Political Crossfire Forums

[garyd]

If you are cloning because it is the only way due to medical problems that you and your wife can have a child I don't have too much of a problem with it however if you're doing it to to get you a future supply of usable organs for organ transplant surgery then you are no better than Hitler.

[John Wilkes Booth]

garyd wrote: If you are cloning because it is the only way due to medical problems that you and your wife can have a child I don't have too much of a problem with it however if you're doing it to to get you a future supply of usable organs for organ transplant surgery then you are no better than Hitler.

That's something everyone can agree on.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: 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.
So you're saying that the identity crisis experienced by some twins you know are so severe as to manifest as an argument against cloning? What message does that send to twins who DON'T have identity issued (or should I say, didn't before)? You're basically saying that their condition is so f****d up in your eyes that you can't allow it to happen voluntarily. Quote:

But here it is, in writing, about the generalization you made. It's a philosophical argument; twins don't lose their identity, whether a few think they do or not. It's not a matter of opinion; they're two separate individuals even if they think they're not. You simply misunderstood #2 and took it to be a psychological thing. Quote:
Generalization IS the word for it. Now when I challenge it to show how that isn't NECESSARILY 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. The context in which you're doing it, however, is a political one. It'd be like saying "whites should get affirmative action treatment because I know some white people who've experienced racism." Quote:
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.
Oh, you're going to love the answer alright: I'm not an authority on personality, thoughts, outlook, identity (cardstacking fallacy) and overall experience of twins. My arguments don't require it. The fact is, no one ever accuses twins of being unnatural or unholy or in any way negative. But please, by all means, prove me wrong by showing that people disapprove of twins in the same way they disapprove of clones. Quote:

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 explained in the thread why I didn't address the points: they were unnecessary. I was arguing against your use of the term apples and oranges, mission accomplished.

But I'd be happy to correct you now: That's the only thing that matters, as it's the only thing that could possibly rob them of their identity. Furthermore, at this particular juncture, identical twins (animals) are MORE genetically similar than clones, as the DNA doesn't always transfer completely intact (though the majority of DNA is non-functioning, so it doesn't necessarily equate genetic defect). Every difference anyone could highlight from that point on only strengthens my point that clones have an identity -- more so than twins. Quote:
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." Why would I want to do that? Genetics is enough, and the differences you've highlighted only strength my case about identity. You're doing my work for me. Quote:

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. So by definition the're not beyond comparison. You compared them. Quote:
Any two things can be compared no matter how different they are. What's the difference in a misty morning sunrise and the death penalty? Quote:
The point of comparing them is to determine how alike or how different they are. I agree. Quote:
I compared them in a way that proved that they are remarkably different. You gave me reasons that clones have stronger individuality than twins. You did NOT demonstrate that clones are worse than twins or even people. Quote:
I could write a page about how an orange is a different thing than an apple. People say that all the time, it's even a stand-up joke. And the reason it's a joke is because everyone but you knows the term "apples and oranges" means two things can't be reasonably compared or contrasted. Quote:
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.

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. Depending on what difference you think that makes, that's either like saying I, not Gershwin, made "Rhapsody in Blue" because I downloaded a copy onto my computer this morning, or it's like saying the obstetrician made me because he delivered me into the world; my mother just carried me.

Why is the infant mortality rate so low in developed countries? Because science has gotten involved. Science interferes with the natural course of childbirth and early parenting. In a sense, the doctor who delivered me is one of the people who made me. In another sense, it was my parents. For the case of surrogacies, in another sense it was my surrogate mother. And in another sense, it was simply the natural course of evolution. Does this science/parents/carrier/nature combination sound familiar? Yes: that's what makes clones, too.

Just so the significance of the surrogacy part of the argument isn't lost, keep in mind that gestational surrogacy involves implanting a fertilized egg into a surrogate mother. Like a clone, the biological parents don't have to be in the same room (if the presence of the parents is a condition of your approval, as you imply, I'd also like to hear your opinion on sperm banks). In this sense, the parents are "not involved." Now, I ask you, if the doctor allows the baby to grow a little, then extracts some DNA from it and adds it to a few other surrogate mothers, what about that minor step removes your approval? Quote:
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?

