Thoughts on cloning

[Jessie]

In my humble opinion I think cloning absolutely the STUPIDEST thing ever. First off, I love and own horses. I know that a few years ago a "champion" horse was cloned just so the owner could breed it. I went on a huge rant and wrote the owner of the cloned horse and several horse magazines. Why in the world would you want to scientifically create another horse? There are so many wonderful abused horses than need to be rescued. What about the poor animals that sit in small pens all day. Make one of THESE horses a champion. Instead of creating new life we need to save the ones we already have. I dread the day we start cloning humans. That will absolutely draw the line for me. Can you imagine the feeling of knowing you were cloned from someone else? That you don't have any REAL family? It would be awful. I feel the same way about couples that can't have a baby and keep trying...like, freezing eggs and whatnot. I know that they want their own child but after a few years of trying why not just adopt. Remember, all of this is my opinion and I fully respect everyone elses'. :)

 

[Jaimes]

2)It would be nice if the actions in bold can be administered, though it would not be an exact clone as implied at the beginning of the thread now would it?
3)A mutated gene that causes slow growth may solve the 20 age gap (just appearance, not counting on enhanced longevity, plus mutation is rare.)

For, 2) It depends on what aspect of cloning you're thinking about - from a biological perceptive cloning would consist of identical genes (whether being a whole individual or just a lump of cells).
If you cloned a single gamete then statistically 50% of the offspring would be identical (they would be half-identical twins).
If you were to clone a zygote, x amount of times, (which was my proposed use) then this is effectively has the possibility of x identical offspring. This is what is being considered for use as fertility treatment, to increase the chances of a child made in-vitro.

Some people may want a full copy of themselves, and this is possible. But that wasn't the same type cloning that I was referring to that could benefit infertility.

For 3) - if a clone had a mutated gene...then so would the parent.. Natural genetic mutations occur inside the parent's parents. If you added the gene in, then it wouldn't be a clone anymore, because the genetic code would be different. Also it would have a significant number of other effects.

Ya happy birthday too b('-')b

Can clones reproduce. Just a question.

A clone is still an individual. If the parent where the genes came from can reproduce sexually, then so can the clone.

 

[Jessie]

• Clones of animals can be used to prevent specie extinction.

You have a very good point. IF they're cloning very rare animals to save them THAT would be great. But horses, rats and sheep? We have enough of them...

 

[Jaimes]

You have a very good point. IF they're cloning very rare animals to save them THAT would be great. But horses, rats and sheep? We have enough of them...

Endangered animals ARE cloned. As are endangered plants.

Horses & cows are cloned because they have desired genes. Think about it, there are animals that are naturally better than its own kind. Champion horses are better runners, some cows produce better milk- they have the genes inside them that cause this.
If say, 5 clones of the greatest running horse was made, then each could be sent of to different areas of the worl. They would pass on their genes to lots of different offspring- each with the running gene and in turn these would be fast runners. This is simply artificial selection but clones are made so that it can occur faster.

Rats are rarely cloned. Rats are used since they breed fast, are small, clean and easy to handle. That's why they've been used for research.
A sheep is a more complex mammal and again was used for research purposes. Appearence wise they're also easy to distinguish if cloning was successful.

I'd also like to point out that cloning animals is harmless. (Besides that one animal of a specie will have to give birth to it).

 

[Jessie]

Horses & cows are cloned because they have desired genes. Think about it, there are animals that are naturally better than its own kind. Champion horses are better runners, some cows produce better milk- they have the genes inside them that cause this.
If say, 5 clones of the greatest running horse was made, then each could be sent of to different areas of the worl. They would pass on their genes to lots of different offspring- each with the running gene and in turn these would be fast runners. This is simply artificial selection but clones are made so that it can occur faster.

I would like to point out that VERY many horse people are still against this. There are just too many unwanted foals out there now. If you go over to a horse forum and talk about this very touchy subject you will get many different answers. No matter what genes or how fast the horse can run if someone breeds their stallion irresponsibly that foal could have a horrible life. You really have to think these things through. Horses can life 30+ years. Most of these people in the racing business start their horses way too soon under saddle and run them to death. Granted, there are some very kind people in the horse racing business and I've met a few, but some people just disgust me. If a horse is lucky it could go on to race until it's about 7, but most horses only last until they're 3 or 4. After that the irresponsible racers will just throw the horses away, send them to the slaughter house, just to make room for another foal. I am the proud owner of a 23 year old rescued ex-racer. He has horrible joints from racing and is still spooky. In my opinion it's just not worth it.

