Cloning ? Thoughts

[Rich Parsons]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/872966.asp


At this thread, it stated that Dolly the first mammal was diagnosed with Lung Disease.

Curious about peoples thoughts?





Edited: Per Blindside Comments! Thank you - Cancer was modified to Disease.

 

[Blindside]

Actually, that article doesn't say anything of the sort.

It does state that the sheep died of a "progressive lung disease" and later that "lung infections are common in older sheep, particularly those like her which are kept indoors." A better diagnosis should be available after the autopsy.

The indications of premature aging are interesting, but should await a much larger sample size to see if this is often a factor.

With regard to cloning I don't really see what the fuss is about. For producing animals it is a remarkably inefficient way of making new organisms. I do see a few good points, such as having truly identical lab samples for experiments so variability due to genetic differences is eliminated.

Alot of the issues around human cloning come from the acquisition process of foetal cell tissue, which is closely wrapped up with the whole abortion thing, and I'm not going there.

With regard to human cloning, should the process prove to be successful and safe for the clone, then I don't see any reason that it should not be permitted. Alot of people point to the weirdness that might occur (cloning a dead wife, child, keeping a clone as extra body parts, etc) but that is a moral issue for the cloners, it has nothing to do with the science of cloning. I do not believe that because your DNA is used for for the creation of another being it takes away from your individuality. Many identical twins wind up being quite different despite their identical genetics.

Lamont

 

[Jill666]

With regards to Dolly, I'm not surprized, but interested in the autopsy results.

With regard to humans, I think less about the acquisition problems or about the issue of if a soul exists etc. and more about the socioeconomic ramifications. For instance, would clones end up as a permanent underclass? Would they revolt? Would society accept clones as equal? Hell, we don't even accept each other as equal unreservedly yet. Would they just be lab toys for experimentation? I think the risks probably outwiegh the benefit to society, and we need to concern ourselves with healing the existing clone-free human race.

That's about as far as I want to go on that subject at the moment, trying to tread lightly.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I am really confused here.

This site can support people with opinions on shades of techniques, support people and threads on religion and God and or the lack there of, support discussion on Smoking and also on additives, yet people do not wish to discuss this topic.

Kaith, I apologize for finding a topic that is SOOO HOT that no one wants to chime in.

WOW!



:asian:

 

[Jill666]

Actually, I went easy figuring for some hot debate/ flare-up. Are we nerds?

Nah...

 

[Kirk]

Well, maybe I can get the ball rolling. I'm "con" cloning of
humans .... but not human parts. Clone a heart, a kidney, skin,
etc, but not a whole person. Just because we CAN screw with
nature, doesn't mean we should.

 

[Master of Blades]

Originally posted by Jill666
Actually, I went easy figuring for some hot debate/ flare-up. Are we nerds?

Nah...

I'm not.......Still not sure bout you

And to be honest I agree with Kirk, cloning human parts would be useful, as of yet I see nothing that important about cloning humans.....:asian:

 

[Seig]

My Dad an I were talking the otehr night about some people that predicted things decades eben centuroes before the occured. We were not referring to Nostradamas, but people like Galileo, Jules Verne and yes, Gene Roddenberry. Gene Roddenberry in the Star Trek Original Series predicted human cloning and the problems that would arise. It's kind of a fascinating time in our development, but it is also scary.