NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reminded by the android BF/GF thread of this. On the bus today, my friend asked me "if you had a clone of yourself would you have sex with it?" I said of course. He thought that was weird. That's not the point. We got into this discussion about the ethical dilemmas of human cloning, as well as the societal and theological questions it raises. Here are a couple:

*Is it moral to clone people in the first place, even with permission?
*How are clones societally defined - are they equal citizens?
-If so, how would the world cope with having these doubles around? Would they be like identical twins? What about the fact that the clones would be different ages physically, but equally aged genetically to the originals?
-If not, how can you ethically justify it as different from other discrimination such as racism? Also, to what "uses" would the clones be put?
*Is it moral to clone just for organs, if the entire person must be cloned?
*Suppose you could have a clone without a brain, so it did not suffer, and transfer your brain to the healthy new body whenever you were about to die. Since death of acute causes and degenerative disease would be constantly subverted, we could find out how old the DNA can get before one dies of nothing but age.
*How would cloning technology be regulated, assuming it became acceptable, and by whom?

Well if they'd just do it already then we'd have all those questions answered.

I would say I dislike the ideas of humans pretending to be god, but I think we will be better gods then god is.

If you're married, and you have extramarital sex with your clone, is it cheating?

I would say I dislike the ideas of humans pretending to be god, but I think we will be better gods then god is.

It is a trueism that human beings have never and cannot currently play God.

We will not be able to play God untill we obtain the power to create and destroy entire real universes throught force of will.

Is it moral to clone people in the first place?
What does moral mean? Do you mean, is it good to clone someone? Well different people will have different opinions on that. I'd want to know more before I form an opinion.

A human clone is just a human being. They have the same rights as everyone else.

If you're married, and you have extramarital sex with your clone, is it cheating?

Naturally. Your clone is not you; it is a different person with a different history, different memories and physically quite a few years younger than you (and don't forget to allow 16-21 years after cloning for it to reach the age of consent needed in your country :p).

To the main questions:
*Is it moral to clone people in the first place, even with permission?

Of course it is moral, it involves human feelings ;) But I assume you meant "is it allowable under the current dominant moral system in society". If so, it seems so, yes. Most countries have made "wrongful life" lawsuits (based on the claim that the suing party would have been better of not being born at all) impossible, so the clone itself could not object. If the person that is being cloned has given permission, the only one remaining party that has a say is the assisting doctor. It therefor comes down to his/her ethics.

*How are clones societally defined - are they equal citizens?
I'd define them as legal children of the original.

*If so, how would the world cope with having these doubles around?
Would they be like identical twins?
I assume you mean multiple clones, since you obviously thought of the age difference. And they would be exactly like twins - very similar, but not identical.

*Is it moral to clone just for organs, if the entire person must be cloned?
This question is tricky. Two context observations:
1. People nowadays already have children with the specific intent of using them to donate bonemarrow to e.g. their older brother. Or, to use a less medical example, to have them work without wages on the farm.
2. If the clone had not been created for the organs, it would not have existed at all. It would therefor thank its existence to the desire of others to be used as an organ farm. Viewed in that light, can it object to fullfilling its purpose ?

My personal answer to 2 is "yes, it can". But I can logically argue both sides.

*How would cloning technology be regulated, assuming it became acceptable, and by whom

The doctors that aid you. And the whole children protection program.

I'd imagine that most people would have clones because they want children that are exactly like thim. Some people are narcissistic enough to name their children "me jr". I'm sure some of them would be narcissistic enough to go all the way if it were possible.

Other people might reproduce through cloning because of infertility, either natural, disease induced, or trauma induced.
Testicular/ovarian cancer doesn't help your chances of producing genetic offspring and there are many people who suffer from these consitions among others.

Plausability, it would also be the choice of people who have traded in their meat bodies for quasi-immortal machine bodies. THey just have DNA stored at the date of exchange and when they want children they have a clone made up using it.

I have no problem with cloning. It can be used to produce stem cells, or to produce copies of a person, modified in such a manner as to never grow a brain, which can be cut up for organs.

I might not be against it, If I could have control over the clone. They could make the appearances I dont want to.
Also-they could be my perfect match-always ready organ donor, should I ever need one.

This thread gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Go fuck yourself!"

