[undotwa]

Government has no place in being a 'spiritual' advisor. Church and state have to be seperated.

However, what I am concerned with is that the embryo has to be destroyed in 'therapeutic cloning' which in my mind is murder because human life starts at conception. After all thats when that stuff that constitutes 'you' starts to take form.

That is why issues regarding abortion, any form of cloning, and euthenasia are of great importance to me because they are in fact murder. However if it gets accepted into society, you can do nothing really to change that. Because even if you do get strict new laws in they will get over ruled and an extremely liberal law will replace it. Laws are pointless when the general consensus is that doing the opposite is considered OK. No one is going to enforce laws which most people break. Thus in my view, implementing these laws are pointless unless it is very easy to convince people that the action is wrong.

[Superchicken]

The government has to be moral however, what do you think the legal system is based on?
Hence this would be banned becuase it is murder... or should be anyway. It's not a religious thing, it's a basic human rights thing. I think the scientists who were profforming this before the banning should be put in in jail for manslaughter!
Although technically all they're doing is playing with aborted fetal tissue which isn't ilegal because for some reason america's legal system decided that a mother has the right to murder her child... go figure.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
The government has to be moral however, what do you think the legal system is based on?
Hence this would be banned because it is murder... or should be anyway. It's not a religious thing, it's a basic human rights thing. I think the scientists who were performing this before the banning should be put in in jail for manslaughter!
Although technically all they're doing is playing with aborted fetal tissue which isn't illegal because for some reason America's legal system decided that a mother has the right to murder her child... go figure.

You are making no sense what-so-ever.

As long as something is not illegal, it's legal. You cannot make something illegal retroactively.
Anyway you were saying yourself that what they were doing was legal - and then I think you got confused.

[simonjames]

I agree - you really are making no sense at all.

What is murder?

Can you do us all a favour by thinking before you reply.

[Superchicken]

Do I think they'd win on prosicution of these guys? No probably not the US has precident that states that it's not murder by a legal deff, but morally it is. Hence they SHOULD be, will they no of course not... but the US shouldn't have gone in and killed tons of afgans because they got two of their buildings blown up by some saudis... go figure.

[Zimphire]

It's not a religious issue so much as a moral one. And yes, our laws are primarily based on moral issues. You can have morals outside of religion.

[IonCable]

aside from the moral and religous issues with cloning. The vast majority of people have no understanding of cloning at all. They only have images from movies, books, ect. These are far from the realities of the current cloning. If cloning, as it is today, was under a completely different terminology that did relate to "popular culture" cloning much of the opposistion would not be there.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by IonCable:
aside from the moral and religous issues with cloning. The vast majority of people have no understanding of cloning at all. They only have images from movies, books, ect. These are far from the realities of the current cloning. If cloning, as it is today, was under a completely different terminology that did relate to "popular culture" cloning much of the opposistion would not be there.

You mean giving it a new nice politicaly correct feel good name? Like they did with "Pro Choice" ?



j/k

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

There's one very good reason we should clone humans.

It'd be really cool!

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
There's one very good reason we should clone humans.

It'd be really cool!

He's right, you know.

And it's true, people have no idea what it takes to clone a living organism. They see Jurassic Park and all of a sudden they have PhDs in biochemistry and genetics.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
The government has to be moral however, what do you think the legal system is based on?
Hence this would be banned becuase it is murder... or should be anyway. It's not a religious thing, it's a basic human rights thing.

The legal system is not based on morals. It's based on what is necessary in order to maintain a stable and civilized society. The basis of western democracy is that governments exist to serve the people. The people's interests are not served by wonton killing, so killing people is, in most (but not all) cases, illegal. Murder is not illegal because it's wrong, but because it is counter-productive.

I think the scientists who were profforming this before the banning should be put in in jail for manslaughter!

The constitution specifically forbids this.

http://www.clone-high.com/

This show rocks!

[JayTi]

Not sure if anyone is still reading this...but if they are:

What is the point of cloning humans? I can see cloning organs and stuff, like omg my kidney failed better grow another one real quick, or you get in a bad accident and you need to have the majority of you replaced (6th day anyone?) but why do we need more people? Honestly, the earth is already overcrowded with people as it is, why do we need to make more of them just for the sake of making more of them?

I'm in a terrible mood tonight, sorry if it sounds cynical.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by JayTi:
Not sure if anyone is still reading this...but if they are:

What is the point of cloning humans? I can see cloning organs and stuff, like omg my kidney failed better grow another one real quick, or you get in a bad accident and you need to have the majority of you replaced (6th day anyone?) but why do we need more people? Honestly, the earth is already overcrowded with people as it is, why do we need to make more of them just for the sake of making more of them?

I'm in a terrible mood tonight, sorry if it sounds cynical.

Did you read any of this thread before posting that?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
....<snip>..The hybridization of Prometheus with Herostratus is bound to give evil results....<snip>

Wow, that's one of those brilliant things you read and wish you'd come up with..

Great post, mr. natural. I can honestly say your POV changed my mind on this issue.

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't have a serious problem with cloning in general, though there are a lot of minor issues that'll need to be dealt with.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
I don't have a serious problem with cloning in general, though there are a lot of minor issues that'll need to be dealt with.

I agree. Send in the clones.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
I'm sorry, but it is here that your ego, your hubris, and your supreme arrogance that shines as a precise example why such monumental decisions should not be made only by scientists.

The myths of genetic engineering are for the most part entirely that: myths. The reality is as follows:

"Only a few of the simplest possible genetic manipulations among the many that have been tried have worked at all. Those few have generally turned out to be disappointing, dangerous, or both. The central dogma concerning the importance of DNA remains largely true, and its discovery is rightly celebrated as one of the great feats of twentieth-century biology, but the enormous power and precise control attributed to it are mostly imaginary.

"It has become increasingly apparent that DNA is only a part of the story -- itself subject to other regulating and modifying influences in the cell, influences that we dimly understand. Rather than being at the top of a simple linear chain of command, the DNA of the gene should be seen as one piece of an interacting complex of regulatory systems and feedback loops, with no single element 'running' the cell, let alone the entire organism.

"One of the first of the molecular biologists to perceive this was the American geneticist Barbara McClintock, whose work early work on 'jumping genes,' published in 1951, won a belated Nobel Prize in 1983, twenty-one years after Watson, Crick, and Wilkins received their prize. More recently, the distinguished British molecular biologist and biophysicist Mae-Wan Ho has described the biological reasons that underlie the multiple failures and dangers of genetic engineering and related technologies such as cloning.

