he is saying because they are not conscious they are not human. That would mean that some one who is in a coma is not alive. That is by kilshots logic. The fact they can wake up means nothing because at the time, they are not . To him its the same as a person being dead so we can harvest their organs.They're a normal human being from Day #1. You're not magically more human at 18. It doesn't work that way. Either you are human or not. So I'm failing to understand your argument here.
I honestly have no idea where you got that answer from. I re-read what I wrote and it makes perfect sense. In order to do a transplant the donor must be an exact match for blood, and a rough size of organs. You can not take a 1 year olds kidney and implant it into a 48 year old. The Kidney is to small. The human body finishes growing at roughly 21, it varies for most everyone. But the organs are at a acceptable size by they time they are 18, again this is roughly.

Now the problem is you do not grow unless you are actively moving and living. Some one who is born in a coma and wakes up when they are 21 do not grow much past in infinite state. It is because the body needs stimuli to grow. So in order for this cloning thing to work the clone would have to be just as alive as the rest of us, at least until they have turned around 18. Its got nothing to do with being more human or not. Its about the size of the organs.

[Henriksson]

I think cloning could be an useful tool for a population boom. Set up a couple of labs to produce as many humans as possible and then give the newborns the ultimate childhood ever. The technology is there, we just don't use it.

[DarkWarrior]

I honestly have no idea where you got that answer from. I re-read what I wrote and it makes perfect sense. In order to do a transplant the donor must be an exact match for blood, and a rough size of organs. You can not take a 1 year olds kidney and implant it into a 48 year old. The Kidney is to small. The human body finishes growing at roughly 21, it varies for most everyone. But the organs are at a acceptable size by they time they are 18, again this is roughly.
Yeah, I think I misread you there in that quote you were responding to. >_>
That's what you get for engaging in a debate after taking allergy medications. :X

[Elastas]

I don't think its natural. I personaly think people are doing this to "bring back the dead".
its not right. even if it picks up and scientists fully clone humans without problems, it will cause havoc.
Even doing this to animals seems kind of iffy. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'>

[Henriksson]

Please elaborate on why it's not "natural". If the right thing was "natural", then we would still be hunter-gatherers.

[DarkWarrior]

He's right, it isn't natural. It's artificially creating another life. Whether or not it's right is what's up for debate, but there is no way you can call this "natural".

[TheRealFolkBlues]

How about we read the Constitution for once.

Cloning isn't mentioned, so the ninth and tenth amendment kick in.

[darkarcher]

The Constitution doesn't define morality; it outlines the government and protects certain rights. It does, however, give overall supremacy to the federal government, and that very same government has since outlawed human cloning...so if you follow the Constitution, then cloning is not allowed.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

[darkarcher]

You hardly addressed my point. Part of a democratic-republic is the ability for the government to create laws over the citizens in order to preserve the rights that are already listed in the Constitution. Certain "rights" are not allowed in favor of protecting enumerated rights.

For example, for many years public discrimination was not illegal, and by your definition could be considered a right held by the people. However, the government removed this "right" in order to maintain equal rights for all citizens.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

You hardly addressed my point. Part of a democratic-republic is the ability for the government to create laws over the citizens in order to preserve the rights that are already listed in the Constitution. Certain "rights" are not allowed in favor of protecting enumerated rights.
How will an illegal federal banning of cloning preserve our rights? If we're going to make laws based on morals, we may as well ban alcohol and tobacco.For example, for many years public discrimination was not illegal, and by your definition could be considered a right held by the people. However, the government removed this "right" in order to maintain equal rights for all citizens.
Have you ever heard of property rights? If I start a company I should be able to hire whoever the fuck I want.

Life, liberty, property; not life, liberty, anti-discrimination.

[Henriksson]

Still, the constitution only applies to 300 million out of 6.6 billion. You forgot that detail.

[Psidude25]

I believe cloning is a good idea, as stated before it could bring endangered animals back and could be used to create organs that a perfect match for a person who needs a transplant, and human cloning should be possible, but not just as a sack of organs to transplant to another person since a clone would still be a living, thinking individual, even if they were not made "naturally".

[GreyFox]

I think colning is OK, as long as they don't try fuking around with genetic makeup and try that whole "Designer Baby" thing. Thats just messed up. I get that it prevents disease and shit, but I don't like the idea of going online to buybabies. Its creepy, and it ruins the surprise.

[lukeh]

Cloning animals is okay I think but it would be awkward for a human clone to exist. That clone would be picked on and beaten up more times than anything. Also, Cloning has been proved to cause many health problems, and they don't live as long as the original does. I don't see much of the point of cloning except for experimentation only.

(I didn't read the things above me so don't tell me that I repeated if I did.)

