Cloning? Who Cares? - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [i]Two cloned Beagles, Magic and Stem, are shown at the National Seoul University in January 2009. The pups, cloned by RNL Bio, a biopharmaceutical company, represent one of the early worries of the past decade.[/i] Ethicists are now turning their attention to low-tech concerns. [IMG]http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f172/Rainhorror/zcloneddogs.jpg[/IMG] Way back at the start of this decade, three high-tech, almost exotic issues dominated the bioethical landscape: cloning, embryonic stem cell research and bioterrorism. In the early 2000s, the question on everyone’s lips was: “How can we keep clones from taking over the world?” As we enter 2010, however, three mundane and low-tech issues are overshadowing the bioethical discourse: health reform, coping with the flu and what to do about obesity. What happened? How did what we started out worrying about come to bear such little resemblance to the ethical dilemmas we’re facing now? Admittedly, there were a number of other hot-button issues that popped up during the decade just passed. Long before her death in 2005, Terri Schiavo became the poster-child for many in the right-to-life movement who considered the removal of her feeding tube a moral travesty perpetrated on a helpless, disabled woman. Despite the findings of an autopsy that the Florida woman had permanently lost all capacity to see, speak, communicate, think or feel, many continue to vilify her husband, who believed she would have wanted to be allowed to die. [b]Ethical dilemmas abounded[/b] During later years, there was no shortage of ethical dilemmas. Conflict-of-interest scandals rocked the pharmaceutical and academic worlds; Hurricane Katrina raised questions about the duties of health workers in a crisis; and genetic testing flourished on the Internet. In more recent years, the International Olympic Committee wrestled with the question of whether a man with prosthetic limbs could compete; organ trafficking reached into American hospitals; Washington state joined Oregon in allowing assisted suicide; and the first-ever vaccine to prevent cancer, Merck’s Gardasil, appeared. Sure, all of that is pretty remarkable, but what the heck happened to the clones? Well, the science for making cloned people was never really easy to do. The one scientist who claimed to have made cloned human embryos, South Korean Hwang Woo-Suk, resigned in disgrace when his work was exposed as a hoax. Moreover, there was very little interest on the part of legitimate researchers in cloning people. Instead, they were and remain interested in cloning only as a research technique because that is where the money is. Banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was center stage in the culture wars in the early part of the decade. Despite a good deal of yelling and finger-pointing, a compromise emerged: embryonic stem cells could be made from unwanted embryos created at fertility clinics. As for bioterrorism, it remains a threat but worries about terrorists releasing smallpox and anthrax have faded to concerns mostly for the Department of Homeland Security and other national and international agencies. [b]Public health threats take center stage[/b] What replaced those ethical debates is new-found doubt about the ability of the United States and the world to deal with boring, ordinary public health threats. The sci-fi technologies did not have legs, at least as far as compelling bioethical arguments. What does merit scrutiny is the inability of the world to make enough vaccine to deal current crisis of familiar and emerging strains of the flu, including the H1N1 swine flu. What also commands attention is that, despite all our new genetic knowledge and increased understanding of the human brain, we don’t seem to be able to get any traction on the obesity epidemic. And in the U.S. it seems touch-and-go whether politicians can figure out how to do what every other comparable nation has done and provide basic health insurance to every citizen. None of these ethical issues lends itself to a quick or easy fix. Each will require revamping our fundamental attitudes and public policies toward vaccines, diet and the cost of health care. The lesson of the decade, it seems, is that we can’t focus on cutting-edge technologies when we haven’t solved the most basic problems. In a country that’s been short on flu vaccines, where seven-stack cheeseburgers are advertised to an obese nation, and where there’s not enough basic infrastructure to delivery basic medical care to children and pregnant women, we have work to do. Welcome, 2010. Maybe this will be the decade when we get our moral priorities in order.[/QUOTE] In [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)]Dolly[/url], we trust. [b]Source:[/b][url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34438374/ns/health-health_care/[/url]

I wonder how many defects they have

That is cute and awesome at the same time. :3

i care it goes against all of my christian beliefs

[QUOTE=Soviet Beef;19277847]i care it goes against all of my christian beliefs[/QUOTE] Stupid people stem the growth of technology and our world in general.