"In her very important book, Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? Ho explains some of the biological challenges to genetic engineering. They include the instability of transgenes, overlapping genes, gene amplification and inactivation, environmentally induced changes in gene expression, inheritance that does not involve the DNA code, and even, possibly, the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

"She asks, 'Would anyone think of investing in genetic-engineering biotechnology if they knew how fluid and adaptable genes and genomes are? The notion of an isolatable, constant gene that can be patented as an invention for all the marvelous things it can do is the greatest reductionist myth ever perpetrated.'

"Ho also carefully evaluates the hazards of genetic engineering, particularly the increased risk of spreading antibiotic resistance among disease organisms and human and animal populations, and the risk that gene-transfer technologies will create new varieties of virulent pathogens. The latter is not proven but forty new pathogenic human viruses appeared between 1988 and 1996 -- an unusually large number. Horizontal (between-species) gene transfer, a restricted and infrequent process under natural conditions, appears to be responsible for at least some of the new viruses.

"During these same years, genetic engineers were working hard to develop and apply new technologies for facilitating horizontal gene movements, using plants and animal viruses and other DNA-containing 'shuttle vectors' designed to escape the usual cellular barriers against such transfer.

"Commenting on biotechnology's frantic rush to create new organisms, Ho writes, 'What the public is up against is a selective blindness to evidence among genetic engineers and a single-minded commitment to look solely for the exploitable, which is the hallmark of bad science. [Our recent Columbia disaster was a prime example of such scientific arrogance and ignorance combined, as I tend to see it.] In other words, the genetic engineers are pretending that their technology works as claimed, is stable, and is safe, that the euphoria of the 1960 is still scientifically justified, in spite of what we we have learned since then."

And what of the makers of the Dolly? M.I.T.'s Rudolf Jaenisch and the Roslin Institutes's Ian Wilmut -- the cloner of Dolly -- writing in an article in the March 30,2001 issue of Science, describe the "drastic defects that occur during development" and the "high failure rates" that are part and parcel of cloning mammals, and they warn that the cloning of humans would be "dangerous and irresponsible" and will remain so for the "foreseeable future."

This is the reality of the "AMAZING progress" you tout. And it belies your own youthful ignorance.

The above passages I quoted are from David Ehrenfeld's essay, "The Lies We Live By," in his recently published book, "Swimming Lessons: Keeping Afloat in the Age of Technology." BTW, he is a distinguished professor of Biology, and author of the seminal tour-de-force, "The Arrogance of Humanism." You all could do yourselves a favor to read his books.

Excuse me, but I suggest you get a clue before speaking on such issues, rather than regurgitating the views of a few authors. If you can't speak for yourself, don't speak.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Perhaps it is the thread title and subsequent replies which are mixed up. I saw and expected this.

I was responding to Cipher's assertion that those of us who aren't "scientists" were "ignorant" busybodies who should, in essence, buzz off and STFU.

I think I made my point that there are those among the scientific genetic community who do know and who also think it wise to warn us lay folk that we are treading on dangerous turf; especially as this genetic myth of "cloning" and "genetic engineering" is touted as offering nothing but "AMAZING progress." You can take or leave such cautions as far as one's own assumptions go about how science is, and the scientists behind the science are, infallible. I assume and know better. The evidence is plain to see wherever one cares to really look.

Stem cell "research" and all the good things to come of it have yet to be proven doable or without harm. Nor is this "cloning" as I understand it. I'm not opposed to it, but I'll believe the wildly optimistic claims when I see it proven in rigorous scientific research.

Until then, and when we have sorted out all the mix-ups about these notions, I assume that the correct approach to any such genetic research is with the "precautionary principle." The burden of proof is on the hard truth of real scientific evidence. So you'll have to forgive me if I refrain from buying into all the mythical assumptions which have yet to bear any miraculous and entirely harmless fruit. The evidence at hand is anything but entirely reassuring that the myths will live up to the claims; especially with the heavy handed influence of investment capital to do the "exploitable."

In response to the alarm raised by gene transfer experiments, the U.S. National Institutes of Health issued a suggested "Guidelines" recommending facilities and procedures to deal with different levels of probable risk. Dr. Robert Sinsheimer, a noted molecular biologist, wrote the following about these guidelines:

"Man likes to think that he is the exception, that we have made our own ecological niche. In part that is true, but in large part it is, at the least, a conceit. ... The Guidelines reflect a view of Nature as a static and passive domain, wholly subject to our dominion. They regard our ecological niche as wholly secure, deeply insulated from potential onslaught, with no chinks or unguarded stretches of perimeter. I cannot be so sanguine. ...

"There is, of course, a wholly human tendency to worry about tomorrow's woe, tomorrow -- an often, but not always, wise tendency based on the observation that many prophecies of woe are never realized. Here I would suggest such an attitude (and I have heard it expressed) overlooks the potential magnitude of this woe and especially overlooks the uniquely irreversible character of this enterprise."

Also, Dr, Erwin Chargaff, one of the fathers of nucleic acid and gene research, had this to say on the same subject:

"Our time is cursed with the necessity of for feeble men, masquerading as experts, to make enormously far-reaching decisions. Is there anything more far-reaching than the creation of new forms of life? ... You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosols; you can even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you can not recall a new form of life. ... The hybridization of Prometheus with Herostratus is bound to give evil results.

"This world is given to us on loan. we come and we go; and after a time we leave earth and air and water to others who come after us. My generation, or perhaps the one preceding mine, has been the first to engage, under the leadership of the exact sciences, in a destructive colonial warfare against nature. The future will curse us for it."

Real ignorance is buying into the myths without question.

Me, I'm taking the advice of those scientists who know better.

And BTW, I wear my neo-luddite pin with pride.

Let the businessmen run businesses; let the surgeons conduct surgery; let the politicians discuss politics; let the scientists deal with science. These, of course, overlap - but politics should NOT have absolute control.

You don't understand genetics in the least; you don't understand cloning in the least; from what I can gather, anyway. Take a course on it - then your opinion might be somewhat more valid.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Excuse me, but I suggest you get a clue before speaking on such issues, rather than regurgitating the views of a few authors. If you can't speak for yourself, don't speak.

