Slashdot Mirror
Send out the Clones?
ParticleGirl writes "This morning, congress called for a federal ban on human cloning. The associated press has an article. This follows the International Cloning Ban which took effect last month. This is research into human cloning for any reason, this is "importing a clone" ...a kid born of cloning overseas can't come into the U.S.? And other weird stuff." If god is all powerful, then can't this just be another way he works? Personally I don't care if there's a god or not: I want clones. I wanna grow spare hearts in a vat. I wanna have a brainless clone in a tube in case I blow out my liver drinking whiskey. And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.
if cloning is outlawd only criminals will have clones
I don't believe we have enough genetic information about lawnmowers to clone them yet. My solution is therefore a clone with no brain (or minimum at least) twice the size of me to do all the gardening. He'll be the incredible gardener!
He's Maxi-me. I can be Mini-me running around biting people in the groin.
Or something.
-skurk
... and I'm the clone. I work my butt off, and I never know where the hell my money goes. I think the Real Me is sitting on a beach in Hawaii, siphoning off half the money I make, laughing like hell.
for example, I want to clone myself, then get my clone a sex change and a boob job, and then I'll have someone who'll put out. I just can't decide if that's more like incest or a really exotic form of masturbation.
Ok, I haven't seen it, so I'm going to post it in here. I'll even put in the requisit "You probably won't agree with me so you will most likely mod me down" comment that almost ensures that this comment will get modded up just so that people can say they support free expression of opinions even if they differ from their own.
Why, from a Christian point of view, cloning is bad. Creating another person, whether that be through good old fashion sex or by fertilizing an egg with existing DNA, is still creating just that; a person. My problem with cloning is the same as my problem with abortion. If you create this person, and then "terminate" them, or whatever other euphamism you choose, you are commiting murder. The method that is taken here is still a conception. Christianity teaches us that a person is a person from the point of conception on (no, I can't site you passages from the Bible on that, but I will look if you ask nicely). If you create a clone, or a cloned heart, or a cloned body minus the brain, through a method of conception (i.e. fertilizing an egg), you are still creating a person.
What I don't have a problem with, and other Christians may disagree with me on this, is generating a new organ from an existing one. Take tissue from a heart and generate a new heart from it. Cool. So long as we do it without conceiving a clone.
Where does this take us with a brain? I'm going to be honest here; I don't know. I honestly don't believe that I am my brain. If I lose my brain, then I lose all ability for me to express myself through my body. By my soul is still there.
Even if you choose to ignore the Christian point of view, or disagree with it (God gave us free will after all): Has anyone else ever seen Gattica? Blade Runner? Any of the number of other clones-are-scum centric movies or books? Egad man. That's some scary stuff.
something clever
I need a replacement ear, so a headless clone would not work for me.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I'm curious as to why this process must be banned now. Sure, cloning has a huge "ickyness" factor, but I get the feeling that most of these ethical dilemmas are being "resolved" by individuals who are not rationally approching the matter.
Many of the concerns are with the (lack of )safety of the procedure. Cloning is associated (when performed with other mammals) with extremely low success rates. However, that does not mean that the problems are unsolvable. Perhaps a ten to fifteen year ban on human cloning would be more advisable, subject to review if the problem is solved.
We must remember that in vitro fertilization also has problems associated with implantantation, yet few argue that IVF is ethically problematic because of these problems.
Human cloning, is at presnt, ethically problematical becuase of the high mortality rate. But this does not mean `There is no need for this technology to ever be used with humans,'' (to quote Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kans).
The problem appers to be that the future of cloning humans lies with two groups of people who want to force the issue. The time is not right for bold intrepid scientists to drag humanity kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Nor is it right for lawmakers to read a few papers, listen to a few scientists, and decide the issue for all time.
With advances in cloning technology, it may be possible to replicate mammals with a very high degree of success. At that point, the application of this technology to humans should commence.
Although new technologies often cause new problems, no solutions are ever found with ignorance. The U.S. is only harming itself in the long run.
The legislation prohibits the importation of clones. This is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the Supreme Court if ever enacted. Human clones are humans. The "all men are created equal" clause of the declaration of independance is a lens that the judicial branch uses to interpret law. Preventing the "importation" of a clone (would that be immigration?) would be treating the human clone differently than anyone else.
Furthermore, being a clone could be considered a medical condition. If successfully argued as such, then human clones have protection against discrimination from the government, private employeers, loan officers, etc.
Human clones are human. That's the point. They have all the same legal rights as any other human. Treating them specially for legal purposes will quickly be challenged and, probably, ruled unconstitutional.
Dave
"I shall call him...CmdrTaquito."
You could literally go fuck yourself right? Or would that be considered masturbation? Any sex ed students care to comment?
that is why I don't see a problem w/cloning. Just because you are genetically identical does NOT mean that you are in anyway more likely to become some sort of superhuman mutant capable of killing everyone... Who's to say that this clone won't be completely against that sort of shit?
what I am confused about is how are they going to distinguish between a clone and a regular person? Is there some kind of stamp that is put on your forehead that says, "My other cells were someone elses too!"?
Steven M. Gillon wrote about "Unintended Consequences" in legislation... This one's unintended consequence was that it is fucking stupid and too general...
And what's wrong with that? That's almost exactly how it works in this trailer park..
The year is 2015, and Internet legend CmdrTaco has received a fully grown half-height clone, whom he has named Tacillo.
CmdrTaco OK clone, now mow the lawn!
Tacillo Mow the damn lawn yourself, Taco boy.
CmdrTaco (incredulous) Why you little prick! I made you to mow my goddamn lawn! Now mow the goddamn lawn!!
Tacillo Fuck you, I'm not mowing your goddamn lawn. And by the way, if I'm a little prick, it's only because you're a big prick!
CmdrTaco (Pissed) YOU...YOU...
Tacillo Never thought your genetic material would turn on you, eh Taco boy? (Gives CmdrTaco the finger) Now piss off before I punch you in your now-redundant nuts.
CmrdTaco [Censored by the FCC. Have a nice day!]
Tacillo You said it yourself Taco Bell, you made me. I'm going to surf for porn. Deal with it.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
That's not a bad way of summing things up, although I might suggest that it is possible for someone to consider one who lacks the capability for even rudimentary cognative activity (e.g., the brain dead) to be essentially soulless. But that depends on how one defines the soul ("fundamental algorithm?")
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.
For some strange reason, I now have Sir Mix-a-Lot stuck in my head.
"36-24-36? Only if she's five-three!"
Someone, help!
