1 of 2
1
human cloning
Posted: 01 August 2005 03:23 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

It amazes me how disgusted some people I know act towards the idea of human cloning. Now federal legislation is pending to ban it. Perhaps I’m naïve and uneducated on the matter, but really, what is the big deal about cloning? Why is it morally wrong?
Here is a news link outlining the legislation.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=1438

“Let's be very clear: human reproductive cloning is wrong,” Senator Feinstein said. “It is immoral and unethical. It must not be allowed under any circumstances.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2005 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Cloning is wrong because you mess with the reproductive system in a way where you play God. Leave it alone, it is pandora’s box. The future will be frightening as people will have designer children with coded behaviors and beliefs.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2005 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“Steve in NC”]It amazes me how disgusted some people I know act towards the idea of human cloning. Now federal legislation is pending to ban it. Perhaps I’m naïve and uneducated on the matter, but really, what is the big deal about cloning? Why is it morally wrong?
Here is a news link outlining the legislation.
{deleted link to prevent window up sizing}
“Let’s be very clear: human reproductive cloning is wrong,” Senator Feinstein said. “It is immoral and unethical. It must not be allowed under any circumstances.”

I won’t attempt to speak to moral issues, but on the ethical front the problem lies with the fact that we just don’t know enough about mammalian cloning to know that it could be done safely.  What we do iknow is that at the current stage there are too many things going wrong with the cloned progeny to warrant attempting this on humans.  It is too likely that we would create a very unhappy being as a result.

I, like you, find difficulty in moral arguments when it comes to biology per se.  I see no more moral problem with clones than we have with twins.  Since identical twins start out from the same conceptus they are effective clones.  Has anyone in the religious community ever argued that they must share a soul?????

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2005 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2005-08-01

Cloning is controversial because, even among those who are not religious, there’s a fear that it may degrade the value of human life. “The Island” a science fiction movie that come out recently about using human clones for spare parts is an example (though a very extreme and exaggerated example). This view point has lead some to ask, “what line do we draw when we define who’s a person and who’s not”. This is a similar argument that drives the abortion issue. I remember seeing an argument against abortion that was written by secular humanist, and they argued that they believe it to be wrong because they saw the unborn fetus as a person, were as other groups argued that the fetus was not born thus not an individuals.

When an argument gets this muddled it hard to come up with a solution or position that doesn’t seem to contradict itself. You might find that legislation for cloning would be approved more rapidly is a special interest group could convince others that a certain respect for life is maintained.

It’s just the major flaw in the argument for human cloning is that it is experimentation, and even though the experiments are on clones, the idea is that they are still “human” clones. The present stance is that it’s immoral for science to experiment on humans in this fashion. Genetic research went through many of the same problems before it was put into use, look how much science fiction has been written on this field.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2005 03:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

Nature does human cloning all the time. Ever hear of twins?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2005 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2005-08-01

True, nature does clone in the form of identical twins. Nature also employs the use of DNA, but that does not mean that gives science or doctors free reign to do what they want on human subjects. People may not be opposed to cloning when it deals with animal subjects, the issue that was raised was the use of human cloning.

As I stated before, it is not ethical to perform experiments on humans. Hence cloning experiments on human clones would fall under that category. Regulations become even stricter when you have children to consider. Plus I would remind that injecting cells from the tissue of a living organism into the unfertilized egg is not the same as twins. Twins are the result of normal fertilization that “splits” into two separate entities. That’s not to say it’s not right or goes against nature, but a practical application and the side effects of such a procedure are not fully understood. Since we are dealing with human life taking such needless risks for the sake of “see what happens” does not justify the practice of human cloning. Perhaps if a use was devised or proofs that human cloning is as harmless as identical twins then you might have more of a support base.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2005 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

You’re my kind of intellectual thinka. wink

(I noticed the Jung reference on your post. Have you ever considered a person by the name of Jesus Christ? His sayings have been recorded in some letters written by a variety of people about 2000 years ago. He has some very enlightening concepts and such. Check it out. Let me know what you find out.)