Cloned anyone lately? Then welcome to the rest of us.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Let the businessmen run businesses; let the surgeons conduct surgery; let the politicians discuss politics; let the scientists deal with science. These, of course, overlap - but politics should NOT have absolute control.

Wow. That might be some of the worst reasoning I've ever heard. You can't really mean this. Do I really need to list examples?

Originally posted by Cipher13:
You don't understand genetics in the least; you don't understand cloning in the least; from what I can gather, anyway. Take a course on it - then your opinion might be somewhat more valid.

So after taking a few classes, I can spout the opinion of my professors and textbook authors......

As I understand it, mr. natural quoted quite a few respected people in field as asserting that man's hubris has blinded them to the potential unintended consequences of their actions.

I take that as a very persuasive argument indeed. You can continue to bag on other posters who disagree with you, or you can offer a rebuttal that suggests that there is no reason to fear the potential unintended consequences or that such consequences are worth the risk or unfounded.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Cloned anyone lately? Then welcome to the rest of us.

...I assume there's meant to be a point in there?

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wow. That might be some of the worst reasoning I've ever heard. You can't really mean this. Do I really need to list examples?

Not necessary. I'm sure you get the point. Politicians are not qualified to make decisions on this matter - it is as simple as that.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So after taking a few classes, I can spout the opinion of my professors and textbook authors......

As I understand it, mr. natural quoted quite a few respected people in field as asserting that man's hubris has blinded them to the potential unintended consequences of their actions.

I take that as a very persuasive argument indeed. You can continue to bag on other posters who disagree with you, or you can offer a rebuttal that suggests that there is no reason to fear the potential unintended consequences or that such consequences are worth the risk or unfounded.

If all learning is to you is assimilating opinions from professors and textbook authors, I pitpy you.

Yes, Mr Natural quoted several "respected" authors... I could quote several respected authors who argue the opposite side of the case... what's the point? He did exactly what you just mentioned - spouted the opinions of others.

Frankly, I don't care about the argument. If I did, I would have posted more. I'm not gonna dispute whether mechanics should have the right to overrule geneticists when it comes to legislation about... err... genetics. Heh.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Yes, Mr Natural quoted several "respected" authors... I could quote several respected authors who argue the opposite side of the case... what's the point? He did exactly what you just mentioned - spouted the opinions of others.

Frankly, I don't care about the argument. If I did, I would have posted more. I'm not gonna dispute whether mechanics should have the right to overrule geneticists when it comes to legislation about... err... genetics. Heh.

So we can't have anti-pollution laws because our Legislators aren't chemists or biologists? This really makes no sense.

We're talking about an activity that could be catastrophically harmful to life as we know it. Yes, we as a society get to decide these things. That's what society means--we all agree on what conduct we'll allow within our society.

The issue raised is the potential unintended consequences of cloning research. If it's deemed potentially harmful, not only do we have a right to pass laws about it, we are morally obligated to do so for the benefit of future generations.

So what are the potential unintended consequences of cloning research? Let's weigh the pros & cons.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Cipher13:
Excuse me, but I suggest you get a clue before speaking on such issues, rather than regurgitating the views of a few authors. If you can't speak for yourself, don't speak.

Yes, Mr Natural quoted several "respected" authors... I could quote several respected authors who argue the opposite side of the case... what's the point?

Authors!? Ha! These folks you condescendingly refer to as "authors" are in fact proven genetic or molecular biologist scientists. (And you? An arrogant high school graduate with infantile wet dreams of grandeur, IMHO. How's that for an un-regurgitated opinion of mine. )

These world renowned scientists are the very folk you suggest are the only ones capable of judging all this genetic engineering research. Yes? Well then, that's the point!

But when they suggest that all is not paradise in this fantasy world of your dream career, indeed that the proven scientific facts so far attest to "drastic defects" and "high failure rates," not to mention the potentially disastrous "irreversibility" of this whole enterprise hitched upon a gross "reductionist myth," and you dare to wave away their cautions and call me clueless!

Oh boy, this is rich!

Speaking for myself, when it comes to reality versus mythical beliefs, you're the clueless wonder boy.

Let's hear your "authors" and their robust scientific facts which prove my "authors" as clueless as I.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So we can't have anti-pollution laws because our Legislators aren't chemists or biologists? This really makes no sense.

We're talking about an activity that could be catastrophically harmful to life as we know it. Yes, we as a society get to decide these things. That's what society means--we all agree on what conduct we'll allow within our society.

The issue raised is the potential unintended consequences of cloning research. If it's deemed potentially harmful, not only do we have a right to pass laws about it, we are morally obligated to do so for the benefit of future generations.

So what are the potential unintended consequences of cloning research? Let's weigh the pros & cons.

Pollution is hardly comparable to genetics... that's absolutely ridiculous. And yeah, who knew pollution was indeed harmful initially? I'm telling you now it wasn't the King of England that figured it out. It's common knowledge now...

Anyway. I'd like to hear your list of "cons".

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Authors!? Ha! These folks you condescendingly refer to as "authors" are in fact proven genetic or molecular biologist scientists. (And you? An arrogant high school graduate with infantile wet dreams of grandeur, IMHO. How's that for an un-regurgitated opinion of mine. )

How does it feel not copying from a book? Does your head hurt? As for your opinion of me - I honestly couldn't care less. Sorry.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
These world renowned scientists are the very folk you suggest are the only ones capable of judging all this genetic engineering research. Yes? Well then, that's the point!

I never disputed that. Sure, it's the point. Now I challenge you to find one incident in the history of science where everybody agreed on the topic. All I said is that people LIKE THEM should be deciding, not politicians. Perhaps you need to brush up on your comprehension skills, too. You're getting annoyed about a point I never made.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
But when they suggest that all is not paradise in this fantasy world of your dream career, indeed that the proven scientific facts so far attest to "drastic defects" and "high failure rates," not to mention the potentially disastrous "irreversibility" of this whole enterprise hitched upon a gross "reductionist myth," and you dare to wave away their cautions and call me clueless!

Find one breakthrough in science that didn't, during its development, suffer "high failure rates". Mistakes pave the way to success. If you're not willing to make mistakes, then you can't expect to progress.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Oh boy, this is rich!

Speaking for myself, when it comes to reality versus mythical beliefs, you're the clueless wonder boy.

Let's hear your "authors" and their robust scientific facts which prove my "authors" as clueless as I.

