Why is it immoral to clone people?

[Argus]

I suppose from a religious perspective, you could see the objection to humans playing God. But most of the opposition to cloning, which has seen most western countries ban even the scientific research into this, seems based on some other objections - which are many and varied. I'll address only one, because it's the only one I can recognize as legitimate. That is the inevitable mistakes in the process as scientists learn how it's done.

People point out that it took scientists a couple of hundred tries before they were able to get the sheep cloning down pat. They assume, therefore, that there will be many, many birth defects and malformed, short-lived babies in the early stages of a human cloning experiment. I think that fear is probably exaggerated. Scientists have learned a lot about cloning and genetic manipulation since then. I also believe there would be considerably more care involved in cloning humans. You can't afford to take as many chances and throw the dice as often when dealing with human babies.

Still, there would inevitably be problems. But on the scale of human progress is that really such a big deal? If you could clone a genetically superior baby - one without any of the defective genes we've been able to identify which cause a myriad of ailments, sicknesses and problems throughout life, the few babies born with birth defects would be vastly, vastly outweighed by the millions and millions who would follow who would be free of defects and live long, healthy lives.

It would, at once, solve the problem of infertile couples who want children, couples with genetic faults who don't want to pass them on, and probably do much to combat, if not eliminate the declining birth rate in the west. The possibilities of a succesful human cloning program which would allow people to simply drop off some tissue, order up a baby, and walk out with one are so vast that surely they outweigh the inevitable early consequences for a very, very few malformed children.

[BHS]

I say, bring on the headless clones. Seriously. I have no problem with organ farming at all; I don't even know why it's an issue. Doctors in France recently removed the face of a living (well, braindead) person for transplant - how can growing a mindless corpse for medical consumption be any worse?

[Argus]

I say, bring on the headless clones. Seriously. I have no problem with organ farming at all; I don't even know why it's an issue. Doctors in France recently removed the face of a living (well, braindead) person for transplant - how can growing a mindless corpse for medical consumption be any worse?

There is a fear of where it will all end up, as in science fiction stories, for example. Could you grow an entire human zombie, then somehow do a brain transplant and put a 90 year old brain into a 19 year old body? And what is the morality of that towards the previous occupant? But that's the sort of thing I don't mind leaving for the future.

[RB]

Well, firstly, so that I don't forget my agenda, the "good" and "bad" are promoted based on the male power structure. From my view I don't see a lot of fair maidens promoted. Yes? We need men to fight war currently, this gene business can come in just handy.

Next, the gene business is actually, well, BIG BUSINESS for BIG BUSINESS MEN who are very serious. Serious enough to patent "cut and splice". This means that life can become simply an invention. Consider, that we have mapped the entire DNA sequence, and now able to manipulate Exxon Valdez oil clean up.. affordable cost of course say $300,000, sort a have your new prize your way.

Anyway, I am concerned over the direction cloning can take. We can have huge corporations just doing hi-tech racism, meeting the requirements and specifications of their wealth clients.

In my opinion genetic engineering belongs and should be placed in the same category such as nuclear engineering, and other break through. It is too powerful, and can fall into the hands of big businesses, emotionalism, motivations or parents, misfits, et al.

Nowadays when I travel, I do the check check.

- at the airport - check

- plane is there - check

- passport in hand - check

- plane has wheels - check

- plane has a pilot - check

- plane has wings - check

- is it safe? - check

- all things I can see - check, check

So you want the new arrival the be free of genetic deformity - we have 10 different ways to make your baby

- pick one way - check

- face is there - check

- tail - check

- eyes - check

- heart - wait a minute, we requested a heartless fellow

Attention, Attention, this clone has failed this testing, check, and forfeits the right to live.

I am not persuaded to agreed with promotion of making human clones. I mean who would answer to the poor unwanted third world countries as they try to plan for their 10th generation of the future? Can you answer that? Tell us about some methodology you are going to use to wipe out nations and bring in desirables?

Almost 90% of investment on this cloning and gene business are human related and most it is in relation to women's issues, and as a woman I need lots of answers.

