Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans

[Dav]

What if they cloned Jesus, for that matter (assuming there was such a historical personage, and assuming the Shroud of Turin was actually his burial shroud, and they could get some of his DNA out of it)?
He'd just be another guy.
He might end up being a cabdriver or working in a restaurant or a convenience store.
He'd probably be discriminated against in airports for looking like a terrorist.

:rofl @ that last line.

I've been planning to write a story about a Jesus clone, actually.

 

[1069]

:rofl @ that last line.

I've been planning to write a story about a Jesus clone, actually.

The basis of all fictional stories is "what if...?"

 

[Tucker Case]

The basis of all fictional stories is "what if...?"

What if Jesus was really a porcupine?

 

[Dav]

What if Jesus was really a porcupine?

 

[Gina]

Both, though i don't support human cloning until the technology improves. The reason I'm so staunchly in favor of cloning is that it will give us valuable insight into the function of genetics versus environment, and will contribute to the development of effective genetic engineering of both animals and humans. It will allow us to improve our species.

I'm really skeptical about cloning animals. We don't know everything about it and unintended consequences of genetic engineering (say, breeding a disease or deficiency that spreads throughout our livestock industry) are possible.

As for human cloning. Certainly not entire human beings. We have enough people on the planet, there is no reason to replicate individuals. Also, my example above is of the same concern to me in humans. Further, in the experimental stage, there are moral considerations to made as well.

What if the clone is imperfect and emerges disabled? Who then is responsible for their care? What if the defect is profound? Is the clone then euthanized or forced to live in potential suffering?

Genetic engineering smacks of eugenics as well and I have a big problem with that.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'm really skeptical about cloning animals. We don't know everything about it and unintended consequences of genetic engineering (say, breeding a disease or deficiency that spreads throughout our livestock industry) are possible.

Any such disease or deficiency can only spread as quickly as the genetically engineered animals can breed, and would be discovered long before it posed any threat to the industry. It's certainly no worse than the problem of monoculture in the produce industry, in which genetic engineering would be a tremendous boon. We've already created numerous improvements on natural produce that could go a long way to curing malnutrition and starvation in the developing world, if people weren't seized by irrational fears concerning "frankenfoods".

As for human cloning. Certainly not entire human beings. We have enough people on the planet, there is no reason to replicate individuals.

Market capitalism relies on constant population growth for economic growth.

Also, my example above is of the same concern to me in humans.

As above, any disease or deficiency can only spread as quickly as the afflicted humans can breed. Plus, there are enough people who would refuse such treatment to ensure sufficient control that such a disease or defect would never affect the whole population. This is one area where having multiple programs engineering different traits would be advantageous-- as long as different people are selecting for different traits and using different methods to achieve similar goals, genetic diversity is preserved.

Further, in the experimental stage, there are moral considerations to made as well.

I've already noted that until technical problems are solved, I am opposed to cloning full human beings.

What if the clone is imperfect and emerges disabled? Who then is responsible for their care? What if the defect is profound? Is the clone then euthanized or forced to live in potential suffering?

The answers to these issues are the same as they would be for defective children conceived and born naturally.

Genetic engineering smacks of eugenics as well and I have a big problem with that.

I see the problem with old eugenics programs being that they were racist and coercive. If new eugenics programs are neither racist nor coercive, I have absolutely no objection to the idea that the human condition can be improved through selective breeding and genetic engineering. Indeed, I believe that enhancing the human species should be a top priority for any society that is capable of doing so. Better humans-- humans that are healthier and smarter than the baseline-- would lead to more productivity, better living conditions, and less drain on our welfare, healthcare, and corrections systems. If you're concerned that such human improvement would lead to the creation of a genetic caste system, you can always advocate, as I do, for genetic engineering to be subsidized by the government so that it is available to everyone who wants it.

If we have the capacity to provide greater genetic traits for our children, I believe that we have a moral obligation to do so, just as we have the moral obligation to provide them the best nutrition, the best healthcare, and the best education. It is part of a greater moral obligation to give our children the greatest possible opportunities in life.

 

[Gina]

Any such disease or deficiency can only spread as quickly as the genetically engineered animals can breed, and would be discovered long before it posed any threat to the industry. It's certainly no worse than the problem of monoculture in the produce industry, in which genetic engineering would be a tremendous boon. We've already created numerous improvements on natural produce that could go a long way to curing malnutrition and starvation in the developing world, if people weren't seized by irrational fears concerning "frankenfoods".