I already told you, there's no point. There are scientists for either side of the argument. To deny that would make you an absolute moron. I know you never denied it, but still. I never dissed these "authors". I simply made the point that politicians shouldn't make decisions they're not qualified to make.

Nice tangent you've got there. Learn to read.

[undotwa]

Cipher, scientists aren't capable of making these laws. They do research, present the results and interpret them to politicians then the politicians make the decisions.

Making 'laws' isn't in the scientists domain. Lets leave them alone so they can produce work which isn't weighted tremendously to one side (I know they do that to a certain extent already but we risk getting more bias if they actually make the decisions, they become politicians themselves)

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Cipher, scientists aren't capable of making these laws. They do research, present the results and interpret them to politicians then the politicians make the decisions.

Making 'laws' isn't in the scientists domain. Lets leave them alone so they can produce work which isn't weighted tremendously to one side (I know they do that to a certain extent already but we risk getting more bias if they actually make the decisions, they become politicians themselves)

Yes - that is the other side of the coin, isn't it? When looking at the argument from a neutral perspective, anyway.

If you agree with what you just said, then you must agree that politicians shouldn't govern science - and ultimately progress - with silly legislation.

I've yet to see anyone present any real arguments against genetic research (which isn't the issue), nor cloning (which is). If I missed it, I apologise.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I've yet to see anyone present any real arguments against genetic research (which isn't the issue), nor cloning (which is). If I missed it, I apologise.

I thought I had earlier (?). to sum:

Cloning: if the purpose is:
for those unable to reproduce, there are cheaper and more effective methods presently available.
To provide replacement organs, unless a way can be found to also grow organs apart from the body, ethical questions will persist, and on top of that, the growing time in the vat is prohibitive.

So, if cloning is not feasable for reproduction, and inefficient for organ harvesting, and the longevity of the clone is stunted and fraught with thousands of failed attempts, then what possible good purpose would there be for cloning?

I then offered the only logical use for it would be to mass - produce humans for cannon fodder. Soldiers that belong to no one so they effectively belong to the state, and can be trained from birth to be efficient and loyal assasins, and ultimately disposable and replacable so you wouldn't have to stress the VA hospitals or pensions. A life span of 35 years, tops, would be optimal.

Otherwise, I put it back to you...what possible good use would there be for human cloning? Even if you evaporate ethics out of the equation, I can't think of a valid reason to clone. Simply because it CAN be done is all well and good, but in the end is not cost effective.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Yes - that is the other side of the coin, isn't it? When looking at the argument from a neutral perspective, anyway.

If you agree with what you just said, then you must agree that politicians shouldn't govern science - and ultimately progress - with silly legislation.

I've yet to see anyone present any real arguments against genetic research (which isn't the issue), nor cloning (which is). If I missed it, I apologise.

No, but we don't want the actual science being corrupted (at least more than it is being corrupted today).

Cipher - this is a very important issue to many people, whether they're religious or not. Afterall, we wouldn't be discussing it if it weren't? Leave the scientists to do their work, and at least try to get them out of the political spectrum while the politicians handle the debating.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Lerkfish:
I thought I had earlier (?).

You did indeed, and I meant to say so too, but Cipher13 has a distinct blindness when it comes to the realities of cloning (and science even).

Cloning: if the purpose is:
for those unable to reproduce, there are cheaper and more effective methods presently available.

Furthermore, a clone from an infertile woman will also be infertile. This does not solve an unfortunate fate but only perpetuates it.

So, if cloning is not feasable for reproduction, and inefficient for organ harvesting, and the longevity of the clone is stunted and fraught with thousands of failed attempts, then what possible good purpose would there be for cloning?

This is a good question, but one that the clone promoters have no answer for except, imagine all the "AMAZING progress." In other words, hype and myth is always a good sales pitch, even if it amounts to bad science.

What is worse in my mind is that they they continually ignore the "irreversibility" of this whole "bio-engineering" endeavor. In my humble estimation, they are all modern day Dr. Frankensteins. Their hubris, which the Greeks considered the greatest of sins, is not only astonishing, but frightening.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
You did indeed, and I meant to say so too, but Cipher13 has a distinct blindness when it comes to the realities of cloning (and science even).

Err, actually, I joined this thread late.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Furthermore, a clone from an infertile woman will also be infertile. This does not solve an unfortunate fate but only perpetuates it.

Err... hello? That isn't true at all with... genetic engineering capabilities will be able to fix such defects in the end. I never mentioned any of this because it does not pertain to cloning. One of the big deals about cloning is that you can clone a person, and alter alleles/chromosomes at the same time... repress genes, introduce new ones, alter gene expression very heavily.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
This is a good question, but one that the clone promoters have no answer for except, imagine all the "AMAZING progress." In other words, hype and myth is always a good sales pitch, even if it amounts to bad science.

It's amazing how short sighted some people can be. We have no comprehension of how these techniques could help society. I can tell you now, though, we'd be able to grow organ donors; genetically modified people for certain jobs (soldiers) - as Lerk mentioned; I'm certainly not the most qualified person to tell you all this. Look it up.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
What is worse in my mind is that they they continually ignore the "irreversibility" of this whole "bio-engineering" endeavor. In my humble estimation, they are all modern day Dr. Frankensteins. Their hubris, which the Greeks considered the greatest of sins, is not only astonishing, but frightening.

Well, have faith that we will all find our nemesis eventually then, if you're so against it.

Could you explain how you consider this all irreversible, any more than anything ELSE is irreversible?

It's people like you - unwilling to take risks, unwilling to progress - that hold our race back.

Oh, and how about replying to my earlier post? I think I addressed all of the comments you directed at me - my main point being you completely misinterpreted me, resulting in criticism for something I never said.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:


Err, actually, I joined this thread late.

[/b]

Err... hello? That isn't true at all with... genetic engineering capabilities will be able to fix such defects in the end. I never mentioned any of this because it does not pertain to cloning. One of the big deals about cloning is that you can clone a person, and alter alleles/chromosomes at the same time... repress genes, introduce new ones, alter gene expression very heavily.

[/b]

It's amazing how short sighted some people can be. We have no comprehension of how these techniques could help society. I can tell you now, though, we'd be able to grow organ donors; genetically modified people for certain jobs (soldiers) - as Lerk mentioned; I'm certainly not the most qualified person to tell you all this. Look it up.



Well, have faith that we will all find our nemesis eventually then, if you're so against it.

