GodsendFollow

So, I was reading a synopsis of Robert DeNiro's upcoming movie, Godsend. In the film a couple loses their 8 year old son and want him cloned. Although this is a movie, cloning is becoming a reality that have to think about. Is cloning ethical? Under what circumstances? Would you consent to cloning?

That's part one of the question. I personally don't think we should be cloning anything...animal, vegetable or mineral. I don't believe in God and that he decides what happens here on Earth, but I do believe in natural processes. If a couple are meant to have a baby, they will if they are compatible, and if a person dies, it needs to happen as a natural part of human race maintainence. Thoughts?

Second part:

If cloning does become acceptable and clones become part of society, do you think people would treat them differently? I have a feeling people would be mighty freaked out by the whole idea.

I suppose we are facing many of the same issues as when test-tube babies were introduced in the 60's (was it the 60's?). A complicated issue, it's all well and good for me to say I think things should take a natural progression until I have trouble conceiving, huh? I guess I have concerns about cloning because it feels like things are getting so out of control.

But I liked Dolly the Sheep. She was plucky.





Edited, Thu Apr 8 13:25:00 2004 by Tare

I would like to elaborate on the subject, but I don't have time. Here goes...

1. Cloning is good. When your daughter needs new lungs because the ones she has are failing, and there are no donors available, you are going to be incredibly happy that we can grow new ones in a jar.

2. Cloning is bad. Vanity is an incredibly destructive force.

Cloning is going to become common practice, so we all might as well get used to it. Whether or not we survive the ordeal is another matter entirely.

As far as Tare's opposition to cloning because it's 'unnatural' goes, I disagree. Unnatural? No such thing exists. It's perfectly natural for us to have evolved to the point where we can manipulate our nature, and thus destroy ourselves in the process. Even 'Reverse Darwinism' is Darwinism- we've just grown accustomed to being a passenger and not the driver.

I bet you have delicious DNA.

I'm against cloning whole people, but random bits should be okay. Unless it turns into The Fly and then that's just gross.

Cloning animals can have a lot of positive aspects. If proven to be edible with no long-term side affects, cloned animals could help ease, if not end, world hunger. Depending on how extensive it can be, cloning could also possibly bring back extinct species. Though hopefully no Jurrasic Park.

Also, with human cloning, it could help possibly end waiting lists for organ transplants. I guess the main question in that aspect would be could it even be possible to cultivate a single organ, or would one need to clone the whole body? If the case is the latter, that poses many ethical and philosophical questions.

Definitely, one the foremost philosophical questions would be, Does a cloned human have a soul? That can't be argued without questioning what makes a soul to begin with. And that will only lead into a ton of theological debates.

A good ethical question is, Is it right to create life for the sole purpose of organ harvest? One might counter-argue, How is it right to raise cattle solely for slaughter? While both are similar in the aspect of cruelty in regards to creating life with no hope of living, they almost cannot truly be compared considering many people will say that animals are in no way in the same league with humans.

Personally, I don't like the idea of cloning for one reason: Man was NOT meant to play "God." I'm not saying I'm against it, just that I don't like it. While it does pose the potential for many great things, it is far outweighed by all the unanswered questions. Throw in the fact that Man is inherintly flawed and therefor everything he creates will fail just paints an ugly picture for me.

Edited, Fri Apr 9 05:47:02 2004 by psychojester

Did they ever fix the aging problem with the cloned sheep? I remember something about the cells of the first cloned sheep aging/slpitting/dieing twice as fast as the original sheep.

Bah, either way, if you like to see extremists and a few rational people discuss this topic, This Site is full of them.

Says who? Honestly. A God that or may not exist? And even then, I don't think there's anything from the Bible about cloning :P.

If we truly weren't meant to 'play god' (such a dramatic, but ultimately hollow phrase), then we wouldn't be able to do it. Well, the reality is that we can. While there is some ethical considerations to make, why not use this technology to better humankind?

That's the kind of mentality that sent people like Galileo to jail you know... the fear of our own potential and/or the truth.



Yeah, we're stupid and make a lot of mistake. But realistically, the clone business is going to be hard to ***** up. It's not like we could create an army of clone or anything... they'd need to grow and be trained, which would end costing way to much or what not.

The clone still need to grow up and be raised - they'll end up being totally different people. They may not even look alike! Injuries, different nutritions, confidence and exercise during your youth all contribute to your physical appearance. So you couldn't just use them as 'body double' either.

I have hard time seeing the potential for ***** up here... scenario like movie 'the 6th Day' are pure sci-fi and totally impossible.

You want worry about human 'playing god' and ******** up? Worry about this: http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-1009571.html . The idea of soldiers who can punch thru brick wall, jump 20 feets high, regenerate wound and be impervious to small arm fire - while looking exactly like you and me - scares me a lot more then weither or not my kidney transplant will come from a perfect stranger or from cloned cells of my own body.

And why shouldn't we go there? What do you think of Thundra's comment that perhaps we were meant to evolve to this point in our development as a race? What's the negative outcome?

Just curious.

LOL. I was gonna say something like this until it popped up while loading the reply page.

Whether or not God, a God, Gods or Goddesses exist is not the question. The terms was used simply to represent us creating life through unnatural means.

The human genome codes has already been cracked, so what is to stop scientists from making clones with superhero-like regen, or armor like skin. They already know how to tweak the genes.

As far as them not doing it because of costs, your world is so in the dark it must be a black hole. It disgusting, repulsive, and utterly mind-boggling how much money the US Gov't sinks into our wonderful military. Lord knows they need it more than say...the homeless? the hungry? the disabled?



Again, a perfect example of America's reading comprehension. Galileo was jailed because he proved that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth. Humans being who they are, they have to believe everything revolves around them and was meant solely for them. So when he tried to convince everyone otherwise, he was called crazy. So they threw him in the slammer.

Anyway, my view is that this is inherintly wrong on so many levels and questions need to be answered before it truly goes anywhere. Why can humanity not accept itself for what it is? There is a thing called Natual Selection. Some are born weak and are meant to die early. Others are born strong and meant to live long. Sometimes the weak beats the strong. Things happen for a reason...generally that reason is: You deserve it. It's called Kharma baby...deal with it. You f*cked up something in the past, and the universe has now decided for you to pay. Go cry me a river.

We are not a perfect race. We never will be. We never should be.

No bringing back the God Damn ******* Dinosaurs!! I hate dinosaurs, and I will murder the first idiot to bring even one back!!!

Good luck...he/she'll have a dinosaur on his/her side. A dinosaur.

Well, they've been doing all that with selective breeding and whatnot anyway.

I'm pretty sure the evil geniuses at Monsanto have developed a 12' sheep that sh[/i]its Honeycomb cereal. To be serious, they (a collective "they", not Monsanto per se) [i]have developed a nice bright pink fish using spliced DNA and some other fish that was extremely resistant to cold temperatures.

I'm not sure if that all really applies though. It's the same book, but a different chapter. Even if we use genetic manipulation instead of good ole selective breeding to make fatter cows and more fertile bulls, the implications don't come near the whole "human baby in a vat" thing.