[Elastas]

I still dont think its a good idea.
The suprise?LOL

[Elastas]

I still dont think its a good idea.
The suprise?LOL

[Elastas]

I still dont think its a good idea.
The suprise?LOL

[Henriksson]

I don't see much of the point of cloning except for experimentation only.

How about increasing farming production? Don't you like food?

[darkarcher]

How about increasing farming production? Don't you like food?
He already stated at the beginning of his post that he thought animal cloning was okay. The rest of his post was referring to human cloning.

[Underling]

desu

[atemssoulmate]

that gives "bringing home the bacon" a whole new meaning....

[Underling]

desu

[spencer43]

Of course if they start human cloning, they will start the whole thing about genetic changing. It iwll be like "ok we can save people by making them new organs buttt if we can just change the cancer our of the genes then that will solve everything, hey now we have changed that lets make humans stronger. Wow that worked out why not try and make people equal to thoes bad boys out of dragonball z (without the flying and beams).

Once you open one road they will then follow it till they get what they want, in turn genetically modifying the entire population until we destroy out selves.

I have a link to a speech given by Steven Hawking it outlines the beginning of life but fades into cloning and genetic modifying. its in the cloning section,.

[Elastas]

Yeah.... we all saw how well geneticly changing the body to get rid of cancer went in 'I Am Legend'. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'>
sry bout the triple post. my cellphone does that alot.

[Teh]

I believe that cloning one necessary organ alone is both more viable and much more moral than cloning an entire human in order to take it apart piece by piece. Using a clone as an "organ farm" is completely immoral and disgusting for reasons that Dark mentioned above; it violates the clone's right as a human being to live. Despite the moral reasons, it is still a bad idea to clone a whole human for "parts"; why not just clone a single necessary organ, as spencer mentioned, and leave it at that? Why create a person only to kill them slowly when it doesn't need to be done?

[GelynnaCaladon]

I believe cloning is possible. But does possible mean it's correct? That is the question.Does cloning humans mean you're playing God? If you don't believe in a god, does that still make it correct? Will there be a human factory one day?

You could take it this way:
Customize your baby here. Don't want freckles? Don't want boring brown eyes? Just fill this form out and presto! From Jun-September we're having a sale. Get the first clone and have the second half off.

At the same time, you could have a benefit. If a woman miscarried, they could take the remains of the old baby, tweak what was wrong with it, and she could give birth to what the miscarried baby could have been. If you believe in humans being conceived with a spirit, cloning the spirit isn't possible. If you don't, well, who cares. We're not worried about that right now.

So really, there can be good and bad. The problem is, how would it be used? Cloning a mass army for an evil empire to take over the universe and beyond? Or help mothers with miscarried babies? In the end, you just have a bunch of "what ifs" and no answers until someone tests a human. Then you have more questionable content. Yay for questionable content! Everyone loves that! More debates! More back-handed compliments!

(Then there's the dorman verses living clone. It really depends on what they're cloning, the body itself or creating an actual embryo, and what they're actually doing to clone.)

[George Lucas, don't sue me for referencing Star Wars and the Clone War.]

[BoxOfFun]

I think human cloning should never happen. I mean, how would a clone feel, knowing that it is not an individual, but an exact replica of another entity? Would it be mad? Would it try to kill the person it was cloned from?

I think cloning would also threaten the law. Morals stem from experience, so since the clone hasn't had the experience of what it was cloned from, it would feel it could do anything it wanted. No moral is "hardwired in to the brain".

[killshot]

I'm not sure you know how cloning works. A clone would be born just like a regular human. The only difference is the embryo's genetic material would be replaced by a DNA fragment of the person who is being cloned. How the clone feels would depend entirely on how it was raised.No moral is "hardwired in to the brain".
Not true. Studies have shown that humans are born with the capacity for empathy. Morals come from biology as well as the environment. This article has more information on this subject:

http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=184

[NMPTILU]

I don't believe in cloning of humans. That's kind of like slapping God in the face in my opinion. He made us in his image, and cloning his creation is kind of like saying, "Haha! You're not so great, now are you?"
However, organs are different. That is saving a life, and not actually cloning a human being.
Any other species I'm fine with.

[templarofsteel]

Cloning for organs doesn't have to be cloning the whole human guys...

When we figure out how to clone humans (which is extremely hard, we have just recently been able to clone dogs) we will be able to clone the single organ needed. But by that time we will probably have pigs growing organs without antigens for us anyway (will my liver taste like bacon?).

And yeah, morals aren't hardwired into the brain. Even empathy must be learned. Study the morals of different cultures and you will see there is no... crap forgot the word...Standard morals that everyone has.