NationStates Jolt Archive

What does everyone think about cloning human embryos for research? Is it humane or is it barbaric to use humanv embryos for medical experimentation?:?

I think that it is wrong. I believe in the sanctity of life from conception, not birth. I also believe that it is wrong to create life outside of the sperm/egg union. Besides, adult stem cells could be used.

It is certainly humane, in that it occurs at a stage when the embryo is incapable of experiencing suffering (or indeed anything at all). Whether it should be allowed is another question.

It is our opinion that stem-cell research is legitimate and important, but that it should be undertaken solely for altruistic purposes and under strict codes of conduct. In particular, it not be allowed for research into cures for trivial or cosmetic conditions; its legality should also not open the gates for cloning or engineering of embryos intended to be born.

Personally, we feel this subject is appropriate to UN resolutions, as state-by-state legislation will simply cause an exodus of researchers to less scrupulous nations; we may even see the rise of tourism undertaken in such nations to engineer offspring. (This is another reason why the Human Genome proposal currently in the works is so essential).

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry of Being Nice

I am personally deeply AGAINST cloning, even if some people say it's in medical interest.

1) Cloning for "reproductive purposes" negates the fact that life is sacred and everyone is unique. Moreover, it as only a pitiful longing for immortality or an outrageous sign of overweening arrogance: if not, why would people want a child who will be a copy of them? Do they think they're perfect?
Couples who want a baby and cannot are admittedly to be pitied. But cloning is the worst solution. Why don't they adopt a child? They would both be happy and would make another one be happy too...

2) Cloning embryos in medical and research purpose is also immoral. Some say that embryos are not babies yet, but only a bunch of cells. This argument is quite stupid and thoughtless. Indeed, who can say when an embryo "become" a baby, a human being with a one soul and conscience?
So, like the presumption of innocence, let's believe that embyos are human beings as soon as they are given life (the conception, I mean :wink: )

Who would be able to decide that an embryo isn't human now, but will be human in five minutes, so let's kill him now ?! For it's kinda torture and murder.
Can you imagine yourself being treated like that? Your arm would be cut, your organs removed, or more horrible things would be done........


Here are some reasons that make me condemn cloning.
I hope it will banned worldwide (how optimistic I am :? )

The always multiplying yet oddly dissimilar nation of Berkylvania feels that this question is far too broad to be sufficiently answered.

When you refer to human cloning, are you refering to whole person cloning, stem cell research, specific organ/blood cloning or some other alternative? Additionally, if you are referring to whole person cloning, then are you talking about physical research, psychological research or, again, some sort of other research?

We feel that as the question of cloning is such a large societal jump, it must be broken down into specific parts in order to address it properly.

While we are, in theory, not opposed to whole person cloning, we do not believe that, at this time, a sufficient definition of the rights and protections a 'clone' would have exists to attempt such an ambitious project. Until these and other basic questions about a clone's legal existence are answered, we must be firmly against any whole person cloning proposal for any reason.

However, we also recognize the value and necessity of stem cell research as well as individual organ/blood cloning and support these research endeavors in the hopes of a healthier, more productive populace in general.

I am against cloning or such, but I hope that genetic engineering or research on stem cells will contribute to improve our medical knowledge.
But this should be ruled by UN resolutions, as Rehochipe proposed, and tightly checked. Such research mustn't be used for trifles, it mustn't support eugenism or such, and it shouldn't become a dash for patents or profits.

Well, i'm not exactly sure what can be achived by simply making a fully grown identicle copy of another human being- Yet if it is cloning embrios to cultivate human stem cells for medical perposes to save many a cancer sufferer's lives or many victims of some form of accident or operation, my nation is definetly pro stem-cell reserch.

As Rehochipe said, it is a humane process where there is no pain and no suffering. The stem cells are removed from the embrio when it has no definite human shape, no beating heart or a brain of any sort, it is practically not alive, yet it could save many a *sufferers* lives though a single embrio.

If we are not willing to give our support to the reserch in human cloning and stem cell reserch, we are going to let millions of people all over the globe die for many decades to come. Can we afford this? Can we let the chance of a lifetime to save these sufferers, slip through our fingers and goe to waste? We have the technology, we might aswell use it for good! We have the ability to save lives through this process!- This is the answer we have been looking for all those centuries of medical reserch! You try to tell those people who are near to death and suffering, knowing that there is a chance that they can be saved and leave the hospital bed that they have been confined to for weeks, that you have decided not to save their lives because you think it is slightly immoral! That is sickening and disturbing. People who seldom leave their wheelchairs may be able to walk again due the stem cells binding their dead nerves together! Give it a chance- and we will succeed!

This must be put to a UN vote all those in favor! I know I am!

The embryo isn't a child, it's a new limb the mother just recently got.