I'm not worried about growing plants that are cloned, "frankenfoods", that to me is a no more threatening than hybrids and developing disease resistant strains. Though it does give me pause that cloned foods, deployed in millions of acres over and again, would encounter nature's variables and develop a problem. However, plants, food crops, are not complex organisms.

Animals are complex and limiting the gene pool by reproducing the same genetic code over and over, doesn't sound like a good idea. They would have to be charted over several lifetimes to in order observe if the gene pool selected would not develop genetic deficiencies/birth defects or be more prone to certain diseases. And even then, as you used the word monoculture, that is exactly what would result. Yes, I'm aware of Dolly the sheep. I'm not aware what number of generations she was been cloned to so far, but the unrestricted deployment of a few genetic lines, worries me.

Market capitalism relies on constant population growth for economic growth.

Some regions of the Earth are already overpopulated. Infinite growth of human populations cannot be sustained infinitely. Market capitalism is not a good enough reason to pursue it.

As above, any disease or deficiency can only spread as quickly as the afflicted humans can breed. Plus, there are enough people who would refuse such treatment to ensure sufficient control that such a disease or defect would never affect the whole population. This is one area where having multiple programs engineering different traits would be advantageous-- as long as different people are selecting for different traits and using different methods to achieve similar goals, genetic diversity is preserved.

As with animals, human clones would have to be charted for multiple lifetimes before the chosen genetic codes could be proven risk free and even then, living, complex, organisms are not impervious to nature's randomness. We are not mathematical equations that are guaranteed to give the same answer every time the same problem is worked. Exposure to random environmental factors alone, when living out in the world, could exploit an undetected genetic weakness.

Tobacco is a perfect historical example. Some heavy users are never effected by it, but for others, it's poisonous. There is no rhyme or reason for that, at this time. Other toxins could prove just as lethal to a finite genetic code but it would be unknown until after the fact and potentially after they pass those traits down to any offspring were they to have children.

The point is, why increase the chances of this by reproducing the same person again and again?

I've already noted that until technical problems are solved, I am opposed to cloning full human beings.

The answers to these issues are the same as they would be for defective children conceived and born naturally.

No, they cannot be dealt with in the same manner. The circumstances are different. There are parents involved in natural procreation. Who functions as a clone's parents? Doctors? Are they adopted out? Put in a "foster" system. Who advocates for the child when there are no parents?

Further, what of the psychological impact?

I see the problem with old eugenics programs being that they were racist and coercive. If new eugenics programs are neither racist nor coercive, I have absolutely no objection to the idea that the human condition can be improved through selective breeding and genetic engineering. Indeed, I believe that enhancing the human species should be a top priority for any society that is capable of doing so. Better humans-- humans that are healthier and smarter than the baseline-- would lead to more productivity, better living conditions, and less drain on our welfare, healthcare, and corrections systems. If you're concerned that such human improvement would lead to the creation of a genetic caste system, you can always advocate, as I do, for genetic engineering to be subsidized by the government so that it is available to everyone who wants it.

Yes, I am afraid of a caste system. What of those who are not "better human beings"? What of those people who's parents find the very idea repulsive and choose to roll the genetic dice and are thereby deemed inferior due to their natural birth and unknown genetic quantities?

Forget the government owning the program. That might make it available to everyone, but what happens when these "better human beings" enter the population? Humanity is hard wired to sort out differences and elevate the more "desirable" amongst us. These genetically improved, bred for certain success people are pre-determined to be superior to those who weren't and therefore are in line for preferential treatment. Or, if bred, like slaves were for manual labor, or cerebral labor or their warrior instincts for armies and never given an opportunity to have the life they would choose, but exploited for their genetic traits.

I never take for granted that all humans operate benignly, for the greater good of humanity. Greed is all around us, having decimated our financial systems and recently made a profound environmental impact. The actions of a stupid drunk in Alaska 20 years ago is still effect that community. So when such awesome power over humanity is developed, I fear for its subversion and perversion.

If we have the capacity to provide greater genetic traits for our children, I believe that we have a moral obligation to do so, just as we have the moral obligation to provide them the best nutrition, the best healthcare, and the best education. It is part of a greater moral obligation to give our children the greatest possible opportunities in life.

Indeed and through genetic therapies, that is a possibility. Cloning human beings is more than providing our children with the greatest possible opportunities. It could be defining humans by their genetic "gifts".

