Do you think that people will accept the idea of cloning humans?

[Cicero]

So I know it hasn't fully happened yet, but it will get there soon. Do you think that cloning humans crosses the line? Morally.

Do you think it would be ok to clone humans as "extra parts"? What I mean by that is do you think it's wrong to clone humans just for harvesting organs? Like if it's clone twin, needs an extra heart, we just kill the clone for the human.

Would you ever classify a clone as an actual person?

This was brought up in science class a while back and I thought it was an interesting subject.

[double r]

No and I believe that this can be dangerous to the clones because when you clone something it will have medical difficulties and it will suffer through pain, plus it goes against many cultures and religions( they will get shunned or even killed) . They have done this with some animals a experiment and that did not go so well. Also most of the clones show that they have an very low white blood cell count and their immune systems are very weak so if it happens we might have a global epidemic . But it is interesting to see happen through science and human evolution and discovery.

[Fractured Silhouette]

Probably not yet. Maybe in the future. Crosses too many moral/religious lines at the moment.

I would if the clone developed its own subconscious and started having conscious thoughts. But if it was just a load of organs thrown together with no personality or intelligence, then no.

[Noxail]

Dude, I read a book that tackled this head on. Best Sci-Fi book ever.... But no. If I ever had a cloned twin, we'd go out partying and make people think they're seeing double. I'd never kill them.... Er.. I don't think I would.

[Korashk]

Full human clones will never be used as organ farms simply because it's way easier to clone individual organs and body parts. Not to mention that individual part cloning will happen way before full human cloning.

There are plenty of ethical issues with cloning, but using clones as organ farms isn't one of them.

Also, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. A cloned human would be a person barring genetic brain modification or other tampering. "Personhood" isn't some arbitrary concept subject to the whim of human feeling.

[Bones]

I agree with Korashk, we will be able to clone organs individually before we are able to clone an entire human, so cloning entire humans for organ harvesting will will be redundant, not to mention much more expensive. As for cloning people for other reasons, now, when we don't even have the technology to do it yet, it is already a very taboo subject in many peoples eyes, and for this I doubt that cloning an entire human will ever be legal, beyond certain limits of course.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

So I know it hasn't fully happened yet, but it will get there soon. Do you think that cloning humans crosses the line? Morally.

Do you think it would be ok to clone humans as "extra parts"? What I mean by that is do you think it's wrong to clone humans just for harvesting organs? Like if it's clone twin, needs an extra heart, we just kill the clone for the human.

Would you ever classify a clone as an actual person?

This was brought up in science class a while back and I thought it was an interesting subject.

Nope. This is one example as to why religion gets in the way. Cloning like this could save millions, maybe billions of lives, but it probably won't get very far because of religious people. I honestly can't see any humane way to use clones, but then again what is a humane use of cows?

[BFG9001]

They already have the biotech to do it.
I think it is facinating to ponder.

[Amaryllis]

You cannot clone someone of the same age as you. That's what science fiction has led people to believe. Cloning simply means stripping a zygote of its DNA and injecting it with that of another. Your clone will be like your identical child.

It is possible to "grow" specific body parts, they are already working on "growing" meat. It multiplies the stem cells. "Cloning" will most likely be accepted but I doubt anyone's body parts are going to be harvested. Perhaps they will use stem cell technology to recreate your lost fingers or something.

The copying of DNA might be used for people who want twins or those who are infertile or lack a mating partner, so they want a zygote with their DNA. I lack knowledge of such science, however, so I'm unsure. I'll get back to you on that.

[Mortal Coil]

I don't think it will be accepted, but I do think (personally) that it could be used for good and save millions.

[Rage of the Menace]

Eventually. Coming from a Catholic, I can safely say it will be in the near future.

[Church]

I dont see complete human cloning ever being socially acceptable, but organs etc is something that could happen.

[plebble]

I think we should do it. I don't see why not.

[Sudds3]

So I know it hasn't fully happened yet, but it will get there soon. Do you think that cloning humans crosses the line? Morally.

Do you think it would be ok to clone humans as "extra parts"? What I mean by that is do you think it's wrong to clone humans just for harvesting organs? Like if it's clone twin, needs an extra heart, we just kill the clone for the human.

Would you ever classify a clone as an actual person?

This was brought up in science class a while back and I thought it was an interesting subject.