[QUOTE=Soviet Beef;19277847]i care it goes against all of my christian beliefs[/QUOTE] Stupid people rating him dumb for what he believes in.

[QUOTE=Soviet Beef;19277847]i care it goes against all of my christian beliefs[/QUOTE] ok mr atheist

I really dont see why people are against cloning.

This could help cure a lot of diseases, right?

[QUOTE=TheServer;19278030]This could help cure a lot of diseases, right?[/QUOTE] Potentially.

I'm ok with cloning as long as it's not with people, that concept just freaks me out.

[QUOTE=faze;19277993]Stupid people rating him dumb for what he believes in.[/QUOTE] No, I rated hm dumb because religion shouldn't be so much that people have to be against technological advances.

[QUOTE=Comcastic;19278103]No, I rated hm dumb because religion shouldn't be so much that people have to be against technological advances.[/QUOTE] Read the Bible, and you'll understand. /religious arguments

You know, cloning new bodies for people suffering from a terminal illness, or cloning new lungs and livers and hearts and stuff could save quite a few lives.

[QUOTE=faze;19278110]Read the Bible, and you'll understand. /religious arguments[/QUOTE] No thanks, I don't like fictional books written by madmen. Religion is worthless and useless, all it's doing now is taking up space and halting scientific advance with it's stupid bullshit that was written two thousand+ years ago.

[QUOTE=faze;19277993]Stupid people rating him dumb for what he believes in.[/QUOTE] No, we rated him dumb because what he believes in is stunting the growth of technology because he thinks a man hidden behind the wallpaper stuck to the sky created earth in 7 days .

[quote=soviet beef;19277847]i care it goes against all of my christian beliefs[/quote]‏

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;19278137]You know, cloning new bodies for people suffering from a terminal illness, or cloning new lungs and livers and hearts and stuff could save quite a few lives.[/QUOTE] Getting a new body would probably be abused. I can just see it now: I'VE BEEN THROUGH 8 BODIES AND GOING FOR MY 9TH, AM I A BODY ADDICT?

Guys stop with the religion argument. You all know how it's going to end and it's just fucking stupid. It would be fine if it was intelligent debate but it's not, it's just pointless bickering with a thread closing and a few handfuls of bans to put an end to a thread that had good potential.

Guys, I just made a new religion. The god is a giant turtle with guns on its back. Don't try to say it's not real cause I wrote a book about it. Pages don't lie.

[QUOTE=ThePutty;19278254]Getting a new body would probably be abused. I can just see it now: I'VE BEEN THROUGH 8 BODIES AND GOING FOR MY 9TH, AM I A BODY ADDICT?[/QUOTE] Just like getting new hearts, livers, and any other transplant-able organ has been abused?

Cloning is a plus and a bad. You can misuse it, or use it for good. IMO if they go through the people will treat clones like what whites did to blacks, and they will be "lower" than the average human.

[QUOTE=Gorm;19277796]I wonder how many defects they have[/QUOTE] they're clones, they have none, unless the thing they are cloned from has one.

[QUOTE=faze;19278110]Read the Bible, and you'll understand. /religious arguments[/QUOTE] The forgettable commandment number XXXIV Thou shalt not make two of the exact same beings BECAUSE CLONING IS BAD AND IT TOTALLY CAN'T HELP US