Because we could potentially do it, doesn't mean we should. Life, in all it's forms is varied, random magnificent and yes even tragic sometimes. The presumption that we could exercise ultimate control over it every time, is hubris.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Animals are complex and limiting the gene pool by reproducing the same genetic code over and over, doesn't sound like a good idea. They would have to be charted over several lifetimes to in order observe if the gene pool selected would not develop genetic deficiencies/birth defects or be more prone to certain diseases. And even then, as you used the word monoculture, that is exactly what would result. Yes, I'm aware of Dolly the sheep. I'm not aware what number of generations she was been cloned to so far, but the unrestricted deployment of a few genetic lines, worries me.

Cloning is, so far, much more expensive than mating livestock naturally. There's little risk of cloned livestock supplanting traditional methods.

Some regions of the Earth are already overpopulated. Infinite growth of human populations cannot be sustained infinitely. Market capitalism is not a good enough reason to pursue it.

And other parts of the Earth are practically uninhabited. The problem of overpopulation is not raw numbers of humanity, but poor distribution. As for the argument about market capitalism... when the markets fail, people become homeless and in extreme cases, they starve. The only way that nations with zero or negative population growth survive is by accepting large numbers of immigrants-- immigrants who are more than willing to reproduce enough to replace themselves and increase their population. What you are arguing for here leads to the extinction of developed and educated civilizations.

What if the clone is imperfect and emerges disabled? Who then is responsible for their care? What if the defect is profound? Is the clone then euthanized or forced to live in potential suffering?

The answers to these issues are the same as they would be for defective children conceived and born naturally.

No, they cannot be dealt with in the same manner. The circumstances are different. There are parents involved in natural procreation. Who functions as a clone's parents? Doctors? Are they adopted out? Put in a "foster" system. Who advocates for the child when there are no parents?

Cloned children must still be gestated naturally, and as human children, they are either the responsibility of their parents or of the State. What happens to defective infants when their parents are unwilling or unable to provide adequate care for them?

Further, what of the psychological impact?

What of it? Psychologically, what's the difference between a clone or a genetically engineered infant and an infant conceived via IVF?

Yes, I am afraid of a caste system. What of those who are not "better human beings"? What of those people who's parents find the very idea repulsive and choose to roll the genetic dice and are thereby deemed inferior due to their natural birth and unknown genetic quantities?

Everyone has their own innate talents; no two people are truly created equal. Our society does well without having any caste system for people who are more or less talented than the average, and certainly nobody is calling for measures to ensure that people with extraordinary talents are handicapped in order to provide for greater opportunities than people with normal or lesser talent. This is certainly no reason not to seek methods for developing greater talents among the population; the greater the average and the more extraordinary the above-average, the greater the contributions they make to society and the more all of our lives are enriched. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Forget the government owning the program. That might make it available to everyone, but what happens when these "better human beings" enter the population? Humanity is hard wired to sort out differences and elevate the more "desirable" amongst us. These genetically improved, bred for certain success people are pre-determined to be superior to those who weren't and therefore are in line for preferential treatment. Or, if bred, like slaves were for manual labor, or cerebral labor or their warrior instincts for armies and never given an opportunity to have the life they would choose, but exploited for their genetic traits.

That's a form of slavery, which has been rightfully outlawed. The situation you describe would require the reinstatement of slavery. If a person is naturally suited to manual labor, or intellectual pursuits, or military service by the abilities they were born with, do you argue that they are denied the choice to pursue their preferred careers? Superior humans would have more choices, by virtue of being talented in more fields.

Because we could potentially do it, doesn't mean we should. Life, in all it's forms is varied, random magnificent and yes even tragic sometimes. The presumption that we could exercise ultimate control over it every time, is hubris.

I'm not arguing we would have perfect control, only that we would be capable of improving the average and producing more extraordinary people than leaving it to nature. We could have more magnificent talents and fewer tragedies. Nothing is perfect, but that's no reason that we shouldn't strive for improvement using every tool at our disposal.

 

[Gina]

Cloning is, so far, much more expensive than mating livestock naturally. There's little risk of cloned livestock supplanting traditional methods.

But you are disappointed there is not more moral support for research. Meaning, you would like to see it expanded?

And other parts of the Earth are practically uninhabited. The problem of overpopulation is not raw numbers of humanity, but poor distribution. As for the argument about market capitalism... when the markets fail, people become homeless and in extreme cases, they starve. The only way that nations with zero or negative population growth survive is by accepting large numbers of immigrants-- immigrants who are more than willing to reproduce enough to replace themselves and increase their population. What you are arguing for here leads to the extinction of developed and educated civilizations.

Indeed, as long as people immigrate, and they have in great numbers to European countries suffering from "birth dearth", there is no need to add more humanity to the planet.