Could you explain how you consider this all irreversible, any more than anything ELSE is irreversible?

It's people like you - unwilling to take risks, unwilling to progress - that hold our race back.

Oh, and how about replying to my earlier post? I think I addressed all of the comments you directed at me - my main point being you completely misinterpreted me, resulting in criticism for something I never said. [/B]

So you want to genetically engineer a human to be a soldier? Someone made just to die in combat? Do you know how demoralizing that will be?

[vmpaul]

Wow, this is frustrating. I guess I should stop assuming that anybody who posts here has actually read the thread. I guess most people just read the last post and comment on that. So I'll just repeat what I've been saying in previous posts.

The title of this thread is 'Why are people so anti-cloning?' The answer is because most people (including a bunch here) haven't taken the time to become familiar with the ACTUAL issues. Most responses are based on pseudo-science propagated by Hollywood and scare tactics from the extreme right-wing.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Cloning: if the purpose is:
for those unable to reproduce, there are cheaper and more effective methods presently available.
To provide replacement organs, unless a way can be found to also grow organs apart from the body, ethical questions will persist, and on top of that, the growing time in the vat is prohibitive.

So, if cloning is not feasable for reproduction, and inefficient for organ harvesting, and the longevity of the clone is stunted and fraught with thousands of failed attempts, then what possible good purpose would there be for cloning?

I repeat: There are NO respectable scientists or medical centers that advocate reproductive cloning. NONE. ZERO. DO WE ALL UNDERSTAND NOW? It's too experimental and too dangerous. For exactly the reasons you stated Lerkfish. The technique isn't perfected and the process to develop an acceptable procedure would require numerous failed attempts that would include disfigured fetus's and many abortions. Add to that the unknown dangers to any woman who might carry that child to term. Too many unknowns.

Now, there are many doctors or scientists who don't rely on federal funds or have any compulsion to throw their medical ethics out the window in the strive to be the first to have a cloned baby. But they are the fringe. The idea that it will ever be anything more than fringe activity is a fallacy. I'll say it again: Do you really think people are going to give up sex to pro-create? I don't think so.

The issue is Therapeutic cloning, which is closer to in-vitro fertilization techniques than to cloning. DNA is introduced into the a female's egg and then allowed to divide a few times. This organism has less than 2 dozen cells. What it does have are Stem cells. These cells are removed from the organism and used for a variety of therapies. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that can turn into ANY TISSUE in the body.

What could these stem cells do? Here are some of the potential's that have had preliminary trials and discussion:
1) Stem cells could be injected into any organ (heart liver, brain) and help in the healing and re-growth of that damaged organ. Some preliminary work has been done on heart attack patients who have severely damaged heart muscle.

2) Stem cells could be used to bridge damaged nerves in spinal cord injuries. This has been done in mice and the results are staggering. Crippled mice have actually regained use of their limbs after stem cell therapy.

3) Use stem cells to grow tissue in the lab for transplantation. NOT TO GROW ORGANS IN ADULT HUMANS. They've grown cartilage in petrie dishes already.

And that's just the beginning. Those are some of the possible therapies mentioned. They haven't been done yet. And they won't be done because the whole topic is so misunderstood.

No harvesting of organs from humans. No carbon copies of you and me. No genetic engineering.

Questions?

[mr. natural]

posted by Cipher13:
Err... hello? That isn't true at all with... genetic engineering capabilities will be able to fix such defects in the end. I never mentioned any of this because it does not pertain to cloning. One of the big deals about cloning is that you can clone a person, and alter alleles/chromosomes at the same time... repress genes, introduce new ones, alter gene expression very heavily.

There you go again hyping science fiction. Where are the scientific facts supporting any of this? There are none!

The facts reveal "Only a few of the simplest possible genetic manipulations among the many that have been tried have worked at all. Those few have generally turned out to be disappointing, dangerous, or both."

When it comes to mammals which have been cloned the reality has not been at all rosy: Obesity, premature arthritis & aging, and all manner of other cellular abnormalities are common.

As Mae-Wan Ho summarized the biological realities about genetic engineering: "They include the instability of transgenes, overlapping genes, gene amplification and inactivation, environmentally induced changes in gene expression, inheritance that does not involve the DNA code, and even, possibly, the inheritance of acquired characteristics."

None of which daunts you in the least, but has made those who know better to realize this is a veritable fool's paradise.

As Ho explains, genes and genomes are not only "fluid and adaptable," but that "The notion of an isolatable, constant gene that can be patented as an invention for all the marvelous things it can do is the greatest reductionist myth ever perpetrated."

These are the judgments of world renowned genetic scientists based on factual, robust even, scientific evidence. And yet you continue to feebly protest: NONE OF THIS MATTERS! SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS WILL SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS!

This is not just laughable, except you seem to sincerely believe it which makes it all the more tragic!

It's amazing how short sighted some people can be.

Indeed! Try checking your rose-colored glasses at the door of reality.

We have no comprehension of how these techniques could help society. I can tell you now, though, we'd be able to grow organ donors; genetically modified people for certain jobs (soldiers) - as Lerk mentioned; I'm certainly not the most qualified person to tell you all this. Look it up.

Nor do we have any comprehension of how these techniques could harm society, but one can rest assured that if they can they will. A point you care not to envision (as it seems to rudely intrude on all the blessings you prefer to imagine).

Could you explain how you consider this all irreversible, any more than anything ELSE is irreversible?

I've alreadly done so. But seeing as you asked I'll repeat the wise words of Dr. Erwin Chargaff, one of the fathers of nucleic acid and gene research:

"Our time is cursed with the necessity of for feeble men, masquerading as experts, to make enormously far-reaching decisions. Is there anything more far-reaching than the creation of new forms of life? ... You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosols; you can even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you can not recall a new form of life. ... The hybridization of Prometheus with Herostratus is bound to give evil results."

Well, have faith that we will all find our nemesis eventually then, if you're so against it.

As wise Pogo said: "We have the met the enemy, and he is us."

Cipher, your picture signature says it all too. We are both half angel and half devil. Human scientists and science practiced by humans is no different. But you assume that there is a difference. I know better and I have buttressed my point with genetic scientists who know better too.

All you've offered is myth and hype.

-------------

vmpaul: As I was posting this I see your post. It is worth addressing in detail but for now my short answer is that the thread title reads: "Why are people so anti-cloning."