So you are saying that everyone be cloned at the time of their birth and then the clone is kept in incubation for protection and used at a later time if necessary for an organ transplant or blood donation? sounds like a very elegant safety net that would be wonderful to have. Morally I do not think that the senario stated above is wrong, it's just a safety net for a possible purpose later in that persons life. And no, I would never classify a clone as a real person....ever

[Korashk]

And no, I would never classify a clone as a real person....ever
Explain your position; because if a clone isn't a real person then neither are you.

[Sudds3]

Explain your position; because if a clone isn't a real person then neither are you.

Why, i was created from the sperm of my father and the egg of my mother, concieved in about 9 months then born like a human. Im not sure how cloning is done, but i assume it would be taking samples of your DNA, blood, skin maybe and growing a copy from it. I am the original and i am a person. I have always been a person, a human, a man....the clone came after man and is just simply a copy of man. So it is a clone which i would observe to be a subspecies of the human race. That would just be my opinion.

And i do like how you asked for my reasoning! It actually made me somewhat happy that you actually care what i have to say and would like to hear more in an intellectual debate.

[Korashk]

Why, i was created from the sperm of my father and the egg of my mother, concieved in about 9 months then born like a human.
Currently, this is basically how cloning is done. DNA is taken from the animal that gets cloned and is then implanted into a surrogate mother. It then goes through the same processes that caused you and I to develop. They'd start as babies and eventually grow to adults.

Im not sure how cloning is done, but i assume it would be taking samples of your DNA, blood, skin maybe and growing a copy from it.
Technology may eventually develop to a point where humans can be grown like that, but it wouldn't make them any less human or eliminate their personhood.

I am the original and i am a person. I have always been a person, a human, a man....the clone came after man and is just simply a copy of man. So it is a clone which i would observe to be a subspecies of the human race. That would just be my opinion.
This reasoning is fundamentally flawed because a clone is by definition an approximately exact copy. It might have some superficial biological differences because of evolution, but it's otherwise the same.

The main think I'm trying to get across is that on a biological level there would be no difference between you and a clone of you.

Hypothetically, just because a clone has been made from your DNA wouldn't mean that it's less than human or not a person. Thinking that way is the kind of mindset that would lead to the enslavement of these clones. It's basically the same mindset that people used to justify taking black people as slave.

And i do like how you asked for my reasoning! It actually made me somewhat happy that you actually care what i have to say and would like to hear more in an intellectual debate.
Calm and intellectual debates are much more preferable to the shouting matches hat take place on virtually all debating forums.

[Sudds3]

I see your point in saying that they are human, its a very good poit. I just belivev that in life it would get confusing is there was an exact copy of everyone walking around, so there would need to be a distinction between them to mzke sure you knew which one was the copy. The clone is a human, just not a person in my eyes because its just a copy and not the actual person, so there would be a classification of people and clones.

[Magus]

Human will not be thwarted by morals that makes no sense. If human cloning is possible, then let there be clones.

[Mob Boss]

So I know it hasn't fully happened yet, but it will get there soon. Do you think that cloning humans crosses the line? Morally.

Do you think it would be ok to clone humans as "extra parts"? What I mean by that is do you think it's wrong to clone humans just for harvesting organs? Like if it's clone twin, needs an extra heart, we just kill the clone for the human.

Would you ever classify a clone as an actual person?

This was brought up in science class a while back and I thought it was an interesting subject.

Yeah, I think it crosses the line. The things scientists can create in petri dishes these days has me thinking this very topic could become a reality in the very near future. Now, if scientists could duplicate/clone only the lifesaving organs needed for transplants I would strongly agree to it but I doubt they would stop there. Do I think it's morally wrong? Yes. Both the cloning and then harvesting of spare parts from said clone seems very inhumane to say the least.

Would I ever classify a clone as an actual person? From a religious point of view, no. I don't agree a clone would have a soul or spirit (whatever you want to call it) From a scientific point of view, depends. Do the clones have the mental capacity and awareness as humans do? Do they experience emotions as we do? If the answer to those questions were yes then yes, I would classify a clone as a person.

[Korashk]

I see your point in saying that they are human, its a very good poit. I just belivev that in life it would get confusing is there was an exact copy of everyone walking around, so there would need to be a distinction between them to mzke sure you knew which one was the copy.
There would be a distinction, the clone and the person would look fairly differenent unless the cloning occurred at near infancy. Think of it like this:

Through the process of natural birth the sperm and egg can fuse in the womb and then split, causing identical twins. There's no real issue with identical twins in society today, this is because even though they share near identical DNA, they are still two distinct individuals. I'm pretty sure that identical twins don't even have the same set of fingerprints.

