Would you want someone else to clone you? (1 Viewer)

[Lutherf]

Owner of John Lennon's tooth hopes to clone the late Beatle - NBC News.com

The dentist who purchased John Lennon's rotten molar for $31,000 at a 2011 auction now has plans for the tooth: He's getting it genetically sequenced in the hopes of cloning the musician, who died in 1980.

Seriously?

On the crazy freaky scale this one rates an 11.

I mean, we've all done the "if I could clone myself" bit but we're talking about cloning someone else. How messed up is that? Haven't we all seen Jurassic Park and that Steven King deal with the dead cat coming back from the dead. How'd those turn out?

Man, this is just a bad idea.

 

[StillBallin75]

as long as it's after I'm dead, then no.

 

[Fisher]

Owner of John Lennon's tooth hopes to clone the late Beatle - NBC News.com



Seriously?

On the crazy freaky scale this one rates an 11.

I mean, we've all done the "if I could clone myself" bit but we're talking about cloning someone else. How messed up is that? Haven't we all seen Jurassic Park and that Steven King deal with the dead cat coming back from the dead. How'd those turn out?

Man, this is just a bad idea.

Good thing he is not trying to clone sir Paul since he was killed in a car crash and replaced by a look alike.

 

[ecofarm]

I would like a couple giant-mes and a few mini-mes.

 

[CanadaJohn]

This makes me wonder about something I haven't heard talked about since cloning became possible, at least in theory, if not yet ready for human prime time.

Remember all those people who had their heads/bodies frozen so that if sometime in the future a cure could be found for what killed them, they could come back and resume living with the cure applied to their "resurrected" bodies. Well, what if you could clone the balance of your body and they unfreeze your brain and pop it back into the new you? Would that be something you'd consider? Likewise, what if you became a quadraplegic in a traffic accident but had all your mental functions - why bother trying to regenerate the nerves or whatever else is keeping you from movement and go straight to the new body and plop your existing head on it?

It sounds gruesome and definitely nutty, but seems like a more attractive option to me than having a totally new you created that has none of the essence of you in it.

 

[Lutherf]

This makes me wonder about something I haven't heard talked about since cloning became possible, at least in theory, if not yet ready for human prime time.

Remember all those people who had their heads/bodies frozen so that if sometime in the future a cure could be found for what killed them, they could come back and resume living with the cure applied to their "resurrected" bodies. Well, what if you could clone the balance of your body and they unfreeze your brain and pop it back into the new you? Would that be something you'd consider? Likewise, what if you became a quadraplegic in a traffic accident but had all your mental functions - why bother trying to regenerate the nerves or whatever else is keeping you from movement and go straight to the new body and plop your existing head on it?

It sounds gruesome and definitely nutty, but seems like a more attractive option to me than having a totally new you created that has none of the essence of you in it.

Try this on for size.....your ex-wife clones you and marries your clone.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Try this on for size.....your ex-wife clones you and marries your clone.

Sounds fine to me - no more alimony.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I once told my wife I wanted to clone her. One could cook all the time, one could clean all the time and one could take care of my sex needs all the time. She didn't laugh.

 

[lizzie]

No, I would not want someone to clone me. I'm dangerous enough as it is. :lol:

 

[Goshin]

Owner of John Lennon's tooth hopes to clone the late Beatle - NBC News.com



Seriously?

On the crazy freaky scale this one rates an 11.

I mean, we've all done the "if I could clone myself" bit but we're talking about cloning someone else. How messed up is that? Haven't we all seen Jurassic Park and that Steven King deal with the dead cat coming back from the dead. How'd those turn out?

Man, this is just a bad idea.

We need to establish legal ownership of our DNA, for one thing.


Two: cloning John Lennon will not necessarily produce a musical genius. We are more than simply the sum of our genes; far more.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Owner of John Lennon's tooth hopes to clone the late Beatle - NBC News.com
Seriously?

On the crazy freaky scale this one rates an 11.

I mean, we've all done the "if I could clone myself" bit but we're talking about cloning someone else. How messed up is that? Haven't we all seen Jurassic Park and that Steven King deal with the dead cat coming back from the dead. How'd those turn out?

Man, this is just a bad idea.

My problem with all of this is the fact we don't even have human clones yet but people already think of them as "property."

First, my DNA is MY identity and no one should be able to take that from me.

Second, if we had the level of technology that allowed perfect transplanting I can support the specific cloning of individual functional parts and even the growth of a replacement body IF and ONLY IF it could be grown without a brain. I cannot support the kind of living parts cloning exemplifed in movies like "The Island"




Third, I would presume any fully developed clone was HUMAN and not property. Shades of 1800, how could anyone even consider classifying a fully functional human being a slave??

 

[ecofarm]

My problem with all of this is the fact we don't even have human clones yet but people already think of them as "property."

Hey, no one gave women a free pass. Clones gotta work for it too, and in the meantime we get to do what we want.

 

[Fisher]

My problem with all of this is the fact we don't even have human clones yet but people already think of them as "property."

