Human Cloning: American couple plans to be the first in 2003.

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
**I quoted them directly. Can you point out the part where they said all foreigners are diseased?

**Kathy said:

You can adopt a baby overseas, and then in a lot of countries, what happens is by the time you get the baby, they’ve been so messed up in the orphanage where they are that you are taking on a health hazard.

Basically calling all foriegn babies in adoption agencies mentally deranged.

I was under the impression that the anti-cloning people in this thread were against the very idea of cloning at all. I am certainly open to the possibility that it is too early for an attempt at a human clone. Would you ever be in favor of a human clone?

I’d be in favor of human cloning when we can routinely make mouse, sheep, cow, and monkey clones, from adult cells, where the animals involved are either majority problem free or health problems are minimal. This will not be acheived for many years. The differences between humans and animals will probably affect the first human clones done even after this period, but the information gained from them would enable us to do it right. As opposed to now, where we know hardly anything, and it is immature to guarenteely sacrifice lives in a holy grail quest when we don’t even have a map.

Human cloning will be a valuble research tool for humans, and i am all for it, once we get it to work. Cloning is not something to be done lightly, however. Many people will be disappointed when their clones decide they don’t want to be like them. There will NEVER be clones running around that have no rights or souls, the very way they are born proves they are just as human as the rest of us.

At what point do you feel it will be safe to attempt a human clone? After Dolly dies of old age? When 50% of animal attempts are successful? Never?

Dolly dying of old age was just mentioned for pespective, but i wouldn’t feel comfortable with human clones running around in her lifetime (and i doubt any humans clones done in her lifetime would even carry to term, least of all be healthy enough to run around). When we get to the point that we can screen fertilized eggs that have been implanted with donor DNA for defects before implantation in the woman, to prevent any “monster” clones, then i’d feel comfortable offering cloning to the general public. Even then, some long term affects on the human clones won’t be known until they are in their 80’s-90’s or even beyond.

I just don’t see these people as ignorant and morally sick. Their names are not in the paper. They are doing interviews confidentially. Even extended family members won’t know the baby is a clone. Painting these people as evil seems dishonest to me. Maybe they are too eager to proceed when it’s not safe, but I don’t think they are bad people.

I think they are too eager to charge ahead where angels fear to tread, having been lured b the siren song of Dr. Evil the clone guy (i am purposely not looking up him name just to keep it out of my memory to spite him). Dr. Evil is using them and their wanting of children to further his publicity whore ego. They go along with this because of whatever reasons they won’t adopt and they have failed to get children via IVF. In the interview they come off as people that don’t care who they hurt as long as they get what they want. If by some miricle Dr. Evil gets them a embryo, it will die. That is my prediction. It is also my hope, as that child will have problems a mile long, and a quick death is preferable to the living hell it is most assuradly guarenteed upon birth.

[Apos]

—Tars Tarkas: yes, it would[be wrong to create human/mammal hybrids], if it couldn’t be created naturally. Mules aren’t freaks of nature since horses and donkeys get it on, but Human/Lizard people are because we cannot fetilize lizard eggs under any normal circumstance.—

I fail to see what difference that makes to anything. Certianly, natural methods have the virtue of being better tested: but barring that obvious hurdle, why would it be wrong to bring into a being a particular sort of being?

I mean, dogs would certainly be dumber than this hybrid. Yet we see no problem in allowing dogs to bear more dogs. We have no objection to the creation (even artificially) of non-human creatures, so why would we object to quasi-human creatures?

—Where is the line to draw on wether it is human or not?—

Why draw a bright line? It would be a matter of degrees, not an either or.

—would the Man-Beast have protection under laws for humans or animal cruelty?—

Again: why either or? Why not laws suited to its capacity, as we have laws suited to the capacity of children or children with down’s syndrome?

—What if the Man-Beast is more intelligent than people with brain damage or mental problems, is it right to keep him in a downgraded state of citizenship?—

Probably not: which is one reason why it wouldn’t be good to act as if there were only two sorts of possible beings in the world: those capable of being full intelligent citizens, and those that are not.

—Should Man-Beasts vote, hold office jobs, marry your daughter?—

Depends upon their capacities.

—Are they covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act? What about 3/4Man-1/4Beast people? or 7/8Man, what percentage counts?—

I would suggest that such thigs are irrelevant: what matters are the actual capacities of each specific being.