And just as terrorists blow themselves up to further "the human cause" (At least that's what they think) embryos should sacrafice themselves for the greater good. However, they can't think, so we have to do that for them....

Twins, Basil, TWINS! :shock:

As Rehochipe said, it is a humane process where there is no pain and no suffering. The stem cells are removed from the embrio when it has no definite human shape, no beating heart or a brain of any sort, it is practically not alive, yet it could save many a *sufferers* lives though a single embrio.

I acknowledge people's sufferings, but will this not drift towards a fear of death and a wish for immortality at all costs? It would begin with organ replacements, but after? How will you decide death is bearable or not, arriving at the "right" time? Will tou agree with everything, provided you can live?
I believe it is more important to search ways of easing people's suffering and helping them to live and die (if it can't be avoided) with dignity.


We have the technology, we might aswell use it for good! We have the ability to save lives through this process!- This is the answer we have been looking for all those centuries of medical reserch!



Why do you believe cloning is the cure-all, the best solution ever ?
Some ancient medical techniques that we now know they're absurd or obsolete, were considered as great ones in those times.
So how can you say cloning is necessary good for us? Why will cloning not be considered in the next centuries as an outstanding error?
Personally, I hope we will find techniques that will respect our whole humanity.

I acknowledge people's sufferings, but will this not drift towards a fear of death and a wish for immortality at all costs? It would begin with organ replacements, but after? How will you decide death is bearable or not, arriving at the "right" time? Will tou agree with everything, provided you can live?
I believe it is more important to search ways of easing people's suffering and helping them to live and die (if it can't be avoided) with dignity.


Why do you believe cloning is the cure-all, the best solution ever ?
Some ancient medical techniques that we now know they're absurd or obsolete, were considered as great ones in those times.
So how can you say cloning is necessary good for us? Why will cloning not be considered in the next centuries as an outstanding error?
Personally, I hope we will find techniques that will respect our whole humanity.

es i do agree, we should stick to normal medicins and drugs for as long as possible, but i think in some cases where human stem cell reserch is vital for a patients survival, we can be able to use it to the best of its ability wouldnt you agree? For the forseeable future, stem cell reserch dosnt look like a mistake and can only lead to greater medical breakthroughs. Without using it, how is it possible to tell if it will not have the same effect on the world as penicillian had? Donations of organs from stem cell reserch is not a termial error, unlike injecting someone with a drug and discovering that their body reacts badly with it, this can be reversable and after a decade or two of testing this new breakthrough we will decide weather to keep funding it or not. I think that is a reasonable idea. Absolutly no dangers to the human or other animal's bodies have been linked with stem cell tests in labritores, it is assumed perfectly safe. Like i said before, give it a chance, then make judgments if it all goes wrong then we can easily stop funding! :)

The embryo isn't a child, it's a new limb the mother just recently got.

And just as terrorists blow themselves up to further "the human cause" (At least that's what they think) embryos should sacrafice themselves for the greater good. However, they can't think, so we have to do that for them....

Scientifically speaking, the embryo is not a limb. The embryo is it's own person. If it was a male clone, it would not be genetically the same as the mother; therefore it would be it's own person. Even if it was the same genetically as the mother, it is not a "limb" because eventually it will leave the mother's body and become its own person. One identical twin is not the same as another.

And about the terrorists. Do you think that all thinking people should become suicide bombers? Then what is the difference between that? What if the clone grew up and decided it was against stem cell research?

The Protectorate of Veritasa is against the cloning of human embryos but fully endorses the possible medicinal benefits of stem-cell research.

How do you say?

Due to the process of invitro fertilization in today's modern medicine, couples donate many more eggs to be fertilized than usually ever necessary to achieve a successful pregnancy. These surplus embryos are, in most cases, destroyed. Morally, Veritasa cannot support such a process, but it can propose that these excess embryos are put to better use than simply filling ecological waste recepticles.

Why clone new embryos, solely for the purpose of destroying them, when we possess this currently-wasted resource that can sufficiently fill the need for stem-cell research.

Deckard Harson
President of Veritasa

The embryo isn't a child, it's a new limb the mother just recently got.

And just as terrorists blow themselves up to further "the human cause" (At least that's what they think) embryos should sacrafice themselves for the greater good. However, they can't think, so we have to do that for them....

Scientifically speaking, the embryo is not a limb. The embryo is it's own person. If it was a male clone, it would not be genetically the same as the mother; therefore it would be it's own person. Even if it was the same genetically as the mother, it is not a "limb" because eventually it will leave the mother's body and become its own person. One identical twin is not the same as another.

And about the terrorists. Do you think that all thinking people should become suicide bombers? Then what is the difference between that? What if the clone grew up and decided it was against stem cell research?

The ever present yet always watchful nation of Berkylvania would like to respectfully point out that, scientifically, an embryo is neither a "limb" nor a "person". It is exactly what it is, an embryo. This is precisely why, before we begin whole person cloning experiments, we need to codify exactly what rights a clone might have.