Cloning would basically take your DNA and give you an identical twin, but since the twin was conceived years after you were born it wouldn't even look like you, and it would definitely think differently than you.

The clone is a human, just not a person in my eyes because its just a copy and not the actual person, so there would be a classification of people and clones.
My issue is that you're essentially saying that because a person is a copy, that they're no longer a person. This is absurd to me because whether or not you're a person has nothing to do with what species you are, and everything to do with your mental capacities.

All humans are people, but being human is not a requirement for being a person. Some scientists hypothesize that dolphins and some of the more advanced primates are people, even though they aren't human.

I personally don't see the need to classify clones as different that "traditional" humans because that just reinforces the incorrect train of thought that a cloned human and a "traditional" human are somehow different. There's no need for it and it might lead to treating clones as second-class citizens.

From a scientific point of view, depends. Do the clones have the mental capacity and awareness as humans do? Do they experience emotions as we do? If the answer to those questions were yes then yes, I would classify a clone as a person.
From a scientific point of view there would be literally no difference between cloned humans and "traditional" humans. Although I am curious about why a clone wouldn't have a soul from a religious point of view.

[Mob Boss]

From a scientific point of view there would be literally no difference between cloned humans and "traditional" humans. Although I am curious about why a clone wouldn't have a soul from a religious point of view.

Well, it should be classified as a person I presume. Either way, if the duplication of organs comes before the duplication of people what is the reasoning behind cloning an actual being? If we're not using them for medical purposes why do it?

Genesis 2:7 states God formed man from the dust off the ground and then breathe thhe breath of life into his nostrils; and man became a living soul.


Now, I don't expect anyone to agree with me or my religious views, nor do I try to persuade people to. I'm simply stating my opinion.

[Korashk]

Either way, if the duplication of organs comes before the duplication of people what is the reasoning behind cloning an actual being? If we're not using them for medical purposes why do it?
Cloning humans could possibly supply scientists with more information about biology than anything since Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. Just because clones can't ethically be used as unwilling lab-rats doesn't mean that there is nothing to gain.

Observing the process itself and studying samples from cloned individuals could lead to the development of cures for numerous diseases. I don't claim to be an expert, but this site has a lot of information: http://www.humancloning.org/

Genesis 2:7 states God formed man from the dust off the ground and then breathe thhe breath of life into his nostrils; and man became a living soul.

Now, I don't expect anyone to agree with me or my religious views, nor do I try to persuade people to. I'm simply stating my opinion.
I don't understand why this verse disqualifies a clone from having a soul. Even assuming the truth of the creation account in Genesis, it's been thousands of years since people were created out of dirt and it hasn't happened since then. If souls exist, there is surely a non-biological reason that people have them.

[Mob Boss]

Cloning humans could possibly supply scientists with more information about biology than anything since Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. Just because clones can't ethically be used as unwilling lab-rats doesn't mean that there is nothing to gain.

Observing the process itself and studying samples from cloned individuals could lead to the development of cures for numerous diseases. I don't claim to be an expert, but this site has a lot of information: http://www.humancloning.org/


I don't understand why this verse disqualifies a clone from having a soul. Even assuming the truth of the creation account in Genesis, it's been thousands of years since people were created out of dirt and it hasn't happened since then. If souls exist, there is surely a non-biological reason that people have them.

Thank you for that link. I will definitely read up more on the matter.

As for (in my opinion) clones not having souls, I believe if a creature isn't created by God then it is without a soul. I mean, the only other thing I could think of to prove me otherwise is identical twins. In that case they both have souls, and assuming a clone would virtually be an identical twin I guess it's just as likely that it could have a soul. Now, my definition of a soul may be different from others and this is strictly based on my opinion.

[Wayne92]

Clones, as in sci fi style cloning, I would have to say no. The cloning that has occurred is merely gene manipulation, if I understand correctly. The clones I have heard of are still born naturally but only care the genes of the "father".
Although, I'm waiting for the day cybertronic prosthetics or regenerating limbs, the latter is a bit farfetched but their are people who would love to have that.

[Midland]

Morally I don't think human clones are right under current circumstances. I would agree with cloning of animals who are already used as a food source but then that strikes problems due to having a low genetic diversity. On that note, New Scientist did an interesting article on lab grown meat that was grown without a body and that was presumed to be beneficial in many ways through tests and feasibility studies. Due to an everlasting trail of paperwork and test results, this meat hasn't been tried by anyone or thing so it might taste like crap and then the whole thing would fall through.