First, my DNA is MY identity and no one should be able to take that from me.

Second, if we had the level of technology that allowed perfect transplanting I can support the specific cloning of individual functional parts and even the growth of a replacement body IF and ONLY IF it could be grown without a brain. I cannot support the kind of living parts cloning exemplifed in movies like "The Island"

Third, I would presume any fully developed clone was HUMAN and not property. Shades of 1800, how could anyone even consider classifying a fully functional human being a slave??

Your clone would legally be your sibling, the child of your parents, not you.

 

[ChrisL]

Try this on for size.....your ex-wife clones you and marries your clone.

But why would she divorce someone to marry their exact replica? Maybe she'd just have a backup version of her husband for whenever necessary. :mrgreen:

 

[Captain Adverse]

Your clone would legally be your sibling, the child of your parents, not you.

Nope...since I am unique once mommy and daddy mixed their genes to create me. Since any clone of me would come directly from me, then I would argue I am as much the "parent" of my own clone as any natural child borne of me with a woman.

Now if either mommy or daddy cloned themselves, I would consider that clone a "sibling" just as I would a half-sister or half-brother from a new marriage by either parent.

 

[Goshin]

Nope...since I am unique once mommy and daddy mixed their genes to create me. Since any clone of me would come directly from me, then I would argue I am as much the "parent" of my own clone as any natural child borne of me with a woman.

I have long thought this is the only logical way to treat human clones, legally speaking.


After all, in reality a clone is not an exact copy of a person... what you get is a baby that is genetically identical, like an identical twin... but there is no memory transfer, and things like personality and talents can vary considerably. The clone is not the donor, the clone is the singular-genetic-line child of the donor.

 

[Goshin]

Your clone would legally be your sibling, the child of your parents, not you.

No way. Your parents, even if still living, did not bring that child into the world; you, the DNA donor, did.

They have no responsibility to the clone, as they didn't create it; you who created it from your DNA do.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope...since I am unique once mommy and daddy mixed their genes to create me. Since any clone of me would come directly from me, then I would argue I am as much the "parent" of my own clone as any natural child borne of me with a woman.

Now if either mommy or daddy cloned themselves, I would consider that clone a "sibling" just as I would a half-sister or half-brother from a new marriage by either parent.

There would be SO MANY ethical issues to deal with.

 

[Fisher]

Nope...since I am unique once mommy and daddy mixed their genes to create me. Since any clone of me would come directly from me, then I would argue I am as much the "parent" of my own clone as any natural child borne of me with a woman.

You could argue that but it is no different than DNA as it exists now--you were your parent's child and they owned your butt until you were 18 as they would your clone. I went to a panel discussion on law and technology and that was the uniform position of all the panelists when they were discussing medical advancements. It was something I never thought about, but it makes sense under the law as it exists, not that it couldn't be changed or further delineated in the future.

 

[ChrisL]

You could argue that but it is no different than DNA as it exists now--you were your parent's child and they owned your butt until you were 18 as they would your clone. I went to a panel discussion on law and technology and that was the uniform position of all the panelists when they were discussing medical advancements. It was something I never thought about, but it makes sense under the law as it exists, not that it couldn't be changed or further delineated in the future.

Well what about in the OP case? Someone buys a dead celebrity's body part and has it cloned, then who would own that? The person who had it cloned or the dead celebrity's family?

And if it's human beings being cloned, there are really going to be issues with custody in these types of situations.

 

[Fisher]

No way. Your parents, even if still living, did not bring that child into the world; you, the DNA donor, did.

They have no responsibility to the clone, as they didn't create it; you who created it from your DNA do.

It would be your twin brother or sister, just born X years later.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You could argue that but it is no different than DNA as it exists now--you were your parent's child and they owned your butt until you were 18 as they would your clone. I went to a panel discussion on law and technology and that was the uniform position of all the panelists when they were discussing medical advancements. It was something I never thought about, but it makes sense under the law as it exists, not that it couldn't be changed or further delineated in the future.

LOL That's not quite correct.

Parent's don't "own" children because children are not "property." Parents are resposible for their children because they elected to bring them into the world. However, as we all know, some parents don't want the responsibility hence orphanages, adoptions, abandonments, abortion, etc.

I'm surprised that a panel of legal experts argued that children are "property" though...strange.

 

[ChrisL]

It would be your twin brother or sister, just born X years later.

This is all just a little strange for me. The world probably doesn't need two of me walking around anyway! :lamo

 

[Fisher]

Well what about in the OP case? Someone buys a dead celebrity's body part and has it cloned, then who would own that? The person who had it cloned or the dead celebrity's family?

And if it's human beings being cloned, there are really going to be issues with custody in these types of situations.

It would be the child of the celebrity's parents unless laws are changed to address this specifically.

 

[Lutherf]

But why would she divorce someone to marry their exact replica? Maybe she'd just have a backup version of her husband for whenever necessary. :mrgreen:

Maybe she's not the one that wanted a divorce