Additionally, it is incorrect to assume that cloning of a person is fundamentally wrong because of a lack of genetic recombination (which is all sexual reproduction provides...other than some sweating and some rather amusing noises). Many species of flora and fauna produce asexually in the natural world. While it might be shockingly, crashingly vain to wish to clone oneself to perpetuate a copy of oneself, it isn't outside the natural option for reproduction. Additionally, it is uncertain how many people would do such a thing as, frankly, it wouldn't be "you" any more than a pair of twins is the same person.

the DSH has already been long into the development process of creating a resolution which takes steps to regulate this highly moral, ethical and scientific issue.

Indeed the proposal has only recently been submitted.

es i do agree, we should stick to normal medicins and drugs for as long as possible, but i think in some cases where human stem cell reserch is vital for a patients survival, we can be able to use it to the best of its ability wouldnt you agree?

Of course I agree with you, but I fear that people would rather try to avoid death at all costs instead of living. I mean that some people are so scared of death (I understand it well) that others could lure them by painting in glowing colours what they stood to gain from their "miraculous technique".


Absolutly no dangers to the human or other animal's bodies have been linked with stem cell tests in labritores, it is assumed perfectly safe. Like i said before, give it a chance, then make judgments if it all goes wrong then we can easily stop funding! :)

Indeed, who can be totally sure that it's harmless?
Can you be sure that scientific results are reliable ?
Stem cells is such a promising technique and people expect so much from it, that I am not really sure that some scientists won't hide some "bad" results. Unfortunately, health and medical research are two fields which arouse lust, for power, wealth or glory.

I would agree stem cell research or such, if only all actors of such sensitive fields of science and medicine (states, UN, scientists, pharmaceutical firms,...) decided to stop competing, share knowledge, and work hand in hand for the sake of Humanity. This would end clandestine research, out-of-control experiments, falsehood,...

But now, I don't believe that every scientist honest and wise enough to know when they can stop their research. If one did so, another would assuredly continue, because of external pressures, his lust for money or else. And if a country banned such research, scientists who wanted to continue would probably go to a country which allowed it or would become "clandestine".

[quote="Berkylvania

The ever present yet always watchful nation of Berkylvania would like to respectfully point out that, scientifically, an embryo is neither a "limb" nor a "person". It is exactly what it is, an embryo. This is precisely why, before we begin whole person cloning experiments, we need to codify exactly what rights a clone might have.

Additionally, it is incorrect to assume that cloning of a person is fundamentally wrong because of a lack of genetic recombination (which is all sexual reproduction provides...other than some sweating and some rather amusing noises). Many species of flora and fauna produce asexually in the natural world. While it might be shockingly, crashingly vain to wish to clone oneself to perpetuate a copy of oneself, it isn't outside the natural option for reproduction. Additionally, it is uncertain how many people would do such a thing as, frankly, it wouldn't be "you" any more than a pair of twins is the same person.[/quote]

If an embryo is not a person, then what is it? And "natural" varies from species to species.

The ever present yet always watchful nation of Berkylvania would like to respectfully point out that, scientifically, an embryo is neither a "limb" nor a "person". It is exactly what it is, an embryo. This is precisely why, before we begin whole person cloning experiments, we need to codify exactly what rights a clone might have.

Additionally, it is incorrect to assume that cloning of a person is fundamentally wrong because of a lack of genetic recombination (which is all sexual reproduction provides...other than some sweating and some rather amusing noises). Many species of flora and fauna produce asexually in the natural world. While it might be shockingly, crashingly vain to wish to clone oneself to perpetuate a copy of oneself, it isn't outside the natural option for reproduction. Additionally, it is uncertain how many people would do such a thing as, frankly, it wouldn't be "you" any more than a pair of twins is the same person.

If an embryo is not a person, then what is it? And "natural" varies from species to species.

well we as a nation recon it is ok. it's allowed here so is Harry Potter :lol:

After much careful consideration and national deliberation, The Grand Duchy of Hamptonshire has concluded that limited human cloning has greater benefits than a total ban on cloning. The cloning of specific body tissue, such as heart muscle, lungs, kidneys, livers, brain cells, provides the subjects of His Supreme Highness, The Grand Duke of Hamptonshire with powerful new options for medical care. No longer will sick patients have to wait years on a list to receive an organ transplant, the government run Growth-Factories will provide the necessary tissues.

We understand that this issue is very sensitive. It is for that very reason that We have instituted a temporary ban on full-human cloning. However, we do not at this time support the wholesale banning of human cloning. It is our hope that sometime in the future the nations of the world can come to a decision after long and carefull debate. However, we do not at this time support the wholesale banning of human cloning. Until then, in the words of a wise man "To each his own."