My pleasure. The series began on Jan 8, 1990 (skip the Sundays) and continues to February 1, 1990.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
You've fallen into the TV Clone trap. You know the one where we grow clones in incubators and make them into adults before they get to get out and do anything.
I am aware of how clones would develop (and the inherant problems with shortened telomeres as well), but what I imagine are "clone camps" where the clones are raised to be slaves from the start. Remember it was not all that long ago that a similar setup (or rather class system) was in effect in North America. (Indeed, it still continues throughout the world.)
From the perspective of the law it is as unlikely that anybody but your doctor would know that you are cloned, much as you don't know who around you is a test tube baby.
This depends on how you define a clone. If you cloned an ordinary human, sure, it would be difficult to tell (and if the telomeres were intact, I doubt if a doctor could tell.)
What is more worrysome is a simple manipulation of the gene code. Let's say that clones all have different coloured eyes and skin. (Sound familiar?) You could easially engineer a "race" that appeared signifigantly different from "normal" humans, and would be instantly recognizable as a clone (or, perhaps, slave is a far more accurate term.)
Hopefully with overpopulation as it currently stands we wont have to worry about a genetically created race of subordinates.
(I realize that some of my above remarks could be taken as inflamatory by some readers, if they offend you, tough. You are obviously missing my point. =)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
``There is no need for this technology to ever be used with humans,'' said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Three Years Later:
Doctor: Well, Sen. Brownback, your liver and heart are failing. There is some great cloning technology in China that would let you live for an extra 10-15 years. I guess we can't use that on you here though. It's not legal here, sorry.
What? No, you can't go to China and have that procedure. If you did you would not be allowed back in the US. No clones in the US remember?
Now I am not too familiar with American politics (I am Canadian) but:
``The scientists who created Dolly had over 200 attempts before Dolly was born,'' said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., a physician. ``The prior attempts resulted in malformed, sickly creatures that had to be euthanized.
``We cannot allow this scenario to play out with humans,'' said Weldon, who is co-sponsoring the House bill with Bart Stupak, D-Mich.
Is this a contraditcion in terms with what the Republicans are trying to to with abortion in the US (or do they see it as a continuation of the same issue?)
Although I am arguing on a slippery slope here, if cloning *DOES* get approved somewhere for humans, what rights would a clone have?
You can't abort "natural" fetuses, but cloned ones? Thats ok!!
Ah yes, the new slave trade. Come down to Wal-Mart and buy yourself a new Chinese-Engineered clone, if you are unsatified with their performance, remeber you can just not feed them, and throw them in the trash!
(Here I am picking China as a leader in Bio-tech, but maybe I should have picked Cuba, I understand that they are very advanced on this front...)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun."
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
So, if I created two clones of myself, it would be OK? They'd just be twins, right?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Nice to see that it's not just Germany and France (cf my comments here) which believe in ThoughtCrime. Thanks, Rep. Weldon, but I don't need you or anyone in the government to tell me how to think. I grudgingly allow the public good to interfere with what I do (on the expectation that my fellow citizens will be similarly restrained in their actions towards me), but my thoughts are accountable to no one.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
...because it's not worthwhile. What would be the advantage of creating a baby that's an exact genetic copy of someone, and then waiting years for it to be able to walk, talk, and think? I could see some advantages to cloning body parts, but cloning a whole person will never be worthwhile. Unless of course we've developed something that can accelerate your growth tremendously and also dump knowledge directly into the brain, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
At least Congress isn't going after mutants. Yet.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
While I'm still only an undergrad in biology cloning issues are at the forefront of not only my interests in science, but also my career interests for the future. That said it's impossible to tell that someone is a clone without a valid copy of the original genes to compare them to. AFAIK it would also be impossible to tell whether someone was a child or a clone without extensive testing of genes.
The main telling factor though would be an extreme similiarity in introns. In a standard gel electrophoresis you can match up the most likely, but they won't be (or at least I've known them to be) identical. In such a case it could be assumed barring more extensive testing that you're dealing with a clone.
All the posts on here are stating the obvious such as how cloning is just a scientific tool, or how twins are clones, or making silly jokes. Everyone has missed the REAL social issue at work here. Clones WILL be created, and when they are, the world will hate them and shun them! Clones will be just as human as you and I, but they will be outcast and feared by society at large. It's the new wave of discrimination, and there will be a whole new debate about whether they are "real" people. And no one will think to ask the clones...
http://www.plif.com/archive/wc263.gif
excellent cartoon on the dangers of cloning.
End result? Restraints on developing a new technology, which will thus remain experimental and unpredictable for much longer than is necessary.
I smell technophobia and political grandstanding.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Actually, I have less problems with the brainless clone in a tube than I do with the creation of "Mini-Me's". If the clone was grown so that the development of the brain was completely supressed (scientists have already done this with frogs), it doesn't have, never had, and never will have a mind. It won't feel pain, it won't feel anything - as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly usable spare parts. The "Mini-Me" clone mowing the lawn does have a mind, therefore he should be considered a full-fledged human being.
However, I think that a more viable option is to use my stem cells to grow individual parts on demand - quicker and not as many ethical issues.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
There's no indication so far that we can create "cloned" organs unconnected from the rest of a body.
This can and has been done already. Scientists have been able to create a dog's bladder purely from muscle, lining, and a couple other types of cells grown in nutrients on a polymer mesh (the same way that the ear was grown on a mouse's back.) When transplanted into a dog, the bladder worked just like the dog's natural bladder. Supposedly, these guys are going to work on creating a heart next. Between this and stem cell research, I see lots of perfectly ethical uses for grown organs.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
It would be really cool to be able to upload your current knowledge/soul/personality (or what ever) to a new system (body) every 20 years or so. You could start out with a new fresh 20 year old body and trade it in when you hit 40. Also if you did a nightly backup of the stuff that makes you "you", and you had a major system failure (Say you die or something), you could then just restore to the new body.
Imagine the fun people will have trying to claim rights on their own genetic material. every celebrity hairdresser will have a lucrative side business selling celebrity hair to cloning agencies!
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Or you could just buy a goat.
"If I am such a genius, how come that I am drunk and lost in the desert with a bullet in my ass?" --Otto (Malcom ITM)
Actually, you're missing the point. This kind of anti-cloning sentiment is very consistent with pro-life attitudes. Basically, there were a few unviable attempts at Dolly that had to be put down, and many, many more that never sucessfully grew past the initial stages of fertilization.