 

[The Shadow]

If only they cloned the dodo before it got extinct. They didn't have cloning back then so never mind.

 

[scorpyo]

Cloning is definetly morally wrong. Do we seriously NEED to steal the rights of (sorry about bringing up religion) God to create life? It's just not dang right. And what the heck is the point of it? Just because it's cool to have a clone of yourself? If a human is cloned, will the even have a soul to live an afterlife? It's not right. It's just as bad as AI. Seriously, don't get me started on it. I am totally aagainst thinking computers and robots that can think and have thoughts like humans. But anyways, I didn't read the whole thread, so I might have brought up something already said or something.

 

[Allstories]

It's not like creating a robot, though. It still has to be born, and it's a process comparable to the way nature creates twins. I wouldn't say it's really playing god. Read the rest of this thread.

 

[doesn't matter]

Considering that half of the thread is useless, that might be less useful than hoped.

Anyway, I have mixed views on cloning. If it can be used to help people, then I'm all for it. But, I consider the cloning of a human, at the very least, morally wrong,a nd even more so ethically, though I suppose it depends on the purpose.

For example, let's say cloning was done to create reserve organs for individuals (now what happened to Krypton guys? XD). The fact taht the clone has no other purpose other than being a personal organ bank does raise numerous moral questions, since the clone is being denied it's rights as a human. We can see this example being played out today though, such as in the situation where a child is suffering from leukemia, and so the parents have another child so that it can donate bone marrow for their sibling.

But all in all, no one would create a clone just for the sake of having one - there is an ulterior motive behind it, and that's where it's more likely for moral questions to be raised, let alone ethical.

Endangered animals ARE cloned. As are endangered plants.

Cloning is a last ditch effort after alternatives (such as conservation, protection and the like), have been exhausted. Moreover, they would still be used in conjunction with cloning for the best results.

Horses & cows are cloned because they have desired genes. Think about it, there are animals that are naturally better than its own kind. Champion horses are better runners, some cows produce better milk- they have the genes inside them that cause this.
If say, 5 clones of the greatest running horse was made, then each could be sent of to different areas of the worl. They would pass on their genes to lots of different offspring- each with the running gene and in turn these would be fast runners. This is simply artificial selection but clones are made so that it can occur faster.

Yet even with the advent of genetic engineering, farmers still use classic selective breeding techniques, as do breeders. I actually don't really see cloning making much of an impact in these areas anyway.

If anything, cloning prized animals would reduce their "value", and everyone is in it for the money.

 

[Jaimes]

Cloning is definetly morally wrong. Do we seriously NEED to steal the rights of (sorry about bringing up religion) God to create life? It's just not dang right. And what the heck is the point of it? Just because it's cool to have a clone of yourself? If a human is cloned, will the even have a soul to live an afterlife? It's not right. It's just as bad as AI. Seriously, don't get me started on it.

If you think that cloning is 'morally wrong' because the bible tells you then.. I am deeply worried and I believe you have a poor sense of morality. I suppose you reckon that stoning a rape victim who does not scream (Deut 22:24) is on the other hand, morally correct?
Although the Bible does not predict cloning, by the same logic, is mans interference of life is morally wrong as well? I suppose that also includes contraception, vaccination, antibiotics, organ transfer, grafting etc etc. ¬_¬
The majority of fruits and vegetables you consume are either cloned, propagated or have been influenced by humans...I guess they're evil too... XD
An identical twin is a clone- I guess they're not 'dang right' either. Also what is to say that God and a soul even exists? Never bring into a debate something that can't be proved and quote it as factual.
It would also be handy to read some earlier points beforehand as well ¬_¬.

The fact taht the clone has no other purpose other than being a personal organ bank does raise numerous moral questions, since the clone is being denied it's rights as a human.

A clone doesn't necessarily have to be an individual to be used as a medical breakthrough. Although it is too early to say, it is likely that from the research of stem cells, individual tissue or a stem cell (via activating certain genes) could be used to produce the desired tissues rather than producing a whole organism. From cloning certain cells, it is no different to tissue cultivation, except this way it guarantees that there will be no rejection of the implant and is safer.

Yet even with the advent of genetic engineering, farmers still use classic selective breeding techniques, as do breeders. I actually don't really see cloning making much of an impact in these areas anyway.