Count Wessex
Prime Minister of The Grand Duchy of Hamptonshire

Lord Jake of Cassopia writes:

"As long as there are humane and worthwhile reasons for cloning, such as organic limbs, artificial blood for transfusions etc., I endorse cloning. Any barbaric reasons, such as warfare I do not endorse, warfare is discouraged and should be sorted out like a man, over a game of chess."

Spokesman to Lord Jake of the Federation of Cassopia,
Adnan J. Chandoog.

i hereby am for cloning, and think that Hemptonshire said it all, and there is no more need for future talking.

Antonioli Kruschev
Head of Health Institute of USSR

The ever present yet always watchful nation of Berkylvania would like to respectfully point out that, scientifically, an embryo is neither a "limb" nor a "person". It is exactly what it is, an embryo. This is precisely why, before we begin whole person cloning experiments, we need to codify exactly what rights a clone might have.

Additionally, it is incorrect to assume that cloning of a person is fundamentally wrong because of a lack of genetic recombination (which is all sexual reproduction provides...other than some sweating and some rather amusing noises). Many species of flora and fauna produce asexually in the natural world. While it might be shockingly, crashingly vain to wish to clone oneself to perpetuate a copy of oneself, it isn't outside the natural option for reproduction. Additionally, it is uncertain how many people would do such a thing as, frankly, it wouldn't be "you" any more than a pair of twins is the same person.

If an embryo is not a person, then what is it? And "natural" varies from species to species.[/quote]

The ever patient yet quick to respond nation of Berkylvania, in an effort to establish clarity, say again exactly what was previously stated. It is not an appendage of the mother in the sense of an arm or a gallbladder. However, it is not a "person", either, in the sense that it is not self-aware and incapable of performing the daily actions of a fully individualized, sentient human being.

The embryo is potential and potential alone. Many embryos form and are later rejected by the mother's own immune system. If we grant an embryo "person" status, does it not follow that we must then charge the mother with at least involuntary manslaughter if not murder?

All these arguments, though, are preliminary in establishing exactly what are the limits of being a "person" and it's good that we should be having them. We must have them before cloning technology progresses to the point where whole person clones are not only feasable, but widely available. Obviously we are not there yet and this is why Berkylvania supports stem cell research and selective cloning research, but maintains sufficient legal structure does not yet exist to support whole person cloning.

As for things differing from species to species in the 'natural' world...well, yes, that was rather my point. I'm glad we agree.

I believe that cloning is completely and utterly wrong. Once you clone a human being you rob them of there induviduality. The very thing that is the pride of the human race. If a human has been cloned then i can see in the area of millitary it bein useful but to be robbed of ur induviduality i see as a crime. The cloning process i alos only seen to be used to remove the impurities in a human and this removing of faults and weaknesses in the human. If a person does not have weaknesses then there is no personality it is virtually a machine. I alwasy thought that having weaknesses and strengths were what made us human and to remove these makes us less human. Thak you for yopur time and that is my view on cloning.

the leader of the free land of lomebrimir

I think that it is wrong. I believe in the sanctity of life from conception, not birth. I also believe that it is wrong to create life outside of the sperm/egg union. Besides, adult stem cells could be used.

Hear hear!

delete double (cloned) post

What does everyone think about cloning human embryos for research? Is it humane or is it barbaric to use humanv embryos for medical experimentation?:?

Research? Uh-oh...

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=120976&highlight=

Hope that link works. We are beyond the embyonic, and are intending to succeed with our "plans"!?! Or, maybe we'll have to chuck the whole idea.

Yours,

Marduk, the Benevolent

The completely genuine and fiercely individual nation of Berkylvania would like to point out, once again, that there are a host of ways to create life that do not involve either sperm or egg, everything from spore pollination to asexual reproduction.

Additionally, to address the argument of individuality, when twins are born, are they any less individual?

The completely genuine and fiercely individual nation of Berkylvania would like to point out, once again, that there are a host of ways to create life that do not involve either sperm or egg, everything from spore pollination to asexual reproduction.

Additionally, to address the argument of individuality, when twins are born, are they any less individual?

Well, animals that do not use sperm and egg usually have less ways to combine DNA than humans do. These animals or plants have less of a chance of genetic defect than humans do.

Actually, just about every attempt at research using adult stem cells has found the same problem: adult stem cells aren't even half of versatile as younger ones. Given that the only thing stem cells are used for is their versatility, limiting ourselves to cells taken from adults just about kills that field of research and medicine.

Neither does cloning necessarily attack individuality. Having the same DNA as another person does not make you the same as that person. Take the common example of identical twins -- they share the exact same DNA and yet are never considered to be the same person and are always considered to be distinct individuals.

This is and should be an arena we approach with awe. Surely there is no greater moral burden than that borne by those who would create life?

