With the right technology cloning should be possible. But I suggest we first cure the process of cloning animals before we move onto humans.
No need to harvest humans. We could be growing Organs in 5 years, if the Government provided sufficient funding. My only fear is these organs will be sold for huge sums of money.
@cystic:
as long as we’re aborting children, i don’t see the point in creating more people.
CC, thats not why people have abortions, in general
oh, i know that all too well YB. I’m not looking forward to dealing with that issue first hand.
It’s just so ridiculous that our society seeks to kill babies while trying to clone living people. We sell our souls, decreasing genetic variability, for what?
I agree with you CC.
It’s very hypocritical if you ask me. :(
Apart from the religious hailstorm is the legal issues. Cloning could lead to a form of slavery if companies own human clones for the sake of medical research. Later, cloning for hard labor work or war is just the next step…All this…Very bad me thinks…
I added a poll guys[and gals]
It’s just so ridiculous that our society seeks to kill babies while trying to clone living people. […] decreasing genetic variability, for what?
Agreed. The problem is that there’s $$$ to make with that technology, so i really think it’ll hard to stop them, exept if there’s an international resolution, supported by all country.
This kinda reminds me of the scene in Jurassic Park, where Malcome says “You you so concerned with whether or not you could, you never stopped to think if you should.”
This kinda reminds me of the scene in Jurassic Park, where Malcome says “You you so concerned with whether or not you could, you never stopped to think if you should.”
classic.
the creed of medico-bioethesists everywhere.
although i’ll hold to my observation that they too live and die by the slippery slope argument/fallacy.
I doubt we’d evolve into a society of Clone-slaves. It is impossible to tell a clone apart from another human. In fact, some of the time, they don’t even look alike (Animal clones).
Cloning would practically be applied to grow organs, not to grow people. Remember, a clone has to mature like a real human. A clone is simply a twin.
I doubt we’d evolve into a society of Clone-slaves. It is impossible to tell a clone apart from another human. In fact, some of the time, they don’t even look alike (Animal clones).
Cloning would practically be applied to grow organs, not to grow people. Remember, a clone has to mature like a real human. A clone is simply a twin.
Yanny, i think you may be mixing up “cloning” with stem cell research. I don’t know how one might “clone a human” for organs, and then harvest them. What would you do with the person you’ve created? Kill them for their heart, lungs, etc.?
The idea of cloning mere organs is a very tricky one. To simply take the DNA of the genes whose products are found in an organ, transcribe to RNA and translate to DNA and think that you’ll have a semblance of an organ is extraordinarily dicey.
Otherwise can you be more specific? I can kind of see cloning animals w/ human gene products or organs that may be suitable for humans, but even that is problematic (particularly where retroviruses and prions are concerned).
Stem cell research basically is cloning, just on a smaller scale.
Cloning complete humans really is pointless. I can’t think of a single practical application for it (except for 2 women wanting to have a baby w/o a male involved, or a male is “ill-prepared” for the task).
Stem cell research basically is cloning, just on a smaller scale.
hmmmm . . . well, not if you are speaking relative to the Raelian’s supposed “accomplishment”. As stated before, stem cells basically are undifferentiated tissue (or early/primary pseudo-differentiated tissue) - that is tissue that has not “decided” to become a liver/heart/brain/skin etc. Anyway, the stem cells need to come from somewhere - usually from aborted foetal tissue.
Now am i to understand that you would apply principles of cloning to create a foetus in order to raid/harvest it for stem cells in order to create organs? How would you deal with the telomere shortening? The ethics of willfully creating a living being for the purpose of destroying it? The fact that there is already more than enough foetal tissue being flushed down sewers every day on this continent?
I think you are doing both issues a disservice by attempting to combine them for the sake of discussion. There is already enough cloud in each issue.
Cloning complete humans really is pointless. I can’t think of a single practical application for it (except for 2 women wanting to have a baby w/o a male involved, or a male is “ill-prepared” for the task).
Well, there are other fertility issues, miscarriages, perinatal deaths, creating the perfect George Bush asassination army, testing scientific applications . . . but largely you’re right.
A clone is simply a twin.
That’s not entirely accurate.
On the outside, they may share similar characteristics and/or traits, but the bad part is what’s inside. Through cloning, you’re taking the DNA (and everything that comes with it; i.e. defects, long-term illnesses, undiscovered cancers, etc.). There’s no telling what could go wrong in a situation like that.
Also, WRT cloning individual body parts. Is this even practical? How could some scientist possibly just grow a “heart” inside a laboratory withought the rest of the body. :(
Actually DS - a clone is more than simply a twin - it has the exact genetic make up, except for the bits of DNA at the end - where the polymerases have to skp due to their 5 primed - to - 3 primed replication processes. Naturally at one end you have the primer, and with the replication process, no genetic material is lost. At the other end, however the beginning, less is replicated because of the need for a primer and a certain length of DNA in order to kick off the replication process. Therefore each replication of a cell’s DNA requires that more genetic material is chopped off the end with each process. If you create a clone from a 40 year old person, you have the genetic material that has had 40 years and 9 months worth of replications (and therefore genetic material) “chopped off” of it. So in this regard it is much different than a twin. After the ends, the material is identical (except of course for the odd 1 in 10 000 or so mutation). As i said, unless you can solve for this problem, you have “Dolly” all over again.
As you say w.r.t. body parts - the only applicable way of dealing with this is, as mentioned, with stem cells.
This kinda reminds me of the scene in Jurassic Park, where Malcome says “You you so concerned with whether or not you could, you never stopped to think if you should.”
and now b4 u know it ur marketing it, pattoning it , and slaped on the side of a plastic lunch box and now ur selling it ur just selling it!
sry it was just so tempting
Exactly. :P
Stem cell research basically is cloning, just on a smaller scale.
Cloning complete humans really is pointless. I can’t think of a single practical application for it (except for 2 women wanting to have a baby w/o a male involved, or a male is “ill-prepared” for the task).
There has been thought by some to purposely clone underaverage intelligent human beings and as they develop to take their organs for other people. I’ve seriously read something on this, just need to find it.
anyone read “brave new world”?
that’s next on my “to read after school stuff” book list.
please share your opinions.