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2005 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

“The present stance is that it’s immoral for science to experiment on humans in this fashion.”

It’s ethical to perform ethical experiments on humans. What are you talking about?

Actually the “twin” concept turns out to be very important. The concept that nature produces twins from a single fertilized egg was the basis for the scholastic argument that the fertilized egg was not a human since it pretty obviously didn’t have a soul. If it had a soul it couldn’t then become two separate people; thus the argument was that humanness, including having a soul, developed later, usually considered to be once the fetus had recognizably human traits. Even the Roman Catholic church didn’t ban early abortion until 1869, and then had political rather than moral reasons for doing so. This is very important for stem cell research and for cloning, too. If nature clones us all the time to create twins, and presumably God has a role in creating every human life, God would have to be doing something immoral if cloning is immoral.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2005 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2005-08-01

MJ wrote:
“It’s ethical to perform ethical experiments on humans.”

Sorry, but this statement is a logical fallacy. It’s a bad attempt to steer the debate into another direction, thus avoiding the issue.

  With your comment that it’s “ethical” to perform “ethical experiments” is true in of itself as a statement. It is always ethical to do ethical things. Unfortunately you didn’t supply a reason or proof that experiments on humans in the form of human cloning is “ethical“. That is not to say that cloning itself is not ethical (as I mentioned in previous posts), but that there are moral considerations to consider when calculating the benefits and risks of a medical and scientific procedure such as human cloning.

Since we don’t have the proper techniques to create test tube babies or some form of artificial incubation, then the process of cloning a individual would proceed as a normal birth. Since this is a natural birth with a natural gestation period, then the procedure is not a invasive and unnatural as many would be lead to believe. However, this does warrant the consideration that if the child who was the product of human cloning was delivered and grew up in a normal fashion, and as result of the cloning process showed signs of complications such as birth defects and bad physical functions and other possible consideration, would this warrant a malpractice charge and would the experimenters be held responsible? 

As I said, unless you can prove that any medical procedure accomplishes a desired end and that the benefits outweigh the consequences, then such a procedure can not be classified as being ethical. This is why the issue of human cloning is a highly questionable one.

I realize that the possible benefits of human cloning could have huge implications, with a large potential for many medical applications. I also know that laws that slow or block such experiments seem to be holding up progress, but I’m arguing that blind progress is not an desired end in of itself.

Also, as a side note, your reference to the controversies involving the development of twins and the metaphysical implications of such phenomena, though highly educational and enlightening, is unfortunately grossly off point. As much as I would enjoy debating the metaphysical aspects of the development of the soul, I must unfortunately decline since such a debate would probably end with no common ground. The soul is an immaterial concept, neither having form nor substance. there are no empirical facts about the soul that would warrant it as a major consideration when debating the validity and practice of a medical procedure. Such debates are a waste of time if there is no common ground between two opposing side when discussing metaphysical concepts, and it would be impossible to do so in a secular manner. I believe that there is a secular reason for the current laws outlawing human cloning and I have given my reasons for holding this view.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2005 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Ebion, your smart, just drop the Jung. His philosophy is much too convoluted and sometimes too complex to help the masses. And in the end, he was just a man with no more authority than any other man.

Better to stick with the simple message of the gospel and the teachings of the son of God, Jesus Christ:

1, You should worship only God, Mathew 4: 10
2, Swear not at all, Matthew 5: 34 to 37
3, Pray that your flight wont be on Sabbath day (Saturday), Matthew 24: 20
4, Jesus is lord of the Sabbath day (Saturday), Mark 2: 28 Jesus said that because Sabbath means something to God and to Him.
5, Honor your father and Mother, Matthew 19: 19
6, Love your neighbor as your self, Matthew 19:19
7, You shall not kill, Matthew 19:18
8, You shall not commit adultery, Matthew 19:18
9, You shall not steal, Matthew 19:18
10, You shall not bear false witness (do not lie) Matthew 19: 18
11, You shall live by the word of God, (He meant the old law that exist then) Mark 4:4
12, Do not change one jot of the law (He meant the old laws) Matthew 5:17 to 20
13, You shall be judge by your word, (He meant not by faith only) Matthew 12: 37
14, You shall be reward by your work, (Not by faith), Revelation (22: 12)(!4: 13)
15, Do not call no one father or master on earth, Matthew 32: 8-9
16, Do not divorce, Matthew 19: 9
17, Give all what you have to the poor, Matthew 19: 21 to 24
18, You shall be born again, (Baptize), John 3: 5
19, You should forgive, Matthew 6: 14
20, If some smite you, you should turn the other side of your face also, Matthew 5: 39
21, Feed the poor, Matthew 25: 31 to 46
22, Love your enemies, pray and bless them, Matthew 5:44
23, Preach the word and baptize the people from all nations, Matthew 28: 19 to 20
24, Do not judge any one, Luke 6: 37
25, Do not get drunk, Luke 21: 34 to 36

Ebion, this is the philosophy that will truly help mankind. Let’s not forget Paul, Jesus’ instrument to teach the gentiles:

- Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath (Saturday) days. Colossians 2:16 (hey, this is a good thing, right Ebion???)

Hey, what about these???

1Th 4:9, TEV - You should love one another
1Th 5:11, TEV - Encourage one another and help one another
1Th 5:12-13, TEV - Pay proper respect to those who work among you, who guide and instruct you in the Christian life. 13 Treat them with the greatest respect and love because of the work they do. Be at peace among yourselves.
1Th 5:14-15, TEV - Warn the idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. See that no one pays back wrong for wrong, but at all times make it your aim to do good to one another and to all people.
Gal 6:10, TEV - As often as we have the chance, we should do good to everyone, and especially to those who belong to our family in the faith.

Wow, Ebion, don’t you wish everyone did these things, wink
But WAIT….there is more!

Practice high ethical and moral standards
1Th 4:11, TEV - Make it your aim to live a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to earn your own living,
Rom 12:2, TEV - Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God—what is good and is pleasing to him and is perfect.
1Th 4:2-7, TEV - For you know the instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 God wants you to be holy and completely free from sexual immorality. 4 Each of you men should know how to live with his wife in a holy and honourable way, 5 not with a lustful desire, like the heathen who do not know God. 6 In this matter, then, no man should do wrong to his fellow-Christian or take advantage of him. We have told you this before, and we strongly warned you that the Lord will punish those who do that. 7 God did not call us to live in immorality, but in holiness.
Gal 5:13-15, TEV - You were called to be free. But do not let this freedom become an excuse for letting your physical desires control you. Instead, let love make you serve one another. For the whole Law is summed up in one commandment: “Love your neighbour as you love yourself.” But if you act like wild animals, hurting and harming each other, then watch out, or you will completely destroy one another.
Gal 5:16, TEV - 16 let the Spirit direct your lives, and you will not satisfy the desires of the human nature. 17 For what our human nature wants is opposed to what the Spirit wants, and what the Spirit wants is opposed to what our human nature wants. These two are enemies, and this means that you cannot do what you want to do. 18 If the Spirit leads you, then you are not subject to the Law. 19 What human nature does is quite plain. It shows itself in immoral, filthy, and indecent actions; 20 in worship of idols and witchcraft. People become enemies and they fight; they become jealous, angry, and ambitious. They separate into parties and groups; 21 they are envious, get drunk, have orgies, and do other things like these. I warn you now as I have before: those who do these things will not possess the Kingdom of God. 22 But the Spirit produces love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 humility, and self-control. There is no law against such things as these. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have put to death their human nature with all its passions and desires. 25 The Spirit has given us life; he must also control our lives.
1Co 5:1-13, TEV - 5 Now, it is actually being said that there is sexual immorality among you so terrible that not even the heathen would be guilty of it. I am told that a man is sleeping with his stepmother! 2 How, then, can you be proud? On the contrary, you should be filled with sadness, and the man who has done such a thing should be expelled from your fellowship. 3-4 And even though I am far away from you in body, still I am there with you in spirit; and as though I were there with you, I have in the name of our Lord Jesus already passed judgement on the man who has done this terrible thing. As you meet together, and I meet with you in my spirit, by the power of our Lord Jesus present with us, 5 you are to hand this man over to Satan for his body to be destroyed, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord. 6 It is not right for you to be proud! You know the saying, “A little bit of yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise.” 7 You must remove the old yeast of sin so that you will be entirely pure. Then you will be like a new batch of dough without any yeast, as indeed I know you actually are… 9 In the letter that I wrote you I told you not to associate with immoral people. 10 Now I did not mean pagans who are immoral or greedy or are thieves or who worship idols. To avoid them you would have to get out of the world completely. 11What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a believer but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or is a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don’t even sit down to eat with such a person. 12-13 After all, it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says, “Remove the evil person from your group.”
1Co 15:33-34, TEV - Do not be fooled. “Bad companions ruin good character.” Come back to your right senses and stop your sinful ways. I declare to your shame that some of you do not know God

