Political Crossfire Forums

[John Wilkes Booth]

Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

[Phædrus]

Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

[Demothenes]

Phædrus wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue? um . . . were you planning on saying something?

[mojo]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

Cloning is tampering with life itself. It is stating that our exsistence is relative and can be easily changed and manipulated to fit human desires. It is extremely dangerous and extremely unethical.

[Rankor and Pissing]

How about racism and cultural identity? If there were say, 5 million clones in the U.S., and they were obviously clones (somehow all of them say, looked like and spoke like... Gilbert Gottfried)



I would suspect that these clones may be pelted and shunned as being clones - maybe there'd be restaurants with "No Clones Served Here" signs... "Death to Aflac" type of thing... I'm making this a little tongue and cheek obviously, but think of the movie Blade Runner based upon Phillip K. Dick's view of the future where bio-engineered humans with very short lifespans are look on like cattle and are only made to do humans dirty work. They're expendible.

I submit that may also happen with clones.

Another issue may be that clones could be used as human drug testing subjects, or possibly since they were engineered, germs and viruses could mutate unexpectedly and cause the next world wide pandemic erasing half the population of the world.

[Saf]

politicalmojo wrote: Cloning is tampering with life itself. It is stating that our exsistence is relative and can be easily changed and manipulated to fit human desires. It is extremely dangerous and extremely unethical.
That's an unfounded assertion, not an argument.

[John Wilkes Booth]

politicalmojo wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

Cloning is tampering with life itself. It is stating that our exsistence is relative and can be easily changed and manipulated to fit human desires. It is extremely dangerous and extremely unethical.


So, I'll take that as a no?

[Political Masque]

It is not an argument, only a culturally influenced opinion.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: How about racism and cultural identity? If there were say, 5 million clones in the U.S., and they were obviously clones (somehow all of them say, looked like and spoke like... Gilbert Gottfried)
Also a separate issue. Quote:

I would suspect that these clones may be pelted and shunned as being clones - maybe there'd be restaurants with "No Clones Served Here" signs... "Death to Aflac" type of thing... I'm making this a little tongue and cheek obviously, but think of the movie Blade Runner based upon Phillip K. Dick's view of the future where bio-engineered humans with very short lifespans are look on like cattle and are only made to do humans dirty work. They're expendible.
For the record, the replicants in Blade Runner are not clones. They're robots contructed to be indistinguishable from humans except by a personality test.
Quote:
I submit that may also happen with clones.Another issue may be that clones could be used as human drug testing subjects, or possibly since they were engineered, germs and viruses could mutate unexpectedly and cause the next world wide pandemic erasing half the population of the world.
These are arguments against discrimination and genetic engineering, not cloning.

What's funny is you actually come close to a genuine cloning criticism: if cloning becomes so widespread that the average person has, let's say, one clone, the genetic diversity of humanity will be cut in half. Anyone who's studied the Irish Potato Famine knows the important of genetic diversity.

[forthegreatergood]

politicalmojo wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

Cloning is tampering with life itself. It is stating that our exsistence is relative and can be easily changed and manipulated to fit human desires. It is extremely dangerous and extremely unethical.

DO YOU THINK THIS IS LOGICAL OR ILLOGICAL THE WAY SOME BEINGS VIEW THE TWO ISSUES BELOW?

ETHICAL...............................Eating/Slaughtering of Humans/Animals

UNETHICAL...........................Cloning of Humans/Animals

[Phædrus]

politicalmojo wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

Cloning is tampering with life itself. It is stating that our exsistence is relative and can be easily changed and manipulated to fit human desires. It is extremely dangerous and extremely unethical.


So, I'll take that as a no?

[Phædrus]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: How about racism and cultural identity? If there were say, 5 million clones in the U.S., and they were obviously clones (somehow all of them say, looked like and spoke like... Gilbert Gottfried)
Also a separate issue. Quote:

I would suspect that these clones may be pelted and shunned as being clones - maybe there'd be restaurants with "No Clones Served Here" signs... "Death to Aflac" type of thing... I'm making this a little tongue and cheek obviously, but think of the movie Blade Runner based upon Phillip K. Dick's view of the future where bio-engineered humans with very short lifespans are look on like cattle and are only made to do humans dirty work. They're expendible.
For the record, the replicants in Blade Runner are not clones. They're robots contructed to be indistinguishable from humans except by a personality test.
Quote:
I submit that may also happen with clones.Another issue may be that clones could be used as human drug testing subjects, or possibly since they were engineered, germs and viruses could mutate unexpectedly and cause the next world wide pandemic erasing half the population of the world.
These are arguments against discrimination and genetic engineering, not cloning.

What's funny is you actually come close to a genuine cloning criticism: if cloning becomes so widespread that the average person has, let's say, one clone, the genetic diversity of humanity will be cut in half. Anyone who's studied the Irish Potato Famine knows the important of genetic diversity.

[Canadian_Patriot]

I am all for cloning but i do wonder is it fair to the clone if they know they are nothing more then a copy what kind of mental issues would human clones have. How do we overcome genetic sickness because up until now every mammal clone had died from genetic problems. My biggest argument is the abuses of the technology like cloning an army for instance or cloning figures like Adolf Hitler or recreations of Einstein and so fourth.

Now cloning works with genetic engineering you could start cloning blue babies for instance or a man with superhuman abilities like limb regeneration for example. Genetic engineering is a part of the cloning issue since the sciences work well together. Think about it you could clone yourself but enhance the copy a bit with added strength or extra healing abilities how sweet would that be.