Couples assume this burden when they have children. In an ideal world, they maintain a commitment to the family unit and provide security, care, training and support for those children.

We do not wish to halt the march of science; experience has shown that human curiosity alone will in any event not be controlled despite our wishes.

We do ask that if cloning continues it be done wisely, with all safeguards employed to ensure that lives be not created as tools or biological resources but as valued and cherished humans, to be nurtured and protected.

The prime purpose of life is the continuation of genetic material. From a purely biological perspective, there are no morals involved. From a human perspective, there are many issues to consider. My argument is, this is acceptable. It is not the case that cloning of a human means an individual is being replicated because the clone would become a new individual, after all identical twins are clones of each other but their personalities are unique.

The only criticism I would put forward is that evidence so far, seems to suggest that cells, have a limited viability. Look at Dolly the sheep, the animal was plagued with ill health and genetic defects. If we could eradicate this biological danger to a clone, then I say, go for it.

The prime purpose of life is the continuation of genetic material.
Is it?

From a purely biological perspective, there are no morals involved. From a human perspective, there are many issues to consider. My argument is, this is acceptable. It is not the case that cloning of a human means an individual is being replicated because the clone would become a new individual, after all identical twins are clones of each other but their personalities are unique.
Agreed

The only criticism I would put forward is that evidence so far, seems to suggest that cells, have a limited viability. Look at Dolly the sheep, the animal was plagued with ill health and genetic defects. If we could eradicate this biological danger to a clone, then I say, go for it.
Dolly, being cloned from an eight year old sheep was born with eight year old DNA. Her ill health was caused by age.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

We do ask that if cloning continues it be done wisely, with all safeguards employed to ensure that lives be not created as tools or biological resources but as valued and cherished humans, to be nurtured and protected.

It is, in large part, precisely because of the amount parents care about their children that we have to be careful here. There are services around that will clone a loved pet so that when it dies one has a replacement - distraught parents whose children died young may seek similar approaches. Similarly, parents who desperately want their children to follow in their own path may also choose cloning over normal reproduction. And cloning clearly opens the door for more complex genetic manipulation of humans, which we strongly condemn. All of these, to some extent, compromise the integrity of identity, a vital human attribute. We believe there is no problem human cloning can solve that cannot be solved by less ethically questionable means; we do, however, continue to support embryo cloning for stem-cell research.

Yes stem cell reserch should be backed by the international community. for reasons i mentsioned earlier.

I think allowing Cloned Humans to grow up into a child and later an adaut is morally wrong and would cause much more mental damage to the coloned individual realising his past, rather than the not yet alive embrio. Yet using a not yet definetive human embrio which is hardly a fetus for extracting the cells for the treatment of terminally ill patients (or patients who have to live their lives by/through/with machines).

You accept stem cell research, but yet you don't support reproductive cloning? That doesn't make a lot of sense. That zygote is a person from the moment the sperm joins with the egg.

That zygote is a person from the moment the sperm joins with the egg.

That's your opinion, but it's not one that can be proven or one that we share.

Well, if it is not a person, what is it?

Well, if it is not a person, what is it?
That’s the point.

Nobody can prove when a ‘person’ is created or what it is until then.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

How can you even think of it!
It is unnatral and if god whanted us to be cloned he would have given are brains the info on how to do it. :lol:

How can you even think of it!
It is unnatral and if god whanted us to be cloned he would have given are brains the info on how to do it. :lol:

We do in fact have some misgivings about our mental abilities in this regard. We may know how to get this snowball rolling downhill, but do we know where it's going, or how to slow it or steer it?

Well, if it is not a person, what is it?

That's not how this works, I'm afraid. You can't assume that it must be human unless we can prove it's not. Otherwise you could say things like 'God exists!' 'Well, how do you know?' 'Well, you're going to have to assume he exists until you can prove he doesn't.' The onus of proof rests on the positive assertion.

Personhood is not a simple, either-or state. It's already been demonstrated in this thread that it's not a matter of simple biology. Is it a matter of potentiality? In which case, every sperm is sacred - so that doesn't work. Is it the soul? Well, until you can show evidence for the soul, that's a matter of personal belief that you can't impose on anyone but yourself. Identity? That's a highly shaky concept, and in the early stages the foetus doesn't have it. Sentience? Well, I'd still regard you as a person if you were unconscious. So how do we judge personhood, then?Well, I'd argue it's a cluster-concept: a collection of different attributes none of which is sufficient on its own. The foetus gradually accumulates these - some early on, some long after birth -, and at some point - which we're not sure when - these are enough for us to say it counts as a person. A newborn baby doesn't have all the attributes we'd associate with personhood: its level of sentience is beneath that of many animals. But it still counts as one for many purposes.

Personhood isn't an absolute either-or state. It's silly to treat it as if it is.

Well, if it is not a person, what is it?
That’s the point.

