Human cloning

[Cirrus]

I'm almost certain this has been done before, but I want to talk on the subject of cloning us for 'spare parts'; that is, spare organs when our own fail due to old age or health problems. The ethical, moral side to it, anyway.

Imagine a clone of a living human, developed in a laboratory and forced to grow up in a single isolated room, until its 'real' counterpart needs an organ. The clone is killed; the organ extracted.

Is there an ethical problem with this? I don't believe so; not with certain circumstances. I think that if the clone is kept happy, and convinced it has a good quality of life, there is no problem with locking it up. It would, of course, never see the outside world, but, "what you don't know can't hurt you" anyway. The death of the clone is also important to address. It would have to be immediate, so that the clone has no knowledge of its death, and doesn't feel any pain.

After it's dead, it cannot think or feel any longer. It cannot care that it has died, or see what will happen to its body. In these circumstances, I believe that there would be no moral issues, but what do you have to say? :)

[Short Circuit]

Have you never seen The 6th Day staring Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Why would a clone not be given the same rights as any other human being? A clone is just a copy of the original is it not? The thought of "growing" a clone just for spare parts seems a little strange and wrong to me.

You referred to the clone as "it", that is wrong, "it" would be a human being so should have the same rights as every living being on this planet.

There would be protests from all sides if clones are grown, then killed just to keep "spare parts" INCASE they are needed.

[Cirrus]

I don't believe in human rights, to be honest. If a being is kept happy and free from emotional/physical pain, it's okay.

A human's identity is defined by social interaction. As this clone has none, or extremely little, its mind is not technically like a normal human's.

I accept that there would be protests, but perhaps those people would not be looking deep enough into this.

[huginnmuninn]

human altering for parts...no.
human altering for genetic alteratiion like to give people wings and stuff...that would be awesome

[Korashk]

Harvesting clones for parts is comparable to buying a new car, taking the parts out of the new car that your old car needs, and then crushing the new car in the junkyard. You see what I'm getting at? You're better off just getting the part by itself. We'll probably be able to manufacture individual organs in labs before we're able to perfect human cloning.

Plus there's the whole rights argument. Rights may not exist a priori, they do exist as constructs of society. The only difference between a clone and a "regular" human is nothing. There is no difference. Therefore any justification for using clones for this activity also justifies using, say, you for this activity.

[kenoloor]

Harvesting clones for parts is comparable to buying a new car, taking the parts out of the new car that your old car needs, and then crushing the new car in the junkyard. You see what I'm getting at? You're better off just getting the part by itself. We'll probably be able to manufacture individual organs in labs before we're able to perfect human cloning.

Plus there's the whole rights argument. Rights may not exist a priori, they do exist as constructs of society. The only difference between a clone and a "regular" human is nothing. There is no difference. Therefore any justification for using clones for this activity also justifies using, say, you for this activity.

This.
Not to mention, it's incredible wasteful. Manufacturing of individual organs would be a much better solution, in my opinion, and would probably present fewer moral dilemmas.

[Rawwwrr]

Cloning individual organs? Cool.

Cloning crops and animals, like wheat and cows? Cool.

Cloning people? Nuh uh, no way. That opens up so many issues it's not even worth it. We already have a population problem anyway.

[Cirrus]

Harvesting clones for parts is comparable to buying a new car, taking the parts out of the new car that your old car needs, and then crushing the new car in the junkyard. You see what I'm getting at? You're better off just getting the part by itself. We'll probably be able to manufacture individual organs in labs before we're able to perfect human cloning.

Plus there's the whole rights argument. Rights may not exist a priori, they do exist as constructs of society. The only difference between a clone and a "regular" human is nothing. There is no difference. Therefore any justification for using clones for this activity also justifies using, say, you for this activity.

Well, I could only be used if I had no memories of normal life. I agree with everyone that growing individual organs with no consciousness whatsoever is the best idea, especially in terms of resources used, but full human cloning may be the only choice in future.

Your car buying analogy is correct, except that the car would be... vapourised, not crushed slowly.

I'm basically saying that giving someone a painful life and slow death is immoral, yet the opposite is perfectly acceptable.

