Human Cloning?
This is more of an ethical/scientific sort of topic, so I decided to put it here instead of Political-Outsider.
I've been reading in some headlines that Bush is trying to get a ban on the cloning of human embryos.
What is your opinion on the issue? Should all cloning be banned, or should only cloning other than for therapeutic purposes be banned? m.
I've been reading in some headlines that Bush is trying to get a ban on the cloning of human embryos.
What is your opinion on the issue? Should all cloning be banned, or should only cloning other than for therapeutic purposes be banned? m.
Comments
This is because those in the know, know that the research could explain the mystery of 'life' in scientific, biological and chemical terms, thus being another nail in the coffin for the notion that God formed Adam from the dirt 6000 years ago.
It may be possible from the research to actually create new forms life via understanding of stem cells, from a bunch of chemicals, a bit of heat and a bit of forced rapid evolution. Obviously not yet, but 20 years down the line.
Their false guise of compassion for life is quite easily understood, when you realise that compassion only extends to White middle class Christian Americans, as we can clearly see even on this forum, there is no compassion for life of 10,000 dead innocent Iraqi's, no compassion for millions of Palestinians, no compassion for millions of Africans dying from Aids by denying them condoms or birth control.
Their compassion extends only to those who support their dogma, and stem cell research is a dangerous knowledge that may break their stranglehold over the minds of the followers.
oh yeah, and I support regulated stem-cell research for medical and theraputic purposes, but not for cloning an army of neocons.
I also support research for the origins and understanding of life. Not that there's an option for this in this stupid poll.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I honestly don't think you should ban any scientific process at all... We aren't even sure we can clone a human, so why don't we just wait and see...
So we should allow people to do involuntary testing of drugs on people? After all you "don't think you should ban any scientific process at all".
Originally posted by Scott
So we should allow people to do involuntary testing of drugs on people? After all you "don't think you should ban any scientific process at all".
You are completely arbitrary. I would support your involuntary euthanasia.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Do you have to be a prick every time your hands touch a keyboard?
That's funny MarkUK. You say I'm a prick for pointing out someone's ridiculous absolutist statement and yet you claim that anyone that's against cloning is "an extreme right wing fundamentalist creationist agenda under the guise of having compassion for life at its earliest conception".
Congratulations on seeing an issue from another persons perspective and understanding their point of view even if you don't agree with them. You're definitely not a prick.
/grabs popcorn
END YOURSELF.
Banning cloning full stop is an extreme right wing fundamentalist creationist agenda under the guise of having compassion for life at its earliest conception.
This is because those in the know, know that the research could explain the mystery of 'life' in scientific, biological and chemical terms, thus being another nail in the coffin for the notion that God formed Adam from the dirt 6000 years ago.
First off, many "x r-wing whatevers" are fairly distrustful of any new scientific achievements. This is basically because many of them are very distrustful of "mere humans" attempting to unravel God's creation.
It is not because they believe that life can be explained through science. It already has been. You're basically a walking bag of biochemistry. (when approached reductionistically, is basically dirt. Ironically enough) That's easy. What is much much more interesting, is HOW it happened. (which is better discussed elsewhere).
The only problem I really have with cloning a human (and it WILL be done, which is why discussions like this are necessary) is the simple emotional ramifications of such a process. You know that some poor clone is going to be made because his parents couldn't bear the loss of the "original" son. To live under a shadow like that would be...a mess. And has been brought up, there are plenty of starving children around the world that are much more deserving of a decent shot at life.
Limited cloning (i.e. cloned organs) will likely be one of the greatest medical breakthroughs of all time. I'm counting on it because at the rate I inhale caffeine, I'll probably go into renal failure before I'm 50.
Oh, and to those boneheads out there who don't think a clone will not have a soul, remember that identical twins are clones of each other. DNA switching POST-fertilization is what gives you different fingerprints, etc. (which is good for law-enforcement, I suppose)
It may be possible from the research to actually create new forms life via understanding of stem cells, from a bunch of chemicals, a bit of heat and a bit of forced rapid evolution. Obviously not yet, but 20 years down the line
You are behind the times. If we really really wanted to, we could make "life" now. (it all depends on how you define it) Just recently, Craig Venter (of human genome fame) put a 3-5 year time frame on his project for a semi-synthetic microbe.
If I was going to walk into the lab tomorrow, to generate truely "new" life, I'd have to design even the proteins from the ground up, because just "borrowing" bits and pieces from already-living cells is kind of cheating. (at least how I see it) And by the way, you can't go frankenstein and throw together "a bunch of chemicals" and "a bit of heat" and get life.
Neither is there such a thing as evolution of chemicals. Evolution requires natural selection, because "life" depends upon entropy transfer to survive. Simple "chemicals" in and of themselves are incapable of generating their own thermodynamic coupling. I've always said that if you could get me to a single cell, you could sell me on evolution completely. (if you want to discuss this, start a thread and I'll be happy to talk with you).
And finally, stem cells are not "magic". Ok? Everybody stop blathering on and on about how special stem cells are. They have a lot of potential for certain areas, but they're not "the secret ingredient" that'll make everything work. Sheesh.
CV articficial life article
another article
From your 2nd article
For 10 years, Szostak has been trying to repeat hundreds of millions of years of evolution in his lab. He has not yet shouted: "Eureka, it's alive!" But he claims to have "learned a lot and made good progress."
"The way we do this is to harness the power of evolution," Szostak notes. "Since we don't know how to design better RNA, we have to evolve them. We're trying to evolve from an RNA that joins pieces of RNA to itself, to an RNA that copies itself and other RNA."
But evolving RNA like that on a newly formed planet is a huge problem. Szostak calls it "the biggest challenge left in our understanding of the origin of life."
This is what I meant, I dont have a degree in biology or science, so I cannot communicate in the established mechanisms of scientific language and that might make me appear to be stupid - which I largely am!
Welcome Binary Marc.