Human Cloning

To be cloned, or not to be cloned.
That is the question.


Since I'm too lazy to quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning
www.humancloning.org/
www.religioustolerance.org/cloning.htm

Some sources, all pretty much biased.

This is a pretty big issue guys. I'm talking about the ability to create two humans of the exact genetic make up. The closest anyone has ever come to doing that is twins. Twins are clones, just natural ones.

So what happens if we allow this to happen, unaturally? There are many social problems which come to mind as well as medical benefits.

Happy debating.

I don't exactly see the point to cloning someone. Why would you need to do that?

So therefore, I'm against. I think it's silly and just not necessary. We already have natural clonings and it should just probably end there.

I Am So Beautiful! FUCK!:

I don't exactly see the point to cloning someone. Why would you need to do that?

So therefore, I'm against. I think it's silly and just not necessary. We already have natural clonings and it should just probably end there.

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing, human being or clone tissue from that individual.

Thats the reason. To me a total stupidity, but some people cant accept that their loved ones are going. Especially parents losing their kids. Thats why you have some groups of people [I watch a documentary on that, but a long time ago so I need some more research] that have lost their kids and they are supporting cloning so their loved ones would come back in a way. It makes sense. I still don't consider it acceptable. If someone has died you cant bring him back by cloning him. That doesn't assure you that the cloned person will be completely the same as the "original." People shouldn't mess with that.

But then won't those people be upset and angry when those clones turn out to have different personalities to their loved ones?

Because it's not just your DNA that determine your personality. It's also your interactions and experiences that shape it. So even if they look exactly the same, and indeed have similar traits, they're never going to be exactly the same, personality wise.

I don't think human cloning is necessary. We've already got 6+ billion people in the world, why try to make more than are already naturally made? It just sort of seems pointless to me.

Although, I do completely understand when a person wants to bring back a lost loved one in some form. Because it hurts when someone is lost, and I know a lot of people would do anything to get the person back. I just don't think it's necessary beyond that. And even for that one reason I'm still a little iffy about it. For every 1 perfect clone life there is, there are dozens of unwanted or imperfect lives that could be wasted in the pursuit of trying bringing back a loved one or just for the sake of cloning. (I've heard and read about cloning in animals, and when they do that, there are generally quite a few animals that are somehow deformed, imperfect, or non-identical to the original host in many ways, and they are usually euthanized. So I'm assuming the same thing would happen with human cloning. But if I'm wrong about that, please correct me.)

That would be murder, yeah? I see what you're saying. But then they start doing that and then they start killing off all those who aren't perfect and soon enough half the babies are being killed cause they're not making the cut.

I believe in natural selection human stupidity is inevitable and will reduce our numbers the more "advanced" we become. So perhaps in the future cloning will become necessary?

Edit: before anyone starts on the natural selection remark, it was sort of a joke. So yeah xD

Dr. Cuddy:

I Am So Beautiful! FUCK!:

I don't exactly see the point to cloning someone. Why would you need to do that?

So therefore, I'm against. I think it's silly and just not necessary. We already have natural clonings and it should just probably end there.

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing, human being or clone tissue from that individual.

Thats the reason. To me a total stupidity, but some people cant accept that their loved ones are going. Especially parents losing their kids. Thats why you have some groups of people [I watch a documentary on that, but a long time ago so I need some more research] that have lost their kids and they are supporting cloning so their loved ones would come back in a way. It makes sense. I still don't consider it acceptable. If someone has died you cant bring him back by cloning him. That doesn't assure you that the cloned person will be completely the same as the "original." People shouldn't mess with that.

I agree. And if you ask me, it'd be kind of creepy having a loved one around when the original one died.

It would solve a lot of age old questions and it could be useful in medical research. Cloning an identical genetic copy would mean spare pairs of lungs, hearts, livers, etc. for you, which are technically already yours.

I'm against it though.

Plug In Baby.:

But then won't those people be upset and angry when those clones turn out to have different personalities to their loved ones?

Because it's not just your DNA that determine your personality. It's also your interactions and experiences that shape it. So even if they look exactly the same, and indeed have similar traits, they're never going to be exactly the same, personality wise.

Yes, thats why it makes no sense.

Anji:

It would solve a lot of age old questions and it could be useful in medical research. Cloning an identical genetic copy would mean spare pairs of lungs, hearts, livers, etc. for you, which are technically already yours.

I'm against it though.

Yes, those things would be useful. A lot. But seriously, when would human beings stop only on that?

I'm like 'why clone me...i'm bad enoguh once over. let alone twice.'

Anji:

It would solve a lot of age old questions and it could be useful in medical research. Cloning an identical genetic copy would mean spare pairs of lungs, hearts, livers, etc. for you, which are technically already yours.

I'm against it though.

Those are actually good reasons. But I don't know if I'd ever allow myself to be cloned.

Anji:

It would solve a lot of age old questions and it could be useful in medical research. Cloning an identical genetic copy would mean spare pairs of lungs, hearts, livers, etc. for you, which are technically already yours.

I'm against it though.

Like that movie, right?

But that's still morally wrong. Because these people are being grown just to be killed when you need them. They still have a brain, a life, feelings, emotions.