For selective breeding, I agree. Most animals already have desirable traits, without needing to lower the gene pool. It could be advantangeous if the are very very rare genes crop up or the organism has a short reproductive period.
Besides I think horseracing isn't very nice anyway ¬_¬

Cloning is a last ditch effort after alternatives (such as conservation, protection and the like), have been exhausted. Moreover, they would still be used in conjunction with cloning for the best results.

But it's a bit too late for some of the alternatives to be used effectively. Although it's not exactly great for variation, if for example, 1 clone of each panda was successfully made, (and these did as Panda's do) then that would significantly increase the numbers in a shorter time. Some animals are also unenthusiastic about reproducing, may not mate often or may have difficulty doing so- by cloning, the reproduction rate would increase rapidly.


Come to think about it..Nobody else has mentioned cloning of plants >.>
Bit suprising..seeming as this happens all the time..We even eat a lot of cloned produce..

 

[Cross]

Cloning. lol
Probably one of the dumbest intelligent things man-kind could do.
If I had a clone made for me just for an organ when I was about to die, what would make the clone willing to give himself for me?
Another thing, it wouldn't be a clone. It would more likely be a "my physical resembling human being" or "man-created twin" since it would most likely have an alternate personality.

I await Richard Steel or Allstories to compliment on my cynicism.

the world would end up in utter confusion with two people being in a play and the other arives is sent backstage and is in the ply but only came to watch

ys it wuld m8 it wuld b uttr confushin wit al dem plys deyd hav wit clons an soch

 

[thomascallaghan]

the world would end up in utter confusion with two people being in a play and the other arives is sent backstage and is in the ply but only came to watch

 

[doesn't matter]

If you think that cloning is 'morally wrong' because the bible tells you then.. I am deeply worried and I believe you have a poor sense of morality. I suppose you reckon that stoning a rape victim who does not scream (Deut 22:24) is on the other hand, morally correct?

I believe you're talking about ethics, since they refer to one's beliefs. Morals are what one does.

Although the Bible does not predict cloning, by the same logic, is mans interference of life is morally wrong as well? I suppose that also includes contraception, vaccination, antibiotics, organ transfer, grafting etc etc. ¬_¬

That's the challenge facing today's religions, and they meet it well. Jewish bioethics is actually pretty interesting to study.

That said, contraception is wrong in the Christian church. But anything that can help people is essentially considered to be good. Don't think that the church really stuck in the mud.

Don't take my word for all this though, I've tried to forget as much as I've learnt from school as possible XD;;

For selective breeding, I agree. Most animals already have desirable traits, without needing to lower the gene pool. It could be advantangeous if the are very very rare genes crop up or the organism has a short reproductive period.
Besides I think horseracing isn't very nice anyway ¬_¬

I don't really see how it is so, since cloning doesn't really change anything about reproduction and such i.e. the reproductive period will still be the same.

But it's a bit too late for some of the alternatives to be used effectively. Although it's not exactly great for variation, if for example, 1 clone of each panda was successfully made, (and these did as Panda's do) then that would significantly increase the numbers in a shorter time. Some animals are also unenthusiastic about reproducing, may not mate often or may have difficulty doing so- by cloning, the reproduction rate would increase rapidly.

I suppose so, but even cloning has it's risks. By creating "copies" of the same animal, you're reducing the size of the gene pool, which may create issues in the future :/

thomascallaghan: I have no idea what you're on about, but do not go off topic like that again.

 

[DarkGreg]

I think it would be a stupid idea. Mainly because I imagine some massive body builder guy would clone himself millions of times and destroy the world... :S

But, it can be used for good too. Like cloning an endangered species of animal. Maybe they use it in proportion. 8D

 

[The Shadow]

Cloning is definetly morally wrong. Do we seriously NEED to steal the rights of (sorry about bringing up religion) God to create life? It's just not dang right. And what the heck is the point of it? Just because it's cool to have a clone of yourself? If a human is cloned, will the even have a soul to live an afterlife? It's not right. It's just as bad as AI. Seriously, don't get me started on it. I am totally aagainst thinking computers and robots that can think and have thoughts like humans. But anyways, I didn't read the whole thread, so I might have brought up something already said or something.

I haven't read the bottom posts so, any way. We have to clone endangered species or else they would die out. Cloning isn't a sin, so I don't know why you say that. Besides were not stealing Gods powers. Were just doing good to the environment.

 

[Yingxue]

Unnecessary. We have enough people alive already.

We should use this technology to clone endangered species, not selfish people who want more of themselves.


And scorpyo, why are you so against AI? It's useful for everyday inventions that people use.