Slashdot Mirror
South Korean Cloners In Hot Water Over Donors
Xookliba writes "Last February, South Korean scientists succeeded in the world's first human clone. Read the slashdot article here. As it turns out, they might have not been the best abassadors for this technology as they are currently mired in an ethical scandal over the source of the eggs used in the experiment. The field definitely does not need this type of debacle. No doubt this will fuel the argument of those who oppose all types of cloning, including the beneficial therapeutic cloning that this research was aimed at.
Read the story here."
This only begs the question: beneficial to whom? Isn't there someone you're forgetting, someone who doesn't benefit from so-called "therapeutic" cloning, namely the unborn human being who is being harvested for parts for the benefit of others? How is this different from the Nazi-era human experimentation that we all (hopefully) abhor?
Man, people are way too uptight about this crap. Animals clone themselves all the time. What if a decade from now a virus hits humanity that destroys our fertility (just imagine, you don't have to figure out how exactly)... wouldn't it be nice for us to at least now how to keep humanity going somehow? And to all those people that say the clone wouldn't be "human" be because of lack of soul, well you are the inhuman one. Anyone who would treat a thinking human different based on how they were born is a very ignorant animal. And as far as harvesting goes: If a clump of cells doesn't have a brain, then it can't contain any thoughts. No thoughts = not sentient. If a stem cell is used to create just an organ without creating the rest of the entity, then it's the same as growing a tomato only to "harvest" it. *shudder* Isn't that just horribly evil?
the skeptics being right, how dare they!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I love you. That's a great point. We "abuse" the dignity of sentient beings all the time.
or, Hard Boiled Egg Plot Involves High Risk of Blood Clot.
I am happy full of glee
that you clone some eggs from me.
Science good, coersion bad,
I'll be a mommy AND a dad!
No wait, eggs of mine
They are not
Please excuse
mine english is rot.
Western values rule the day
You don't see this game we play?
In other News, (Hold your breath!)
Some Koreans, HAVE BREASTS!
But of course!
We'll use the Force!
Nothing to see here.
You're looking for a beer.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
If you seen one, you've seen them all.
I hope they didn't coerce the women to give their eggs unwillingly, especially when there is such a health high risk associated with this type of mass donation. Either way this is a great breakthrough and I hope this scandal doesn't cover up the high points of the experiment.
It doesn't mean a whole lot to people who think cloning of any type is evil no matter what, but I felt one of the more important points in the article was that, "This is not cloning to make babies, but to create medicine."
Even though they're creating embryos, they're not destined for implantation. And they're not sentient at this stage yet either, so the ethical problems just don't have much weight with me. Instead the idea that we can cure the ailments of tons of people someday based on this research makes me very optimistic.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Even Nancy Reagan is for stem cell research. The unfortunate point is that people (much like with abortion, -1 flamebait) get on their high moral horse and preach about the sanctity of life. But what they miss is that stem cell research is about saving lives. Human cloning is an inseparable issue from this, IMO. Before everyone starts making "slippery slope" arguments, think about what can be learned/gained, scientifically and medically, and then tell me with what certainty we should throw it out because it instinctively feels like something we shouldn't be doing?
A lump of cells or a baby? Depends on what you want. You want to have a baby, therefore you bond that currently a-"lump of cells" into an idea of a baby. It's a baby in potentia, in hopes. It's not a baby yet, but it could become one. But it really isn't a baby yet. Please try to understand that.
What your saying is that we would be better off if you killed yourself?(Please don't take it seriously just trying to prove a point: That point being who is anyone to decide who deserves to live and who doesn't).
Creative Demolition
Lets let the Consumericans of the future breed their own sub-human slave race for the purposes of 'medicine'. Great idea.
Cloning is one of those situations where you not only cannot and should not ignore the man behind the curtain, but you should take him out of the theatre, kick his ass, and start dating his sister
In 50 years time, after 'a few years' of industrialized human-breeding for the sake of fashion and medicine, I don't think I'm gonna want to call myself a member of this race.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Also your point about genetic recoding viruses is interesting. But you should know that we carry the detritus of hundreds of thousands of years of virus infections, that have left junk in our DNA that is now permanent. In fact, everyone of us carries in our genome the genetic code for cytomegalovirus (CMV). In very few individuals does this become a problem but it happens. We will continue to accumulate such in our genome and there is no way to go back to "safe genetic stock."