Again though my biggest concern is making exact duplicates of living people. Think about it if you knew you were a clone how would you feel or would you feel at all. Would clones be mentally and psychologically stable?

[John Wilkes Booth]

Is Phaedrus broken or something? Why is he repeating my posts?

[John Wilkes Booth]

Canadian_Patriot wrote: I am all for cloning but i do wonder is it fair to the clone if they know they are nothing more then a copy what kind of mental issues would human clones have. Twins don't have mental issues, why would clones? Quote: How do we overcome genetic sickness because up until now every mammal clone had died from genetic problems. That was issue #1 on my original list. That's a technology issue. Quote: My biggest argument is the abuses of the technology like cloning an army for instance Clones are still individuals capable of making decisions. Quote: or cloning figures like Adolf Hitler Big deal. Maybe this one will get into art school. Quote: or recreations of Einstein and so fourth. How is cloning Einstein a bad thing? I'd be pumped to find out I have Einstein's DNA. Quote:

Now cloning works with genetic engineering you could start cloning blue babies for instance or a man with superhuman abilities like limb regeneration for example. Genetic engineering is a part of the cloning issue since the sciences work well together. Think about it you could clone yourself but enhance the copy a bit with added strength or extra healing abilities how sweet would that be.
Except the two technologies will be progress on two completely different timelines. One might be perfect in a decade and the other in 1000 years.

Furthermore I fail to see how a clone with superstrength and healing ability is in any way cooler than just a person with superstrength and healing ability. Quote:
Again though my biggest concern is making exact duplicates of living people. Think about it if you knew you were a clone how would you feel or would you feel at all. Would clones be mentally and psychologically stable?
A clone isn't an exact duplicate. It's merely a person with the same DNA as someone else. All the environmental factors would be different (like twins, clones have different fingerprints, for example). You know how sometimes it's easy to tell "identical" twins apart? They're still slightly different.

"Would you feel at all?" Are you kidding? It's a twin. Twins feel. They don't suck psychic energy or soul energy from each other.

Jeez people have goofy ideas. I feel like I'm in the Dark Ages sometimes.[/quote]

[Phædrus]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Is Phaedrus broken or something? Why is he repeating my posts?

fascinating phraseology ...

I was trying to demonstarte some problems with cloning

1) how would it be if you came across another doing exactly the same as you do?

2) is a clone actually a clone? (given that envirnmental circumstances would be different)

... sorry for being "broken"

human cloning would of course render sexual differentiation obsolete ... no more men and women, no more sex ... maybe not such a bad idea

[John Wilkes Booth]

Phædrus wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Is Phaedrus broken or something? Why is he repeating my posts?

fascinating phraseology ...

I was trying to demonstarte some problems with cloning

1) how would it be if you came across another doing exactly the same as you do?
It would and did weird me out. Why would cloning make that happen? Quote:
2) is a clone actually a clone? (given that envirnmental circumstances would be different)
Exactly. Clones only have the same DNA, the environmental factors would make them different people. Quote:
... sorry for being "broken"

human cloning would of course render sexual differentiation obsolete ... no more men and women, no more sex ... maybe not such a bad idea

Well, more specifically, it's only men who are unecessary in the cloning process. A clone embryo still needs a uterus to grow in.

Artificial incubation is a different issue for another thread.

[Sataere]

politicalmojo wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

Cloning is tampering with life itself.
No it's not. No, it is breeding a lifeform with the same dna as another person. THink of it as birthing someone's identical twin through artificial insemination.

Quote: It is stating that our exsistence is relative and can be easily changed and manipulated to fit human desires.

It CAN be manipulated to fit human desires. Is your statement, 'cloning is stating that our manipulated to fit human desires', implying that our existence CAN'T be manipulated? Because it can, and that has been proven.

Quote: It is extremely dangerous and extremely unethical.
Dangerous and risky, yes. Unethical? Not by my standards. Just assume for a second that you were atheist. Would your views change then?

[Cato]

The problem is that you're dramatically changing what it means to be human, if we're not talking about cloning healthy organs for transplants. The only reasons for producing identical human beings are (a) to perpetuate 'superior' genes, and (b) to bypass anti-slavery laws. Neither is a solution to our world's problems: the former is a neo-nazi's wet-dream, and the latter is only a serious threat. There's no pragmatic reason for human cloning. All that we succeed in doing is redefining what it means to be human (by altering our evolution in a laboratory), and ignoring our world's real problems, and their real solutions. In short, there is nothing sensible about human cloning, unless, of course, you're a neo-nazi who wishes to produce a 'master race' of some form... But then I would just call you insane...

[John Wilkes Booth]

Sataere wrote: politicalmojo wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

Cloning is tampering with life itself.
No it's not. No, it is breeding a lifeform with the same dna as another person. THink of it as birthing someone's identical twin through artificial insemination.

Quote: It is stating that our exsistence is relative and can be easily changed and manipulated to fit human desires.

It CAN be manipulated to fit human desires. Is your statement, 'cloning is stating that our manipulated to fit human desires', implying that our existence CAN'T be manipulated? Because it can, and that has been proven.

Quote: It is extremely dangerous and extremely unethical.
Dangerous and risky, yes. Unethical? Not by my standards. Just assume for a second that you were atheist. Would your views change then?
Politicalmojo is one of the most mentally simple people I've ever encountered. He cannot grasp hypothetical situations, so don't bother.