Looking at what you wrote, you are advocating for "developed and educated" populations to clone.

1. That smacks of nationalism. The "right" kind of people must be replaced.

2. If people don't want to procreate in numbers that will replace them in the population, how is cloning the answer? As you state below, a clone must be gestated in a human uterus. If women aren't using them now to produce their own children, how would cloning solve the problem? Or are you suggesting the "undeveloped and uneducated" will carry clones?

Cloned children must still be gestated naturally, and as human children, they are either the responsibility of their parents or of the State. What happens to defective infants when their parents are unwilling or unable to provide adequate care for them?

So you are imagining a giant surrogacy program, wherein clones are "adopted" out to the gestating parent from the get-go? Fair enough.

What of it? Psychologically, what's the difference between a clone or a genetically engineered infant and an infant conceived via IVF?

I'm sorry I had a point to make on this, but as I've been unable to spend any time here replying, I've forgotten what it was.

Everyone has their own innate talents; no two people are truly created equal. Our society does well without having any caste system for people who are more or less talented than the average, and certainly nobody is calling for measures to ensure that people with extraordinary talents are handicapped in order to provide for greater opportunities than people with normal or lesser talent. This is certainly no reason not to seek methods for developing greater talents among the population; the greater the average and the more extraordinary the above-average, the greater the contributions they make to society and the more all of our lives are enriched. A rising tide lifts all boats.

That's a form of slavery, which has been rightfully outlawed. The situation you describe would require the reinstatement of slavery. If a person is naturally suited to manual labor, or intellectual pursuits, or military service by the abilities they were born with, do you argue that they are denied the choice to pursue their preferred careers? Superior humans would have more choices, by virtue of being talented in more fields.


I'm not arguing we would have perfect control, only that we would be capable of improving the average and producing more extraordinary people than leaving it to nature. We could have more magnificent talents and fewer tragedies. Nothing is perfect, but that's no reason that we shouldn't strive for improvement using every tool at our disposal.

As I said before, the temptation to "breed" human beings for specific talents, cannot be over looked. Unscrupulous, unethical people abound in all walks of life. I think that is of legitimate concern. Greed and megalomania exist in our nature.

Here are the reasons human reproductive cloning is potentially dangerous situation and one so full of horrific risks as to be ethically avoided.

What are the risks of cloning?

Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long-term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death.

In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes.

Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called "imprinting" chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos.

For more details on the risks associated with cloning, see the Cloning Problems links below.

Should humans be cloned?

Physicians from the American Medical Association and scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued formal public statements advising against human reproductive cloning. The U.S. Congress has considered the passage of legislation that could ban human cloning. See the Policy and Legislation links below.

Due to the inefficiency of animal cloning (only about 1 or 2 viable offspring for every 100 experiments) and the lack of understanding about reproductive cloning, many scientists and physicians strongly believe that it would be unethical to attempt to clone humans. Not only do most attempts to clone mammals fail, about 30% of clones born alive are affected with "large-offspring syndrome" and other debilitating conditions. Several cloned animals have died prematurely from infections and other complications. The same problems would be expected in human cloning. In addition, scientists do not know how cloning could impact mental development. While factors such as intellect and mood may not be as important for a cow or a mouse, they are crucial for the development of healthy humans. With so many unknowns concerning reproductive cloning, the attempt to clone humans at this time is considered potentially dangerous and ethically irresponsible. See the Cloning Ethics links below for more information about the human cloning debate.

Cloning Fact Sheet

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

But you are disappointed there is not more moral support for research. Meaning, you would like to see it expanded?

I'd like to see the research expanded. As near as I can tell, there's little practical use for cloning except for the production of perfect transplant organs and identical test subjects. However, as I've noted, the research itself will lend valuable insight into the science of genetics-- insight that can be used to develop more practical techniques.

Indeed, as long as people immigrate, and they have in great numbers to European countries suffering from "birth dearth", there is no need to add more humanity to the planet.

I'm not interested in the mass of humanity. I'm interested in Americans, people who share my culture and common values. Those European countries suffering "birth dearth" are committing demographic suicide. The immigrants who are "replacing" them are not members of their culture and do not share the same values and customs. They are, in essence, not replacing the dying Europeans at all but instead expanding their own cultures into Europe at the spiritual and cultural expense of the European peoples. I am not terribly concerned about this, as I am no more European than an "African-American" is an actual African; however, it does sadden me to see a culture withering and dying for no other reason than it has lost the will to live.

Looking at what you wrote, you are advocating for "developed and educated" populations to clone.