If stem cell research isn't done, people will continue to suffer from alzheimers, will continue to die from many many diseases that could be cured were this research allowed.
Alzheimers, which has almost unarguably been linked to chronic metals poisoning. The cure in this case is stop the metals poisoning in the first place - not create a cure for metals poisoning after it has occurred. This is the better solution even at the utilitarian position because it is more efficient. "A stitch in time saves nine"
.
-shpoffo
"We were never designed by evolution to live as long as we do."
What on earth is "designed by evolution" supposed to mean?
And please don't tell me we are going to have an argument about evolution, too ;)
No, I don't want to argue about evolution. But the phrase "designed by evolution" still seems strange. After all, how does design happen without a designer, which evolution specifically leaves out? Unless you're making an analogy to Adam Smith's Invisible Hand?
Evolution doesn't need a guiding hand, since it can act (only) along reproductive lines. If it doesn't affect your reproductive state, evolution says you're OK. If you've passed on your genes successfully but live so long that you become a major burden to those you've passed the genes onto (decreasing their efficiency), evolution says "Well done!" and gives you a cookie before kicking you out of the gene pool. Therefore, we fall apart after we lose reproductive prowess (men) or the ability to help with rearing (women). Designed by evolution means that defined evolutionary forces made us better breeders at the expense of things that could be better later in life.
Exactly. "Forces" being selective pressure. Evolution occurs by mutation>selection>replication, anything that is beneficial means you get to replication faster and you populate the world with your genes. I definitely did NOT mean to imply the intelligent design theory.
Infants and fetuses that can not think for themselves and are not yet sentient and are not yet people. They don't reason, think, love, remember the past or look to the future or do anything else that we asociate with personhood.
So you would approve of killing infants, then? If not, why? Doesn't your logic lead to that conclusion?
I don't recall ever seeing a chicken distraught about missing an unfertilized egg or even one out of a group of chicks. So forgive me if I have a hard time equating this "abuse" to using a human woman's egg without consent.
sentient = responsive to or conscious of sense impressions.
sapient = possessing or expressing great sagacity.
Or at least, that's how Webster explains it. Contextually: yes, I would agree that chickens are probably not sapient, but I have a nagging hunch that they are sentient.
Thanks for the definitions. I stand corrected. Of course it still doesn't mean they are "abused" when you take their eggs.
yes, the "abuse" claim is... um, questionable. I mean, when I cold-store those eggs, and then I abort them into a skillet before true-embryonic stage (most of the time), and then I scramble them with some permutation_of(onions, peppers, sausage, tomatoes), it sure doesn't taste like abuse. :-d (the "d" is for yumyums, not a pointing tongue) PS: have you ever had lamb brains? I'm telling you, it's freaking delicious: seriously.
As far as the eggs go, virtually all eggs sold (at least in delevoped nations) are unfertilized. If the eggs were never taken from the chicken, it still would never produce a chick.
On the lamb brains... oh man, you don't even know! mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm lamb brains
;) Look, i'm just pullin your chain and I don't really think this way. But it's fun to rephrase everyday okay-to-do-things in terms of evilnesseseseses.
and on the eggs, okay, you have a point. but isn't raising animals as food-slaves only to steal their unfertalized half-young wrong?
Yeah. As with most philsophical (sp?) debates, it probably would never end until someone got bored anyhow. And it's true that there are plenty of people who really do feel exactly that way.
Since this is /. an obligitory reference to old Star Trek episodes where some being enslaves a happy civilization is probably in order too. IOW, questioning the definition of slavery and freedom is far from new.
Perhaps a chicken (for the sake of argument since I don't speak "chicken") says, "This is the life. I can just sit here, warm and cozy with free food." Wouldn't it be quite a big assumption that it sits there staring at the window of the barn wishing it were free?
And what if we freed all the chickens? Instead of having a party, maybe they'd be thinking, "Hey, where the hell is the food? This sucks!"
Personally I blame Disney. You see animated characters of animals who have the same feelings and emotions we do. You see a daddy clown fish searching the ocean for his kid. In real life the young swim off almost immediately after they hatch. They are likely to be eaten by the father if they run into him again when they return to the coral.
I'm not saying animals can't feel pain. Of course they can. It would be cruel to torture one. I'm against animal testing when there is an alternative. I just think attributing the same feelings and emotions we have to every animal out there is flawed.
And most importantly... cows taste good.
... cows taste good.
Amen to that! Let's go have some kabob.