Political Crossfire Forums

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote: 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...

Bypassing anti-slavery laws? Clones don't have equal rights?


Jesus Christ, what is with you people?

[Cato]

Well, one hopes that they would have human rights. But, how does one police the proliferation and use of a technology world over? Already companies can own genes... Anyway, these are the only two reasons I can think of for wanting to create a human clone, and both are decidedly insane. Can you think of any that are positive?

All that I mean to convey is that the whole idea sounds absurd to me.. Why would one want to clone humans if not for an absurd reason? Just for the novelty of having similar looking people? Or, are you one who believes there's such a thing as a superior human being? A physical over-man? If you can't think of a positive reason, I'll just have to assume that you're a Social Darwinist, and that'll be that. Or, perhaps you see a race of slave-labourers, with minds bred to be servile and dumb, and bodies bred to be strong? :lol: You see, it's absurd; there doesn't seem to exist a sensible reason!

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: 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...

I so agree with you on that.

Good point.

[Phædrus]

for what it's worth ... I agree with Cato too ...

the only rationale for cloning is tied to the rationale of mass production ... there is no reason to make copies of human beings unless these are going to have a use value in an economy ... perhaps there will occur individual cases where any human cloning technology might have medical benefits, but the underlying motivation to develop such technology must depend on some desire to produce extra useful human beings that are different from the human beings who already exist and who can be used and controlled by some sort of elite ...

[Cato]

Thanks, cap'n, Phaedrus.

I think Phaedrus has revealed an important conclusion: cloning's value is purely economic. Cloning is only valuable to those who see in it an economic advantage, that is, people who believe that human kind should be sacrificed on the alter of human 'progress'. Human cloning could make human beings into cogs in somebody's economic nightmare, and, indeed, that's its only value. Utility? Economy? Progress? When did these become the ultimate human ends? Are we to live as ants in a hive, as mindless pleasure-seeking drones? These sound like the ends of Nietzsche's last-man!

[straw man]

Hey John Wilkes Booth, I don't know why you were talking about twins. Because they were talking about clones. It is silly to say that twins don't have mental problems. It is far too flagrant a generalization. Now I assume you are a twin in real life because you sound like you know first hand (I don't know but if people can feign empathy with animals I assume it's possible you're not) but anyway I just don't know, but even if you are a twin there is no way you can speak for every other twin out there as though they must not have identity issues because you don't.

Now you even take something different, like someone who KNOWS they were created by God/nature, and someone who KNOWS they were created by man, as though they would have the exact same outlook that twins as we know happen to have. I hope I don't need to elaborate further on why it's apples/oranges.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote: Well, one hopes that they would have human rights. But, how does one police the proliferation and use of a technology world over? Already companies can own genes... Anyway, these are the only two reasons I can think of for wanting to create a human clone, and both are decidedly insane. Can you think of any that are positive?
Yes: science. Right now, to study certain aspects of human behavior, scientists have to wait for the unlikely scenario of two twins separated at birth and reunited later. That happens less and less often. However, with cloning, we won't have to wait for such an increasingly unlikely scenario. So if some hopeful parents (more likely parents with fertility issues) agree to raise clones as part of a genetic/behavioral study, they'll have made a major contribution to science. Quote:
All that I mean to convey is that the whole idea sounds absurd to me... Why would one want to clone humans if not for an absurd reason? Just for the novelty of having similar looking people? Or, are you one who believes there's such a thing as a superior human being? I believe in curing cancer, you tell me.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: Hey John Wilkes Booth, I don't know why you were talking about twins. Because twins, like clones, have the same DNA. In fact, identical twins are more geneticall similar as most cloning processes involve slight damage to the DNA. Quote:
Because they were talking about clones. Oh, I'm sorry, did I interrupt a thread I started? Quote:
It is silly to say that twins don't have mental problems. It is far too flagrant a generalization. Now I assume you are a twin in real life because you sound like you know first hand (I don't know but if people can feign empathy with animals I assume it's possible you're not) but anyway I just don't know, but even if you are a twin there is no way you can speak for every other twin out there as though they must not have identity issues because you don't.
Twins do have mental problems, genius, just no more than other people. Quote:

Now you even take something different, like someone who KNOWS they were created by God/nature, and someone who KNOWS they were created by man, as though they would have the exact same outlook that twins as we know happen to have. I hope I don't need to elaborate further on why it's apples/oranges.
No, it isn't apples and oranges because a clone is a twin made in a lab. Period. Your argument that people "know they're created by man" doesn't apply to anything else that's been said on this thread. Furthermore, I can't speak for you, but I was made by my mother and my father: two humans. You might say "yeah, but they didn't make your DNA," to which I'd explain again that cloning refers only to copying DNA, not manipulating the code. Changing DNA is genetic engineering and is not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about cloning.

Everyone clear on that? This thread is about CLONING, not genetic engineering. Exact DNA copies, not DNA alterations.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Phædrus wrote: for what it's worth ... I agree with Cato too ...

the only rationale for cloning is tied to the rationale of mass production ... Wrong, I gave another rationale. Quote:
there is no reason to make copies of human beings unless these are going to have a use value in an economy ... perhaps there will occur individual cases where any human cloning technology might have medical benefits, but the underlying motivation to develop such technology must depend on some desire to produce extra useful human beings that are different from the human beings who already exist and who can be used and controlled by some sort of elite ...
On the contrary, cloning can be used to subvert the elite. One of the ways the elite try to control us is by cataloguing us, and one of the ways they've done that recently is by our DNA. If more and more people have similar DNA (imagine if a million people only had a thousand varieties of DNA between them), genetic profiling will be more difficult, and what can the elite do about that?

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote: Thanks, cap'n, Phaedrus.

I think Phaedrus has revealed an important conclusion: cloning's value is purely economic. Cloning is only valuable to those who see in it an economic advantage, that is, people who believe that human kind should be sacrificed on the alter of human 'progress'. Human cloning could make human beings into cogs in somebody's economic nightmare, and, indeed, that's its only value. Utility? Economy? Progress? When did these become the ultimate human ends? Are we to live as ants in a hive, as mindless pleasure-seeking drones? Ants have little regard for utility, economy, and progress, and metaphorical ants have none at all. That's a false analogy.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think you've basically covered the bases on the ultimate humans ends as they stand today, though you probably don't even realize it (both utility and economics are measured by human desire, by the way).

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, did I interrupt a thread I started?

Yes, a thread about CLONES not about TWINS.. :roll:

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Twins do have mental problems, genius, just no more than other people.

See the part I emphasised? THAT is the generalization. I know some twins who DO have additional identity issues, because there happens to be somebody who looks just like them. They notice it every time they look in the mirror. They told me so. This is a mental issue that is NOT shared by "other people".

John Wilkes Booth wrote: No, it isn't apples and oranges because a clone is a twin made in a lab. Period.

See the part I emphasised? It's funny because you pointed out a pretty big difference all by yourself in your own quote. Your reasoning is whack, it's like saying "yes apples ARE the same as oranges because both are grown on a tree apples just happen to have a different wavelength".. The fact that they share the same DNA as something else is about the only thing they have in common. What else do they have in common? All I have to do to invalidate your comparison is specify the DIFFERENCES..

Such as, with identical twins, both are existing SIMULTANIOUSLY.. Both have an equal oppurtunity to "make their mark" on the world, under that appearance/persona whatever. Now with a clone, that DNA pattern has ALREADY gone through a path. They must decide whether to follow in those footsteps or not, etc. These are personality issues that YOU would never have to work out. This is the same problem I have as trying to reason with people who say crap like "It's okay to slaughter chickens the way we do because they don't feel pain like you or I do, etc.." Until you can empathetically fathom the experience of ANYTHING besides yourself, step down off your high horse and quit pretending that you must know what it would be like to be a clone.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Your argument that people "know they're created by man" doesn't apply to anything else that's been said on this thread.