[ShatteredWings]

I don't see the moral issue with cloning. They're no different than identical twins IMO.
Which MEANS the clone is human and deserves to be treated as such.
How are their minds fundamentally different? Are testtube/IVF babies nonhuman because they weren't conceived through sex?

[aperson444]

I don't see why there's any problem here. If that clone never knew their rights and never experienced humanity, then they are not human. If they did not know they were human, they are not human. I think that part is fine, but harvesting for organs is a pretty bad idea. Humans need food and water to survive and when they are ready to harvest, many years may have passed. I think that it might be wiser to grow organs or tissue from stem cells or something of the sort. Perhaps we could also engineer a "sub"-human with a less dense brain (and less cognitive function), a shorter life and a more rapid maturation period.

Oh and technically we CAN clone humans, just not without some kind of mother to hold the human. We are far from growing organs or clones in a liquid medium outside of the uterus. We can grow tissues in culture, but assembling organs from tissues is a different story.

[Rawwwrr]

I don't see why there's any problem here. If that clone never knew their rights and never experienced humanity, then they are not human. If they did not know they were human, they are not human. I think that part is fine, but harvesting for organs is a pretty bad idea. Humans need food and water to survive and when they are ready to harvest, many years may have passed. I think that it might be wiser to grow organs or tissue from stem cells or something of the sort. Perhaps we could also engineer a "sub"-human with a less dense brain (and less cognitive function), a shorter life and a more rapid maturation period.

Oh and technically we CAN clone humans, just not without some kind of mother to hold the human. We are far from growing organs or clones in a liquid medium outside of the uterus. We can grow tissues in culture, but assembling organs from tissues is a different story.

Correct me am I wrong, but haven't we used stem cells to replicate/create an organ?; a kidney wasn't it?

[Zarakly]

I'm almost certain this has been done before, but I want to talk on the subject of cloning us for 'spare parts'; that is, spare organs when our own fail due to old age or health problems. The ethical, moral side to it, anyway.

Imagine a clone of a living human, developed in a laboratory and forced to grow up in a single isolated room, until its 'real' counterpart needs an organ. The clone is killed; the organ extracted.

Is there an ethical problem with this? I don't believe so; not with certain circumstances. I think that if the clone is kept happy, and convinced it has a good quality of life, there is no problem with locking it up. It would, of course, never see the outside world, but, "what you don't know can't hurt you" anyway. The death of the clone is also important to address. It would have to be immediate, so that the clone has no knowledge of its death, and doesn't feel any pain.

After it's dead, it cannot think or feel any longer. It cannot care that it has died, or see what will happen to its body. In these circumstances, I believe that there would be no moral issues, but what do you have to say? :)

I'm not sure what movie it was, but what your describing has pretty much already been done in the movie lol

[Cirrus]

I'm not sure what movie it was, but what your describing has pretty much already been done in the movie lol

The Island? :)

[Short Circuit]

I don't see why there's any problem here. If that clone never knew their rights and never experienced humanity, then they are not human.


Is this not the same logic that was used in the 40's by a certain leader who said jews had no rights because they were not part of humanity?

[AllThatYouDreamed]

...Wait, so you're telling me someone with 100% human DNA doesn't deserve to be treated as human because they were created from another's cell tissue?

Right. That logic doesn't even make sense. They're human, end of.


Also, you realize clones still have to be born to a mother, correct? Testtube babies still need a uterus to grow in & still have a mother.

[Rawwwrr]

Is this not the same logic that was used in the 40's by a certain leader who said jews had no rights because they were not part of humanity?

Godwin's Law much?

[Jupiter]

Wait...

So, if gays or religions or females can have rights, a clone to a human can't? Wouldn't it be the same, have emotions, and such?

[Rawwwrr]

Wait...

So, if gays or religions or females can have rights, a clone to a human can't? Wouldn't it be the same, have emotions, and such?

Gays, religious people and females already exist. Clones aren't, yet. That is a significant difference.

[thatfatguy]

I'm almost certain this has been done before, but I want to talk on the subject of cloning us for 'spare parts'; that is, spare organs when our own fail due to old age or health problems. The ethical, moral side to it, anyway.