[geoffrey]

Cloning yourself to sustain your life means you have to kill an exact copy of you to do so. So why not just kill yourself and let the clone live? It's accomplishing the same ends, except the younger you is much more viable into the future.

So really, once you clone yourself, and the clone reaches age of maturity where it would do good for you to use it in a transplant situation, it's value is actually greater than yours.

The moral decision would be to kill yourself before killing the clone for harvesting. But no one would kill themselves for the hell of it, soooo....

We let the clones live, and then that takes over as a method of reproduction.

Wow, I just came up with all of that... I should be one of those crazy conspiracy theorists. In all seriousness, there is alot of ethical issues with cloning based on what I just said.

[Argus]

Cloning yourself to sustain your life means you have to kill an exact copy of you to do so. So why not just kill yourself and let the clone live? It's accomplishing the same ends, except the younger you is much more viable into the future.

I disagree. If you clone yourself, and somehow, arrange that the clone has no mind, then is it human? I mean, what makes one human? Self-awareness, yes? So if the clone is grown physically, but essentially has a blank mind, can it be said to be a person? And wouldn't you be more valuable, with your 90 years of life experience, skill and knowledge, in that 18 year old body?

Then again, I saw a news item the other day where they implanted a chip in a quadrapalegic's brain to read the electrical impulses and translate them into computer orders which allowed him to move the cursor on his computer screen, or even move a bionic hand sitting on a table - just by thinking about it. Think of where that's going. If you can translate the electrical impulses in the brain then you should be able to eventually copy them and put them into a computer brain - and put that into a mechanical body. The stuff of Science Fiction? I bet they're doing it by the end of this century. Another thought, if you can translate those electrical impulses (brain activity is essentially electrical impulses, as is all the imformation stored in your brain) then you can do a copy into the blank brain of a clone.

Interesting, where science might lead if left alone.

[geoffrey]

Interesting Argus. Though I personally prefer being mortal.

[Drea]

Rented the movie "The Island" the other weekend.

It's about cloning.

These clones are all islolated in a community and told that they win a "lottery" when in fact they were being sent to their clone-deaths.

2 clones escape (a man and a woman, in love, of course) and they go looking for the man's "original" in the hopes that he'll want to save them all. When they finally find him he says "you have no soul!".

The clone lives, breathes, thinks, and acts exactly like any other human being. If God didn't give him his soul in eutero then how did he get it? He obviously has one as he has conscious and unconscious thought.

I think this is the problem people will have with cloning (not to mention the fact that to harvest organs you'd have to kill an actual human being) -- those who don't believe in God, will believe the clone does indeed have a right to live -- where those who believe in God will believe the clone is evil or soulless and therefor non-human and not worthy of any right to live.

I don't think we should be cloning people for organ harvest. Or pets, because Fluffy died and Mrs. Walker just can't live without Fluffy.

I'm with geoffrey, I'd rather just be mortal and enjoy the time I've got.

[Argus]

Interesting Argus. Though I personally prefer being mortal.

You wouldn't be immortal under such a scenario. You'd just have a very long lifespan - barring accidents or murder.

Of course, that brings up another possiblity. If the electrical signals in the brain can be copied, can they be stored for backup? So if you die in an explosion or something, can they then download a recent copy of "you" to a new body? And if so, would it really be "you" or would it simply be a copy of you? Uhmmmm.....

[Argus]

Rented the movie "The Island" the other weekend.

It's about cloning.

These clones are all islolated in a community and told that they win a "lottery" when in fact they were being sent to their clone-deaths.

2 clones escape (a man and a woman, in love, of course) and they go looking for the man's "original" in the hopes that he'll want to save them all. When they finally find him he says "you have no soul!".

The clone lives, breathes, thinks, and acts exactly like any other human being. If God didn't give him his soul in eutero then how did he get it? He obviously has one as he has conscious and unconscious thought.

I don't think we'll ever get to the point where we clone complete human beings and have them grow up as "people" then kill them off in order to give their bodies to someone else. What I think is more possible, is that a clone body will be grown without a mind, perhaps all the electrical impulses which signal brain activity supressed by drugs or something. In essence, you'd have a body which was a complete vegetable, effectively brain-dead, until a copy of a real person's brain is transposed into its blank mind.