I already told you what part of the thread that argument applied to. It had to apply with your foolish comparison between clones and twins. That was said on this thread the last I checked. The fact that they know they were created by man and not by God/nature does happen to be an obvious difference between them.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Furthermore, I can't speak for you,...

Wow that's the smartest thing you said all day! But you CAN speak for clones. Got it.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: ...but I was made by my mother and my father: two humans.

Yeah and so were twins. But not clones! Imagine that! See you are pointing out the differences yourself. You're making this too easy.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: You might say "yeah, but they didn't make your DNA," to which I'd explain Quote: again that cloning refers only to copying DNA, not manipulating the code. Changing DNA is genetic engineering and is not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about cloning.

Everyone clear on that? This thread is about CLONING, not genetic engineering. Exact DNA copies, not DNA alterations.

I might say, "but yeah, they didn't create your SAME DNA. They created DIFFERENT DNA."

The whole point of that very creation is to make differences so that we can evolve. If you start constantly replicating the same crap over and over again you just foolishly dillute the gene pool. The whole point of evolution is to make DIFFERENT people. Which is convenient because I know that is not what YOU are talking about considering this isn't about genetic engineering. You really do make this easy.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: ...That's a false analogy.

:lol: :lol: You must be the expert!

[Cato]

Quote: Yes: science. Right now, to study certain aspects of human behavior, scientists have to wait for the unlikely scenario of two twins separated at birth and reunited later. That happens less and less often. However, with cloning, we won't have to wait for such an increasingly unlikely scenario. So if some hopeful parents (more likely parents with fertility issues) agree to raise clones as part of a genetic/behavioral study, they'll have made a major contribution to science.

You think the nature/nurture debate is still open? At any rate, does subject A have a choice whether your social-scientists use him as their research tool? Would he appreciate being born for the sake of being an experiment? Is it any different to abduct a twin at birth, or pay desperate parents to give up one of their young? Creating a human being for the end of gathering data on human beings seems quite rediculous, and quite amoral.

Quote: I believe in curing cancer, you tell me.

Curing cancer? I don't understand how this applies to the argument.

Quote: Ants have little regard for utility, economy, and progress, and metaphorical ants have none at all. That's a false analogy.

Do you know how ant-hives function? They're all about utility. I don't think it's a false analogy at all.

Quote: Actually, now that I think about it, I think you've basically covered the bases on the ultimate humans ends as they stand today, though you probably don't even realize it (both utility and economics are measured by human desire, by the way).

No, I realize that you think those are the ultimate human ends, and I rightly call you a nihilist. Anyway, I think that desires are relative. To live for ultility is to function as a machine; i do not wish to be a machine, or live in one for that matter.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: I'd be pumped to find out I have Einstein's DNA.

Einstein's DNA is crap compared to what God/nature/evolution has in store for the future.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

Canadian_Patriot wrote: cloning figures like Adolf Hitler...

What is ironic about this statement is that Hitler believed that people had no right to exist based on their genetics...

So far, the arguments against cloning seem to be sweeping, uneducated assumptions or purely dogmatic. That is except for Booth's statement about genetic diversity.

However, I don't think diversity would be a factor, because we are still humans and humans love to breed. I don't think clones would ever be a significant enough portion of the population. Plus, there is the chance that you and your family would know the clone and interbreeding between a clone and it's genetic family would probably be as common as incest is today.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote:
John Wilkes Booth wrote: Twins do have mental problems, genius, just no more than other people.

See the part I emphasised? THAT is the generalization. I know some twins who DO have additional identity issues, because there happens to be somebody who looks just like them. They notice it every time they look in the mirror. They told me so. This is a mental issue that is NOT shared by "other people".
If you think I'm incorrect, fine. But "generalization" is not the word for it. If it were, I could just as easily accuse you of generalization -- in fact more easily so, as it is you who claim a deviation from the norm by the group in question.

Furthermore, being a twin would not have any bearing on my knowledge of the neuroses of the greater populace of twins. I would have only my anecdotal experience of being a twin. Quote:
John Wilkes Booth wrote: No, it isn't apples and oranges because a clone is a twin made in a lab. Period.