I have no problems with a reasonable discussion about "Theraputic cloning," but that is not what has thus far transpired.

I foresaw this problem from the get go. More later.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Wow, this is frustrating. I guess I should stop assuming that anybody who posts here has actually read the thread. I guess most people just read the last post and comment on that. So I'll just repeat what I've been saying in previous posts.

The title of this thread is 'Why are people so anti-cloning?' The answer is because most people (including a bunch here) haven't taken the time to become familiar with the ACTUAL issues. Most responses are based on pseudo-science propagated by Hollywood and scare tactics from the extreme right-wing.



I repeat: There are NO respectable scientists or medical centers that advocate reproductive cloning. NONE. ZERO. DO WE ALL UNDERSTAND NOW? It's too experimental and too dangerous. For exactly the reasons you stated Lerkfish. The technique isn't perfected and the process to develop an acceptable procedure would require numerous failed attempts that would include disfigured fetus's and many abortions. Add to that the unknown dangers to any woman who might carry that child to term. Too many unknowns.

Now, there are many doctors or scientists who don't rely on federal funds or have any compulsion to throw their medical ethics out the window in the strive to be the first to have a cloned baby. But they are the fringe. The idea that it will ever be anything more than fringe activity is a fallacy. I'll say it again: Do you really think people are going to give up sex to pro-create? I don't think so.

The issue is Therapeutic cloning, which is closer to in-vitro fertilization techniques than to cloning. DNA is introduced into the a female's egg and then allowed to divide a few times. This organism has less than 2 dozen cells. What it does have are Stem cells. These cells are removed from the organism and used for a variety of therapies. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that can turn into ANY TISSUE in the body.

What could these stem cells do? Here are some of the potential's that have had preliminary trials and discussion:
1) Stem cells could be injected into any organ (heart liver, brain) and help in the healing and re-growth of that damaged organ. Some preliminary work has been done on heart attack patients who have severely damaged heart muscle.

2) Stem cells could be used to bridge damaged nerves in spinal cord injuries. This has been done in mice and the results are staggering. Crippled mice have actually regained use of their limbs after stem cell therapy.

3) Use stem cells to grow tissue in the lab for transplantation. NOT TO GROW ORGANS IN ADULT HUMANS. They've grown cartilage in petrie dishes already.

And that's just the beginning. Those are some of the possible therapies mentioned. They haven't been done yet. And they won't be done because the whole topic is so misunderstood.

No harvesting of organs from humans. No carbon copies of you and me. No genetic engineering.

Questions?

um *raises hand* yeah. Sorry to have upset you, there, apparently.
You have to realize I was responding to someone else, not you...so therefore the frame of my post necessarily addressed some of their misconcepts, as well as my own.

I asked for a good reason for cloning, which you provided, thank you.

[JayTi]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
Did you read any of this thread before posting that?

No, I didn't read the entire thing. Obviously I read the thread title or t his would just be some random post about clones. When you want to duke out chemistry, biology, genetics and stuff with someone who got a major in it, let me know.

Back on topic:

People who aren't in to cloning or any type of stem cell research, is it coming from an ethical point of view or religious? Just curious here.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um *raises hand* yeah. Sorry to have upset you, there, apparently.
You have to realize I was responding to someone else, not you...so therefore the frame of my post necessarily addressed some of their misconcepts, as well as my own.

I asked for a good reason for cloning, which you provided, thank you.

Sorry, I didn't mean any offense. Just frustrated at the level of misunderstanding on this subject.

I'm quite passionate about this and deeply disturbed on how that facts have been twisted to further the agenda of anti-abortionists.

Now that you know how the issues have been mixed did you know that the bill that passed the House recently outlaws any American from receiving treatment that could have come from any cloning research? If a therapy is developed in England let's say, and you go abroad to get the cure for your Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's or spinal cord injury that you would be arrested and fined up $1 million on your return to the States.

That, to me, is inhumane. Unbelievable.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by JayTi:


Back on topic:

People who aren't in to cloning or any type of stem cell research, is it coming from an ethical point of view or religious? Just curious here.

Mostly ethical. Although Zimphire was in earlier so it went religous for a bit. Disintegrated into personal attacks and wimpered out.

If you have a degree in this maybe you could clear up some technical details?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I thought I had earlier (?). to sum:

Cloning: if the purpose is:
for those unable to reproduce, there are cheaper and more effective methods presently available.
To provide replacement organs, unless a way can be found to also grow organs apart from the body, ethical questions will persist, and on top of that, the growing time in the vat is prohibitive.

So, if cloning is not feasable for reproduction, and inefficient for organ harvesting, and the longevity of the clone is stunted and fraught with thousands of failed attempts, then what possible good purpose would there be for cloning?

I then offered the only logical use for it would be to mass - produce humans for cannon fodder. Soldiers that belong to no one so they effectively belong to the state, and can be trained from birth to be efficient and loyal assasins, and ultimately disposable and replacable so you wouldn't have to stress the VA hospitals or pensions. A life span of 35 years, tops, would be optimal.

Otherwise, I put it back to you...what possible good use would there be for human cloning? Even if you evaporate ethics out of the equation, I can't think of a valid reason to clone. Simply because it CAN be done is all well and good, but in the end is not cost effective.

Lerk, when I mentioned organ harvesting, I didn't mean growing a body then cutting it up; though that's entirely possible (grow the body with a pre-lobotomised brain - but goddamn would people go insane over that). I meant growing organs externally - cloning is a necessary step in that direction.

Cloning *is* feasible for reproduction, but I don't see its purpose in that area... IVF works fine, and cloning is not the way to a better process with such a purpose. Cloning for reproduction is pretty pointless, and not a great idea anyway.

I think the organ reason is good enough on its own. Do we really need another reason? I'm trying to be as open minded as I can here, and I fail to see any huge dangers. We're not playing with nuclear fission here... (da dum tsh!)

Sure, there are unforseen dangers. I know that. In my opinion... we should take the risk. It's the price of progress.

EDIT: fix redundancy re. IVF.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
There you go again hyping science fiction. Where are the scientific facts supporting any of this? There are none!

The facts reveal "Only a few of the simplest possible genetic manipulations among the many that have been tried have worked at all. Those few have generally turned out to be disappointing, dangerous, or both."

When it comes to mammals which have been cloned the reality has not been at all rosy: Obesity, premature arthritis & aging, and all manner of other cellular abnormalities are common.