I don't think we should be cloning people for organ harvest. Or pets, because Fluffy died and Mrs. Walker just can't live without Fluffy.

I'm with geoffrey, I'd rather just be mortal and enjoy the time I've got.

I doubt they'll need to actually clone people for organs. They should be able to grow the organs all by themselves. And unlike you and Geoffrey, I'd be perfectly happy to live in a healthy body for an extra few centuries.

[August1991]

Jules Verne wrote From to the Earth to the Moon at the end of the 19 th century. It was illustrated with an etching of a train (with a smokestack) "flying" towards the moon.

Science fiction typically relies on contemporary technology to imagine seemingly impossible future tasks. In fact, the future will use currently unknown technology to accomplish tasks.

In addition, science fiction frequently addresses contemporary questions when, in the future, those questions often become irrelevant. Over 100 years ago, colonialism and the "white man's burden" were common ideas.

Lastly, Newtonian physics leaves no room for probability or chance, and no room for limits. In 1900, no one could have imagined that as something approaches the speed of light, it increasingly "disappears".

----

My point is that it is interesting to speculate on cloning or recreating synapse constructions, but the exercise says more about our current pre-occupations. It's similar to imagining building a railway to the moon.

[Canadian Patriot]

We should learn genetics and cloning it will be an essential part of human survival i guarentee it.

People only say immoral because they fear it. Religeon has never hashed with science well or anything else for that matter not even other religeons. There is no immorality with cloning when you think about it.

Cloning should be regulated so as to not let it get out of control. For instance transplanting a brain into another body is not immoral if you take the ability to reproduce as to control population. Genetic modification and cloning etc. should be up to the individual provided they follow guidlines.

fear = ignorance and ignorant people fear change.

[Clopin]

Had to write a couple of essays on the subject at university 4 years ago, one as a scientific report on cloning, the other on the ethics of it.

Strangely enough, with all the reading I did, I didn't touch upon the subject of cloning to harvest organs in my report.

I was too fascinated with the notion that living mammals can come into existence without the use of sperm. It still leaves me in wonder. Has there ever been anything so groundbreaking in biology? Or in the history of science?

But I guess the notion of conception in a test tube was just as inconceivable 100 years ago... maybe it takes time to get used to it.

Our lives are so short in the large scheme of things; we tend to be limited in our perspectives.

As much as I find the risk of the bleakest scenarios unacceptable to me personally (deformed births, uncertain consequences involving human life)... the itch of "what if" will never go away. And I'd bet my life there are thousands of scientists out there who have that itch a thousand fold. And people willing to risk all to fund it.

To the general population, it's about 'why should we do it'? To the scientifically oriented, it's too much to pass up on. This is the kind of stuff that drives scientists more than finding the cure for Aids and cancer. It has a unifying effect, fascinating physicists, chemists as much as they do geneticists. It has broader implications than 'improving life'.

If you understand the true nature of scientific research, you'd resign yourself to the inevitability of cloning. The laws will be there to restrict (which I'm for), but as far as trying to stop it... that boat didn't just sail, it sank at the pier.

All there needs to be is one autonomous jurisdiction anywhere in the world to loosen up the restrictions, and if any good comes out of it, others will NOT want to fall behind. Statistically speaking, that’s bound to happen.

The idea of building a railway to the moon never took off, and the intended goal was achieved through different means. Cloning is already underway; it's not a hypothetical concept. The means are here... it's the goal we're not sure of.

I agree with CndPatriot, that there is an element of fear because of the lack of knowledge.

I hope people learn about the process before getting into the moral discussion. Even for those dead set against it for whatever reasons, I hope they take the time to learn what it is.

[August1991]

As much as I find the risk of the bleakest scenarios unacceptable to me personally (deformed births, uncertain consequences involving human life)... the itch of "what if" will never go away.

At the present state of the technology, any human clone would die very quickly. Animal clones are susceptible to endless diseases and malformations. These problems may have solutions, or they may be inherent to the procedure.