See the part I emphasised? It's funny because you pointed out a pretty big difference all by yourself in your own quote. Your reasoning is whack, it's like saying "yes apples ARE the same as oranges because both are grown on a tree apples just happen to have a different wavelength".. The fact that they share the same DNA as something else is about the only thing they have in common. What else do they have in common? All I have to do to invalidate your comparison is specify the DIFFERENCES..
Again, incorrect phrasing on your part. In quotes you foreshadow your misunderstanding of the phrase "apples and oranges," and go on to demonstrate said misunderstanding in the following paraghraph. Quote:

Such as, with identical twins, both are existing SIMULTANEOUSLY.. Both have an equal opportunity to "make their mark" on the world, under that appearance/persona whatever. Now with a clone, that DNA pattern has ALREADY gone through a path. They must decide whether to follow in those footsteps or not, etc. These are personality issues that YOU would never have to work out. This is the same problem I have as trying to reason with people who say crap like "It's okay to slaughter chickens the way we do because they don't feel pain like you or I do, etc.." To accuse two entities of being "apples and oranges" is to deem them beyond comparison to one another. By giving me a lucid comparison of clones and twins, you've invalidated your original claim. Quote: Until you can empathetically fathom the experience of ANYTHING besides yourself, step down off your high horse and quit pretending that you must know what it would be like to be a clone. And what, pray tell, were you just doing in the above paragraph, but pretending to know what it would be like to be a clone? Furthermore, you accuse me of pretending I can imagine being a clone, and in the same breath accuse me of having insufficient empathy. Which is it? Shall I try to empathize more or less? Quote:

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Your argument that people "know they're created by man" doesn't apply to anything else that's been said on this thread.

I already told you what part of the thread that argument applied to. It had to apply with your foolish comparison between clones and twins. That was said on this thread the last I checked. The fact that they know they were created by man and not by God/nature does happen to be an obvious difference between them. You seem to be unaware that a burden of proof is on you. You seem to think that merely stating that clones are created in a lab invalidates my comparison, when in fact it takes some explanation. If anything, you've delivered to me a convenient package of a definition for clones, pre-approved by my opponent: namely, that clones are "twins made in a lab." Quote:

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Furthermore, I can't speak for you,...

Wow that's the smartest thing you said all day! But you CAN speak for clones. Got it.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: ...but I was made by my mother and my father: two humans.

Yeah and so were twins. But not clones! Imagine that! See you are pointing out the differences yourself. You're making this too easy.
Clones have parents too, genius. My clone has the same biological mother and father as me, and may have a surrogate mother who carried him to term (someone has to). Quote:
John Wilkes Booth wrote: You might say "yeah, but they didn't make your DNA," to which I'd explain Quote: again that cloning refers only to copying DNA, not manipulating the code. Changing DNA is genetic engineering and is not what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about cloning.

Everyone clear on that? This thread is about CLONING, not genetic engineering. Exact DNA copies, not DNA alterations.

I might say, "but yeah, they didn't create your SAME DNA. They created DIFFERENT DNA."

The whole point of that very creation is to make differences so that we can evolve. If you start constantly replicating the same crap over and over again you just foolishly dillute the gene pool. The whole point of evolution is to make DIFFERENT people. Which is convenient because I know that is not what YOU are talking about considering this isn't about genetic engineering. You really do make this easy.

Oh, I'm not the one making it easy for you. You make it easy for yourself by relinquishing the burden of coherence. I envy your liberating lack of sense. I find myself full of envy on most Political Crossfire threads, but moving right along...