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?
Yes, I appreciated those differences. Thank you for helping my case. Quote:
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, not necessarily, so therefore not part of the definition Quote: who did not share the same womb together maybe, maybe not Quote: , who did not grow up at the same time and have a chance to bond with each other as such maybe, maybe not Quote: , who were created by man as opposed to God/science actually a clone is very much created by science Quote: , who directly descended from a single common anscestor as opposed 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) wrong, my clone has the same biological parents as me. Quote: and are created asexually meaningless. They were created sexually in one sense and asexually in a nonbiological sense. What's that matter? Quote: , 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. None of which is inherent to a clone. And for clones to whom they do apply, it only gives them more identity from their biological twin. Quote:
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. Are any of you people who accused me of social darwinism reading this? Ok, just making sure.

[John Wilkes Booth]

It shouldn't even be called cloning, it should be called "artificial twinning." I'm starting to see that the main problem with the cloning debate is that it immediately conjures memories of old Outer Limits episodes from childhood. Guy walks into tube, two guys walk out. It's not like that, folks.

[Cato]

Quote: Outside online political forums, it's very much still open.

Well, I think that conventional research techniques suffice.. It seems a little over-board to create human beings for the purpose of research; at least that's my contention. To utilize this technology for such a reason seems absurd, simply.

Quote: 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).

So, you're saying we should use the technology to create 'superior' human beings? Or, are you saying we should use it to breed slaves?.. Anyway, progress in no way guarantees an increase in happiness. But I think the latter belongs to a thread entitled 'what is happiness'.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote: Quote: Outside online political forums, it's very much still open.

Well, I think that conventional research techniques suffice.. It seems a little over-board to create human beings for the purpose of research I agree; that's why I didn't propose that. Quote: ; at least that's my contention. To utilize this technology for such a reason seems absurd, simply.
We have an opportunity to collect groundbreaking empirical data on human behavior and we should pass it up? Now that's absurd. Quote: Quote: 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).

So, you're saying we should use the technology to create 'superior' human beings? Or, are you saying we should use it to breed slaves? That paragraph wasn't about cloning at all, actually. It was a reply to one of your previous statements. Quote: Anyway, progress in no way guarantees an increase in happiness.
So just stop trying?

[mojo]

I suggest all of you read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. It goes into some of the societal problems associated with cloning.

[John Wilkes Booth]

politicalmojo wrote: I suggest all of you read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. It goes into some of the societal problems associated with cloning.

Association does not imply causation. Those people are also biologically manipulated into castes, not just cloned. How do you think the presence of cloning technology might automatically lead to a caste system amongst people who disapprove of castes?

[Phædrus]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: 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?

so what you are saying is that cloning is a wonderful idea because it COULD be used by the forces of revolution to overthrow the powers that be?

.... or what?

:shock:

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: straw man wrote: 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.

So you're saying that the identity crisis experienced by some twins you know are so severe as to manifest as an argument against cloning? What message does that send to twins who DON'T have identity issued (or should I say, didn't before)? You're basically saying that their condition is so f****d up in your eyes that you can't allow it to happen voluntarily.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You didn't even read the paragraph you quoted. That whole paragraph was pointing out YOUR generalization about the twins. You need to stop playing games. Like before when I told you that your generalization wasn't true because it didn't apply to ALL twins, and you turned that around to me making the generalization. Now YOU are the one who brought up the twins as your argument. Not me. My suggesting that some twins have additional identity or personality issues shot down your premise for the mistaken idea that since all twins don't have identity issues then therefore no clones would as well. The only reason we are talking about twins is because YOU foolishly brought them up. I would have never brought them up as MY argument against cloning. I would have sooner brought up quadriplegics, or clowns or some other type of person that has just about as much to do with a clone as a twin does. It's bad enough you should suggest such silly things, but don't try to hold your opponent accountable for them. If anything you calling a natural twin the same thing as an artificially produced clone might be offensive to some twins.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: ...twins don't lose their identity...