Science fiction? No, sorry, it's called forward-thinking.

I support cloning, stem cell research, and so on. Genetic research is a perfect example, because it's young. It's a very young science, and it is far from perfect. Far from being semi-perfect. We don't understand it all that well - but what you don't seem to understand is what it is capable of. You are looking at the present, and that pisses me off. As I stated before, it is AMAZING how far we've come in such a short time. You seem to like to take that comment out of context. Another sign that you can't read properly.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
As Mae-Wan Ho summarized the biological realities about genetic engineering: "They include the instability of transgenes, overlapping genes, gene amplification and inactivation, environmentally induced changes in gene expression, inheritance that does not involve the DNA code, and even, possibly, the inheritance of acquired characteristics."

None of which daunts you in the least, but has made those who know better to realize this is a veritable fool's paradise.

More text-book quotes. Wonderful. I'm aware of the risks, the dangers, the complications. Your "realities", as you put it. No, it doesn't daunt me. Why? There's only one way to conquer those problems - to RESEARCH. To EXPERIMENT. It disgusts me that you're not willing to try. Pathetic.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
As Ho explains, genes and genomes are not only "fluid and adaptable," but that "The notion of an isolatable, constant gene that can be patented as an invention for all the marvelous things it can do is the greatest reductionist myth ever perpetrated."

Blah, blah, blah. Do you even understand a word of that book? Are you aware that I'm aware of everything you've said? For the last time, it does NOT PHASE me that the science is not perfect yet! Of COURSE it isn't. Jesus Christ. Reductionist? I'm sorry, but I haven't preached any reductionist myths.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
These are the judgments of world renowned genetic scientists based on factual, robust even, scientific evidence. And yet you continue to feebly protest: NONE OF THIS MATTERS! SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS WILL SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS!

This is not just laughable, except you seem to sincerely believe it which makes it all the more tragic!

Where did I say that? Where did I argue with your authors? I didn't. Again, you're argueing against a point I NEVER ****ING MADE. Goddamn, you're amazingly thick.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Indeed! Try checking your rose-colored glasses at the door of reality.

Oh, I'm hurt.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Nor do we have any comprehension of how these techniques could harm society, but one can rest assured that if they can they will. A point you care not to envision (as it seems to rudely intrude on all the blessings you prefer to imagine).

By this logic you can't possibly support nuclear power... nor many forms of psychology and mainly neuroscience... I mean, you are aware of early psychological research, right? "Lobotomise her, that'll stop the violence!" And it sure did. I'm aware of the fact, but I am willing to take the risk.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
I've alreadly done so. But seeing as you asked I'll repeat the wise words of Dr. Erwin Chargaff, one of the fathers of nucleic acid and gene research:

"Our time is cursed with the necessity of for feeble men, masquerading as experts, to make enormously far-reaching decisions. Is there anything more far-reaching than the creation of new forms of life? ... You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosols; you can even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you can not recall a new form of life. ... The hybridization of Prometheus with Herostratus is bound to give evil results."

I don't wanna hear your quotes. I want to hear YOUR words and YOUR opinions, or else there's no point in discussing this with you at all.

The quote is entirely irrelevant, no less - we're not creating a new form of life. We're cloning a few organs for people like poor little Jimmy in hospital who needs a new liver

Other than that, yes, it's a very good quote, and something to keep in mind. Shame it's not relevant.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
IAs wise Pogo said: "We have the met the enemy, and he is us."

Cipher, your picture signature says it all too. We are both half angel and half devil. Human scientists and science practiced by humans is no different. But you assume that there is a difference. I know better and I have buttressed my point with genetic scientists who know better too.

I'm aware. It's my signature for a reason (well, several). You know better, do you? Dangerous presumption. You know nothing of my knowledge, only my ethics and my general opinion. How pompous of you. May I ask, what is your level of education/involvement in this area? That isn't a dig, I'm curious. I think it's just my ethics that you don't like, and that's fine.

It's people like me who keep this race advancing... often, at a cost, unfortunately. A cost we're willing to accept.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
IAll you've offered is myth and hype.

I see. All you've offered is slander, textbook quotes any highschool student could get off google, and an argument aimed at an invisible man; or at least, aimed at somebody who never made the supposed provoking comment in the first place.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Sure, there are unforseen dangers. I know that. In my opinion... we should take the risk. It's the price of progress.

the very nature of unforeseen dangers is that you can't gauge how feasible recovery from them is, if at all.
for example, before they set off the first atom bomb, there was a contingent of scientists who knew it might possibly set off an unstoppable chain reaction which would race across the surface of the earth, completely destroying it and all life thereon.
the problem was, they had no way to know that for sure until they did it. It was a risk taken by a handful of men, in secret, that could have ended up killing us all....but hey, that's the price of progress, right?

We should always take the risk in the name of science, because, well, its SCIENCE and its PROGRESS and its the fanatical religion of the antitheists and shouldn't be questioned or interefered with....FULL SPEED AHEAD AND TO HECK WITH ETHICS OR DANGER OR PRUDENCE.....BOW LOW EVERYONE, A SCIENTIST APPROACHES!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
We should always take the risk in the name of science, because, well, its SCIENCE and its PROGRESS and its the fanatical religion of the antitheists and shouldn't be questioned or interefered with....FULL SPEED AHEAD AND TO HECK WITH ETHICS OR DANGER OR PRUDENCE.....BOW LOW EVERYONE, A SCIENTIST APPROACHES!

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the very nature of unforeseen dangers is that you can't gauge how feasible recovery from them is, if at all.
for example, before they set off the first atom bomb, there was a contingent of scientists who knew it might possibly set off an unstoppable chain reaction which would race across the surface of the earth, completely destroying it and all life thereon.
the problem was, they had no way to know that for sure until they did it. It was a risk taken by a handful of men, in secret, that could have ended up killing us all....but hey, that's the price of progress, right?

The first atom bomb... ah, and where would we be without it today? Hmm?

The math suggested such a chain reaction would not occur. It was a possibility, sure. **** happens. The risks weighed, and a gamble payed off.

I hate to break it to you, but... genetic engineering and growing replacement organs is nothing like splitting the goddamn atom

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
We should always take the risk in the name of science, because, well, its SCIENCE and its PROGRESS and its the fanatical religion of the antitheists and shouldn't be questioned or interefered with....FULL SPEED AHEAD AND TO HECK WITH ETHICS OR DANGER OR PRUDENCE.....BOW LOW EVERYONE, A SCIENTIST APPROACHES!