Students, the specific logical fallacy used above is an implied false dichotomy. In it, you see, the perpetrator implies that an issue is comprised of two mutually exclusive options -- in this case, that cloning somehow replaces or even in some way interferes with reproduction. The truth, as is obvious to everyone, even the perpetrator himself, is that cloning and sexual reproduction can and indeed do coexist in the same world, and will soon coexist for human beings, as well. It isn't as if the matter of cloning vs. sexual reproduction will be put to a vote. The world is big enough for both.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote: Quote: Yes: science. Right now, to study certain aspects of human behavior, scientists have to wait for the unlikely scenario of two twins separated at birth and reunited later. That happens less and less often. However, with cloning, we won't have to wait for such an increasingly unlikely scenario. So if some hopeful parents (more likely parents with fertility issues) agree to raise clones as part of a genetic/behavioral study, they'll have made a major contribution to science.

You think the nature/nurture debate is still open? Outside online political forums, it's very much still open. Oh, I have no doubt that the vast majority on this website would agree with you that the issue is quite settled; I'd wager the agreement would end, however, at the actual answer to the nature/nurture question. Quote: At any rate, does subject A have a choice whether your social-scientists use him as their research tool? Yes, just as twins separated at birth and reunited later have a choice. As for the cloning itself, no child has a choice as to the circumstances of their conception, as well as quite a bit after that. I was an accident. My parents are Methodists. They even sliced my foreskin off. Am I complaining? People always urge you to "think of the child" when it isn't the condition of their own sacred childhood being called into question.

A similar argument is frequently made by those who disapprove of racial intermarriage: "whatever your politics are on race relations, good sir, how could you foist them on your poor miscegenated child??" Quote: Would he appreciate being born for the sake of being an experiment? Some people don't appreciate being born at all. People have a peculiar habit of rationalizing the circumstances of their birth and infancy. Would you agree? Or are you uncircumcised? Quote: Is it any different to abduct a twin at birth, Quite different, actually, as it's kidnapping. Quote: or pay desperate parents to give up one of their young? The word for that is "adoption" and it happens every day. You insulted the adopted, as well as their biological and legal parents, by implying it's some sort of unspeakable act. Quote: Creating a human being for the end of gathering data on human beings seems quite ridiculous, and quite amoral. Which is why I specified hopeful parents in my example. And anyway, people are born for amoral reasons -- often no reason at all -- all the time. Quote:

Quote: I believe in curing cancer, you tell me.

Curing cancer? I don't understand how this applies to the argument.
It doesn't. Not in the least. But I'm not the one who brought up Nietzscheian supermen. You posited an unrelated scenario, so naturally my response will be equally unrelated. Hence, as long as you want to talk about the long-term genetic effects of cloning, I might as well highlight one of the possible genetic benefits: studying the heredity of cancer. Quote:
Quote: Ants have little regard for utility, economy, and progress, and metaphorical ants have none at all. That's a false analogy.

Do you know how ant-hives function? They're all about utility. I don't think it's a false analogy at all.
My apologies, I was reading "utility" in the utilitarian sense, as a measure of collective human happiness. Quote:
Quote: Actually, now that I think about it, I think you've basically covered the bases on the ultimate humans ends as they stand today, though you probably don't even realize it (both utility and economics are measured by human desire, by the way).
No, I realize that you think those are the ultimate human ends, and I rightly call you a nihilist. Anyway, I think that desires are relative. To live for ultility is to function as a machine; i do not wish to be a machine, or live in one for that matter.
It matters little what I think of the ultimate human ends; I'm merely observing that you've highlighted the ultimate human ends as they stand today. As individuals, we're free to ponder the deep thoughts, search for the divine, express ourselves artistically, climb the mountain, fulfill ourselves through family (all of which I'd say fall under utility and economy, but whatever). As a society, however, we cannot all focus on one person's actualization. Everyone in America doesn't wake up in the morning wondering how better to fulfill Phil Simmons of Pittsburgh. As a society we can only aim toward making our collective environment more hospitable to our coexistence (or less). In this way, our collective goal(the "ultimate human ends") become that of functionality, efficiency, and betterment (utility, economics, and progress).


If you asked "what's 'ultimate' about that?" I'd have to reply, "I'm not the one who brought 'ultimate' into a conversation about cloning."

[garyd]

So basically you're saying you don't want to here any arguments against cloning. Too damn bad.

Like most everything else in life it is entirely dependent on your motive and some motives are much better than others.