—What if the Man-Beast resents his role and instead kidnaps the Mad Scientists beautiful blonde daughter/lab assistant and the Hero is forced to save her while the villagers chase the monster with torches?—

Well, what if dolphins revolt? Caged monkeys?
I can sort of appreciate where you’re coming from, but I’m trying not to give stock answers to this intriguing question.

—Lemur866: The trouble with genetic engineering is that the person on whom the procedure is performed–the baby–doesn’t exist yet. And so therefore it cannot either consent or decline the procedure.—

Well, neither can any creature, before it is born. Yet most living things, provided they don’t have serious medical problems, seem to value what life they have, regardless of whether they be a dog or a human. So what, then, would be wrong with a creature that was somewhere halfway in between? Would it be wrong to bring such an otherwise healthy being into being, JUST BECAUSE it isn’t the MOST intelligent being we could potentially create?

—Therefore, any genetic engineering–or human/animal hybridizing–must be done FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON BEING MODIFIED.—

But this “person” (if we choose to call it a person), doesn’t exist yet: it isn’t being modified, but rather created from the beggining.

—But we cannot imply consent for turning a baby into a natural slave, or giving them sub-human intelligence, or deforming them. —

Again, we’re talking about way pre-baby. The consideration is bringing into being the creature itself.
Are you suggesting that it’s wrong to knowingly contribute to the creation of any being that is of sub-human intelligence or does not share the same human form? Why? How can we then justify ever contributing to animal reproduction?

[Tars_Tarkas]

—Tars Tarkas: yes, it would[be wrong to create human/mammal hybrids], if it couldn’t be created naturally. Mules aren’t freaks of nature since horses and donkeys get it on, but Human/Lizard people are because we cannot fetilize lizard eggs under any normal circumstance.—

I fail to see what difference that makes to anything. Certianly, natural methods have the virtue of being better tested: but barring that obvious hurdle, why would it be wrong to bring into a being a particular sort of being?

I mean, dogs would certainly be dumber than this hybrid. Yet we see no problem in allowing dogs to bear more dogs. We have no objection to the creation (even artificially) of non-human creatures, so why would we object to quasi-human creatures?

My arguement is not against the future breeding of any Man-Beasts that are created, but against their initial creation. I feel it is immoral to purposely bring into existance something that is potentially intelligent just to be used as slave labor.

—Where is the line to draw on wether it is human or not?—

Why draw a bright line? It would be a matter of degrees, not an either or.

—would the Man-Beast have protection under laws for humans or animal cruelty?—

Again: why either or? Why not laws suited to its capacity, as we have laws suited to the capacity of children or children with down’s syndrome?

I’ll address both of those here. A degree system would most likely be implemented in the case of large amounts of Man-Beasts being created by different labs with different intelligence levels. However, the degree system would have flaws in that some Man-Beasts would rate higher than some people. Are those people less human? or the Man-Beast a better creation? This may not happen just with Down’s Syndrome cases, some Man-Beasts might outscore your son on the SATs someday. Maybe the Man-Beasts develope intellectuals who are against the use of Man-Beasts in labor, and realize as humans are violent, only violence will work to free their people (a la Planet of the Apes, but i’ll try to keep pop culture references limited, but don’t be surprised if Brave New World shows up later!)

—What if the Man-Beast is more intelligent than people with brain damage or mental problems, is it right to keep him in a downgraded state of citizenship?—

Probably not: which is one reason why it wouldn’t be good to act as if there were only two sorts of possible beings in the world: those capable of being full intelligent citizens, and those that are not.

Here is where the *Brave New World *reference will show up. Who’s to say what makes someone a better being than the others? And with man-beasts in the mix, the line gets even more blurred.

—Should Man-Beasts vote, hold office jobs, marry your daughter?—

Depends upon their capacities.

No real argument here.

—Are they covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act? What about 3/4Man-1/4Beast people? or 7/8Man, what percentage counts?—

I would suggest that such thigs are irrelevant: what matters are the actual capacities of each specific being.

The problem is it will matter to some people. Expect Man-Beast discrimination to be a big problem, and an Americans With Genetically Modified and Enhanced Genetic Structures Act.

—What if the Man-Beast resents his role and instead kidnaps the Mad Scientists beautiful blonde daughter/lab assistant and the Hero is forced to save her while the villagers chase the monster with torches?—

Well, what if dolphins revolt? Caged monkeys?
I can sort of appreciate where you’re coming from, but I’m trying not to give stock answers to this intriguing question.