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;19278513]The forgettable commandment number XXXIV Thou shalt not make two of the exact same beings BECAUSE CLONING IS BAD AND IT TOTALLY CAN'T HELP US[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.gotquestions.org/cloning-Christian.html[/url] [quote]While the Bible does not specifically deal with the subject of human cloning, there are principles in Scripture which may shed more light on the concept. Cloning requires both DNA and embryo cells. First, DNA is removed from the nucleus of a creature’s cell. The material, bearing coded genetic information, is then placed in the nucleus of an embryonic cell. The cell receiving the new genetic information would have had its own DNA removed in order to accept the new DNA. If the cell accepts the new DNA, a duplicate embryo is formed. However, the embryo cell may reject the new DNA and die. Also, it is very possible that the embryo may not survive having the original genetic material removed from its nucleus. In many cases, when cloning is attempted, several embryos are used in order to increase the odds of a successful implantation of new genetic material. While it is possible for a duplicate creature to be created in this manner (for example, Dolly the sheep), the chances of successfully duplicating a creature without variations, and without complication, are extremely slim. The Christian view of the process of human cloning can be stated in light of several scriptural principles. First, human beings are created in the image of God and, therefore, are unique. Genesis 1:26-27 asserts that man is created in God’s image and likeness and is unique among all creations. Clearly, human life is something to be valued and not treated like a commodity to be bought and sold. Some people have promoted human cloning for the purpose of creating replacement organs for people in need of transplants who cannot find a suitable donor. The thinking is that to take one’s own DNA and create a duplicate organ composed of that DNA would greatly reduce the chances of organ rejection. While this may be true, the problem is that doing so cheapens human life. The process of cloning requires human embryos to be used. While cells can be generated to make new organs, it is necessary to kill several embryos to obtain the required DNA. In essence the cloning would “throw away” many human embryos as “waste material,” eliminating the chance for those embryos to grow into full maturity. Many people believe that life does not begin at conception with the formation of the embryo, and therefore embryos are not really human beings. The Bible teaches differently. Psalm 139:13-16 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” The writer, David, declares that he was known personally by God before he was born, meaning that at his conception he was a human being with a God-ordained future. Further, Isaiah 49:1-5 speaks of God calling Isaiah to his ministry as a prophet while he was still in his mother’s womb. Also, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was still in the womb (Luke 1:15). All of this points to the Bible’s stand on life beginning at conception. In light of this, human cloning, with its destruction of human embryos, would not be consistent with the Bible’s view of human life. In addition, if humanity was created, then there must be a Creator, and humanity is therefore subject and accountable to that Creator. Although popular thinking—secular psychology and humanistic thought—would have one believe that man is accountable to no one but himself and that man is the ultimate authority, the Bible teaches differently. God created man and gave him responsibility over the earth (Genesis 1:28-29, 9:1-2). With this responsibility comes accountability to God. Man is not the ultimate authority over himself, and he is therefore not in a position to make decisions about the value of human life. Neither, then, is science the authority by which the ethics of human cloning, abortion, or euthanasia are decided. According to the Bible, God is the only one who rightfully exercises sovereign control over human life. To attempt to control such things is to place oneself in God’s position. Clearly, man is not to do this. If we view man as simply another creature and not as the unique creation he is, it is not difficult to see human beings as mere mechanisms needing maintenance and repair. But we are not just a collection of molecules and chemicals. The Bible teaches that God created each of us and has a specific plan for each of us. Further, He seeks a personal relationship with each of us through His Son, Jesus Christ. While there are aspects of human cloning which may seem beneficial, mankind has no control over where cloning technology may go. It is foolish to assume that only good intentions will direct the utilization of cloning. Man is not in a position to exercise the responsibility or judgment that would be required to govern the cloning of human beings. A frequent question is whether a cloned human being, assuming that human cloning is one day successful, would have a soul. Genesis 2:7 says, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Here is the description of God creating a living, human soul. Souls are what we are, not what we have (1 Corinthians 15:45). The question is what kind of living soul would be created by human cloning? That is not a question that can be conclusively answered. It seems, though, that if a human being were successfully cloned, the clone would be just as much of a human being, including having an eternal soul, as any other human being.[/quote] I rest my case.

[QUOTE=tankkiller;19278171]No thanks, I don't like fictional books written by madmen. Religion is worthless and useless, all it's doing now is taking up space and halting scientific advance with it's stupid bullshit that was written two thousand+ years ago.[/QUOTE] Religion is a tradition You don't get rid of traditions that have been with you for the past 1000 years (depending on when your country was founded)

[QUOTE=tankkiller;19278171]No thanks, I don't like fictional books written by madmen. Religion is worthless and useless, all it's doing now is taking up space and halting scientific advance with it's stupid bullshit that was written two thousand+ years ago.[/QUOTE] Who cares when it was written? If you don't believe it, that's your own problem.

Also i love the hitman blood money refference since i'm playing it right now

Who cares about Christian views on cloning? Religion needs to stay separate from science.

[QUOTE=faze;19277993]Stupid people rating him dumb for what he believes in.[/QUOTE] You guys do realize he was being sarcastic?