[John Wilkes Booth]

garyd wrote: So basically you're saying you don't want to here any arguments against cloning. Too damn bad.


On the contrary, I want to hear arguments against cloning and nothing else. The other things I listed aren't cloning, people just use them to cloud the issue.

[straw man]

Actually, YOU made the generalization. You made it first. This is from your opening post which started this thread:

"2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?"

This is quite a sweeping generalization. I was not making a generalization by stating twins do have personality issues. I was simply repudiating YOUR generalization that all twins don't. I simply brought up the fact that SOME twins DO have identity issues, which means that your sweeping generalization about all twins not having them is blatantly false.

As far as I'm concerned, #2 is quite a legitimate anti-cloning argument.

But here it is, in writing, about the generalization you made. Generalization IS the word for it. Now when I challenge it to show how that isn't NECESSARILLY the case in all twins, you can't just turn the tables and pretend like I'm the one generalizing when I suggest that SOME twins might have identity issues from being a twin. It would be like saying, "black people don't experience racism" and then I point out that there are SOME black people who do, then you want to accuse me of generalizing by claiming a deviation from the norm. All I was doing was pointing out instances where your generalization wasn't true. It is not like me saying "all black people experience racism" just like I am not claiming "all twins do have identity issues".. YOU are the one who is speaking for an ENTIRE group by making a sweeping all statement. All I am doing is pointing out your generalization and it's incorrectness by mentioning instances where it is NOT the case.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Furthermore, being a twin would not have any bearing on my knowledge of the neuroses of the greater populace of twins. I would have only my anecdotal experience of being a twin.

Okay... So you are the authority on the personality, thoughts, outlook, identity and overall experience of all twins, yet you are not a twin. Where exactly did you get your "knowledge" about what the twin experience is like? I'd love to hear your answer on this one.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Again, incorrect phrasing on your part. In quotes you foreshadow your misunderstanding of the phrase "apples and oranges," and go on to demonstrate said misunderstanding in the following paraghraph.

You know if you are going to quote my entire paragraph like that, then please address my entire paragraph. I said the fact that twins and clones are people who have the same DNA as someone else is about the only thing they have in common. I have showed you plenty of what makes them different, which you chose to ignore. So rather than just claiming I don't understand apples and oranges, how about defending your comparison about how an apple=an orange and how a clone = a twin and tell me, what else do clones and twins have in common besides that? Why not actually defend the comparison you made, rather than just claim it. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a twin is the same thing as a clone. Other than one little similarity (while you ignore all the huge DIFFERENCES) you have not yet done so. Why don't you make a list of what they have in common, at least longer than what I say is different. And keep it relevant. Don't say any smartass crap like "they both have two eyes, they both have two ears. etc."

John Wilkes Booth wrote: To accuse two entities of being "apples and oranges" is to deem them beyond comparison to one another. By giving me a lucid comparison of clones and twins, you've invalidated your original claim.

Uhh sure if you say so... I listed some blatant differences that makes a clone and a twin different and you have not yet addressed them. Any two things can be compared no matter how different they are. The point of comparing them is to determine how alike or how different they are. I compared them in a way that proved that they are remarkably different. I could write a page about how an orange is a different thing than an apple. Just because they can be compared does not mean that the two things being compared are the same. You suggest that they are, yet I show how they are not and insodoing I compare them to prove they ARE the same thing? No we are not quibbling over whether or not two things can be compared, we are quibbling over whether two things are the same. How about you play the game instead of attempt a copout on some lame technicallity.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Clones have parents too, genius. My clone has the same biological mother and father as me, and may have a surrogate mother who carried him to term (someone has to).