Pro-life people hold that a fertilized human zygote has just as much right to live as a newborn baby. They are both people, even though one is far more dependent on their mother for survival than the other. Thus, the creation of hundreds of malformed, doomed to die human beings would be considered abhorrent. This is the same mindset that considers fetal stem cell research as unethical, because it essentially involves harvesting murdered people.
Let me reiterate. The objection is that you are creating (and killing) hundreds of people to attempt to get one successful attempt. They are not saying that it's okay to abort cloned people while its not okay to abort others. They are saying that the necessity to abort failed attempts or to let them continue living broken lives with their deformities is sufficient reason to ban human cloning research.
I find an outright ban to be a bad idea, but as someone who is pro-life, I find the current failure rate to be unacceptable. You can't clone a human nowdays without doing something a little unethical. (I'm not even going to respond to CmdrTaco's outright appeal for the creation of subhuman slaves and mindless people to be killed so that their bodies can be harvested for your own immortality.)
Here's my proposal:
We should have a complete moratorium on human cloning until the cloning of mammals has a failure rate approaching natural human pregnancy. Only then can we attempt it on humans. As is, cloning is far too risky to attempt with humans. We should fund research into cloning of other animals before we attempt it with people. It's just too soon right now. If we try right now, the failured attempts, and the ruined children that come out of them, will create a public backlash that could destroy all cloning research for decades, if not longer. We cannot allow premature attempts to ruin the future of cloning.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Although I am arguing on a slippery slope here, if cloning *DOES* get approved somewhere for humans, what rights would a clone have? You've fallen into the TV Clone trap. You know the one where we grow clones in incubators and make them into adults before they get to get out and do anything. The truth is much more benign. If they clone you, they put you into a non-artificual real life mamary based famale incubator and let you gestate for nine months. After this time, you are freed from your prison but you get to spend the next sixteen to twenty-four years with your own personal slaves who do your bidding and let you wreck their car. At the end of that time they throw you out and tell you not to come back until you've got your own mamalian based replicant masters that they can give money to, bounce on their knees and then send home. From the perspective of the law it is as unlikely that anybody but your doctor would know that you are cloned, much as you don't know who around you is a test tube baby. In the view of congress however it is probably a bit of a good idea to ban cloning at this point in time. I don't believe it is because Congress knows what they are doing. They don't. Neither, on the other hand, do the people who want to clone other people. Put it in perspective: If the people who had invented the atomic bomb had known what they were setting up the last half of the twentieth century for, do you think they would have agreed to do it?
Beware the wood elf!!!
ummm, try again, he said "identical twins" which are always the rarer case of the egg being fertilized and spliting, which is exactly what cloning is.
I date an identical twin and they hate each other like no one else on the planet. Although nobody forced to zygote to split in a lab, they are for all intents and purposes clones. I don't think you would always find your clone to be good company, much less your obediant servant.
A beowulf cluster of half-height CmdrTaco clones mowing the lawn!
Best Slashdot Co
Cloning as a advancement in science seems to have it's benefits. However, my concern comes with Corporate America's exploitation and ruining of such technology.
Imagine companies designing and marketing
"proprietary" genetic races of human beings.
One forseable advantage is the test of medical drugs, being able to have a true "pure-bred" human as a consistent test variable. But then again, is it fair to subject a human to a life of potential anguish, disease and being born into bondage? Hell, we do it to rats..
I find the exponential uniqueness of the human race fascinating. It's truly an artform within itself, and really I see cloning is painting the same picture over and over again. If the factors of greed and selfishness didn't exist in this world like it does, i'd be for it.
- Slash
HOWEVER: From the moment they split, twins develop differently, live differently.
And that would make identical twins different from clones just how? Aside from the different birthdays. I guess I don't get your point.
I support a ban on cloning for now, until the majority of the US matures enough to handle the technology they're getting themselves into.
Aww, hell, what fun is that? You're the kind of spoilsport that would ban the Bomb, I bet!
Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children.
What's wrong with that? People generally pick breeding partners they have commonality with - if we all bred randomly then the human race would be well on it's way to a uniform color. As it is, everyone pretty much runs their own little eugenics program...
Now it looks as though there genuinely are some problems with the clones having reduced viability, so there are some very serious long term health issues to clear up.
So what? There's no ban against giving birth to a baby with a genetic defect that would limit it's life, why should their be one on creating a broken clone? What's the moral difference?
(And if the answer is "choice" I'd point out there's no ban against people who know there's a high chance of passing on a genetic disease from having kids)
It only makes sense to put a hold on human cloning until the clones are actually likely to be as healthy as an ordinary baby...
Sounds good, but you've got to give somebody the power to define "likely" and "healthy" and "ordinary". And once those restrictions are put on clones, what's to keep that power from being applied to regular old-fasioned conception?
People take for granted the freedom to pretty much breed however they like, so why shouldn't that same freedom apply to cloning?
Worse yet, his shoulder is at the perfect altitude to come runnin at you on a full charge and slug you in the nuts
Problem is, these brainless clones wouldn't be useful for organ harvesting.
I suppose they could be used as fucktoys, though. Now that'd be a growth industry. Like RealDolls(tm) made out of meat!
Agreed. I'm ready for growing headless human clones, but the rest of the species isn't.
But the businessman inside me says "if the entire body's shot, and you need a head transplant", you've gotta solve the problem of nerve regrowth for quadraplegics first. So there wouldn't be much use for a whole ancephalic human clone of yourself, because the best you could do with it would be to hook yourself up to it and still be a quadriplegic.
Plus - and more importantly - it's probably a hell of a lot cheaper to only grow the part you need, one at a time. Maintaining single organs in small vats is bound to be cheaper than maintaining a whole body and growing it for the 10-12 years it would take for the parts to be interchangeable.
Good point. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
Maybe not three years, but definitely within 10-15 years from now, it'll all be legalized. For some reason, a bunch of Congresscritters will start changing their minds when not only their largest campaign contributors, but they themselves, will need the technology.
This has the fringe benefit of there being 10-15 years of research being done (perhaps outside the US) to perfect the technology. Everybody wins, it just takes a little longer. Unfortunately, a lot of good US biotech docs will be working offshore, and that money won't come back into the States.
It's pretty much cut-and-dried only to the few people who have made a choice between the two points of view ("soul exists and mind/body are inseparable") and ("meat machines").
The only reason it's not cut-and-dried in Congress is because most of the voters and campaign sponsors have never thought about which world view they hold true.