I appreciate the non-stock answers approach (at least you didn’t go “Of course Man-Beasts are natural, humans are natural so anything we do is natural too!” otherwise i’d be forced to break out the rolleyes smilie. And NOBODY wants that!!). Another Man-Beast problem i neglected before and one of the underlying reasons i oppose Man-Beast creation (i need to come up with a better word than Man-Beast, suggestions welcome) is to create them, their will be “accidents” or “monsters” that live briefly and in pain. I think it is wrong to undergo research that can potentially cause the suffering of intelligent beings (even if they are only potentially intelligent.) I’m trying to limit the abortion references in this thread before it turns into a bigger mess and no one listens to the otherside, but i’d consider it just as wrong to create Man-Beasts embryos just to see what grows and then abort it before it reaches birth stage just to see what happens or how well what ever genesplicing that went on worked.

[Apos]

—My arguement is not against the future breeding of any Man-Beasts that are created, but against their initial creation. I feel it is immoral to purposely bring into existance something that is potentially intelligent just to be used as slave labor.—

I never said anything about slave labor. Certainly, we could use them for slave labor, but then we could also, and have, use normal humans for slave labor. I want to get at their existence itself, not simply some bad things one could imagine possibly doing to them once they exist.

—A degree system would most likely be implemented in the case of large amounts of Man-Beasts being created by different labs with different intelligence levels. However, the degree system would have flaws in that some Man-Beasts would rate higher than some people. Are those people less human? or the Man-Beast a better creation?—

I think the question of “who’s human, who ain’t” is essentialist nonsense. It is utterly irrelevant to the question of what the proper treatment of a given being should be. Who cares about all this claptrap of rating humans less or more, or one creation “better” than another.

—Here is where the Brave New World reference will show up. Who’s to say what makes someone a better being than the others?—

Who cares who’s “better?” Do we need to play this game with Down’s Syndrome kids? No: all that really matters to anyone is the just and honest way to treat them.

—And with man-beasts in the mix, the line gets even more blurred.—

But this just dodges a question that makes us uncomfortable to answer.

—The problem is it will matter to some people. Expect Man-Beast discrimination to be a big problem, and an Americans With Genetically Modified and Enhanced Genetic Structures Act.—

Unfortunately, this is not a direct arguement against the creation of these creatures: it’s simply the statement that you can imagine that some people won’t like it, or might do bad things when confronted with it. But that hardly relates to the rightness/wrongness of the creation itself.

And I already expect, for instance, animal cruelty and maltreatment of animals. But this isn’t directly an arguement against the birth of animals: it’s an argument against those abuses.

—I think it is wrong to undergo research that can potentially cause the suffering of intelligent beings (even if they are only potentially intelligent.)—

This is sort of off-topic (since I basically suggested we assume that we just know how to do it right to begin with, as we concievably might in the future), but you can’t have “suffering of intelligent beings” if they are only “potentially intelligent.” The intelligence must first be actual before there can be suffering in the first place.

[KoalaBear]

Debaser wrote:
I didn’t realize that there was a surrogate involved. This certainly throws a wrench into the works. Legally and morally.

You bet it does. So long as Kathy carries the embryo she can gestate or abort as she sees fit, but she can’t impose those choices on a surrogate without reducing that woman to the status of a slave.

I wonder whether all of you would be opposed to any couple who tried cloning, regardless of their morals or reasons.

Give me a break. If these people had a shred of dignity their reproductive decisions would be private, not giddily paraded in front of six million people on the Connie Chung show.

That being said, I’m not opposed to cloning. I think it’s a technology with fascinating therepeutic and reproductive potential. However, if experiments to clone primates have resulted in a gallery of horrors, only a moron would attempt the procedure with a human being.

[Tars_Tarkas]

This post is a mess, but, ah, well…

Originally posted by Apos *
**
I never said anything about slave labor. Certainly, we could use them for slave labor, but then we could also, and have, use normal humans for slave labor. I want to get at their existence itself, not simply some bad things one could imagine possibly doing to them once they exist.*

Well, yes, but what do you think we will make them for? Party favors? Or toliet scrubbers? Which would make more money for the companies that would invest in the research?

I think the question of “who’s human, who ain’t” is essentialist nonsense. It is utterly irrelevant to the question of what the proper treatment of a given being should be. Who cares about all this claptrap of rating humans less or more, or one creation “better” than another.

Why are you against rating humans but for rating the Man-Beasts based on their abilities?