But I guess the notion of conception in a test tube was just as inconceivable 100 years ago... maybe it takes time to get used to it.

....

If you understand the true nature of scientific research, you'd resign yourself to the inevitability of cloning.

I'm still waiting to get used to the idea of superconductivity and cold fusion - ideas that have seemed so near and yet so far. Travelling faster-than-light once was considered possible.

Our lives are so short in the large scheme of things; we tend to be limited in our perspectives.

I agree completely. That is possibly the most important thing you learned from your term papers.

To the scientifically oriented, it's too much to pass up on. This is the kind of stuff that drives scientists more than finding the cure for Aids and cancer. It has a unifying effect, fascinating physicists, chemists as much as they do geneticists. It has broader implications than 'improving life'.

I wouldn't be so quick to conclude what motivates scientists.

The idea of building a railway to the moon never took off, and the intended goal was achieved through different means. Cloning is already underway; it's not a hypothetical concept. The means are here... it's the goal we're not sure of.

My point about the railway is that our current ideas about cloning are like building a railway to the moon. When or if the cloning technology arrives, we will be doing it in ways that we cannot fathom now.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

. I also believe there would be considerably more care involved in cloning humans. You can't afford to take as many chances and throw the dice as often when dealing with human babies.

If there is no moral ground to stop the cloning, how can you say that there would be moral compunction to 'kill fewer' than sheep? After all, they aren't 'human babies', so any 'moral' limitations would strictly be your own.

I think that the real problem is that if any cloning takes place, it nullifies what rights may have been given to any 'originals'.

What of test tube babies? What of your 18 yr old clone? They would still be a person standing before you, how can you say "You weren't created in the same fashion as me, so now I get to eat you (or kill you for sport, or for an action picture to make it more 'lifelike')".

It all comes down to the dispensing of rights, I suppose. Shall we agree on what 'rights' we are going to give clones? Or should they have none, as they are a creation, like a sandcastle?

Won't pedophiles be pleased! They can create a harem of children, and kill them afterword, if they like.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

My point about the railway is that our current ideas about cloning are like building a railway to the moon. When or if the cloning technology arrives, we will be doing it in ways that we cannot fathom now.

Huxley's 'Brave New World' gets closer ever day. Sadly, the 'unfathomable ways' will only be technological. We'll still do things for the same old reasons. Profit and war.

[geoffrey]

Dear August1991,

My point about the railway is that our current ideas about cloning are like building a railway to the moon. When or if the cloning technology arrives, we will be doing it in ways that we cannot fathom now.

Huxley's 'Brave New World' gets closer ever day. Sadly, the 'unfathomable ways' will only be technological. We'll still do things for the same old reasons. Profit and war.

Brave New World is my toilet reading right now. Read it back in High School and lately I got into wanting to read it again.

I was inspired to re-read it after I heard the Liberals child care program.

Actually thats somewhat serious...

--

Heres a thought for your immortalists...

Do any of you realise how boring life would be if there was no time constraint? Why bother doing anything today when you've got forever. A short life makes it more enjoyable.

[newbie]

This broad claims to have done it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/27/...lier/index.html

That's one space cadet.

[Insom Elvis]

I suppose from a religious perspective, you could see the objection to humans playing God. But most of the opposition to cloning, which has seen most western countries ban even the scientific research into this, seems based on some other objections - which are many and varied. I'll address only one, because it's the only one I can recognize as legitimate. That is the inevitable mistakes in the process as scientists learn how it's done.

People point out that it took scientists a couple of hundred tries before they were able to get the sheep cloning down pat. They assume, therefore, that there will be many, many birth defects and malformed, short-lived babies in the early stages of a human cloning experiment. I think that fear is probably exaggerated. Scientists have learned a lot about cloning and genetic manipulation since then. I also believe there would be considerably more care involved in cloning humans. You can't afford to take as many chances and throw the dice as often when dealing with human babies.

Still, there would inevitably be problems. But on the scale of human progress is that really such a big deal? If you could clone a genetically superior baby - one without any of the defective genes we've been able to identify which cause a myriad of ailments, sicknesses and problems throughout life, the few babies born with birth defects would be vastly, vastly outweighed by the millions and millions who would follow who would be free of defects and live long, healthy lives.