Imagine a clone of a living human, developed in a laboratory and forced to grow up in a single isolated room, until its 'real' counterpart needs an organ. The clone is killed; the organ extracted.

Is there an ethical problem with this? I don't believe so; not with certain circumstances. I think that if the clone is kept happy, and convinced it has a good quality of life, there is no problem with locking it up. It would, of course, never see the outside world, but, "what you don't know can't hurt you" anyway. The death of the clone is also important to address. It would have to be immediate, so that the clone has no knowledge of its death, and doesn't feel any pain.

After it's dead, it cannot think or feel any longer. It cannot care that it has died, or see what will happen to its body. In these circumstances, I believe that there would be no moral issues, but what do you have to say? :)

The only thing that stops us from doing things like this is butthurt Christians trying to keep the world in the dark ages. It's a real shame.

[Rawwwrr]

Also, is it really necessary to create a whole human clone if you just want, say, a heart? Could you not use stem cells in combination with technology to create a single heart? I don't believe that's a totally silly idea that may come to pass in the future.

[Abyssinian]

Harvesting clones for parts is comparable to buying a new car, taking the parts out of the new car that your old car needs, and then crushing the new car in the junkyard. You see what I'm getting at? You're better off just getting the part by itself. We'll probably be able to manufacture individual organs in labs before we're able to perfect human cloning.

Plus there's the whole rights argument. Rights may not exist a priori, they do exist as constructs of society. The only difference between a clone and a "regular" human is nothing. There is no difference. Therefore any justification for using clones for this activity also justifies using, say, you for this activity.
This is exactly my stand on the whole thing..

I do see the logic behind "what a person doesn't know can't hurt them".. but that is still cruel in my opinion. Also, as mentioned above, the resources it would take to do this would be MASSIVE! Too much for more than a select few to be allowed to do it on this world.

[AlmostHomeless]

I don't see how cloning would be easier or the only option in the future. Growing individual organs is much further along than cloning humans. A clone, even if kept brain-dead by lack of stimulation still deserves to live. For example people who are "vegetables" aren't killed because they cease to have significant brain activity. Even if they are given a good life and a painless death it's still wrong. They are literally exact copies, so there is no difference. Why not kill the person with failing parts and let the clone grow up and replace them?

In short, individual organ growing would be much more efficient and present less of a moral issue.

[Jupiter]

There are people who donate organs. No point in this, I think. Plus, pace makers, ya know, they are still around..

[Jupiter]

The only thing that stops us from doing things like this is butthurt Christians trying to keep the world in the dark ages. It's a real shame.

Butt hurt Christian? Hear is one right here. Seriously. I don't call non believers "butt hurt atheists." so please, for the love of what is all good, just please stop using that saying.

Back on topic. It just seems like raising children for war. But, certain death. hmm.

[aperson444]

Is this not the same logic that was used in the 40's by a certain leader who said jews had no rights because they were not part of humanity

No... Because Jews were people who were born into the world as humans, brought up as humans and taught to act human. I'm saying we raise human clones and maybe mentally retard them using mercury or some cognitive retardant then raise them to harvest organs, blood, etc. However that would be costly, take too long and likely be inefficient. Now first we need to find a way to grow said clones outside of the uterus.

[Neptune]

Butt hurt Christian? Hear is one right here. Seriously. I don't call non believers "butt hurt atheists." so please, for the love of what is all good, just please stop using that saying.

Back on topic. It just seems like raising children for war. But, certain death. hmm.


Just because you don't call someone something doesn't make them not have to call you something, lol.

[kenoloor]

No... Because Jews were people who were born into the world as humans, brought up as humans and taught to act human. I'm saying we raise human clones and maybe mentally retard them using mercury or some cognitive retardant then raise them to harvest organs, blood, etc. However that would be costly, take too long and likely be inefficient. Now first we need to find a way to grow said clones outside of the uterus.

Human beings are a species: homo sapien. Human being is not a parenting style. Anybody who is born genetically AS a human IS a human. Holy fuck.