• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is It Morally Acceptable To Kill A Clone?

Pozessed

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
934
Reaction score
217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,099
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.

I don't think it makes any difference the method by which the zygote is created. Once it exists it may be treated just as any other zygote is treated. If a baby has resulted from the replication of one individual's DNA it is a human being nonetheless and should be treated as such.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,141
Reaction score
21,231
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One would have to consider a fully-born cloned human being "property" in order to treat it as a disposable non-human entity.

That is the mentality of every slaver in history.

It is one thing to clone a part, like a new heart, arm, etc.

Quite another to clone an entire thinking, feeling human being and then treat him/her like property.

So, no; it would not be morally acceptable to clone a human being and then kill him/her. :no:
 
Last edited:

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,705
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.

depends upon the age of the clone

destroying a test tube clone, no problem

destroying a fully formed and functioning clone, no thus a line would have be drawn
 

GEIxBattleRifle

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
3,306
Reaction score
1,024
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
One would have to consider a fully-born cloned human being "property" in order to treat it as a disposable non-human entity.

That is the mentality of every slaver in history.

It is one thing to clone a part, like a new heart, arm, etc.

Quite another to clone an entire thinking, feeling human being and then treat him/her like property.

So, no; it would not be morally acceptable to clone a human being and then kill him/her. :no:

Using the word "being" synonymously with "person" and not using the existence definition correct?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,141
Reaction score
21,231
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Using the word "being" synonymously with "person" correct?

Using the term "being" to mean the stage of development where there is a viable human baby capable of surviving outside the womb. I am Pro-choice during the early stages of human embryonic development.
 

GEIxBattleRifle

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
3,306
Reaction score
1,024
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Using the term "being" to mean the stage of development where there is a viable human baby capable of surviving outside the womb. I am Pro-choice during the early stages of human embryonic development.
Thanks for the clarification. :)
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Depends how developed the clone is. For me to consider something a person, in the moral sense, it must have a mind. So if the clone's brain is developed enough that thought and awareness is capable, it is wrong to terminate it. Prior to that there isn't a person so I have no problem terminating.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.

According to some anti-choicers, one of the things that makes it immoral to kill a newly conceived zygote is that it has unique DNA. According to that logic, it would be moral to kill a clone because its' DNA is not unique. The same goes for identical twins.

But my position is based on the laws set through the democratic process so it's acceptable to abort a clone up until its' born.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.

No. Though if he did so, it would be morally acceptable for the state to execute him for murder.
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,405
Reaction score
4,811
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.

Before I can respond I need you to clarify at what point in the clone's development the scientist intends to destroy the clone. Thanx.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I can't help but find it interesting that peoples morality seems to depend on the word person. A word that I might that has no objective basis whatsoever.

I also can't help but find it interesting that in the abortion debate people find it morally acceptable to kill a human being at a certain stage of development.

Well, as long as it doesn't know that I killed it, it's fine. What in the actual **** is that train of thought?
 

ajn678

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
7,966
Reaction score
3,395
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can't help but find it interesting that peoples morality seems to depend on the word person. A word that I might that has no objective basis whatsoever.

I also can't help but find it interesting that in the abortion debate people find it morally acceptable to kill a human being at a certain stage of development.

Well, as long as it doesn't know that I killed it, it's fine. What in the actual **** is that train of thought?

When a human is born, they receive the rights that any other person alive would. That is the train of thought. It really isn't that hard to understand, unless you think every human being is a miraculous gift from god that has a soul. And even then, at least that being won't be born into the world so that they can sin and send themselves to hell like the majority of the world population.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When a human is born, they receive the rights that any other person alive would. That is the train of thought. It really isn't that hard to understand, unless you think every human being is a miraculous gift from god that has a soul. And even then, at least that being won't be born into the world so that they can sin and send themselves to hell like the majority of the world population.

It's a question of morality, not a question of law. When I'm asking you a question on your own morality I'm not looking for some legalize about what you think is a person or not. I don't care about legal terms or legality that speak towards how the state views the topic. What I want is what your conscience tells you about the subject and your reasoning for feeling that way. That's really all I want from you, and telling me some pointless drivel about legalize is frankly doing it wrong.
 

prometeus

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
24,884
Reaction score
10,606
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I can't help but find it interesting that peoples morality seems to depend on the word person.
Perhaps if you took the time to educate yourself about the meaning that most people associate with the word, then you would find it not just interesting but relevant.

A word that I might that has no objective basis whatsoever.
In your world probably not, but such limitations are not applicable to reality.

I also can't help but find it interesting that in the abortion debate people find it morally acceptable to kill a human being at a certain stage of development.
And that too is due to YOUR limitations only.

Well, as long as it doesn't know that I killed it, it's fine.
And such stupid remarks ARE the result of the previously mentioned limitation.

What in the actual **** is that train of thought?
Why do you ask since it clearly is way beyond what you care about or can understand?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Perhaps if you took the time to educate yourself about the meaning that most people associate with the word, then you would find it not just interesting but relevant.

In your world probably not, but such limitations are not applicable to reality.

And that too is due to YOUR limitations only.

And such stupid remarks ARE the result of the previously mentioned limitation.

Why do you ask since it clearly is way beyond what you care about or can understand?

