Human Cloning
-
Just a clarification. If it is an embryo, it has already been fertilized. Someone needs a biology class. :)
You beat me to it. ;P Jeremy Falcon
-
From The Scotsman[^] THE scientist who cloned Dolly the Sheep was today given the go-ahead to experiment on human embryos by the Government’s fertility authority. Professor Ian Wilmut, of the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, received a licence to carry out the controversial research in a bid to find a cure for motor neurone disease. The article goes on to say: The research - which aims to treat a host of incurable diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes - has provoked fury from pro-life groups. And in November, the pro-life movement mounted a legal challenge to that decision to grant the first licence to clone human embryos. Now, I would have thought that a PRO-life group would be very interested to see a new area of research opening up that would extend life.
Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
I realize that advancement is good and all, but I feel that curiosity/achievement will one day destroy the human race as we know it. This is only the beginning. Jeremy Falcon
-
I realize that advancement is good and all, but I feel that curiosity/achievement will one day destroy the human race as we know it. This is only the beginning. Jeremy Falcon
Hey, look what happened to the cat. ;) BW
I want pancakes! God, do you people understand every language except English?
Yo quiero pancakes. Donnez moi pancakes. Click click, bloody click pancakes!
-- Stewie Griffin -
From The Scotsman[^] THE scientist who cloned Dolly the Sheep was today given the go-ahead to experiment on human embryos by the Government’s fertility authority. Professor Ian Wilmut, of the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, received a licence to carry out the controversial research in a bid to find a cure for motor neurone disease. The article goes on to say: The research - which aims to treat a host of incurable diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes - has provoked fury from pro-life groups. And in November, the pro-life movement mounted a legal challenge to that decision to grant the first licence to clone human embryos. Now, I would have thought that a PRO-life group would be very interested to see a new area of research opening up that would extend life.
Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
Spot on! It's about time I say!!
-
I realize that advancement is good and all, but I feel that curiosity/achievement will one day destroy the human race as we know it. This is only the beginning. Jeremy Falcon
[Message Deleted]
-
[Message Deleted]
John Theal wrote: Ridiculous assertion. Would you have us remain in the dark ages? Nope, but I would like humans to respect human life first and foremost. With the way we are headed with technology human life will become less valuable and not more valuable. If you fail to see, then it is not I who is ridiculous. [edit] Note, I didn't say that disregard for human life is two years down the road. I said it's only the beginning. And, please people vote me down and don't reply -- that's a great way to get some intelligent conversation going. [/edit] John Theal wrote: You give me frightening recollections of the days in which the church controlled/dictated what people could study and the conclusions they could draw from their observations. I'm an atheist and not religious; I just scrutinize. Jeremy Falcon
-
Spot on! It's about time I say!!
Have you ever wondered why people say puppies are cute and cockroaches are not? Or, why do vegetarians consider it ok to eat plants but not animals despite both of them are living organisms? If you know the answers to these questions then you should see where I’m going with this. Oh, and once again I expect people to vote me down without replying simply because they are morons with no real means of upholding a conversation outside of "hey, what color underwear is best to not see fart stains with." Jeremy Falcon
-
[Message Deleted]
I agree in part at least with Jheremy's comment. The development of many things have helped the human race, electricity, computers, flight any number of technologies. However, mankind has also developed the ability to destroy itself using nuclear weapons or biological weapons. The problem doesn't lie within the technology, but within its use. Things like genetic engineering of crops or people have the possibility of undesired consequences, what if due to a lack of testing a genetically engineered drop did serious damage to our ecosystems? The EU severely limits the use of these things while here in the US they are allowed much more latitude. As for human cloning, what about the long term consequences to the clones? Are they people? Do they have rights if they are cloned, or are they just organ donors? I don't see that the human race has done a very good job of making what could be called good moral decisions. If its OK to clone a human why not use IVF and then harvest the organs from the resulting child, what's the difference? Does the fact a baby came out of a vagina make it different? I don't see the technologies as bad in themselves I just question the wisdom in using some of them. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Have you ever wondered why people say puppies are cute and cockroaches are not? Or, why do vegetarians consider it ok to eat plants but not animals despite both of them are living organisms? If you know the answers to these questions then you should see where I’m going with this. Oh, and once again I expect people to vote me down without replying simply because they are morons with no real means of upholding a conversation outside of "hey, what color underwear is best to not see fart stains with." Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: puppies are cute and cockroaches are not Have you ever tried to cuddle a cockroach? It's most awkward. Jeremy Falcon wrote: vegetarians consider it ok to eat plants but not animals despite both of them are living organisms Have you ever tried to cuddle a plant? Jeremy Falcon wrote: hey, what color underwear is best to not see fart stains with Black, I guess, but I'm not sure what a fart stain is (local dialect?).
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Hey, look what happened to the cat. ;) BW
I want pancakes! God, do you people understand every language except English?