Nobody can prove when a ‘person’ is created or what it is until then.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

How does one tell a dog cell from a human cell? By the DNA. That zygote has human DNA; therefore, it is a person.

do in fact have some misgivings about our mental abilities in this regard. We may know how to get this snowball rolling downhill, but do we know where it's going, or how to slow it or steer it?


We suggest, if this concerns you, to apply your concerns to something our brains really aren't hooked up to understand, like quantum physics.

...or possibly Derrida.

Well, if it is not a person, what is it?

Personhood isn't an absolute either-or state. It's silly to treat it as if it is.

What is doghood? It is the condition of being a dog. Can you be not a dog one minute and a dog the next? It is the same with a person.

By the DNA. That zygote has human DNA; therefore, it is a person.

Teratomas have human DNA. My toenail clippings have human DNA. Your definition is lamentably insufficient.

You have an unidentified cell. What organism does it come from? How can you tell?

How does one tell a dog cell from a human cell? By the DNA. That zygote has human DNA; therefore, it is a person.

So blood cells aren't human then, because they are anuclear and have no DNA?

What about people with Down's Syndrome, who have more DNA than an "ordinary" human?

For that matter, what about women, who don't have a Y chromosome and therefore do not have a complete copy of all human chromosomes?

Our definitions on what is and is not a human are sadly lacking. Lets face it, for the last hundred million years we have just been winging it because we haven't ever had really good definitions.

However, I think that it is foolish to attempt to institute a limitation on what we can and cannot use human cells for. If my T cells want to self destruct to protect me from viruses - I'm cool with that. If I want to do some destructive testing on some of my own cells in order to protect future generations from viruses, good for me. If some woman wants to donate her cells that happen to have some of the genetic material from a virus implanted into them, that seems pretty reasonable. If some woman wants to donate some of her cells that happen to have some the genetic material from another person implanted into them, how is that any different?

It's pointless to say that just because something is "natural" that it is moral, and it is pointless to try to say that things are immoral because of being unnatural. We are creatures of nature, nothing we can do is unnatural, by definition. It really comes down to the question of whether you are willing to impose your views on the freedoms of other people. If you are, then I suppose it's my duty to try to stop you as soon as I get around to it.

Don't make me come over there.

How does one tell a dog cell from a human cell? By the DNA. That zygote has human DNA; therefore, it is a person.

So blood cells aren't human then, because they are anuclear and have no DNA?

What about people with Down's Syndrome, who have more DNA than an "ordinary" human?

For that matter, what about women, who don't have a Y chromosome and therefore do not have a complete copy of all human chromosomes?

Our definitions on what is and is not a human are sadly lacking. Lets face it, for the last hundred million years we have just been winging it because we haven't ever had really good definitions.

However, I think that it is foolish to attempt to institute a limitation on what we can and cannot use human cells for. If my T cells want to self destruct to protect me from viruses - I'm cool with that. If I want to do some destructive testing on some of my own cells in order to protect future generations from viruses, good for me. If some woman wants to donate her cells that happen to have some of the genetic material from a virus implanted into them, that seems pretty reasonable. If some woman wants to donate some of her cells that happen to have some the genetic material from another person implanted into them, how is that any different?

It's pointless to say that just because something is "natural" that it is moral, and it is pointless to try to say that things are immoral because of being unnatural. We are creatures of nature, nothing we can do is unnatural, by definition. It really comes down to the question of whether you are willing to impose your views on the freedoms of other people. If you are, then I suppose it's my duty to try to stop you as soon as I get around to it.

Don't make me come over there.

Well, all living creatures have blood, so no, it is not specifically human. As for people with Down's syndrome and women, their DNA is different, yes. But so is the DNA of Average Joe and Average Bill (assuming they are not identical twins) There is just more differences between people with Down's Syndrom and other people in the DNA.

Is it foolish to institute limits on cells? When that will affect someone else, such as the newly cloned person. What the whole cloning debate has come down to is, "Is this clone a person."

And what is natural isn't always moral. Natural man will kill, lie, cheat, gossip, etc. And I will not force anyone to believe the way I do, just attempt to show them through logic the error of their ways.

Not only do I support cloning but my nationstate endorses it.

Well, all living creatures have blood, so no, it is not specifically human.

Which is why when you put crab blood into human beings it works just fine, hence why we keep aquariums full of crustaceans in our Emergency Wards in case humans need quick transfusions....

No wait, that's not true at all. Human blood works just in humans, and crab blood only works in crabs. Even dog blood, when placed into human veins, causes lethal allergic reactions instead of providing life sustaining oxygen transport.

There's lots of different things that go into cell identification. We can look at the proteins on the outside membranes of cells (as our own immune system does), we can crack open the cells and sequence the DNA, we could even just weigh the cells or put them through the motions of standard tasks (human RBCs are much smaller than sea lion RBCs, for example).