Try putting more personal insults in your posts if you can. /sarcasm
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,630
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I want to assume that a scientist has created a clone of himself. A perfect replica of the scientist as a baby. This clone has developed the same as any other human aside from it was created in a lab. I also want to assume that the clone would live a happy and normal life if released into society.

Is it morally acceptable for the scientist to destroy the clone because the scientist found it undesirable? Please elaborate.
Yes. There can only be one! [emoji12]
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's a question of morality, not a question of law. When I'm asking you a question on your own morality I'm not looking for some legalize about what you think is a person or not. I don't care about legal terms or legality that speak towards how the state views the topic. What I want is what your conscience tells you about the subject and your reasoning for feeling that way. That's really all I want from you, and telling me some pointless drivel about legalize is frankly doing it wrong.

You completely skipped around the primary points made by ajn678.

Quote Originally Posted by ajn678 View Post

When a human is born, they receive the rights that any other person alive would. That is the train of thought. It really isn't that hard to understand, unless you think every human being is a miraculous gift from god that has a soul.
And even then, at least that being won't be born into the world so that they can sin and send themselves to hell like the majority of the world population.

If you have a heart-felt belief that abortion is immoral, great, don't have one. Don't have a relationship with someone who believes abortion is a choice and is moral.

Meanwhile how is the rest of the world's reproductive activities, births or abortions any of your personal concern? Do you fear that the world will end because of abortion?

There's plenty of evidence that the world population is doing just fine...and despite all of the forms of death of BORN persons throughout history. Abortions aren't counted as human being population deaths, by the way. If not born - they didn't, do, or will exist. The yet to be born aren't counted in our census. Do believe they should be?

Hell, almost half of the world population was wiped out in the early 1300s because of the bubonic plague and human populations bounced right back.

Do you believe in a supernatural entity going to punish humanity for every abortion performed? There's quite a few religions, which don't hold that belief. Minnie's taken the time to list all of those.

Oh, and while you hate legal anything - we are a nation ruled by laws. Legal is 100% necessary.
 

Pozessed

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
934
Reaction score
217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Before I can respond I need you to clarify at what point in the clone's development the scientist intends to destroy the clone. Thanx.

I left that open for consideration. People argue that it would be moral so long as the clone could not sustain on its own. Others have argued that the clone would be the scientists property to do as he wished.
You can imagine the clone coming to existence however you'd like. Some people offered the idea of growing from a test tube. Others the idea of walking into a machine and he is replicated in real-time.
My interest is in finding where people consider a clone to become less property and more person. So far the majority of respondents would rather have a clone as a neighbor than see one suffer.
 

Arcana XV

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,405
Reaction score
4,811
Location
Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I left that open for consideration. People argue that it would be moral so long as the clone could not sustain on its own. Others have argued that the clone would be the scientists property to do as he wished.
You can imagine the clone coming to existence however you'd like. Some people offered the idea of growing from a test tube. Others the idea of walking into a machine and he is replicated in real-time.
My interest is in finding where people consider a clone to become less property and more person. So far the majority of respondents would rather have a clone as a neighbor than see one suffer.

Alright. Well, seeing as science has not progressed to the point of being able to grow a fetus outside a woman's body, our hypothetical scientist is going to have to find a surrogate to carry and give birth to the clone. In which case the same laws apply as if the fetus was conceived in more conventional ways. Once it is successfully implanted in a woman's uterus, she and only she can decide to terminate the pregnancy within the legal limits of each country. After the clone is born, he is granted the legal rights and protections all born human beings get and therefore the scientist has no legal right to kill this new person.
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's a question of morality, not a question of law. When I'm asking you a question on your own morality I'm not looking for some legalize about what you think is a person or not. I don't care about legal terms or legality that speak towards how the state views the topic. What I want is what your conscience tells you about the subject and your reasoning for feeling that way. That's really all I want from you, and telling me some pointless drivel about legalize is frankly doing it wrong.

Moral reasoning was being used by the Roe v Wade panel of Justices when they looked at the provisions within the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, which were also created from employing moral reasoning.

Morals in and of themselves are subjective. Moral reasoning is a process used to examine moral dilemmas.

If your moral stance on abortion doesn't agree with legal options, then you are not compelled by law to go against your morals to engage in a behavior that is legal.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Moral reasoning was being used by the Roe v Wade panel of Justices when they looked at the provisions within the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, which were also created from employing moral reasoning.

Morals in and of themselves are subjective. Moral reasoning is a process used to examine moral dilemmas.

If your moral stance on abortion doesn't agree with legal options, then you are not compelled by law to go against your morals to engage in a behavior that is legal.

It was more like rationalizing. They didn't want to ban abortion, but they also didn't want the woman to have unlimited access to abortion, so they came up with this idea of viability, which acts as a middle ground between the two extremes. I really don't buy for one moment that they used morality there, sorry.
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It was more like rationalizing. They didn't want to ban abortion, but they also didn't want the woman to have unlimited access to abortion, so they came up with this idea of viability, which acts as a middle ground between the two extremes. I really don't buy for one moment that they used morality there, sorry.

Your answer...No surprise. You still don't get the difference between morals and moral reasoning.
 
Top Bottom