NationStates Jolt Archive

Now don’t worry even if it is really the same topic this ISNT inspired by the Island.

Though i do find this an interesting subject and i am interested in everyone else’s views on what they think about Human Cloning for spare parts. Not only ethically either it would be great if people could give some scientific evidence on why it would/ wouldn’t work.

So far, from what i have tried (though I’m not really that good at science) I can only find things that are ethical e.g. they have feelings too or, would you really kill yourself sort of thing, that say that cloning for spare parts is bad.

I think it's a great idea because eventually I may need some spare parts.

Ha ha ha I don't think anybody saw the Island. Cloning is a great idea. I don't want to rot and be eaten by worms and maggots. So what if I have to carve up some stupid clones for my whiskey rotten liver? I am cloning myself as soon as it becomes practical, and stealing those juicy organs.

The biggest problem would be developing organs that could be accepted by anyone, since I think that while it'd be easier to make organs for various blood types, you'd always have to keep in stock a large number which may or may not be used by their expiration date,m'thinks.

Anyways, I'd be all for it.

Therapeutic cloning is technically cloning, but would not require an entire body to be grown.

In this technique, a cell would be taken from the person who needed an organ. An egg cell would be necessary too, preferably from the person in question if they were female. The DNA in the egg cell would be removed and the DNA (or the whole cell) from the patient inserted. The egg would then artificially be made to divide (usually through an electric shock).

So far, this is the same as any cloning.

However, in therapeutic cloning, the embryonic stem cells would be removed at the blastocyst stage. They would then be expanded and differentiated into the particular cells needed, formed into an organ - most likely on a construct of some kind - and then used.

No real ethical issues there that I can see. The DNA, and therefore the cells, pretty much belong to the patient in question, no?

The biggest problem would be developing organs that could be accepted by anyone, since I think that while it'd be easier to make organs for various blood types, you'd always have to keep in stock a large number which may or may not be used by their expiration date,m'thinks.

Anyways, I'd be all for it.

I think the basic idea was that people get themselves cloned so they alone can use the clones' organs. It would be like, If you have enough money, you can have a second chance at life sort of deal.

Organ cloning is fine in my views... but not making a human clone to rip the organs out of! ;)

Therapeutic cloning is technically cloning, but would not require an entire body to be grown.

In this technique, a cell would be taken from the person who needed an organ. An egg cell would be necessary too, preferably from the person in question if they were female. The DNA in the egg cell would be removed and the DNA (or the whole cell) from the patient inserted. The egg would then artificially be made to divide (usually through an electric shock).

So far, this is the same as any cloning.

However, in therapeutic cloning, the embryonic stem cells would be removed at the blastocyst stage. They would then be expanded and differentiated into the particular cells needed, formed into an organ - most likely on a construct of some kind - and then used.

No real ethical issues there that I can see. The DNA, and therefore the cells, pretty much belong to the patient in question, no?
Ah, true. I was thinking more of just mass growing organs, instead of custom made ones, since it'd take longer to receive them.

Ah, true. I was thinking more of just mass growing organs, instead of custom made ones, since it'd take longer to receive them.

That might be possible, but you would still need massive types, depending on the organ.

Something like a kidney, you have to match incredibly closely - and still put the person on immune suppression for the rest of their lives. A liver, not as close, so mass growth might work if we could figure out how to get the cell type and structure.

The good thing about a direct clone is that immune suppression wouldn't be necessary, as it is with current organ transplants, and as it would be without a direct clone.

Therapeutic cloning is technically cloning, but would not require an entire body to be grown.
However, in therapeutic cloning, the embryonic stem cells would be removed at the blastocyst stage. They would then be expanded and differentiated into the particular cells needed, formed into an organ - most likely on a construct of some kind - and then used.

No real ethical issues there that I can see. The DNA, and therefore the cells, pretty much belong to the patient in question, no?

Ya, that's an important point you made, that the SCNT process doesn't involve having a spare "you" in a closet somewhere ready to have its organs ripped out when you need a spare set.

The ethical issue is whether the blastocyst constitutes life or not - this is where the ethical issue is centered. Personally I don't think so, though a lot of people think this is "creating human life with the express intention of destroying it" (to paraphrase president Bush).

And just because the DNA "belongs" to you doesn't confer ownership - else my parents could sign a contract agreeing to use me as fertiliser, as I'm their joint DNA and therefore (by that reasoning) their joint property. Still it would put child custody battles in a whole new light...

Can anyone find a scientific reason not to do it? So far it seems that everyone is all for it.

Can anyone find a scientific reason not to do it? So far it seems that everyone is all for it.

there are no scientific objections, only ethical ones

there are no scientific objections, only ethical ones
yeah, so there really isnt too much debate. I cant and it looks like a good deal of other people cant see anything really wrong with it.

Psh, there's no need to clone organs. In Star Trek IV Doctor McCoy gave a woman a pill and she grew a new kidney, we should make some of those instead.

yeah, so there really isnt too much debate. I cant and it looks like a good deal of other people cant see anything really wrong with it.

well then, just for the purpose of debate....


What if the clones turn the tables and use us for spare parts????

yeah, so there really isnt too much debate. I cant and it looks like a good deal of other people cant see anything really wrong with it.

Well, yeah, but there's still the ethical objections... It's up there with abortion on the controversy scale

Well, yeah, but there's still the ethical objections... It's up there with abortion on the controversy scale

Yeah i suppose. Except they havnt actually completely cloned anything yet i dont think. Even Dolly the sheep got very premature athritis and they put it down didnt they?

Yeah i suppose. Except they havnt actually completely cloned anything yet i dont think. Even Dolly the sheep got very premature athritis and they put it down didnt they?

They've cloned heaps of stuff I think... just cloned a dog, it's in the news I see.

Took them a couple of thousand attempts

well then, just for the purpose of debate....


What if the clones turn the tables and use us for spare parts????
Thanks for reminding me!

*note to self: include plastic explosive auto-destruct device in clone's chest cavity.