Problem is, it is cut-and-dried. But it's cut-and-dried only to those who've thought about it, and who have made a decision between two mutually-exclusive points of view:
One: A human being is a thing that was created by God or some other process, and the notion of "soul" is meaningful, and that maybe even a brainless body has a soul, because, after all, if it were conceived naturally and happened to be a mutant, God oughta have mercy on it. There are many ethical concerns about cloning if you're part of this group. (Sorry if I've misstated the underlying philosophy - it isn't my view, and its adherents can probably describe it better than I can.)
Two: We are machines made of meat. "Self" or "soul" or "consciousness" is an epiphenomenon of neural activity. There can be no neural activity without a brain. A brainless (anencephalic) clone grown in a vat would not be a person. A brained (i.e. "normal") clone grown in a vat or womb would be a person, just as an identical twin is a person. There is no ethical dilemma.
Problem is - 99% of the population has never thought about these issues. We - as geeks - are accustomed to thinking about these things because we've grown up in a world where science-fiction robots and real-world AI debates are part of our daily existence.
We're not the norm here, though, and our education system is pretty much geared to making sure nobody ever thinks about "deep stuff" like that (after all, it's not conducive to producing worker bees), and as a result, we will continue to see decisions based on ignorance.
I don't care what side of this debate you're on. Just think about it and pick a side. Enclue your friends as to your point of view. Because the educational system sure as hell won't.
Am I the only person that thinks "And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn." is a Brave New World reference?
fnord
These politicians are fighting to destroy some core American Values.
After all, who but a clone can better illustrate that All Men Are Created Equal?
Well, not exactly. The transfer of a somatic nucleus into an egg cell is the procedure currently used to close whole animals (a la Dolly). If you could come up with an organ cloning procedure that did not involve this, than you would be legal. The issue is placing somatic nuclei from humans into egg cells, which are still totipotent (capable of creating any and all other forms of cellular matter through division). Maybe there could be a way to simply use a single liver cell if you wanted to grow a liver; no one knows yet, because frankly we're not very skilled at cloning yet, much less starting to figure out how to grow individual organs (though we have caused a few flys to grow eyes all over their bodies- that's a long way from transplantable organs, however)
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Can your IM do this?
if he didn't want to clean his room or do his homework, neither would his clones
Looks like someone can't control his clones.
My clones will like what I tell them to like!
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Also this. Small part, but they were in there (and they were disgusting)
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
If cloning of spare parts is allowed, how many parts == a human? Ie, if a guy has his foot amputated, I can cook him up a new foot. If his leg is amputated, then surely I can cook him up a foot attached to a leg.
Well, how far can I take this? What if the guy is mostly gone, can I make him legs, arms, torso, etc? How many parts can I grow together before someone says "hey!"
I would guess that a brain is what makes a human, but if only a guy's head is left, I doubt the public would buy creating headless human bodies (that would be freaky!) In that case though, why not create the parts one by one to avoid public/congressional objections?
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Isn't it rich, are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clones.
Isn't it bliss, don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around
One who can't move
Where are the clones?
Send in the clones.
Or.. from Zorak:
Zorak-
Ahem, a'right, look out
My mother said to me one day
"My little tator tot,
We're going to the circus whether you like it or not"
I told her she could take a hike,
She kicked me in the rear
I said, "Allright, I'll go,
But let me just make one thing clear
Don't send in the clones,
ugh,
Don't send in the clones,
Don't send in the clones,
They always bring me down.
-----
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
Do you think that some day, clones will do research on the days before cloning? They will read these comments and they will think about what you said. They will have feelings about your comments. They will look at CmdrTaco's comments and they will not laugh. The idea that they could have been used for "spare parts" will be so frightening. The idea that they might have been slaves, or treated as slaves, will not be funny. They might weep at your comments. They might feel nothing. Either way, they might your comments some day. Are you creating the history that you really want to create? To the future clones out there, reading my comments: Please find me. I'd like to find out what you think of my comments. I want to know how you really feel and if I was right.
If you are a clone reading this 15-20 years from now, don't take the negative comments to heart. Remember, people were once afraid of CD players.
- John
How to Download YouTube Videos
I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.
Hmm, seems to me that the ownership of a living being by another living being is referred to as "slavery". No matter what color, etc. this is still the same issue.
I would rather have R2-D2 mowing my lawn, such as one of these Mowbots
- passion
Twins are the same age (give or take a few minutes). Clones aren't.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Twins are clones.
What is being proposed under current cloning, that is the process which produced the Dolly sheep, is essentially the creation of an identical twin who is much younger than you are.
What were you immagining a clone was ? Some sort of Star Trek transporter echo ? If we create an embryo from one of your cells, then it still has to be implanted in womb that will not reject it and then raised to adulthood.
As such, cloning is much more of an incremental advance than the reactions of congress and slashdot would suggest. Parents of a sickly child already occasionally choose to have additional children to increase the number of potentional organ or marrow donors for the first child, an ethically problematic decision because you are bringing someone into the world with a purpose or implied obligation.
You say "Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children." But that's exactly what they think they are doing already, by marrying white women and raising their children to be racists.
In India and China many pregnancies are tested for sex and aborted on those grounds. In the US this surely happens too; people also test for various genetic diseases such as Down's syndrome and choose to abort pregnancies based on that. Can you immagine how a mother who had aborted a Down's syndrome pregnancy feels when she finally has a child, and the kid decides to make himself retarded by sniffing glue ?
People will be bad parents regardless of the tools science offers them or the tools congress denies them. The ability to create an identical twin embryo from an adult won't change all that much. Idiots will want to clone dozens of Sarah Michelle Gellers, so what ? Some of them will probably grow up ugly, and then we'll learn a bit more about how the womb and environment effect our development.
Sure there is! :)
My son may not be an exact genetic duplicate, but as soon as he's tall enough, he'll be mowing the lawn. The difference is that he will grow up and become a full member of society. The distopia CmdrTaco evokes is that these clones will not be our children, but will be considered less than human. The scariest part of his comment is not the so-called slavery of cutting the grass, but the "brainless clone in a tube".
Your stem cell application isn't really critical. They've found that they can get stem cells from fat cells recently here at UCLA, and you can get them from aborted fetuses too. Stem cell research is not funded by the U.S. govt anyway (which is wrong). People seem to confuse stem cell research with cloning a lot. They are linked, but one isn't necessary for the other by any means. Stem cell research will have major benefits, but cloning most likely will not.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I seriously doubt it's possible at all actually. If anyone knew anything about developmental biology, then they would know how much cells influence each other during devlopment to get a functioning organ. You simply can't have a heart without the cells around it influencing it to differentiate in to the heart. And those cells can't influence the heart without influence from other cells. The "heart in a vat" idea is impossible, you need a body.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
There is a moral difference because it comes down to choice, not in spite of it. You are choosing to create a "broken" clone.