But the point is - cells don't even have to be originally human for it to be part of a human. You have some E. Coli that live in your intestines that you need, they are part of you, but there's no human cells involved. For that matter, your bones are uniquely human and they don't even have cells - it's just a calcium matrix.

When you implant a swine heart valve into a human's heart - that's part of a human now. When you put a cybernetic hand on someone's bloody stump - that's human now as well.

Being human is like playing red rover. Everything and everyone we send over is human. Until it is sent over, it's not. You can morally do anything you want to a piece of a human as long as its representitive organism says it is OK to do so (I don't honestly expect a liver tumour to be able to act as its own spokesman, and don't honestly give a crap whether it agrees to surgical removal or not).

So chopping off some dude's robot hand is not "theft", it's chopping a piece of human off a human. Popping fetal tissue out of a woman is just like cutting her tonsils out - it's a crime if you did it without consent and it's elective surgery if you did it with her consent.

Making a human in a test tube is just like making a human in some floosy you met at a bar except massively more expensive and probably less likely to give you herpes.

Don't make me come over there.

it i don't cloning a whole is good but to be able to have a back up leg or arm won't be a bad thing. Would it? :?

To be honest, cloning is a very useful idea. It allows for faster recovery of population after a crisis, populations where the idea that being female dosn't mean that you have to breed to continue the species, and it also means that the men women and children being placed into the armed forces no longer have things such as families to worry about and can get themselves killed in a violent blaze of glory. All in all, it's a vault dwellers dream come true.
Sponsored by VaultTech

Are the clones human? Science says yes. It is not a part of the mother because that would give the mother 4 hands, 4 feet, 2 heads, and half the time male organs.

So people with birth defects granting them additional limbs aren't human? That's a very interesting perspective your people have.

Don't make me come over there.

Why do you believe cloning is the cure-all, the best solution ever ?
Some ancient medical techniques that we now know they're absurd or obsolete, were considered as great ones in those times.
So how can you say cloning is necessary good for us? Why will cloning not be considered in the next centuries as an outstanding error?
Personally, I hope we will find techniques that will respect our whole humanity.

But how can we possibly ever know if it is good or obsolete unless we try? We found those "ancient techniques" to be wrong by trying and studying them. And anyways, the research COULD end up curing genetic diseases such as cancer to save millions of lives.

its the coolest 8)

So people with birth defects granting them additional limbs aren't human? That's a very interesting perspective your people have.

Don't make me come over there.

Well, no. What I'm trying to say is, besides the whole limbs-and-genitals-issue, that fetus will still have it's own fingerprints. Even identical twins have their own fingerprints.

Also, in some cases, a fetus may die and a mother live, or a mother live and a fetus die.

And in July 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman. Why would they do something like that?

But a unique fingerprint is easy to make when cloning, all you need is to splice DNA in the same manner as a natural childbirth would and the next thing you know you have a uniqe and obviously Human organism which is just as similar to its DNA donors as a normal child is to its parents. The only way one can truely differentiate a clone made in this manner and a natural child is if one has proof that the clone was cloned, or if the clone's growth was accelerated to such a point that they had no time to learn anything and they weren't given a nice clean memory implant.
Sponsored by VaultTech

Are the clones human? Science says yes. It is not a part of the mother because that would give the mother 4 hands, 4 feet, 2 heads, and half the time male organs.

The quick to point out but slightly depressed that it's Monday nation of Berkylvania would like to say that science does not say, "Yes, it's a person," and that is the crux of the whole problem. To say it is not part of the mother when it depends on the direct metabolic support of the mother for the length of the pregnancy is foolish and equates a fully functional adult human being with a mass of pluipotent cells that may or may not (depending on any number of factors) make it to term.

I agree that the problem with cloning whole human beings rests in the definitions and the rights and protections granted to the newly cloned entity. However, this is something that we can debate and discuss while stem cell research and targeted cloning research continues.

And again I ask, if indeed it's a person when a sperm and and egg meet and recombine DNA, does that mean a mother who naturally does not carry her "potential" to term is guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter or some other form of murder?

CLONES HAVE NO SOULS!!!!!!!!!


which is why I collect them to sell when they clone people mwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

NO SOULS I TELL YOU!!!!!!! NO SOULS!!!!!!!!!

Temme, no offence intended but your point concerning the House of Representatives (whatever that may be; I assume it's another one of these 'real' world institutions) is irrelevant because what you describe is a political decision. One might argue that it is wrong to execute at all, or that abortion is wrong. I agree with the former assertion but not the latter, irrespective of what the House of Representatives decides.