1. That smacks of nationalism. The "right" kind of people must be replaced.

2. If people don't want to procreate in numbers that will replace them in the population, how is cloning the answer? As you state below, a clone must be gestated in a human uterus. If women aren't using them now to produce their own children, how would cloning solve the problem? Or are you suggesting the "undeveloped and uneducated" will carry clones?

No, this does not accurately represent my beliefs. First, reproductive cloning is an evolutionary dead end. Second, the traits of "developed and educated" people that I wish to preserve are not genetic; cloning them is pointless. What is necessary is that those "developed and educated people" raise developed and educated children, in accordance with the customs and values of their own people. The genetic makeup of those children matters little, except that as in all creatures, it can be improved upon.

As for your accusation of nationalism, I do not deny it and I challenge you to give a single reason that it is wrong. If the various peoples of Earth are truly different and their diversity ought to be preserved, then it is imperative for each individual person to be concerned first and foremost with the preservation of their own kind. I am proud to identify myself as a nationalist.

As I said before, the temptation to "breed" human beings for specific talents, cannot be over looked. Unscrupulous, unethical people abound in all walks of life. I think that is of legitimate concern. Greed and megalomania exist in our nature.

I am not afraid of breeding human beings for specific, narrow talents-- because in the process we are at least guaranteeing that they will possess some talent. Despite the actions of the greedy and megalomaniacal, or indeed because of their actions, genetically engineered children will be generally superior to the baseline of the species and in the long term, such advantages will accrue until the baseline of humanity is superior to the humanity of today. That is worth the price of the mistakes and the unethical exploitations that will occur along the way-- and there is no reason why we cannot take measures to prevent such exploitations from occurring without a blanket prohibition on genetic enhancement procedures. If you'll pardon the expression, there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Here are the reasons human reproductive cloning is potentially dangerous situation and one so full of horrific risks as to be ethically avoided.

Cloning Fact Sheet

These are specifically technical problems, and I have already expressed my objection to human cloning until such time as the technology improves.

 

[Gina]

I'd like to see the research expanded. As near as I can tell, there's little practical use for cloning except for the production of perfect transplant organs and identical test subjects. However, as I've noted, the research itself will lend valuable insight into the science of genetics-- insight that can be used to develop more practical techniques.



I'm not interested in the mass of humanity. I'm interested in Americans, people who share my culture and common values. Those European countries suffering "birth dearth" are committing demographic suicide. The immigrants who are "replacing" them are not members of their culture and do not share the same values and customs. They are, in essence, not replacing the dying Europeans at all but instead expanding their own cultures into Europe at the spiritual and cultural expense of the European peoples. I am not terribly concerned about this, as I am no more European than an "African-American" is an actual African; however, it does sadden me to see a culture withering and dying for no other reason than it has lost the will to live.



No, this does not accurately represent my beliefs. First, reproductive cloning is an evolutionary dead end. Second, the traits of "developed and educated" people that I wish to preserve are not genetic; cloning them is pointless. What is necessary is that those "developed and educated people" raise developed and educated children, in accordance with the customs and values of their own people. The genetic makeup of those children matters little, except that as in all creatures, it can be improved upon.

As for your accusation of nationalism, I do not deny it and I challenge you to give a single reason that it is wrong. If the various peoples of Earth are truly different and their diversity ought to be preserved, then it is imperative for each individual person to be concerned first and foremost with the preservation of their own kind. I am proud to identify myself as a nationalist.



I am not afraid of breeding human beings for specific, narrow talents-- because in the process we are at least guaranteeing that they will possess some talent. Despite the actions of the greedy and megalomaniacal, or indeed because of their actions, genetically engineered children will be generally superior to the baseline of the species and in the long term, such advantages will accrue until the baseline of humanity is superior to the humanity of today. That is worth the price of the mistakes and the unethical exploitations that will occur along the way-- and there is no reason why we cannot take measures to prevent such exploitations from occurring without a blanket prohibition on genetic enhancement procedures. If you'll pardon the expression, there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.



These are specifically technical problems, and I have already expressed my objection to human cloning until such time as the technology improves.

Respectfully, you are all over the map, I'm not sure where you stand. Would you mind clarifying?

Do you want to pursue cloning of human beings? I ask because you say in your first statement above that you see little practicality in it beyond transplant organ, but then defend the idea of nationalism and cloning Americans to preserve our culture. You also claim it is an evolutionary dead end.

So I'm confused on that point.