The fanatical religion of the atheists? Since when am I an atheist? Since when am I a fanatic? Since when is it a religion? If you're gonna make comments like this, you're sure as hell gonna support them. So be my guest...

To be honest, what you just posted is well below what I would have expected of you. Shame.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
The math suggested such a chain reaction would not occur. It was a possibility, sure. **** happens. The risks weighed, and a gamble payed off.

My point is, it was a gamble scientists made, without the knowledge or consent of the rest of the world. You think it paid off....great!
Remind me never to let you cover for me on the craps table while I use the bathroom.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
The fanatical religion of the atheists? Since when am I an atheist? Since when am I a fanatic? Since when is it a religion? If you're gonna make comments like this, you're sure as hell gonna support them. So be my guest...

To be honest, what you just posted is well below what I would have expected of you. Shame.

right. So you own the sole exclusive rights to the use of sarcasm.
Actually, you're sarcasm-impaired, so I hereby revoke your rights to use it correctly, or even hope to identify it when used by others.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
My point is, it was a gamble scientists made, without the knowledge or consent of the rest of the world. You think it paid off....great!
Remind me never to let you cover for me on the craps table while I use the bathroom.

If I blew your craps winnings, I'm sure you'd notice - there's the difference

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
right. So you own the sole exclusive rights to the use of sarcasm.
Actually, you're sarcasm-impaired, so I hereby revoke your rights to use it correctly, or even hope to identify it when used by others.

It's 6.24 AM, I have an excuse. I shouldn't be awake for another 8 hours. Damn lectures... my apologies.

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by vmpaul:

The issue is Therapeutic cloning, which is closer to in-vitro fertilization techniques than to cloning. DNA is introduced into the a female's egg and then allowed to divide a few times. This organism has less than 2 dozen cells. What it does have are Stem cells. These cells are removed from the organism and used for a variety of therapies. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that can turn into ANY TISSUE in the body.

What could these stem cells do? Here are some of the potential's that have had preliminary trials and discussion:
1) Stem cells could be injected into any organ (heart liver, brain) and help in the healing and re-growth of that damaged organ. Some preliminary work has been done on heart attack patients who have severely damaged heart muscle.

2) Stem cells could be used to bridge damaged nerves in spinal cord injuries. This has been done in mice and the results are staggering. Crippled mice have actually regained use of their limbs after stem cell therapy.

3) Use stem cells to grow tissue in the lab for transplantation. NOT TO GROW ORGANS IN ADULT HUMANS. They've grown cartilage in petrie dishes already.

And that's just the beginning. Those are some of the possible therapies mentioned. They haven't been done yet. And they won't be done because the whole topic is so misunderstood.

No harvesting of organs from humans. No carbon copies of you and me. No genetic engineering.

Questions?

And as I said before:

mr. natural posted:

Stem cell "research" and all the good things to come of it have yet to be proven doable or without harm. Nor is this "cloning" as I understand it. I'm not opposed to it, but I'll believe the wildly optimistic claims when I see it proven in rigorous scientific research.

Until then, and when we have sorted out all the mix-ups about these notions, I assume that the correct approach to any such genetic research is with the "precautionary principle." The burden of proof is on the hard truth of real scientific evidence. So you'll have to forgive me if I refrain from buying into all the mythical assumptions which have yet to bear any miraculous and entirely harmless fruit. The evidence at hand is anything but entirely reassuring that the myths will live up to the claims; especially with the heavy handed influence of investment capital to do the "exploitable."

To repeat: I am not opposed to stem cell research. As you yourself claim, "this is closer to in in-vitro fertilization techniques than cloning."

The problem than with any such discussion as you would have it is with the misunderstandings generated by the thread title.

That you offer examples of reasonable uses carried out of this "technique" is far more satisfying than any of Cipher's immature rants.

I do however think it worth questioning your statement: "And that's just the beginning." The beginning of what and to what end?

But if what you allege is true about getting such therapeutic treatment abroad and being arrested for it here is true, I'll agree that this is stupid.

Nonetheless, I still think it wise to question all of this so that we get it right rather than subscribe to the hype and myth without question. Is that so hard to understand or appreciate?

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
That you offer examples of reasonable uses carried out of this "technique" is far more satisfying than any of Cipher's immature rants.

Funny, I offered examples too.

"Immature rants"... that you can't seem to A) comprehend, or B) respond to at all.

I'm still waiting... or should I take your refusal to comment as concession?

[pathogen]

I'd clone myself, but the sad truth is that we'd still get our twin *sses handed to us on a platter when we play Starcraft on Battlenet.

[digimage]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
otherwise you'd have to say that Jesus was a souless monster.

Why not? His followers are trying to emulate Him, and act like soulless monsters.

Cloning isn't going to be permitted because this country is being run by fundamentalist Christian a$$holes that know what's best for us.

Voting them out is useless.

We have to get openly religious and religiously biased politicians out of office. This country will never progress until we get faith out of the government and back where it belongs.

In church.

[vmpaul]

Good article at Wired about the debate here.

Couple of good quotes:

Social conservatives and the anti-abortion lobby have championed a ban on therapeutic cloning because 4-day-old embryos are destroyed in the process, a practice they believe is akin to murder.

The other side of the argument says hundreds of leftover embryos are discarded every week by in-vitro fertilization clinics, so why not use them for research that could lead to treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes?

Another point quoted about the inconsistant policy opposition to therapeutic cloning:

...pointed out a contradiction in that the president does not oppose in-vitro fertilization, which results in the destruction of thousands of embryos, yet he is against therapeutic cloning for that very reason.

Also, another good article on the benefits of stem cell therapy that did not come from embryonic cloning. For those of you wanting to know about some of the benefits.

[xenu]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Government has no place in being a 'spiritual' advisor. Church and state have to be seperated.

However, what I am concerned with is that the embryo has to be destroyed in 'therapeutic cloning' which in my mind is murder because human life starts at conception. After all thats when that stuff that constitutes 'you' starts to take form.

LOL.

You want state and church seperate, but are happy to pass laws based on your personal religious beliefs.

Hate to be the one to tell you this, but the stuff that constitutes you, starts with the egg and the sperm.

You are being a consumate hypocrite if you don't call masturbation, or mensturation murder.