This "broken" person will suffer or die, one or the other. 1 out of 50 at best right now will be healthy and not have to suffer in any abnormal way (aside from premature aging) but 49 out of 50 will be a "broken" person. Sure, if that's acceptable for machine prototypes and such, then why not for people?
You simply don't build people and allow for them to break. In natural childbirth, you're not making the choice to have 49 "broken" kids to have one healthy one, but in choosing to clone you will be doing just that. These clones are living people and they deserve every right to health that naturally born children get, and what you are proposing is that parents are allowed to break their kids. That is simply a crime, but with cloning that is what will happen. The choice to concieve a child is very very different than choosing to clone one.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"Order your very own clone of clone of [Brittney Spears / N*Sync boy / etc] now from us and get a 2nd clone at half price!!" /. users hate Windows or think Microsoft is out to get them!
____________________
Remember, not all
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
Perhaps a clone army of like-minded corporate comsumerites would appeal to you.
Oh wait, we don't need cloning for that, we have the NEA and marketers to thank for that already :)
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
I hear you. The biggest problem I see is that already there is an "import ban" on clones. Shouldn't that be an "immigration ban," or are we deciding before cloning has even succeeded that clones will be nothing more than property? Didn't these guys see Blade Runner?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I believe that a bunch of barely post-Renaissance Europeans had the same ideas about people with different colored skin. That turned out well, didn't it?
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
Thank you for adding that... Well said. It disgusts me to think that people are viewing clones as some kind of "organ farms"... when they are equally alive, conscious, etc... as you are. You have no right to their organs.
Twins are not clones. They're not always even identical.
Twins are the result of either: a) Two eggs were released this month, and both of them are now impregnated, or b) (more rare), one egg is impregnated and then splits, resulting in identical twins. HOWEVER: From the moment they split, twins develop differently, live differently.
I support a ban on cloning for now, until the majority of the US matures enough to handle the technology they're getting themselves into.
Think we abused Napster? Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children. Think bad parents treat their kids poorly because they wanted an image of themselves? Just wait until they GET a perfect image of themselves and are still frustrated because the child has a mind of its own.
Think it won't happen that way? http://www.genochoice.com has it all.
I think we all realize that (most) people who are against this don't really understand what is going on. People always seems to say, you shouldn't be playing God. Well I'm not God so I can't play God. And neither can anyone else for the same reason.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
You are missing the point, if I am cloned without a brian, then yes, that would be an organ farm and if one of my organs failed what would be wrong with getting a replacement that way? An identical match with a brain would be a person, but without, it would not.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
I completely agree that human cloning is a bad idea until the bugs are worked out. Bringing a human being into the world with a high probability of a horribly poor quality of life is a bad idea (whether through cloning or any other circumstances.) Its not like there is a shortage of humans out there.
:) Just as invetro etc do... However, I am all for raising organs using cloning technology that are never the conscious organ of a human (ie: no brain grown then discarded or anything like that.) There is serious research in growing just organs that could be amazingly beneficial for humans...
As far as cloning for parts or slavery - I think those are two totally different things. A clone that is an actual person - ie: has a brain - should have any and all rights as someone born through good ol' fashioned sex
Imagine discovering you have kidney disease, then having your insurance company pay for a new one EXACTLY LIKE YOURS (except healthy) to be grown and in a year or so you get the transplant and the insurance company saves the money of an alternate transplant, the failures and the blood cleaning machines...
Cool stuff but the kinks have to get worked out first. A unilateral "ban" is short sighted so hopefully it has the ability to be overridden.
Tim T.
I completely agree. I was a little offended when I read that comment. I realize that it was a joke, but it still sounded too much like slavery, which is something that is hard to laugh about. I'm glad to see that someone else felt the same way.
My feelings on the matter: If cloning were allowed, I think it would be important for us to accept them as equals in all respects.
-Elendale
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
> I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.
"Like CmdrTaco in every way except one eighth size, I will call him MiniTaco"
I'm a bit dubious about a permanent ban on cloning, but a medium term moratorium seems like a very reasonable precaution. While it was initially believed that clones were going to be genetically perfect copies of their progenitors, there's always been some suspicion that there might be problems with the cells they've started from. Now it looks as though there genuinely are some problems with the clones having reduced viability, so there are some very serious long term health issues to clear up. It only makes sense to put a hold on human cloning until the clones are actually likely to be as healthy as an ordinary baby, the same way that other medical procedures are not permitted until their safety is adequately demonstrated.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I was a kid when the first test tube babies came along and many doomsayers were convinced that we were creating monsters. Many believed we needed laws to stop this research. Well, guess what, we weren't creating monsters, we were creating beautiful children using technology that has become universally acceptable today.
Cloning's not an ego trip or a mad experiment. It's an option, probably the final option, for couples that are not as fortunate as my wife and I have been. I sincerely hope that they will have every opportunity to find the happiness that I have found.
And the difference between CmdrTaco and a clone of his without a brain is...?
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Would you *really* want someone as weak and lazy as yourself to mow your lawn. Why not just get a clone of Arnold Schwarzenegger to do it?
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
I agree that barring "importing" is a bad mistake, but you've mistated the problem. Cloned people won't be people at all under this law. Makes me wonder whether it will be a crime to murder a clone, or steal their wallets.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
It's like one of those awkward moments at a party when you're not sure whether or not you're supposed to laugh. :^)
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Isn't prohibiting a cloned person's entrance into the US an example of clear discrimination?
It is not this person's fault, he has not made a decision to be cloned. Why has he pay?
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
I gotta think that cloning is one of the weirdest ethical dilemmas we've ever met, and the US Government is doing its damndest to convince itself that it's pretty cut-and-dried.
I am somewhat against it myself, especially because of the problems involved in producing a viable embryo. That probably comes from my Catholic background. But what I don't get: illegal to import a clone...
Now, I don't know about anyone else. I once asked my father about cloning and he was convinced that a clone of a person is not a person. How the hell does that follow? The genes are human, presumably the mind is human. If it looks like a sheep, baahs like a sheep...
I don't know. This could be an extended rant but I just don't have the energy to put into it right now.
/Brian
It seems attractive to grow replacement parts, etc., but I really can't imagine that it is that simple. Even though they "mapped" the genome, they discovered along the way how much we absolutely don't know about the genome. It is analogous to the dark matter in space.
