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 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.
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" correct?
Thanks for the clarification.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.
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 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 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 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.
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.I can't help but find it interesting that peoples morality seems to depend on the word person.
In your world probably not, but such limitations are not applicable to reality.A word that I might that has no objective basis whatsoever.
And that too is due to YOUR limitations only.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 such stupid remarks ARE the result of the previously mentioned limitation.Well, as long as it doesn't know that I killed it, it's fine.
Why do you ask since it clearly is way beyond what you care about or can understand?What in the actual **** is that train of thought?
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?
Yes. There can only be one! [emoji12]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.
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.
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.
Yes. There can only be one! [emoji12]
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.
Truth bites eh?Try putting more personal insults in your posts if you can. /sarcasm
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?