It is precisely because of your comments supporting nationalism and "breeding" that I object to reproductive cloning. You care not for the good of humanity but for the good of your nation. What is another nation, hostile to the USA were to pursue cloning for the same reason? Is that not a threat to Americans? Do you see how that purpose would be perceived by the world at large were our country to undertake a cloning program for that reason? What if we lost?

Further, your desire to see the baseline of humanity rise is mitigated by nationalism. You don't necessarily want humanity to rise, but American humanity. That could easily be subverted into creating a super warrior class to defend the nation, thereby creating a caste and limiting the freedom of those individuals to choose the life they would live. You think restrictions could be used to forbid it, but you have provided the perfect justification for it, nationalism.

9/11 was used to as an excuse for all manner of intrusions into our lives.

Much evil has been perpetrated by the concept of nationalism.

One last point, if women/couples are electing not to have children of their own, creating a birth dearth, how would you persaude them to carry clones?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Respectfully, you are all over the map, I'm not sure where you stand. Would you mind clarifying?

I would be happy to, and I apologize for any confusion.

Do you want to pursue cloning of human beings? I ask because you say in your first statement above that you see little practicality in it beyond transplant organ, but then defend the idea of nationalism and cloning Americans to preserve our culture. You also claim it is an evolutionary dead end.

Yes, I want to pursue cloning of human beings, but not for reproductive purposes. I got sidetracked on the issue of reproduction because of your argument that this planet does not need more humans. I support the genetic engineering of human beings to preserve and improve our culture and our society, but cloning itself is an evolutionary dead end because it does not allow for new combinations of DNA.

It is precisely because of your comments supporting nationalism and "breeding" that I object to reproductive cloning. You care not for the good of humanity but for the good of your nation. What is another nation, hostile to the USA were to pursue cloning for the same reason? Is that not a threat to Americans? Do you see how that purpose would be perceived by the world at large were our country to undertake a cloning program for that reason? What if we lost?

Because you believe that our enemies might pursue this technology, you want to prevent America from developing it? I would think that would be a greater argument in favor of developing this technology, and as quickly as possible.

And as far as starting a genetic arms race, I cannot imagine a better outcome for the future of humanity. Providing that much incentive for enhancing the human genome would lead to much stronger evolutionary pressure than strictly peacetime applications.

Further, your desire to see the baseline of humanity rise is mitigated by nationalism. You don't necessarily want humanity to rise, but American humanity.

I fail to see the problem here. In any case, do you think that any such improvements will not spread to the rest of humanity?

That could easily be subverted into creating a super warrior class to defend the nation, thereby creating a caste and limiting the freedom of those individuals to choose the life they would live. You think restrictions could be used to forbid it, but you have provided the perfect justification for it, nationalism.

What you are describing is slavery. Slavery is already outlawed, and I do not support its reinstatement. If you are arguing that the talents of bred super soldiers would unduly influence them into military careers, I might point out that all of us are limited in the lives we choose to live by our innate talents; super soldiers might be ideally suited to military life, but unless they were handicapped in some fashion, they would have the same range of talents and interests as baseline humans and would have just as much choice in what careers to pursue.

One last point, if women/couples are electing not to have children of their own, creating a birth dearth, how would you persaude them to carry clones?

Hopefully, by convincing them to reject foolish and short-sighted arguments about why having large families is "selfish" or "irrational".

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Meh, Gallup. Of course a poll with only two options (acceptable/unacceptable) is going to seem more divisive. I don't like it because it waters down the argument and the data. Theres also ambiguity as to the implication of deeming something morally unacceptable, some of these options are for things that are not legal or are a legal punishment (death penalty) which could lead to confusion as to what deeming something morally unacceptable would logically entail. Deeming something moral or immoral may seem like a decision to keep it illegal or an advocation of legalizing something for example.

 

[Gina]

I would be happy to, and I apologize for any confusion.



Yes, I want to pursue cloning of human beings, but not for reproductive purposes. I got sidetracked on the issue of reproduction because of your argument that this planet does not need more humans. I support the genetic engineering of human beings to preserve and improve our culture and our society, but cloning itself is an evolutionary dead end because it does not allow for new combinations of DNA.

Thank you, I too support cloning for the purpose of organs. Isn’t genetic engineering an entirely different concept? Doesn’t that fall under the same category as (but not identical to) stem cell research?

Because you believe that our enemies might pursue this technology, you want to prevent America from developing it? I would think that would be a greater argument in favor of developing this technology, and as quickly as possible.

And as far as starting a genetic arms race, I cannot imagine a better outcome for the future of humanity. Providing that much incentive for enhancing the human genome would lead to much stronger evolutionary pressure than strictly peacetime applications.