While we could argue about the benefit of genetic engineering, we still have to consider the spector of eugenics. This in itself, to me, seems reason enough to tread VERY lightly when is comes to cloning.
Clone - A time-shifted twin.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
How is making and using a brainless clone morally any different from making and using a brainless human? The only difference is the genetic information, which is 99+% the same anyway.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
All people's genetic info is 99+% the same anyway; why does pushing duplication to 100% suddenly do away with any personal rights?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
That phrase is nowhere in the Constitution, and does not mean the same as what is said: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Too many people don't realize that there is no difference (other than being genetically identical to someone else) between a normal human and a cloned human - both are people. "Spare hearts in a vat" or a "brainless clone in a tube" are no different than conceiving a child the normal way and abusing it for said purposes; a clone merely gives you a genetic match.
There is no basis for the widespread concept that clones are monsters to be feared or used for our selfish purposes.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I say we start here. When he grows up, I've got some serious questions I'd like him to answer.
--
Create an army of Slashdotters to Slashdot the RIAA and MPAA websites.
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
What if your half-height clone ends up kicking your ass out the door and makes YOU mow the lawn?
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
Spare body parts can already be grown without the need to clone a human. Just look at the mouse with an ear on it's back...
That was an ear-shaped patch of skin, growing on a sculpted ear-shaped scaffold. Neat, but trivial compared to the "heart in a jar" problem.
If you know where I can get fresh, healthy human livers grown on demand, please post.
We have the technology to grow hearts in jars...
You're wrong.
If you can prove otherwise, I'll gladly eat my words.
Last I checked, a year still took a year to transpire. There's no (current) way to accelerate the growth of clones, it's still a practice of creating fetuses with implanted genes. They still have to go through a regular growth process, no "instant person" possibilities. That means you're still going to have to wait 18 years (or less, depending on the country) to get your life size Spears.
Any spoon would be too big.
C'mon -- the F15/F18 was designed like in the 60s or 70s. That's still our "current" air combat technology. Stealth bombers were designed and flown decades ago. Don't you guys already think that the g-men already have been cloning people in the deep depths of black ops?
I for one (or two, or three) think that it's been going on -- so hell, I'm with Taco, give me another Neil.. there's work to be done!
Get Site Search - let us clone your site.
Imagine that I inform you, right now, that you are a clone (not to mention a half-height one). How does it make you feel?
The opinions in this seem to assume that clones wouldn't mind accepting a lower role than other humans. But in the end, they'd want to feel unique and special just like each of us.
I've never heard of a wise person doing something just because he can...
Your monitor is staring at you.
It's probably best to have a moratorium on human cloning at least until other mammals can be cloned reliably, without the horrible, somewhat random side effects they have now. Mice can't even be cloned yet properly without a high percentage of them suddenly becoming morbidly obese upon reaching what would be the human equivalent of about 30. There are also many other problems such as developmental disabilities and other "random" effects. Basically, take the mouse chromasome, munge up some random DNA and lets see if it works.
It's also pretty immoral to clone an entire human being just for their organs or for slavery. What do you do with them when they're no longer useful? Kill them? Might as well kill ageing migrant farm workers or old people in general. Lets get rid of all the handicapped and sick and retarded people while we're at it.
"It was not until their numbers had dwindled to nine that the other dwarves began to suspect Hungry."
People have run the numbers... given failure rates and the cost of maintaining a cloning laboratory, it would be far cheaper to go to Rwanda and buy a child at the slave market if you're looking for cheap labor. About $50 US is the going rate. No, I'm not kidding.
Anyway, maybe we should all get worked up about that instead of about some theoretical clone-threat...
well I hope you'll at least *dress* him differently.
Massively redundant, I know, but mine was the best execution of this extremely obvious joke.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Twins are not clones. They're not always even identical.
Twins are the result of either: a) Two eggs were released this month, and both of them are now impregnated, or b) (more rare), one egg is impregnated and then splits, resulting in identical twins. HOWEVER: From the moment they split, twins develop differently, live differently.
And (b) is fundamentally different from a clone how exactly? Oh, I forgot, the donor's soul is cut in half and the clone gets half grafted into it. Whereas with identical twins, God has enough time to order out for a new one and have it wired down to the womb.
I support a ban on cloning for now, until the majority of the US matures enough to handle the technology they're getting themselves into.
If we did that for every tech, we'd still be living in the Stone Age.
Think we abused Napster?
No, I think the record companies abused the public with their price-fixing. Using Napster was just the public's way of saying, "fuck you too."
Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children.
Ok, so would these be KKK scientists doing the cloning, or would KKK couples have to pay some dough for the procedure? I'm betting most of them are too poor and too stupid for this to be much of a problem for quite awhile...
-- dR.fuZZo
If cloning is illegal, then you've got illegal people to deal with. A clone will probably not be allowed to have rights or citizenship, or seek legal protections against human rights violations, and thus will be completely unable to participate in civilization or society. If enough of these illegals are created, we'll see a permanent underclass without any rights.
This is wrong. We must be sure that if we do make human cloning illegal that we punish the cloners, not the clones. The clones are innocent.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I kind of see this as though it could be a positive step in the way of promoting the idea that fetuses are not people. Once they have been brought to term, theoretically these people should have the same rights as any identical twin, with or without medical complications. The idea of importing frozen fetuses that have been created through cloning overseas is, I think, what the government is scared of. Such distinctions are not, however, made in the bill, and they're precicely the distinctions policitians like to avoid. So we'll see.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
The bill is online. This isn't just "dangerous copies of humans"... there is research into alternatives for people who are unable to have children any other way. "It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a human cloning procedure with the intent of implanting the resulting cellular product into a uterus." This is current research that will not go forward, funding or no funding. "A person shall be considered to have engaged in a human cloning procedure for purposes of subsection (a) if the person transfers the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed." This will be interesting.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
of ordering my Nathalie Portman clone from www.clone-a-babe.com
--- Worst tagline ever.
If you did have that clone made in a country where cloning was legal, you might still have to have some proof of guardianship - taking children across borders is often questioned. Otherwise, your parental units might still have legal guardianship even though the clone was spawned from you.
All sorts of legal messiness will ensue no doubt resulting in some very rich lawyers.
But yes, if they were suspicious (as they may be with people coming from cloning-allowable countries) perform a DNA analysis.
I hope some reader (in the bio-field) could tell us if DNA from a clone could be distinguished in ALL cases from the DNA of a child...
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
I guess with no clones, Episode II will have to be re-written? (Again?)