Plug In Baby.:

Because these people are being grown just to be killed when you need them. They still have a brain, a life, feelings, emotions.

Are they people, though? You've got to think what you classify as a human, because they're made without any parents (technically). They weren't born and raised.

Something somone mentioned the other day at school. I am, however, against cloning.

*whatshisname*:

Are they people, though? You've got to think what you classify as a human, because they're made without any parents (technically). They weren't born and raised.

Something somone mentioned the other day at school. I am, however, against cloning.

A lot of people would have a different opinion as to whether or not they are people, really.

Parents or not, I think they are people, they are living, breathing human beings.

The biggest thing I really have against cloning at the moment is the use of said clones for spare organs. Life-saving or not, people or not (depending on your definition.) it is morally wrong, like said above. And to clone a lost loved one? I really don't see the point in that.
Life can't exist without death. Everyone has to go sometime and everyone has to accept when their loved ones go. It's a part of life, a way of life and tampering with that could have lasting effects in the future like cloning being mandatory for every human being to have a replacement or something awful like that.

It would completely ruin individuality, regardless if the personalities are different or not and it could end up starting a new, unmoral way of life.

Why do you all think a whole new person would be 'grown' just for the organs?

No; it totally wouldn't work like that. It would make things xbillion more complex and expensive. An entire organism alone needn't be grown when an organ itself will suffice. I don't think its viable at all to say there would be kind of 'host people' who would be grown for their organs and then culled.

Think about it. Making an identical copy of organ tissue isn't so hard (and I think they already do that in special cases, to grow additional skin for burns victims, right?). Making an entire organ, I guess, would be harder. An entire organism? when all you want is the heart and the lungs?
Nah. Won't happen. You can all stop worrying.

Bloodraine:

Why do you all think a whole new person would be 'grown' just for the organs?

No; it totally wouldn't work like that. It would make things xbillion more complex and expensive. An entire organism alone needn't be grown when an organ itself will suffice. I don't think its viable at all to say there would be kind of 'host people' who would be grown for their organs and then culled.

Think about it. Making an identical copy of organ tissue isn't so hard (and I think they already do that in special cases, to grow additional skin for burns victims, right?). Making an entire organ, I guess, would be harder. An entire organism? when all you want is the heart and the lungs?
Nah. Won't happen. You can all stop worrying.

It's just a possibility, really. I mean, I know you can grow organs and stuff. But who's to say that people won't decided to 'grow' whole new people for spare organs in the future? No one really knows for certain. It could happen. Not likely, but anything is possible.
It miht not happen in the near future, but I'd say sometime later when the technique is perfected and the like.
Leading to what I said about the possibility of mandatory human cloning. Doubtful it'd happen, but there's always a chance, even if it's a small one. Who knows what society and it's views will be say 100 years from now.

Serena Vox:

Bloodraine:

Why do you all think a whole new person would be 'grown' just for the organs?

No; it totally wouldn't work like that. It would make things xbillion more complex and expensive. An entire organism alone needn't be grown when an organ itself will suffice. I don't think its viable at all to say there would be kind of 'host people' who would be grown for their organs and then culled.

Think about it. Making an identical copy of organ tissue isn't so hard (and I think they already do that in special cases, to grow additional skin for burns victims, right?). Making an entire organ, I guess, would be harder. An entire organism? when all you want is the heart and the lungs?
Nah. Won't happen. You can all stop worrying.

It's just a possibility, really. I mean, I know you can grow organs and stuff. But who's to say that people won't decided to 'grow' whole new people for spare organs in the future? No one really knows for certain. It could happen. Not likely, but anything is possible.
It miht not happen in the near future, but I'd say sometime later when the technique is perfected and the like.
Leading to what I said about the possibility of mandatory human cloning. Doubtful it'd happen, but there's always a chance, even if it's a small one. Who knows what society and it's views will be say 100 years from now.

A human body is so much more than organs.
Flesh, fat, muscle, skin, bones (bones are a huge part of your body) tendons, ligaments, nails, hair and all that jazz.

Why bother growing all that, just for 'spare organs'?
It would be so much more economical to just grow the organs, you know?

Plus, think of all the organs and body parts that wouldn't need to be grown. I mean, have you ever heard of a pancreas transplant?
The level of waste would be gigantic.

I think that growing an entire person would take so much longer, take so much more effort and require so much more cash that it probably isn't ever going to happen. If people are cloned, it won't be just so we can use their organs and then kill them. It will probably be for something more ~sinister~

I actually thought a lot about this two years ago when I had to write an essay on animal testing. I said it was wrong and that if we're so worried we should just test on humans or cultivated lab rats or something instead of trapping bunnies the way they do in some places. I got a B because the teacher disagreed with me but that's besides the point.

I thought that if we managed to clone people and not add anything to their brains past walking and seeing and basic functions, we could test on them. Right away, one can see a myriad of problems with this, but it's still fun to mull over.

lyrical_mess:

we should just test on humans or cultivated lab rats or something instead of trapping bunnies the way they do in some places.

I can understand testing on humans because they are able to consent to it or refuse. But how is testing on lab rats any better than catching bunnies?