Krieger

Human cloning is just another reproductive choice that reactionary religious and political leaders do not want the people to have.

All atheists and non-religious people should support human cloning as a reproductive choice.

seesaw

I guess that is a good reason for cloning, but with all the things that can go wrong with cloning. Wouldn't it be best to impregnate a willing woman with donated sperm if you can't have a child?

I'm a atheist, but as of right now I don't really support it because of the things that can go wrong but maybe if the techniques can get better I might support it.

Krieger

I never said you had to go clone yourself tomorrow.

We just need to support the scientific and cultural progress. We should oppose any attempts to ban human cloning or research of it. Especially since we know why those nutcases want to ban it.

seesaw

Lol.

I don't think it should be banned I did think so a few days ago, but was talking to a few people and if they ban human cloning they will end up banning cloning research which would make it impossible to clone organs which I think would be a good benefit for us all. So I guess I will try to supporting it more.

PotatoError

Can someone explain to me the difference between two clones and identical twins?

I was under the impression that there was no difference.

Therefore surely the "emotional trauma" that we are told that a cloned child will face is surely a myth as identical twins suffer no trauma at all. If anything they are glad to be clones and feel they have a special link.

ksagnostic

Great book!

With regards to cloning, I really see potential benefit to it when it comes to cloning organs and body parts, although only the very wealthy would benefit from this for a long time. As for cloning one's self as a child...ehhhh (although I could also see people having a tendancy to clone a lost child). I could see some real issues coming up, particularly if the child grows up differently than the cloned parent thinks they should. It would provide more interesting fodder for nature verses nuture questions.

Ethically, my biggest concerns are 1) that cloned humans would have substantial problems (such as diseases associated with early aging--I don't know if that danger has been substantiated) 2) the reaction of others to a child they know is a clone and 3) the potential impact on adoption, although I think that reproductive technology has had less of an impact than excessively long protections of the rights of birth mothers to change their minds.

And oh yeah, Senator Sam Brownback is a grandstanding, evil dickhead! Just thought I'd get that in. He'll be mugging in front of the cameras and microphones on this issue.

Answerer

Okay, just a show of hands, how many of you don't support human cloning at all?

schu

The only differences I know of is that the ages of the clones would be different and that of the identical twins would be the same.

The other thing is that identical twins occur naturally while clones can only occur through medical intervention.

Bersec

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human cloning is just another reproductive choice that reactionary religious and political leaders do not want the people to have.

All atheists and non-religious people should support human cloning as a reproductive choice.

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

I support human cloning for the purpose of developing custom made organ replacements so we can live a little longer, also I think it is crucial to understand the basic science behind it. Cloning for reproduction alone, I'm not totaly for it since the union of two different genetic codes would not happen ( I guess). This process may stop human evolution (last time I checked we are still evolving).

AtomSmasher

I'm not so sure it would even stall human evolution. If it's natural selection that determines which genes will propogate, via reproduction and which genes will be eliminated with the death of their host, then natural selection has somehow determined that the entire genome of a clone is well adapted to it's environment. If it's diversity that selected for survival against the harsh environment, then perhaps it's homogeneity that selects for survival in a society. Just one of many possible explanations. It seems bleak, but, as beausoleil pointed out in my thread on dysgenics, it is hard to distinguish natural selection from un-natural selection. Perhaps cloning should be considered another measure of genetic fitness. It likely requires a certain amount financial success to clone oneself, therefor should we consider cloning to be another form of evolution?