It would, at once, solve the problem of infertile couples who want children, couples with genetic faults who don't want to pass them on, and probably do much to combat, if not eliminate the declining birth rate in the west. The possibilities of a succesful human cloning program which would allow people to simply drop off some tissue, order up a baby, and walk out with one are so vast that surely they outweigh the inevitable early consequences for a very, very few malformed children.

Well, if we were to take that chance and try to clone humans, we would be willingly introducing a human life that could be ridden with mistakes. If you clone a baby, and something goes wrong so you euthanise him/her, you are commiting murder. Let's say nothing goes wrong, it's a complete success, you get to enjoy raising a child with no real parents, a science experiment. This clone would have constitutional rights too, what if they decide they're sick of being an experiment and want to try to live a normal life, if at all possible, there goes your research. What if that persons falls in love, gets married and has kids? what if they're messed up because of an alternate-generation carried defect? You brought what could turn into an entire family line into the world not knowing wether or not their great grandchildern would number in the dozens and all have irreversible flaws that made life unbearable. There are millions of chances one would have to take, and more importantly, I have to ask why?

Why do we feel the need to clone ourselves? Population was mentioned, I think we have enough people in the world to not worry about humans dropping off the face of the planet. If you cant reproduce on your own, you'd be doing more than anyone could ever do for 1 child by adopting. If you absolutely must have a child with your shared genetics, the technology in that field is astounding these days. And if it's just a case where you deem yourself perfect and want an exact replica, you have no right to ever plant your seed in such a fashion. The previous post mentioned a super-combatant. What if the clones don't want to fight? What if they revolt? What happens when the entire military is forced to resign to make way for clones and remote-controlled fighting vehicles and you have 500,000 ex-soldiers sitting in the unemployment line along with the millions of clones that there was no place for? I really feel that we have no place reproducing mass amounts of life or experimenting with creation of life when it could harm a few or many in such a horrible way.

I say, bring on the headless clones. Seriously. I have no problem with organ farming at all; I don't even know why it's an issue. Doctors in France recently removed the face of a living (well, braindead) person for transplant - how can growing a mindless corpse for medical consumption be any worse?

Imagine being a "braindead" person having your face removed. It would be interesting if in 20 years after removing this and that from here and there we find out that clinically braindead people can still feel pain wouldn't it? You may not be able to scream for help, but as long as noone knows it they assume youre as good as dead. If I'm as good as dead, kill me before you cut my face off. And people wonder why I'm no longer an organ donor.

[Argus]

Heres a thought for your immortalists...

Do any of you realise how boring life would be if there was no time constraint? Why bother doing anything today when you've got forever. A short life makes it more enjoyable.

Perhaps you simply lack the imagination to consider how you might enjoy yourself if you were to have more time. A second education and degree, followed by a second career, perhaps? Learn a few more foreign languages and travel the world. Learn to fly. Accumulate lots of money and live the life of a wealthy man. See how many different nations and cities you can see. I don't imagine I'd be bored any time soon.

[Insom Elvis]

Heres a thought for your immortalists...

Do any of you realise how boring life would be if there was no time constraint? Why bother doing anything today when you've got forever. A short life makes it more enjoyable.

Perhaps you simply lack the imagination to consider how you might enjoy yourself if you were to have more time. A second education and degree, followed by a second career, perhaps? Learn a few more foreign languages and travel the world. Learn to fly. Accumulate lots of money and live the life of a wealthy man. See how many different nations and cities you can see. I don't imagine I'd be bored any time soon.

After working close to people aged much beyond my years on Earth, I find that the mind tends to burn out with the body. If you don't believe there's anything after this life, then by all means, grow even older and wealthier and face changes beyond comprehension for even longer, but I for one choose to let go when it comes my time. Besides, wealth doesn't come with age, and it seems change doesn't do so either. I've seen some pretty old homeless people out there, and I wouldn't want to enjoy any more seconds than necessary as a parapalegic burn victim. Besides, how do you think you can clone yourself and instantly be that person, leaving you old, worn down body behind? All you'd have is the thought that someone else is having fun with a replica of your body.

[Argus]

It would, at once, solve the problem of infertile couples who want children, couples with genetic faults who don't want to pass them on, and probably do much to combat, if not eliminate the declining birth rate in the west. The possibilities of a succesful human cloning program which would allow people to simply drop off some tissue, order up a baby, and walk out with one are so vast that surely they outweigh the inevitable early consequences for a very, very few malformed children.

Well, if we were to take that chance and try to clone humans, we would be willingly introducing a human life that could be ridden with mistakes. If you clone a baby, and something goes wrong so you euthanise him/her, you are commiting murder. Let's say nothing goes wrong, it's a complete success, you get to enjoy raising a child with no real parents, a science experiment. This clone would have constitutional rights too, what if they decide they're sick of being an experiment and want to try to live a normal life, if at all possible, there goes your research.

As I said, if you create a clone which is fully functional then it's human and has to be treated as such, with all the rights accorded. I think, however, that if you screw up it would never be properly "born" or be born brain-dead, or die soon after. And if you're succesful enough that it wants to do things, well, then you were succesful, right?

What if that persons falls in love, gets married and has kids? what if they're messed up because of an alternate-generation carried defect? You brought what could turn into an entire family line into the world not knowing wether or not their great grandchildern would number in the dozens and all have irreversible flaws that made life unbearable.

Perhaps, but that happens with every baby born now.

There are millions of chances one would have to take, and more importantly, I have to ask why?

Why do we feel the need to clone ourselves? Population was mentioned, I think we have enough people in the world to not worry about humans dropping off the face of the planet.

I'm not worried about a lack of humans. I'm worried about a lack of western Europeans and Canadians.

I think bypassing the whole pregnancy thing would probably greatly encourage young women to become mothers. Heck, maybe a lot of single guys would want to become fathers, too.

If you cant reproduce on your own, you'd be doing more than anyone could ever do for 1 child by adopting.

You make it sound like that's easy. It can take years of bureacracy and bribes, not to mention a lot of money, to secure a child from some third world country willing to let you adopt one. Besides, as I said, it would offer up the opportunity to eliminate so many diseases and gentic defects we're now subject to.

[Insom Elvis]

I'm not worried about a lack of humans. I'm worried about a lack of western Europeans and Canadians.

I think bypassing the whole pregnancy thing would probably greatly encourage young women to become mothers. Heck, maybe a lot of single guys would want to become fathers, too.

I'm sure we can deal with that, it's not that people so dread pregnacy, most fathers fear the upbringing of a child, and personallt I fear how the children will be raised. Cloning does nothing for this.

If you cant reproduce on your own, you'd be doing more than anyone could ever do for 1 child by adopting.

You make it sound like that's easy. It can take years of bureacracy and bribes, not to mention a lot of money, to secure a child from some third world country willing to let you adopt one. Besides, as I said, it would offer up the opportunity to eliminate so many diseases and gentic defects we're now subject to.

Why a third world country? Do you think there isn't a single child in Canada that doesn't need a home? I like the thought of elimintating illness and disease for fututre generations, but at what cost? We can destroy the future of a human being you voted to create by making their life a living hell, but that justifies the well being of thousands who suffer from time to time? Hell I can find a great way for Canadian soldiers to feel less pain in battle, but it mkeans I have to kill a couple to fine-tune my testing. Is that ok? It better be, based on your tone.

[geoffrey]

It's the shortness of life that makes very moment valuable.

You would get so incrediably lazy. Extending life by maybe 100 years of productivity would be ok. But past that you would just stop putting a value to time and waste away.

[Argus]

It's the shortness of life that makes very moment valuable.

You would get so incrediably lazy. Extending life by maybe 100 years of productivity would be ok. But past that you would just stop putting a value to time and waste away.

Isn't this really just a matter of opinion and personal choice? If you believe that life beyond 100 would hold little thrill, then fine, don't clone yourself. But why should it be illegal for others with different opinons to have the option?