Who cares who’s “better?” Do we need to play this game with Down’s Syndrome kids? No: all that really matters to anyone is the just and honest way to treat them.

If we are gonna play it we have to play it all the way. Animals are gonna rate higher than some people on the lists. Why are those people still treated higher than the animals? What is that extra spark that makes them better, and why don’t the Man-beasts have it?

And I already expect, for instance, animal cruelty and maltreatment of animals. But this isn’t directly an arguement against the birth of animals: it’s an argument against those abuses.

Animal births are gonna happen pretty much on their own unless we spay and neuter every animal in the world. Man-beasts are not going to arrive naturally, they will be made by conscious decision and all ramifications of their existance must be included in the justification of their existance, otherwise it is immature to go ahead blindly. Playing God is not like playing pickup sticks, there are more serious issues at hand. If something already exists, then we have to deal with it (like if some moron went and made some Smurfs.) So the Smurfs are no longer potential, they are actual. The destroying of the Smurfs would not be right, as the Smurfs taht already exists have a right to do so if they so choose. But the creation of other Smurfs via other people must be contained, as we have no idea what purpose those proposed smurfs are for.

**This is sort of off-topic (since I basically suggested we assume that we just know how to do it right to begin with, as we concievably might in the future), but you can’t have “suffering of intelligent beings” if they are only “potentially intelligent.”
The intelligence must first be actual before there can be suffering in the first place. **

Babies are not intelligent, but have the potential to be. So it is right to chop off their hands for fun? after all, they are not suffereing yet…

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**
I’d be in favor of human cloning when we can routinely make mouse, sheep, cow, and monkey clones, from adult cells, where the animals involved are either majority problem free or health problems are minimal.
**

I am in agreement with this. I thought that we were closer to this than we actually are. I still maintain that it will never be 100% safe to try, just like landing on the moon wasnt. But, we will need to try at some point, and a few will assume great risks for the greater benefit of all. These few will be unborn when the decision is made, but the situation dictates that it must be so. You can never get a volunteer to be the first clone.

**

This will not be acheived for many years.
**

Hopefully sooner rather than later.

**

Human cloning will be a valuble research tool for humans, and i am all for it, once we get it to work.
**

Agreed.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**
I’d be in favor of human cloning when we can routinely make mouse, sheep, cow, and monkey clones, from adult cells, where the animals involved are either majority problem free or health problems are minimal.
**

I am in agreement with this. I thought that we were closer to this than we actually are. I still maintain that it will never be 100% safe to try, just like landing on the moon wasnt. But, we will need to try at some point, and a few will assume great risks for the greater benefit of all. These few will be unborn when the decision is made, but the situation dictates that it must be so. You can never get a volunteer to be the first clone.

**

This will not be acheived for many years.
**

Hopefully sooner rather than later.

**

Human cloning will be a valuble research tool for humans, and i am all for it, once we get it to work.
**

Agreed.

[Debaser]

Hey! It looks like I just actually changed my position on an issue because of a thread in GD!

:eek: :eek: expects balloons to fall from ceiling :eek: :eek:

Here is a summary of the thread (from my POV):

Posters: Cloning is bad. First couple are jerks.

Debaser: Cloning is good. First couple are great. Cloning should be attempted ASAP.

Posters: Disagree cloning should be attempted. Many reasons are given. Arguments are made that Couple is morally bankrupt, insane, etc.

Debaser: “You guys just don’t like the couple because you are all just against cloning.”

Posters: “We aren’t against cloning. Now isn’t the right time.” More reasons given. Errors of first couples motives, logic are put forward.

(Debaser now has many posts to respond to. Trying to regroup.)

Tars: Summarizes the arguments against the couple. Also, basically states back to me my own opinion on cloning being good.

Debaser, surprised, goes back and reads thread from top.

Debaser: “Ok, cloning is still good, but now is not the right time to attempt a human clone.”

You see, the system does work!

[SUPERKARLENE]

Thanks for being such a good sport, Debaser.

I know it must have felt like you were being jumped, but that wasn’t our intent - we just felt like there was more evidence to be considered than that which you were aware of.

is glad that Debaser isn’t pitting us

[Tars_Tarkas]

<— Finds it odd that he contributed to someone changing their mind. Too use to being called names in threads about the Middle East.
BTW, if you want to do a simple cloning technique yourself, just break a branch off of a tree, put it in water until roots grow, and plant it! You’ve just “cloned” a tree, as the DNA is the same in both organisms! (What is the gardening technical name for this—rooting? )