It's funny that you choose to be a smartass here while attacking a straw man that you made. If you actually read what I was saying, you will notice I never argued, or so much as suggested that Clones do not have parents! In what I was responding to, you were claiming, "...but I was made by my mother and my father: two humans." You see you said that clones were MADE BY those two parents and THAT is what I'm disputing. A clone is MADE BY a lab. The difference is in how they are created and what created them, not whether or not they "have parents".. Since I fear you can't grasp the concept, let me elaborate. A host offers their DNA so they can be cloned. A science lab takes this DNA, implants it into an egg blank does whatever they do. Now this clone was not made by his genetic mother and father (in other words the two individuals from where the DNA came from did not decide to make this clone and go through the work of creating). No a science lab is what actually MADE the clone. In fact the actual "parents" (those who's DNA combined to create the DNA for this clone) likely had nothing to do with it. They could be long dead for all we know, so unless they came back as ghosts, put on a lab coat and started messing with the petri dish themselves, that clone was not "made by" his "parents". This is a huge difference betwen a clone and a twin, where a twin WAS actually MADE BY his biological "parents". Can you see the difference now?

John Wilkes Booth wrote: You seem to be unaware that a burden of proof is on you. You seem to think that merely stating that clones are created in a lab invalidates my comparison, when in fact it takes some explanation. If anything, you've delivered to me a convenient package of a definition for clones, pre-approved by my opponent: namely, that clones are "twins made in a lab."

YOU said that because twins don't have mental issues, then clones would not have mental issues. YOU are the one making the initial claim that a clone is the same as a twin. THAT is what is going to "take some explanation" as opposed to you just merely stating that it is the case. Since you said that, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that they are the same, not for me to prove that they aren't. Even so, however, I played your game and accepted the onus I shouldn't have even had and already proved how they are not the same by listing numerous and substantial differences between them. How much more explaining do I need to do before you are satisfied?

John Wilkes Booth wrote: No, it isn't apples and oranges because a clone is a twin made in a lab. Period.

This is far from a valid definition. I'll be dammed if it was pre-approved by your opponent. I was trying to point out how such a claim is blatantly deceptive. You putting the "period" on it implies that the fact that one was made in a lab and one was not is the only difference between them. I was pointing out that "made in a lab" happens to be one difference between them, but it is such a huge difference it makes the two hardly alike. But there are other differences too. You oversimplifying it, only acknowledging one difference while ignoring all others and then trying to cap it as such is simply wrong. To make it accurate you would have to say, "a clone is a twin made in a lab, not made by or raised by the people who initially provided the DNA, who did not share the same womb together, who did not grow up at the same time and have a chance to bond with each other as such, who were created by man as opposed to God/science, who directly descended from a single common anscestor as opposeed to two, etc. etc. etc."

In fact if you knew your definitions, you would not make a claim suchas "a clone is a twin made in a lab". Because by definition a clone is a being who descended directly from one anscestor (the donor of the DNA) and are created asexually, as opposed to a twin which was created by two ancestors and created sexually. The idea that they are made in a lab is a small difference compared to this.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Students, the specific logical fallacy used above is an implied false dichotomy. In it, you see, the perpetrator implies that an issue is comprised of two mutually exclusive options -- in this case, that cloning somehow replaces or even in some way interferes with reproduction. The truth, as is obvious to everyone, even the perpetrator himself, is that cloning and sexual reproduction can and indeed do coexist in the same world, and will soon coexist for human beings, as well. It isn't as if the matter of cloning vs. sexual reproduction will be put to a vote. The world is big enough for both.

I never suggested that cloning would replace sexual reproduction. Of course the two types of reproduction can coexist, and I never suggested that they could not. I did however suggest that cloning would have consequences on the gene pool, which is the truth. Unless you are sterilizing your clones, they are going to introduce the past into the gene pool. These outdated genes may not have a big difference at first, but generations later they will have made more of an impact as they are introduced into more and more lineages. The whole point of evolution is to be dynamic, BUILDING OFF OF PREVIOUS MUTATIONS. When you have arbitrarilly bypassed at least one oppurtunity for an additional mutation, you have set this effort back and impeded it. That is the bottom line. Yes people can still get it on sexually, and so can clones. But even if we had only 5% of everybody being a clone, they will still have made a more than significant impact on the gene pool. That is not the same as to suggest that that cloning will destroy sexual reproduction. But it does inhibit evolution whether you like it or not.