I'd imagine that most people would have clones because they want children that are exactly like thim. Some people are narcissistic enough to name their children "me jr". I'm sure some of them would be narcissistic enough to go all the way if it were possible.

Of course, this is due to the lack of common knowledge about epigenetic traits.

Ever see the kitten they cloned? It looks *nothing* like the cat it was cloned from. It's coloring is completely different. It does, however, have the same DNA.

One major problem is that anyone above the age of consent who clones themself is condemning that new person to die around the age of 40-60, rather than 60-80 as is usually the case.

A cloned woman would probably be infertile by the age of 30.

One cannot modify a being to not grow a brain with the current level of science. It would require murduring the clone when it was at least 18 years old (and therefore at about adult size) and using the organs of the corpse.

One major problem is that anyone above the age of consent who clones themself is condemning that new person to die around the age of 40-60, rather than 60-80 as is usually the case.

A cloned woman would probably be infertile by the age of 30.

One cannot modify a being to not grow a brain with the current level of science. It would require murduring the clone when it was at least 18 years old (and therefore at about adult size) and using the organs of the corpse.

You don't have to design the clone so that it doesn't have a brain. You just have to remove pertinant parts of the brain shortly after or before the birth of the clone.

The biggest issue in cloning humans is where you draw the line. First, how do we make said clone? Do we use excess stem cells taken from the umbilical cord? Can we use DNA from a drop of blood as many sci-fi's suggest?
Second what is it's purpose? Are you growing a human to harvest for organs? Are you creaing a child? Are you making cadavers for med-school students to practice on?
Third, where does the clone stand in society? Are we going to have Jim Crowe-esque laws making clones second class citizens? When you die, if your clone outlives you does he/she/you take on your new identity?

Now to answer some of my own arguements:
If you're going to create a human, you're creating human life. Growing human bodies for organ harvest is murder, because you're killing a human without just provocation for self-defense. Cloning your dead child, while morally iffy, is not morally wrong per se.
If a clone has all the rights of a human born via sex, then I find no objection on that front.

I think the REALLY important question is still being missed:

IF you could create a clone...

AND:

IF it could be created without a brain...

Would it be okay to eat it?

I think the REALLY important question is still being missed:
IF you could create a clone...
AND:
IF it could be created without a brain...
Would it be okay to eat it?

Ethically: yes. It was not a person, nor was there any potential to become one, or is it harmed or made to suffer by the consumption. It would in fact be better than eating animals, since those are in general harmed when killed for consumption.
Medically: uncertain. Is eating human flesh actually healthy ?

Ethically: yes. It was not a person, nor was there any potential to become one, or is it harmed or made to suffer by the consumption. It would in fact be better than eating animals, since those are in general harmed when killed for consumption.
Medically: uncertain. Is eating human flesh actually healthy ?

Well... my (ethical) uncertainty would centre around the concept of 'human' meat... regardless of the sentiency/potential of the flesh.

Regarding medical... the problem with eating human flesh seems to be the possibility of disease... although selective processing and cooking, coupled with the quality control of the 'herd' should (theoretically) minimise that risk.

Well... my (ethical) uncertainty would centre around the concept of 'human' meat... regardless of the sentiency/potential of the flesh.

Would it help to think of it as "artificially created human-flavoured meat" ?

I think the REALLY important question is still being missed:

IF you could create a clone...

AND:

IF it could be created without a brain...

Would it be okay to eat it?

Okay, but absurdly inefficient. If, due to an odd genetic disease related to cloning, some people were only able to eat human flesh then it would be okay.

On the other hand, if resources were streched so then that people had to resort to eating human flesh it would be much better to simply recycle the dead.

Soylen Green is people. People are Soylant Green.
This message has not been brough to you by the US Department of Agriculture.

Okay, but absurdly inefficient. If, due to an odd genetic disease related to cloning, some people were only able to eat human flesh then it would be okay.

Why inefficient ? If one could make cloned brainless animals a lot of suffering would become unnessary. Technically you would just be making artificial meat with specific flavours - since there were no actual animals. It might be more expensive than just doing it the natural way; but a lot of animal rights activists would be very happy. And I personally would also enjoy that little piece of chicken on my plate more knowing it was not terribly tortured during its lifetime.

"Human" would just be another flavour.