This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Honestly? If we're looking at it from a standpoint of morals and ethics of creating human life?
I don't see a difference.
One is taking natural semen from a dudes testicles, and putting them up a woman's vagoo with her eggs, and then a baby pops out 9 months later. The other is the artificial creation of a human without the aid of a natural sperm. I'll let you sort out for yourself which is which.
Post by
Squishalot
Last I heard we could clone sheep, but not very well, and only because the structure was easily clone-able. Do you have any literature?
We've come a long way since Dolly
.
I don't see a difference.
There is a pretty big difference, as MyTie points out. One is aiding a natural process, the other is artificially creating something in a test tube.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Atik
Honestly? If we're looking at it from a standpoint of morals and ethics of creating human life?
I don't see a difference.
One is taking natural semen from a dudes testicles, and putting them up a woman's vagoo with her eggs, and then a baby pops out 9 months later. The other is the artificial creation of a human without the aid of a natural sperm. I'll let you sort out for yourself which is which.
They both create human from human, through scientific means.
Post by
MyTie
They both create human from human, through scientific means.
The results may be the same, but that doesn't make the means the same. If the town you lived in decided to pave your road with human skulls, would that be the same as using rock pavement? I mean, they are both roads, so doesn't that mean they are the same thing? You can drive on them both.
Post by
Atik
They both create human from human, through scientific means.
The results may be the same, but that doesn't make the means the same. If the town you lived in decided to pave your road with human skulls, would that be the same as using rock pavement? I mean, they are both roads, so doesn't that mean they are the same thing? You can drive on them both.
I'm not entirely certain how well one could drive on human skulls.
But if my town didn't commit some atrocity to get them? And the road still did its job?
No, it wouldn't make a difference to me.
Post by
MyTie
Last I heard we could clone sheep, but not very well, and only because the structure was easily clone-able. Do you have any literature?
We've come a long way since Dolly
.
I just got an edubacation. I guess I need to figure out how I feel about this, ethically and morally. I'll think about it for the next day. My first impression is that it isn't a bad thing, as God hasn't spoken out against it, or anything similar, in the Bible. I'd like to wonder how it will be used as a positive. I don't think we need to mass produce cloned humans.
Would they have the same rights as "regular" humans. I think they should. Can we clone humans without free will? How about we clone a bunch of really smart apes and have them do our chores and work for us. No? I'm seeing a bunch of complex problems on the horizon.
Post by
Ksero
For - Only exception being human cloning. The only good purpose of them would be for growing human tissue, and that brings up the right to life issues.
Would they have the same rights as "regular" humans. I think they should. Can we clone humans without free will? How about we clone a bunch of really smart apes and have them do our chores and work for us. No? I'm seeing a bunch of complex problems on the horizon.
In response to those people saying "clone those with high IQ," We already have one of those people, why would we need a duplicate.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not entirely certain how well one could drive on human skulls.
But if my town didn't commit some atrocity to get them? And the road still did its job?
No, it wouldn't make a difference to me.
Ok, but they would be different. It wouldn't make a difference to you, but they would be different to you. You could look at one and look at the other and see they are different. Can we agree that cloning a human in a test tube using nothing but DNA is a very different thing than artificially flooding a woman's womb with harvested semen? You can say that you view them as morally equivilant, and we'll all respect your viewpoint, but you can't say that they are the same thing, because they aren't.
Post by
MyTie
In response to those people saying "clone those with high IQ," We already have one of those people, why would we need a duplicate.
Several hundred René Descartes (sorry EluraE) in a room working together would accomplish more than one René Descartes, especially since he is dead.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
A clone would be an exact duplicate of the person cloned from.
Artificial Insemination is the mixing of two people to make a completely brand new form of life.
There is a difference, whether the 'science' is new or not.
Post by
Levarus
In response to those people saying "clone those with high IQ," We already have one of those people, why would we need a duplicate.
Several hundred René Descartes (sorry EluraE) in a room working together would accomplish more than one René Descartes, especially since he is dead.
I agree with everything MyTie is saying about this, lol. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by
Squishalot
I just got an edubacation. I guess I need to figure out how I feel about this, ethically and morally. I'll think about it for the next day. My first impression is that it isn't a bad thing, as God hasn't spoken out against it, or anything similar, in the Bible. I'd like to wonder how it will be used as a positive. I don't think we need to mass produce cloned humans.
Looking forward to see what you end up concluding once you've pondered it for a while.
A clone would be an exact duplicate of the person cloned from.
Artificial Insemination is the mixing of two people to make a completely brand new form of life.
It's also worth noting that AI usually doesn't result in an exact duplicate, DNA and all. It may if you fiddled with it enough, but not in and of its own right.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
It's also worth noting that AI usually doesn't result in an exact duplicate, DNA and all. It may if you fiddled with it enough, but not in and of its own right.
Did you mean to put clone there Squish?
Post by
MyTie
In response to those people saying "clone those with high IQ," We already have one of those people, why would we need a duplicate.
Several hundred René Descartes (sorry EluraE) in a room working together would accomplish more than one René Descartes, especially since he is dead.
Or less if they keep arguing with each other...
No... They'd still accomplish more than a dead guy, even if they just made a sandwich. That's one more sandwich than the dead guy made.
Besides, so much good stuff has come out of arguing. Why don't you go read
The Republic
.
I'd pay big bucks to watch a cloned Plato, a cloned Descartes, a cloned Jesus, and a cloned Einstein have a long argument.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ksero
In response to those people saying "clone those with high IQ," We already have one of those people, why would we need a duplicate.
Several hundred René Descartes (sorry EluraE) in a room working together would accomplish more than one René Descartes, especially since he is dead.
Cloning dead geniuses is different, if they are no longer around, I understand your point but I doubt it would ever get to that, unless they were all raised the exact same way as the original they wouldn't even be interested in the same things, and how would you force them to work together.
As an aside if they found the cross on which jesus was crucified, and there was viable DNA, would you want him to be cloned?
Post by
MyTie
As an aside if they found the cross on which jesus was crucified, and there was viable DNA, would you want him to be cloned?
The plot twists.
No. I wouldn't want Jesus cloned. I'm going to hide from making any religious reason for this, and just say that people would worship the clone, and if the clone turned out to be a war mongering jerk, then it would create a new war mongering religion. That is reason enough to stay away from that.
Post by
Levarus
In response to those people saying "clone those with high IQ," We already have one of those people, why would we need a duplicate.
Several hundred René Descartes (sorry EluraE) in a room working together would accomplish more than one René Descartes, especially since he is dead.
Cloning dead geniuses is different, if they are no longer around, I understand your point but I doubt it would ever get to that point, unless they were all raised the exact same way as the original they wouldn't even be interested in the same things, and how would you force them to work together.
As an aside if they found the cross on which jesus was crucified, and there was viable DNA, would you want him to be cloned?
Your question, is if those who could clone would clone Jesus if they had his DNA. My answer... do you think, if people who had spent their lives researching the art of cloning, of making duplicates in the field of greatness, who's jobs concern advancing the human line, you ask if they would clone Jesus, perhaps the most influential man in the entirety of our race?
Yes.
Post by
Squishalot
It's also worth noting that AI usually doesn't result in an exact duplicate, DNA and all. It may if you fiddled with it enough, but not in and of its own right.
Did you mean to put clone there Squish?
Nope, why? You can clone using AI / IVF if you're picky enough with your specimens, as far as I'm aware.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.