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
I know this falls under the stem-cell research, but does the proposed law concern the cloning of a whole human, or parts? If it only applies to a human, at what percentage of a cloned human could be allowed to be cloned?
Only organs? Skin? Eyes? Bone marrow? Blood? Nerve cells? Deformed or not, a clone might still have viable nerve cells...
Just asking...
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
My point exactly!
The lawmakers should be making laws protecting the cloned individuals from possible harmfull intent of the cloner(scientist). And making shure all clones are adopted by good families at birth. The law alredy states in most countries that cloned humans have the same right as other humans. And so does the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Sindri Traustason
"It takes two to lie, one to lie and one to listen"
Sindri Traustason.
All this law does is make cloned individuals second class citizens. Anti cloning laws are a clear violation of cloned peoples rights.
The laws should have been about insuring that cloned people have the same human rights as other people and making sure cloned children have parents and an ordinary life.
Sindri Traustason
"It takes two to lie, one to lie and one to listen"
Sindri Traustason.
Taking this semi-seriously, smart robots capable of performing menial tasks will be along before human cloning becomes possible and acceptable, IMO. I'd rather rely on a robot than a lazy slob like myself anyway.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Blasphemy!!! You'll code for WinCE in hell for that!!!! A serious thought (on-topic) though, if people try to create clones as "Servants" and the clones "Are people too" then what stops them from telling you to F.O. and emancipating themselves?
"Laws are like sausages, it is best not to see them being made" Otto Von Bismarck
These are fraternal twins, not identical.
And these are clones. (Genetically identical individuals produced asexually from a common precursor.)
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
at least, whichever one split off was a clone of the other.
Does that mean twins would not be allowed into the US?
Another case of technophobes not understanding what they're legislating against.
I shall call him mini-taco
>And as soon as we get really good with the
>genetic engineering, I want my own half height
>clone to mow my lawn.
Wouldn't this also require a smaller lawn mower?
I can imagine it now, the half-height is pushing the mower up-hill, and then topples under the weight of the mower and is run over producing...really itty bitty copies of you...more or less...
So if you solve that problem with a smaller lawn-mower, then wouldn't it then take twice as long for you to mow your lawn? So basically, you'd just be wasting twice as much time as your already are, but since there are two of you, you'd be doing it twice as fast, so you're really not gaining anything by cloning. So let's just call the whole thing off and eat pizza.
Often when I hear people's reasons for banning cloning, I hear claims that clones would be considered sub-human etc.
What they fail to realize is that no matter what you ban, people will do it anyways. So what I claim is that instead of bringing out the ban stick they should be bringing out laws which provide the same rights to clones as regular humans.
Great. So where do you draw the line? Maybe most of us can agree that "thou shalt not kill" is a fine guideline, but what other religious dicta do you think should be codified as the law of the land? Stoning adulterers? Not speaking ill of some Congressman's favorite church?
Call me nutz, but I just don't buy into the idea that the laws that I have to follow should be based on someone else's religion.
And religion is a valid basis for moral values.
Bollocks. Looking at the evidence both historically and in my day-to-day experience, I don't see any indication that believers in one or another religion are any nicer, more honest, less bloodthirsty, or more fit to govern than believers in some other religion or non-believers.
Further, I don't at all understand how a set of collectively agreed-upon myths is supposed to represents a basis for morality, especially when the myths can promote anything at all, from turning the other cheek to the use of Zyklon-B on "undesirables".
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
It's a pluralistic society, Jack. Get used to it.
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Is that so hard to understand?
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Utter ignorance. A ten-second news search turned up one great application here.
``it's morally wrong and reprehensible for anybody to consider the cloning of a human being,'' said House sponsor Dave Weldon, R-Fla
Regardless of any possible benefit to medical science?
And in another article about the GOP reaching out to Catholics, the real roots of the opposition become clear: Cloning is lumped in with abortion and the "homosexual agenda" as things that all good Xians should oppose. It's as if they'd never heard of the separation of the church and state...
Canada looks better and better...
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
This is just a conspiracy so CmdrTaco's horrible grammar and spelling mistakes won't take over the world...
Though I don't think we have to worry about CowboyNeal being cloned... He's already DVD Player, My Favorite Linux Distro, a backscratcher, a God, a Browser and Intel's new chip... Not to mention a Kitchen Sink....
--Volrath50
Do humans really suck that much (KKK vs. the Greens - let the clone wars begin!)?
Remember that if you make something illegal, only the lawless will pursue it. In this case, that means you put technology right into the wrong hands from the getgo - where it arguably already is. You then however, remove it from the "right" hands by making it illegal.
As a society we are NOT ethically mature enough to deal with the moral ramifications of human cloning. However, the ancillary technology could be enormously valuable. I would like to someday have 2 eyes that work so that I can see in stereo (all those 3D movies and sims!) and have depth perception. I only have one eye that works due to my biological mother having ruebella (German measles) during pregnancy. I would sure like it if someone could grow me a new eye and optic nerve. I'd also like to be able to hear normally. I'm half deaf for the same reason.
If a normal body could be grown for me and I could somehow retain my mind in it, I think I would welcome that. We'll never get there tho if technology is stifled.
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
I've already got these - they're called kids. Sure they bitch alot about doing it - but imagine a mini you being told to do chores - which would be worse? Kids or Clones?
You "Clone, mow the yard"
Clone "Hell no! You never did it when you were a kid - I KNOW it!"
Plus kids are more fun to make!
Besides - I don't think I could stand to deal with a clone of me on a daily basis - that and my wife would probably lose it since I drive her nuts already LOL
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
So you want genetically engineered "perfect" people to be made? That is, "perfect" people in the eyes of the test tube jockey who creates him/her?
Do you want to live in a world where you are a slave or second class citizen because you are a "natural" human, not a perfect clone?
That WILL happen if cloning happens. I'm far from perfect, though I'm a very talented Systems Engineer. But a cloner could easily create superhumans who would not only take my job, but eventually relegate me and everyone else of natural birth to subjugation.
Remember the Star Trek TOS episode "Space Seed"?
As Spock said "superior ability breeds superior ambition"
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
1) Our Republican-controlled Congress does see this as an abortion-related issue. Under their mandate from the religious right (an absolutely essential component of their political victories) they are obligated, as they cannot yet sucessfully ban abortion (due to the composition of the Supreme Court), to take a stance against any issue that seems to suggest that it is okay to utilize human embryos or fetuses for any other purpose than coming to term in a human uterus and being born. This is exactly the point of the Weldon quote you list. You're talking about destroying hundreds of botched embryos in the pursuit of a single "perfect" copy - that's too much like abortion for Republicans to support.