Ursula Kohl
Speaker for Health & Medical Affairs

NONE!!!!!!!!! but i will sell them souls, they will come to me... i will be their master

Getting back to the original topic, science has a habit of doing what it can, without worrying too much about the moral questions. Banning it in the UN would just mean that those scientists and organisations that wished to continue research would just move to a country outside the UN. So wouldn't it be better to allow research within the UN where we can, at least to some extent, control the direction it's going in, what is and what is not acceptable, the rights of individual clones etc. ?

Lasse-Arne Tållstrom
Korrendaler ambassador to the UN

they need my souls, they need them...........

they need my souls, they need them...........

The always trippy yet immenently sober nation of Berkylvania suggests to the dignitary from the Lomaks Empire that it might be time to up your meds.

NO SOULS I TELL YOU!!!!!!! NO SOULS!!!!!!!!!

They have no soul? When do they develop a soul?

Temme, no offence intended but your point concerning the House of Representatives (whatever that may be; I assume it's another one of these 'real' world institutions) is irrelevant because what you describe is a political decision. One might argue that it is wrong to execute at all, or that abortion is wrong. I agree with the former assertion but not the latter, irrespective of what the House of Representatives decides.

Ursula Kohl
Speaker for Health & Medical Affairs

The House Of Representatives is a RL institution in the U.S.A. These people also legalized abortion. And how does it being a political decision make it irrelevant? Please explain.

So people with birth defects granting them additional limbs aren't human? That's a very interesting perspective your people have.

Don't make me come over there.

Well, no. What I'm trying to say is, besides the whole limbs-and-genitals-issue, that fetus will still have it's own fingerprints. Even identical twins have their own fingerprints.

Also, in some cases, a fetus may die and a mother live, or a mother live and a fetus die.

And in July 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman. Why would they do something like that?

The somewhat confused yet always willing to listen nation of Berkylvania respectfully questions the speaker from Temme regarding the decision by the House of Representatives and it's relevence to the situation. To say, "Well, the US House of Representatives has outlawed executing pregnant women so therefore cloning is bad," is either a staggering leap of logic or so completely off the topic as to be worthy of it's own discussion thread.

As for why the US House of Representatives chose this, I believe it was because of the hue and cry made by very vocal groups and the "good will" such a piece of legislation would bring. It was a political decision in the sense that, no one on Capitol Hill (also, remind me as to how the Senate voted on this legislation and if it was ever actually signed into American law) wanted to take the fire in what is an ambiguous, morally and emotionally charged situation. It was passed, not because it was morally correct, but because it was politically expedient.

As Berkylvania has outlawed capital punishment period and campaigns strongly against it's usage, we hail this decision as a correct one (even if not for the right reasons). However, we see absolutely no logical connection between this particular decision and any argument on cloning.

OK, OOC it is. I know of the H of R, I was just trying to avoid the real world while in this UN. Sorry about that confusion.

We've been discussing matters of ethics rather than politics with regards to the issues of cloning and the 'rights' of the embryo. However, I concede that there is an overlap.

What the H of R decide is irrelevant in my eyes as they have no bearing on what happens in my life. Why did they do it? No idea, I assume they pass many good laws and many that are bad. Some may be complementary, some contradictory.

Anyway, we simply disagree on how we interpret the embryonic state. You appear to attach a value (for want of a better word - my head hurts, I'm at work) to it that I do not. We each believe the other is wrong, or perhaps misguided. I don't see a way around this, I'm afraid.

Best wishes

Thanks yet again to the always sage and admirably gentle Berkylvania for expressing more clearly my thoughts. I think my brain is melting...

Well, no. What I'm trying to say is, besides the whole limbs-and-genitals-issue, that fetus will still have it's own fingerprints. Even identical twins have their own fingerprints.

Um... I have different fingerprints on my right and left hands. So do you. That's why a full set of finger prints includes each finger. You also might want to get the toes, because those have different sets of prints as well.

By this definition, those people with extra limbs are again more than one person a piece. An extra finger on each hand is 20% of an extra set of finger prints. Does that make them 1.2 people?

What about people missing part of a hand, or a whole limb? Do they suddenly become on 3/5 of a person when they lose four fingers?

Also, in some cases, a fetus may die and a mother live, or a mother live and a fetus die.

And I can put on a tourniquette and have my whole left arm die while the rest of my body lives. That's tragic and painful, but it doesn't mean my left arm was a person before hand. Sometimes it may even be important to save my life for that to happen (such as if without intervention the arm would make me bleed to death).

I can even take my own heart out of my body and it will continue to live if it is given the needed nourishment. This is how organ transplants work.

Just because part of a body can survive outside the body, or that it can be killed without sinking the entire ship does not in any way indicate that you are dealing with a whole new organism.

Normal people have all of the things you are describing - parts of their body with different identifying features, variable numbers of copies of envidual pieces, chunks of body which can survive without them, chunks of their body they can survive without, even pieces with different DNA. None of this is unique to a fetus, and none of that distinguishes a fetus from any other organ.

Don't make me come over there.