I fail to see the problem here. In any case, do you think that any such improvements will not spread to the rest of humanity?



What you are describing is slavery. Slavery is already outlawed, and I do not support its reinstatement. If you are arguing that the talents of bred super soldiers would unduly influence them into military careers, I might point out that all of us are limited in the lives we choose to live by our innate talents; super soldiers might be ideally suited to military life, but unless they were handicapped in some fashion, they would have the same range of talents and interests as baseline humans and would have just as much choice in what careers to pursue.

Hopefully, by convincing them to reject foolish and short-sighted arguments about why having large families is "selfish" or "irrational".

One last clarification, if you are against reproductive cloning, what is that portion of your reply about? That sounds like cloned embryos are created in a lab and implanted.

As for the rest of your reply, IF you do not support reproductive cloning, the rest of the discussion would be semantically splitting hairs.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Thank you, I too support cloning for the purpose of organs. Isn’t genetic engineering an entirely different concept? Doesn’t that fall under the same category as (but not identical to) stem cell research?

I believe cloning will provide insight into the functions of various genes, enhancing our ability to use genetic engineering intelligently.

One last clarification, if you are against reproductive cloning, what is that portion of your reply about? That sounds like cloned embryos are created in a lab and implanted.

You made an argument against cloning based on overpopulation. I am against reproductive cloning, but the argument to overpopulation suggests that we should also seek to reduce the natural birth rate-- something I am vehemently opposed to.

 

[Gina]

I believe cloning will provide insight into the functions of various genes, enhancing our ability to use genetic engineering intelligently.



You made an argument against cloning based on overpopulation. I am against reproductive cloning, but the argument to overpopulation suggests that we should also seek to reduce the natural birth rate-- something I am vehemently opposed to.

If you wouldn't mind further clarifying, what does genetic engineering mean to you?

I used overpopulation as one argument against reproductive cloning, but it was not the only reason I'm not in favor of it. I didn't not ever say we should reduce natural birth rates and made no such suggestion. Were countries which are densely populated already, to undertake reproductive cloning, it could be devastating.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If you wouldn't mind further clarifying, what does genetic engineering mean to you?

Inserting, removing, or replacing certain genes within an organism-- in this case, a human zygote-- in order to achieve a desired effect.

 

[Demon of Light]

But that's besides the point, the problem with these 4 moral issues is religion... plain and simple religion comes in with these arguments everytime. I'm not advocating the abolition of Religion, you know believe what you wanna believe it's a free country yada yada yada... but what a world it would be without Allah, God, Yahweh and Jehovah...

Don't worry, we'd find other reasons to hate and kill each other, like the French-Chinese thinking they have a right to Hawaii.

 

[Goshin]

Don't worry, we'd find other reasons to hate and kill each other, like the French-Chinese thinking they have a right to Hawaii.

Most wars are ultimately about economics, no matter what causus-belli the leadership may use to motivate the population.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans



Some interesting findings in here.

I'm most surprised by the number of Americans who consider polygamy acceptable-- one in ten men and one in twenty women. Independents are twice as likely to accept polygamy than either Democrats or Republicans-- one of the few issues in which Independents do not fall neatly between the two major parties.

I'm also disappointed by the very high numbers in favor of divorce and the very low numbers in favor of cloning.

A = acceptable, W = wrong:

The numbers are actually humerous in some areas. It's WRONG to kil yourself ( 15% A, 77% W ) unless you have a DR help you, then it's a lot better ( 46% A/W ). This here prove that most people don't believe others can think for their selves unless a Dr says it's ok.

It's also funny that having a baby outside of marriage is the ONLY THING that more women approve of than men.

Further, liberals make "sense" - there seems to be more balance between what type of thing are OK and what isn't OK. Republicans make a little less sense in this way.
Such as: homosexuality, abortion, suicide (dr and self), and animal cloning rank lower with Republicans than with Democrats - however, with Rrepublicans things that seem in senseless contrast are a higher than Democrat support for: death penalty and medical testing on animals.

So - it's OK - to kill someone for what they've done or test on animals, but if you want to kill yourself or an unborn child, clone a damn animal, or even **** someone who's the same gender as you - you're **** out of luck.

:rofl

Animal testing + Dr assisted suicide + death by state = OK because a Dr's there.
So why's abortion not acceptable? He's a Dr? :shrug:

Oh, sorry, yes - there's an ethical balance somewhere in there.