EBION….we’ve on touched the tip of the iceberg!! What say ye???

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2005 01:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

I don’t understand why you’re raving on about human cloning since scientists—real scientists in laboratories that could seriously consider this—are well aware that the science of cloning in general is nowhere near ready for anyone to undertake doing this at this time. That’s one of the reasons they’re still experimenting with animals, and that’s difficult and risky enough for now.

There’s a difference between “real life” and SF movies. I’m not going to bother to contemplate the morality of “real life” cloning on the basis of some science fiction movie. Of course actually being able to do “real life” human cloning would bring up plenty of potential moral dilemmas. What scientific advance doesn’t? One possibility that would totally horrify me would be creating people for “medical purposes” but you seem to think that would be OK. Another might be using it to create some kind of super powerful army of superior soldiers. The real moral question is: should we stop advancing scientifically because this will bring up moral dilemmas, or should we figure out how to deal with moral dilemmas when they come up? Personally I’m not afraid of science or scientists; they aren’t a bunch of boogie-men, but a bunch of ethical people just like the rest of us.

However, the Religious Right is creating a huge bunch of make-believe moral issues and then getting hysterical about them. Like kids afraid of the monster under the bed. This is true of the hysteria about human cloning, and equally true of the hysteria about stem cell research. Nobody’s even contemplating doing human cloning until enough research has been done so they can be certain that it won’t result in disaster for the resulting children. Or, for that matter, until they are certain that there are some strong ethical reasons for doing it. There’s also nothing unethical about stem cell research in spite of the argument of the Religious Right that the fertilized egg is somehow already human. It isn’t. It’s a collection of stem cells until and unless it goes through the process of developing into a human fetus. That involves it not being aborted by nature, one of those things that also happen constantly, presumably by God’s will.

If you want to argue about what’s potentially human, what about all those not quite ripe unfertilized eggs and zillions of wasted sperm involved in every sexual act? They’re “living” and certainly each one of them is “potentially human,” too. Do you want to pass laws against the tremendous waste of sperm and eggs in human sexuality, too? Don’t pretend to us that you’re offering a “secular” argument. That’s total nonsense, and I’m sure we all see through it. This is a religious argument, a totally modern religious argument, and nothing else.

You might do well to think through for yourself some of the things you’re being convinced by others are moral and immoral. It might even be a good idea to look into the history of what you’re being told is moral or immoral; in other words, even the history of morality itself. Not everything you’re learning is actually true.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2005 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2005-08-01

I can see this conversation is starting to degrade in subject matter, which makes this a good time to bring this enquiry to an end. I found it enlightening and the conversation proved to be an excellent opportunity to elucidate some positions that I hold.  I’ll have to keep an eye out for some of your other posts Steve in NC.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2005 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Ebion, guess you got nothing to say, eh? Guess all these wonderful things that Christ taught and that Paul taught are not worth mentioning or discussing? Maybe you would like crime, poverty and the like to continue?