Yo quiero pancakes. Donnez moi pancakes. Click click, bloody click pancakes!
-- Stewie Griffin -
I realize that advancement is good and all, but I feel that curiosity/achievement will one day destroy the human race as we know it. This is only the beginning. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: realize that advancement is good and all, but I feel that curiosity/achievement will one day destroy the human race as we know it. This is only the beginning. Of course it will. The magic phrase here is "as we know it". I see the primary human trait as curiosity and it will continue to drive our advancment as a species. Just think of the advancemnets in the last century and extrapolate that into the next 100 years. There will be wonders. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: realize that advancement is good and all, but I feel that curiosity/achievement will one day destroy the human race as we know it. This is only the beginning. Of course it will. The magic phrase here is "as we know it". I see the primary human trait as curiosity and it will continue to drive our advancment as a species. Just think of the advancemnets in the last century and extrapolate that into the next 100 years. There will be wonders. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: Of course it will. The magic phrase here is "as we know it". For one, thank you! This is the most intelligent reply yet (outside of David's of course, you can't compete with that :)). For two, I agree with what you speak of. And yes, those were the most important words I was thinking about when I wrote it. But there will be the implications of great change. Here's such a scenario. Let's say that as it is now, a parent looses a child. Life sucks, they miss the kid, and they can never get the kid back. But, what happens now, if the parents can respawn an exact replica of the kid at the time of the kid's death? Does it heal the wound completely? Nope, but $20 says it'll help most parents deal with the pain more easily. Thus, we are on a road to not revere death as we do today. And, without that it's impossible to look at life the same way. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: puppies are cute and cockroaches are not Have you ever tried to cuddle a cockroach? It's most awkward. Jeremy Falcon wrote: vegetarians consider it ok to eat plants but not animals despite both of them are living organisms Have you ever tried to cuddle a plant? Jeremy Falcon wrote: hey, what color underwear is best to not see fart stains with Black, I guess, but I'm not sure what a fart stain is (local dialect?).
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
:laugh: [edit] All jokes aside, your answer does revolve around the reasons. Good insight -- whether intentional or not! [/edit] Jeremy Falcon
-
I agree in part at least with Jheremy's comment. The development of many things have helped the human race, electricity, computers, flight any number of technologies. However, mankind has also developed the ability to destroy itself using nuclear weapons or biological weapons. The problem doesn't lie within the technology, but within its use. Things like genetic engineering of crops or people have the possibility of undesired consequences, what if due to a lack of testing a genetically engineered drop did serious damage to our ecosystems? The EU severely limits the use of these things while here in the US they are allowed much more latitude. As for human cloning, what about the long term consequences to the clones? Are they people? Do they have rights if they are cloned, or are they just organ donors? I don't see that the human race has done a very good job of making what could be called good moral decisions. If its OK to clone a human why not use IVF and then harvest the organs from the resulting child, what's the difference? Does the fact a baby came out of a vagina make it different? I don't see the technologies as bad in themselves I just question the wisdom in using some of them. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: The problem doesn't lie within the technology, but within its use. I totally agree! But, that won't stop people from abusing it. Doug Goulden wrote: If its OK to clone a human why not use IVF and then harvest the organs from the resulting child, what's the difference? A good question. What people don't tend to understand is that these changes I'm talking about are not overnight. Like evolution (whether you [generalizing] believe in it or not is not the point) it is gradual. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: puppies are cute and cockroaches are not Have you ever tried to cuddle a cockroach? It's most awkward. Jeremy Falcon wrote: vegetarians consider it ok to eat plants but not animals despite both of them are living organisms Have you ever tried to cuddle a plant? Jeremy Falcon wrote: hey, what color underwear is best to not see fart stains with Black, I guess, but I'm not sure what a fart stain is (local dialect?).
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
David Wulff wrote: but I'm not sure what a fart stain is (local dialect?). BTW, I don't know if a fart can make a stain, it was just me trying to make light of the situation. Maybe I should change it to shit stains? :) Jeremy Falcon
-
John Theal wrote: Ridiculous assertion. Would you have us remain in the dark ages? Nope, but I would like humans to respect human life first and foremost. With the way we are headed with technology human life will become less valuable and not more valuable. If you fail to see, then it is not I who is ridiculous. [edit] Note, I didn't say that disregard for human life is two years down the road. I said it's only the beginning. And, please people vote me down and don't reply -- that's a great way to get some intelligent conversation going. [/edit] John Theal wrote: You give me frightening recollections of the days in which the church controlled/dictated what people could study and the conclusions they could draw from their observations. I'm an atheist and not religious; I just scrutinize. Jeremy Falcon
[Message Deleted]
-
Have you ever wondered why people say puppies are cute and cockroaches are not? Or, why do vegetarians consider it ok to eat plants but not animals despite both of them are living organisms? If you know the answers to these questions then you should see where I’m going with this. Oh, and once again I expect people to vote me down without replying simply because they are morons with no real means of upholding a conversation outside of "hey, what color underwear is best to not see fart stains with." Jeremy Falcon
You are not looking at the problem the right way. Your arguments are underdeveloped and illogical. They are transparently based on personal opinion and lack objectivity. This is why opinions such as yours are not included in the debate. You believe we should not experiment with human genetic material simply because humans are "special"? I think you are the type of person who says "cancer is a terrible disease, lets raise money for a cure just as long as that type of cure doesn't include research on this or that particular area, but hey! Look at me! I'm doing good work raising money and awareness!" When in fact you support contradictory opinions and do nothing to stop the thousands that die monthly from this horrible affliction. But then, according to you, saving human life is first and foremost, so it only makes sense that we should not sacrifice one life to save thousands...
modified on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:52 AM
-
:laugh: [edit] All jokes aside, your answer does revolve around the reasons. Good insight -- whether intentional or not! [/edit] Jeremy Falcon
-
I agree in part at least with Jheremy's comment. The development of many things have helped the human race, electricity, computers, flight any number of technologies. However, mankind has also developed the ability to destroy itself using nuclear weapons or biological weapons. The problem doesn't lie within the technology, but within its use. Things like genetic engineering of crops or people have the possibility of undesired consequences, what if due to a lack of testing a genetically engineered drop did serious damage to our ecosystems? The EU severely limits the use of these things while here in the US they are allowed much more latitude. As for human cloning, what about the long term consequences to the clones? Are they people? Do they have rights if they are cloned, or are they just organ donors? I don't see that the human race has done a very good job of making what could be called good moral decisions. If its OK to clone a human why not use IVF and then harvest the organs from the resulting child, what's the difference? Does the fact a baby came out of a vagina make it different? I don't see the technologies as bad in themselves I just question the wisdom in using some of them. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
I reread the article very carefully for a second time in order that I could be very specific with my reply. The important part of the text is here: Doug Goulden wrote: Prof Wilmut now plans to take the DNA from the skin or blood of a person with motor neurone disease and implant it into a human egg from which the genetic material has been removed. The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Scientists will then remove cells from it and destroy the embryo. The nerve cells will then be studied in a way which is said to be impossible in a living patient, because the key cells are in the central nervous system of sufferers and cannot be removed and analysed. Which, unless I have read wrongly, is very different than allowing the clone to develop into a complete human being. Consequently, the value of the results of such a study are of extremely high importance. This is no different than some of the testing that has been carried out upon animals in the name of science. Furthermore, animal results can rarely be extended to humans and the value of such animal based studies is highly questionable. This technique, on the other hand, has the possibility of translating into very significant results and avoiding many lengthy delays in getting therapy to patients that typically occur after animal studies. I am particularly interested in this approach, because I have conducted research on cancer therapies and animal studies are of limited value at best. The question you have to ask yourself is this: is it better to complete a multitude of very limited studies on animals, the results of which may or may not be extendable to humans, or to carry out research using this approach. The value of which is very apparent. You have to remember that in this case time is measured in lives.
-
[Message Deleted]
John Theal wrote: Human life is no more precious than any other form of life on this planet. This is subjective and not really pertaining to the topic at hand. We are not talking about humans being more important than grasshoppers. We are talking about cloning and the adverse effects of it (i.e.; human on human). John Theal wrote: The nature of our existence depends very strongly upon that of the existence of other forms of life. True, but would you be ok with dying in the jungle knowing that your body is feeding a lion and his family? John Theal wrote: Therefore, testing on animals or fertilized human eggs is equivalent despite what anyone says. There is no correlation in what you just said outside of the fact you believe that human life is no more important than that of an ant. I happen to not agree with this for many reasons. John Theal wrote: Furthermore at the stage of development of the cells the researchers intend to use there is no presence of intelligent life. This is by definition. A definition of a subjective subject is still subjective. So, how do you define "intelligent life" -- being self aware, being able to do math? What makes intelligent life more important than non-intelligent life? You say ants are just as important as humans? So, you base your distinctions of importance of life on the mere presence of intelligence as defined by this context? Ok, let's assume that you think being self-aware is the meaning of intelligent life and therefore non-expendable. But, here's a thought. Life exists in many fashions, why it is ok to kill the living organisms that you can't identify with as a living, self-aware human being? You may not consider humans more important, but you consider self-awares more important than non-self-awares if you honestly believe what you just said. John Theal wrote: It cannot be argued that this is a greater crime than testing on a fully developed animal. A human child is not a fully developed animal either. John Theal wrote: At this point in time the environmental condition of the earth demands that more importance be put on other forms of life rather than human. If you fail to see, then it is not I who is ridiculous. This is unrelated unless you are talking about the taking of human life to preserve the environment. Since you feel that way, I vote that we experiment