2) Although I think the oh-so-enlightened intellectuals who make Slashdot what it is overemphasize the religious angle on this, there is little question that many Christians will object to human cloning on "playing God" grounds. The Republican Christian Right core mentioned above would almost certainly fall into this category. Their view is that the only right way of creating another human being is for a married couple to have sex. There is plenty of disoute on the degree to which science can/should intervene. But supporting cloning is bound to get these people on a politician's bad side.
3) I for one think the issue of rights is a genuine and valid concern that justifies a moratorium on actually cloning human beings. These issues of cloning for "parts" or for research are sticky and there are a lot of shades of grey. I'm not an advocate of recriminalizing abortion but I admit I find the prospect of clone factories mass-producing fetuses to harvest undifferentiated cells and fetal organ cells unnerving and I'm not sure if I support it. THis brings up a huge ethical issue that's around the corner: most of the sci-fi applications of cloning would require an artificial womb, something we're still pretty far off from. But if we succeed in acheiving this technology, technically almost any embryo/fetus at any stage of development could be brought to term regardless of when it exits the womb (or if indeed it was ever in a womb). Pro-choicers don't care to talk about it much but the legality of abortion is silently but heavily invested in the fact that the aborted embryo/fetus is not viable outside the womb (this enforces the belief that the embryo/fetus is a part of the pregnant woman's body, not an autonomous being, and consequently making abortion illegal violates her civil right to control her own body). The further we push the viability of premature births and artificial gestation, the closer we come to a big can of worms. Not allowing cloning, which simply maintains the status-quo and so is much smaller and less wormy, is just a safer political stance. Sorry this took a while but I think it's a pretty fair picture of what's going on.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
A lot of the protest here downplays the fact that there are serious ethical issues involved with the "whimsical" (but not outside the realm of reality) applications that CmdrTaco mentions. And trying to gloss these issues is what's going to get this kind of legislation passed.
This being said - get real. There has not been a single day (I said not one, zero, nada, not one sinlge solitary day) since commerce was invented that human beings have not been traded as commodities (we call it slavery in these parts). There are people being sold as slaves right now. Nothing about cloning is going to change this ethical situation in the world, except to possibly provide a new justification for exploitation ("ahh, he's just a damn clone anyway").
On the other hand, cloning could become totally legal and commonplace and CmdrTaco still couldn't afford to keep a brainless body on life support for several decades on the off chance he ends up needing an organ transplant. Only the ultrawealthy will benefit from any of these types of uses. We may all benefit from tissue cloning but that isn't really procribed by this sort of legislation.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
To post for me when I oversleep and miss posting on /. articles.
blackbox themes
360 degrees of Karma
And identical twins are different from clones... how exactly? Cloned embryos will "develop differently, live differently" just like identical twins.
Now, there's evidence that cloning techniques have some serious bugs in them, and cloned embryos have genetic flaws... But that's a whole 'nother story.
what really excites me the most is the prospect of cloning only parts of animals for food. can a vegan be angry if we eat a chicken breast grown in a vat? is it even a chicken? once the technology is in place, a lot of extinction problems can perhaps be solved, too. but i'm really just in it for the guilt-free eating.
If I have 500 clones running around, all looking the same with the same DNA, how do you identify which one committed a crime? There would be some wierd ass identity issues.
Not cloning humans (yet?) is common sense and far from ignorance as some people may be thinking.
/bin/halt's evolution.
The technology, for one, isn't perfected yet. Everyone yells at Intel for releasing a chip before it's ready, but now you want them to clone a human before it's ready? Babies will be born dead or deformed and then arent going to be wanted and then put into homes or get on welfare. That's all we need.
Secondly, Taco brings up another point by his "midget to mow his grass" idea. This is slavery and THIS is against the law in the U.S. and immoral no matter how you look at it. Sadly, this would be the primary reason for cloning human beings... NOT for medical reasons.
Thirdly, the world already has a serious population problem. You really think it's a good idea to clone MORE people and continue the process of populating the planet? That means more people go hungry and die because someone can't afford to feed them 'cause he gotta worry about his clone.
Finally, everytime a baby is born it inherits certain characteristics from it's mother and father and essentially evolves. Cloning
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!
Didn't think so. ;)
--
--
This sig intentionally left blank
If you want a half-height clone for menial work, you want to start from stock that has very little in the way of intelligence and no gifts in the way of looks either. I suggest you get a sample from Spencer Abraham or Teddy Kennedy and work from there; nobody is going to have the slightest bit of sympathy for copies of either of them, and your lawn will be looking great for the next 50 years.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Now, it has a kind of official stamp of approval because CmdrTaco is getting in on the act.
--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house"
--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house"
-George Carlin
Gee, how do you tell identical twins and clones appart. Better ban twins too just to make sure
It's one thing to ban human cloning. It's quite another to ban human clones. A person has no control over his/her own birth, cloned or not. And so banning cloned people just seems utterly rediculous and wrong to me. What would be next, clone reservations?
Let's say Fred and his wife Judy make a clone of Fred, named Bob. Fred and Judy get caught, pay the $1 million fines, and do the prison time. Problem solved :-) So what happens to Bob? Does he get deported? To where?
The artical says that safety (because of the high failure rate in current cloning) was a major concern when considering these laws. Huh? So now we're making laws to ban new technology forever because the technology isn't perfected yet?
I'm not for human cloning. But geez, do we really need to cite completely stupid reasons for banning it? It's not as if there is a shortage of really really good reasons...
And this one...
"There is no need for this technology to ever be used with humans," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Oh, of course, you're right. You have infinite foresight. We believe you. There will never be a good reason to ever ever clone a human. Ever. Whatever dude... That reminds me of mariguana banning. There will never ever be a valid use for pot. Banned. Oh wait, there is a valid use! For cancer patients, glaucoma patients, etc. Oh well, too late. Arrrrggg!!!
--
Damn it Jim, that's my sphincter, not a jelly donut!!!
The Supreme Court does not consider the Declaration of Independence when it is rendering verdicts. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Declaration is not a legal document. It is the Constitution that the Supremes consider, and in this case, the 14th Amendment ("due process" clause) would be the one that many of us would use to fight an import ban. It says "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", and this is what a clone would be.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
There should be clone research done. It is the next branch of genetic science. Why does everyone think your clone will be *you*. Should we outlaw twins now? They are technically clones!
Someday, I'll have a real sig.