You intellectuals really do live in Ivory Towers, don’t you. Wouldn’t want to ruffle your intellectual feathers with some simplistic basics, would we….

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2005 02:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

That’s right Ebion.  Listen to the whacked headnut, theChump.  He speaks of keeping people stupid to stave off that bad bad education from smart people.  Best not to learn!  Stay stupid like the Chump.  It’s good to remain an imposer of idiocy, a preacher of delirium.

Call all skeptics “elitists” so they don’t teach you to GROW UP! 

Again, read on my brothers.  All form of enlightenment is to be demonized, because it takes away from the influence of Christian zombies! 

“The Bible is preserved, reliable, and true because of the nature of its Author. It should be believed over observation and evidence.”
—Kurt Wise, Faith, Form, and Time, p.26. Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN, 2002.

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
—From Answers in Genesis’ “Statement of Faith” (available online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

What all these statements and parables have in common is the unstated theme that it is somehow virtuous or praiseworthy to believe something that is not supported by the evidence. Why this should be so is inevitably never explained. What truly deserves praise and credit is a person willing to put their ideas to the test and accept the results whatever they may be - not a person coming up with an idea, proclaiming it out of bounds for investigation, and declaring that being a morally good person requires believing it blindly without doubt or question. There is nothing virtuous about this, and most religions would probably agree with that conclusion, at least in the abstract. And yet many religions and religious people, no matter how much they claim to approve of questioning and investigation, will rapidly shift their view to one of disapproval and condemnation when it becomes clear that such an investigation is not being carried out with the sole aim of supporting a predetermined conclusion about the infallibility of the belief system being investigated. Statements like the ones above are illustrations of what happens when a supposedly free and open investigation carried out by a believer runs up against the limits of what the authorities have declared their followers may not conclude.

One of the most flagrant examples of this in action is the religious maxim “Thou shalt not put God to the test” (as is stated by religious texts such as Matthew 4:7 in the Christian Bible). The essence of this saying is that, while God may sometimes help us in our time of need, he will not reliably do so, nor do we have any right to expect him to do otherwise. Such a rationale is commonly invoked to explain why, for example, double-blind scientific studies have repeatedly found that intercessory prayer makes no measurable difference in the recovery rate of the severely ill - “God does not perform on command,” the apologists say, and we cannot expect nor predict when he will choose to intervene.

But consider what this is really saying. Imagine if you had a friend who said that sometimes, when you need his help, he will help you, but sometimes he will not. Furthermore, when he chooses not to, he will not tell you why; and if you become upset at this reticence, he views it as a personal insult, claiming that you should not have the arrogance to try to put him to the test, and if you really valued his friendship you would not do such a thing, but would accept his help when he chooses to intervene and trust that he has his reasons when he does not. Would we stand for this sort of bizarre and capricious behavior from any human being? Of course not. Why, then, do believers tolerate and even expect it when they are told God acts in the same way? It is because the faith-overrides-evidence found in many religions has conditioned them not to expect any tangible proof of their beliefs.

ZOMBIFIED!

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/thoughts.html

Someone please put head voids like TheChump away.  Seriously, they pollute good society with their arrogant ignorance.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2005 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

Which of the teachings by Jesus and Paul are not profitable for society? My point is that these teachings are profitable for mankind to live in peace. Agree? Capise?

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2005 05:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2005-08-01

Sure Champion I‘ll talk, I just wanted to finish with MJ first. I didn’t want to get off topic before I addressed the subject matter of the post, but since I’m finished I‘m game? What did you have in mind? Biblical history, principles of the faith, basic theology? I saw one post titled, “Why Christians are c**ts.” you seemed to have difficulty answering questions about the historical customs and traditions of the ancient Hebrew people. I think that may prove to be an interesting topic. But its up to you really as to what you want to discuses.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed