i can see the positives but if you think about it say something is cloned and is hit by a disease and dies then every single one will be effected in the same way and die as well they wud be no immunity which wud kinda suck
Cloning and Genetic Engineering
Started by
Guest_Jaeyoung
, Jan 20 2008 07:50 PM
44 replies to this topic
#27
Guest_pajaanee
Guest_pajaanee
-
- Guest
Posted 29 February 2008 - 01:25 PM
THIS IS TRUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuE i think that cloning humans and then killing them is a murder. but if you clone humans and there is no mortality , it will be good.for example, if there is an epidemic which man cannot cure , but it can only be cured when we are born with the antidote, we can then clone humans with the antidote in their genes.so i think it is best to continue making experiments...............................................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not really against cloning or geneticly manipulating animals, but I'm if it comes down to humans, the only thing I've got to say about it that it goes very quickly wrong. How many times did you think that they cloned Dolly (the first cloned animal)? Dolly wasn't the first one, but like the 40th of them. With all the others went something wrong. So if you do it with humans, you've got to kill 39 people to get a bit of a normal clone. That's not right, that's murder.God made humans, so humans shouldn't make humans themselves.
you dunno cuz maybe the people there would give them immunity...........................................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i can see the positives but if you think about it say something is cloned and is hit by a disease and dies then every single one will be effected in the same way and die as well they wud be no immunity which wud kinda suck
POINTS were deducted for this post by UndinePlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#28
Guest_sabata77
Guest_sabata77
-
- Guest
Posted 01 March 2008 - 02:44 AM
i dont think it should be allowed but it is basically the same thing as having twins
#29
Guest_Omega Chill
Guest_Omega Chill
-
- Guest
Posted 01 March 2008 - 07:05 PM
The main thing against genetic engineering and cloning is that we're "playing god" or that it's a "sin against god" tell me what isn't a "sin against god"? gluttony lust greed are parts of our everyday lives but they themselves are "sins against god". We kill people everday and we create life everyday is that not "playing god"?
#30
Guest_hbfskdrtjsfjserhv jhiu
Guest_hbfskdrtjsfjserhv jhiu
-
- Guest
Posted 02 March 2008 - 03:09 AM
I not sure engineering is fine but cloning should be fine. What if the only way to save a persons life is by getting a clone for a transplant. (Im not sure if i am coping someone but if i am i9 apolagies in advace.)
I for got something. cloning should be fine if the clone is never ever self aware and concious.I not sure engineering is fine but cloning should be fine. What if the only way to save a persons life is by getting a clone for a transplant. (Im not sure if i am coping someone but if i am i9 apolagies in advace.)
#31
vom53
-
- Member
-
- 22 posts
Egg
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 15 March 2008 - 04:03 AM
Yes this is a great work and not be demolished.This will help the economy however increase the growth and size so the country must expand the region of land so that might be a problem.Overall, right makes right.What you think might be the answer!Go ahead...and tell us....your answer.....---------------------------------------------------------()1/2
#32
Guest_FlyingKnights
Guest_FlyingKnights
-
- Guest
Posted 16 March 2008 - 03:58 PM
I think its a good idea that can help the world and stuff, but you have to think about what cloning you have already been effected by. A lot of the cow farmers who raise cows for beef have been experimenting with cloning cows to get more beef and some have succeed and are selling the cloned cow meat on the market. And the truth is no one can tell the difference its meat
#33
Guest_ivoenpim
Guest_ivoenpim
-
- Guest
Posted 16 March 2008 - 07:16 PM
if u only clone 2 help other ppl it's ok but u shouldn't clone whole persons
#34
Guest_kiras sekai
Guest_kiras sekai
-
- Guest
Posted 27 March 2008 - 12:39 AM
well i think that cloning a whole human would be inhuman... why? well just imagine the mental problems that person would have, knowing that he was created on purpose by some freaky scientist in a lab... and even more, wouldnt the other natural humans discriminate the clone? i think they would...
#35
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 27 March 2008 - 06:35 AM
Cloning has many uses. The only real question is which uses are ethical, and which uses are purely questionable in a religious sense (I do not believe religion should be involved with science or politics). Breeding humans for the sake of harvesting their organs is without a doubt a big no-no. Getting stem-cells however, I could agree on, as it would not be "breeding humans", as the embryos would never reach the state where the brain has been developed.As for genetic-engineering - I do not believe corporations should be allowed to deal with this, as it would no doubt lead to corruption and making certain rich people immortal. Responsible governments controlled by the people - sure, because they would be controlled by the people, not by selective people with personal interests.Removing all diseases is impossible. Bacteria and viruses are constantly evolving and mutating. If you have no developed antibodies from other diseases and illnesses, how would you defend from brand new ones? Your immune system would stand no chance against any new strain of virus or bacteria.
Edited by 6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G, 27 March 2008 - 06:35 AM.
#36
Guest_MetaKnightsWaddleDoo
Guest_MetaKnightsWaddleDoo
-
- Guest
Posted 28 March 2008 - 07:34 PM
As said before many times, its a question of ethics when it comes down to it, but let's be realistic for a moment.... If Genetics eventually does come through, you could say at the age of 6, you'd be driving yourself to school, you'd find yourself at peace with your outer child. You can honestly bypass the realms of nature seems a little unearnest to me, as practical as it would seem... it would scare me just a tad to know that my eventual nextdoor neighbor may have been bred, grown, & disease immune because he was developed completely in a testing lab from a scrap of hair found in an office.
#37
Guest_zlipus
Guest_zlipus
-
- Guest
Posted 30 March 2008 - 08:35 AM
Yes and no.One part of me says yes because it would be a legit way to help people out and cure diseases and defects. But then another part of me sees the whole cosmetic and self indulgent side of it.
#38
Guest_Blue Midnight Tears
Guest_Blue Midnight Tears
-
- Guest
Posted 16 August 2009 - 09:13 PM
choosing the dna or the characteristics for you baby is already possible I believe, cloning still needs to be perfected since if something where to be cloned let's say a 54 yr old mans heart, the heart will start as 54 yrs old. it depends really on what is cloned and how well it is....
#39
reddeath26
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 625 posts
Dragon
Reputation: 5
Neutral
Posted 16 August 2009 - 10:05 PM
Could you explain what you mean by the part I have put in bold? As if you are talking in the context of this thread, then I would think you have read too much socio-biology fairy tales and you have begun to suffer the delusions of genomania. While cloning is something which I do not have much problem with, provided it does not clash with diversity too much. The genetic engineering part is teetering quite closely on the edge of becoming eugenics. While getting forewarned about genetic diseases is quite a positive thing, we are nowhere near the level where we can tell what traits or characteristics a person will have based on their genetics. Indeed the simplistic idea that genes control specific traits and human behaviours, while simultaneously overpowering any environmental influences is quite removed from reality. Although I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to what traits/behaviours are determined by genetics. Oh and don't forget as the good Doctor (Franz Boas) rightly pointed out when theorizing, plenty of evidence is required.choosing the dna or the characteristics for you baby is already possible I believe, cloning still needs to be perfected since if something where to be cloned let's say a 54 yr old mans heart, the heart will start as 54 yrs old. it depends really on what is cloned and how well it is....
#40
Guest_Harlequin
Guest_Harlequin
-
- Guest
Posted 30 August 2009 - 10:28 PM
No that's not how cloning works. They don't magically zap a heart and make an exact copy of it, as you seem to think. Simply put, the way we clone things today is by growing a new organism with the exact same DNA as another. Cloned organs have to develop and age just like normal organs. Anyway, while the science nerd in me thinks it's really cool that we can alter the genes of things to give them handy properties like frost resistance, the possibility that things can go horribly awry remains. Companies like Monsanto have patents on genes and actually sue farmers who accidentally end up with crops that have been contaminated by Monsanto's proprietary crops. On top of that, they currently have a seed that produces sterile crops that they intend to sell so that farmers will be forced to buy more seeds for the next season instead of simply using the seeds from their own crops. Aside from the fact that even making a seed that would do that is fucking diabolical and greedy, what would happen if it got out into the wild? Bad things, that's what. In conclusion, I vote that we should petition congress to make the patenting of genes no longer possible. Also we should take over Monsanto and stop those greedy assholeschoosing the dna or the characteristics for you baby is already possible I believe, cloning still needs to be perfected since if something where to be cloned let's say a 54 yr old mans heart, the heart will start as 54 yrs old. it depends really on what is cloned and how well it is....
#41
Guest_Renny1004
Guest_Renny1004
-
- Guest
Posted 30 October 2009 - 11:12 PM
I'm half and half for that matter actually... I do feel that we could benefit from cloning and genetic engineering like per say if we need organs and such for illness that can't be cured... but there will always be people who misuse it like making changes to their baby's gene or so.. or making cloning factories to create humans just for the organ parts and slaughter them like pigs and cows... like from that movie... forgot the name of 8D but yeah...
#43
Guest_azn_ninja216
Guest_azn_ninja216
-
- Guest
Posted 16 December 2009 - 06:50 AM
Cloning and genetic engineering.... First off it would largely depend on what these clones and genetically modified specimen are being used for. If they are making clones of humans or animals just for the purpose of harvesting their organs, then I'm against it. I have a strong belief in the rights for all living things and yes that includes clones. My question is why would we find need to genetically alter things? how exactly would it benefit us? I know I saw a commercial on the internet about how they were getting closer and closer to be able to genetically engineer babies to how the parents want them to look and what gender. I understand that scientist might also aim to eliminate genes that ontains hereditary diseases. But would this sort of perfection necesarily help us more than it hurts us? This is why I have doubts on whether or not we should dabble into this kind of stuff.
#44
Guest_chaseg90
Guest_chaseg90
-
- Guest
Posted 17 December 2009 - 02:41 AM
Umbilical cords, which we dump anyway, have stem cells. Go for it, i say. IF we're not going to do anything else we could use them to save lives.GPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - reddeath26Do you guys think cloning and genetic engineering should be allowed? I mean like cloning body parts or whole humans, so we can benefit from them when we get hurt or we need a organ?Also, what about Genetic Engineering? For instance on making a perfect baby a family could want through changing that DNA of a baby?
#45
Guest_jeffreyi84
Guest_jeffreyi84
-
- Guest
Posted 17 March 2010 - 03:48 AM
As of today genetic engineering should not be allowed. It is tempting to say yes because we want to "cure" ourselves of genetic defects, and there are some diseases we could potentially do without such as Huntington's. But we need to be careful what we eliminate from the gene pool. Some defects actually have a basis in human evolution. Take sickle cell anemia for example. Having two recessive genes gives the carrier the disease, but having one recessive and one dominant gene gives the person an inherit immunity to malarial infection. So while the disease isn't good, having the gene in the gene pool saves more people than it kills.