 

[reefedjib]

I notice the distinct lack of a question about smoking pot or using drugs. This is a hot button item for me today for reasons I won't get into. I'll just say that smoking pot years ago has affected an opportunity today. That is just ****ing unfair and I don't even believe in fairness. heh.

 

[Goshin]

A = acceptable, W = wrong:

The numbers are actually humerous in some areas. It's WRONG to kil yourself ( 15% A, 77% W ) unless you have a DR help you, then it's a lot better ( 46% A/W ). This here prove that most people don't believe others can think for their selves unless a Dr says it's ok.

It's also funny that having a baby outside of marriage is the ONLY THING that more women approve of than men.

Further, liberals make "sense" - there seems to be more balance between what type of thing are OK and what isn't OK. Republicans make a little less sense in this way.
Such as: homosexuality, abortion, suicide (dr and self), and animal cloning rank lower with Republicans than with Democrats - however, with Rrepublicans things that seem in senseless contrast are a higher than Democrat support for: death penalty and medical testing on animals.

So - it's OK - to kill someone for what they've done or test on animals, but if you want to kill yourself or an unborn child, clone a damn animal, or even **** someone who's the same gender as you - you're **** out of luck.

:rofl

Animal testing + Dr assisted suicide + death by state = OK because a Dr's there.
So why's abortion not acceptable? He's a Dr? :shrug:

Oh, sorry, yes - there's an ethical balance somewhere in there.

:shrug: Makes perfect sense to me, except for the resistance to cloning. :mrgreen:

 

[Zyphlin]

You want to abolish the Confederation of Super Best Friends? *

(* obligatory Southpark reference).

Sure, just replace it with the Allied Athiest Allegiance, the United Athiest Alliance, and the Unified Athiest League. Just watch out for the otters.

 

[Dav]

The numbers are actually humerous in some areas. It's WRONG to kil yourself ( 15% A, 77% W ) unless you have a DR help you, then it's a lot better ( 46% A/W ). This here prove that most people don't believe others can think for their selves unless a Dr says it's ok.

There's a very big difference between killing yourself because you feel depressed, and killing yourself (with a doctor's help) because you're going to die soon anyways and all you have to look forward to is pain. I've explained in an earlier post why I would consider the latter acceptable and not the former.

Further, liberals make "sense" - there seems to be more balance between what type of thing are OK and what isn't OK. Republicans make a little less sense in this way.
Such as: homosexuality, abortion, suicide (dr and self), and animal cloning rank lower with Republicans than with Democrats - however, with Rrepublicans things that seem in senseless contrast are a higher than Democrat support for: death penalty and medical testing on animals.

So - it's OK - to kill someone for what they've done or test on animals, but if you want to kill yourself or an unborn child, clone a damn animal, or even **** someone who's the same gender as you - you're **** out of luck.

:rofl

They seem "senseless in comparison" by YOUR standards. That's the whole point of this poll - different people have different standards. The issues you brought up are all completely unrelated, and there's no contradiction in opposing the one you see as mild and not the one you see as extreme.

By the same logic, I could say: "So it's okay to kill a completely innocent baby just because they happen to be reliant on the mother since she couldn't just keep her legs closed, but it's not okay to kill a thug who murdered several people in cold blood just for kicks. Right, makes perfect sense." Except that it does make perfect sense, because they are completely different issues which rely on completely different sets of standards.

Animal testing + Dr assisted suicide + death by state = OK because a Dr's there.
So why's abortion not acceptable? He's a Dr? :shrug:

The presence of the doctor has nothing to do with any of it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

You made reasonable points with the rest of your post so I'll just respond to this:

There's a very big difference between killing yourself because you feel depressed, and killing yourself (with a doctor's help) because you're going to die soon anyways and all you have to look forward to is pain. I've explained in an earlier post why I would consider the latter acceptable and not the former.

You're looking at someone's personal *reasons* and deeming what's acceptable per these reasons:
Reason = I'm sad
Reason = life sucks
Reason = I'm sick
Reason = I'm going to die slowly, might as well get it over with.

I'm looking at action:

Action = Removing ones self from the earth alone
Action = Removing ones self from the earth with help

The only difference that I see between these two is that in a Dr assisted suicide situation (traditional means) is that the person ties up lose ends and actually makes a plan to do it. The kids, finances and other things will be taken care of.

When someone commits suicide (most of the time) these things aren't taken care of. Expressly, these things aren't taken care of, no one is consulted, and everyone who is left behind has to clean up the person's mess.

But, still, I uphold the action - and would only encourage someone committing suicide to try to see to it that their children are being cared for and that they aren't passing the buck onto someone else.