Philosophical/psychological call it what you want it is still a generalization. Some twins HAVE admitted they have identity issues. So when you say "...whether a few think they do or not..." how about if an actual TWIN thinks they do.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: It's a philosophical argument; twins don't lose their identity...

Philosophical argument? So far it is no more than an unfounded assertion on your part. How about this… Why don't you go ahead and provide proof for this statement I just quoted.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: The context in which you're doing it, however, is a political one. It'd be like saying "whites should get affirmative action treatment because I know some white people who've experienced racism."

Who cares about the context, I was only pointing out how you made the error. Frankly it is an error you can make in any kind of context.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Oh, you're going to love the answer alright: I'm not an authority on personality, thoughts, outlook, identity (cardstacking fallacy) and overall experience of twins. My arguments don't require it.

Actually your arguments do require it. You made assertions about what it is like to be a twin, as well you made assertions about it what it must be like to be a clone. I'm simply asking you how do you know what it is like to be a twin or a clone.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: The fact is, no one ever accuses twins of being unnatural or unholy or in any way negative.

Fact? It sounds like another unfounded assertion on your part. There are more than six billion people on this planet, all of which never would look down on a twin? Not only do you speak for clones and twins but also for more than 6 billion people. Why don't you go ahead and prove this assertion.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: But please, by all means, prove me wrong by showing that people disapprove of twins in the same way they disapprove of clones.

Prove you wrong? Shifting the old burden of proof I see. When YOU make a statement such as the one above then you need to prove it, not ask me to disprove it. Not only that, but since I already told you that twins are naturally produced, and clones are artificially produced, this may be a difference factor that does indeed cause people to look down on a clone who would not look down on a twin. They might say like, "you're one of the fabricated people you don't deserve rights" or religious people who might say "I am one of God's chosen people because he chose to make me, unlike YOU clone-boy" etc. These are sentiments not appliccable with our current day natural twins, which, again, is why it is silly to keep talking about twins when what we are actually supposed to be talking about is clones. Anyway I can't help you on this request. Like I said this was not MY argument.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: That's the only thing that matters [that they have the same DNA as something else], as it's the only thing that could possibly rob them of their identity.

Sounds like yet another unsubstantiated assertion. Go ahead and prove that one too. Actually don't bother, I can just disprove it for you. In my country there are people who have their identities stolen, it happens all the time, by bandits who do NOT have the same DNA as the victim. They do it by getting a hold of certain numbers and such. So it looks like there's at least one more way. Nice try though.

Now as far as the rest of your post, I'm sorry if you are upset by my application of apples and oranges or whatever. My point was that a clone is not the same thing as a twin. You even embrace these differences yourself. So how can you sit here and make arguments that since twins don't have certain issues, then therefore clones wouldn't either, if you officially admit that you are talking about two completeley different things? Forget the apples/oranges the point is that you are falsely drawing connections between two things that we both recognize are not the same. It would be like saying "a Ford F350 has a 350 HP engine, therefore a Honda Civic must therefore have a 350 HP engine." It’s retarded logic no matter how you look at it so I have to call you on it.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Are any of you people who accused me of social darwinism reading this? Ok, just making sure.

THAT’s your rebuttal? Here I told you an argument against cloning, just like you asked for when you started this little thread, and you can’t even say anything to refute it? Didn’t think so. That paragraph was completely different than all the other stuff we were talking about. And when you can’t say anything you resort to namecalling. Now you have your argument against cloning so you should be satisfied.

[straw man]

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?

Safety is a legitimate objection. I know you would like to start the thread barring certain arguments that you know you can’t handle, but the truth of the matter is that, like #2, your reason for attempting to exclude discussion of a negative aspect of cloning is completely bogus.

I tell you what. If you can prove that cloning a human being is 100% safe, and that the clone would be just as healthy as any naturally born human, with no reductions to telomere length or anything, then you can legitimately say safety is not a concern. But, since we’re not at that point, and may not be at that point any time soon, if ever then we cannot claim that safety will not be a concern.

But let’s say that we are at that point. How did we get to that point? Did we read in a science textbook how to perform the procedure flawlessly without consequences on our very first try? Did we just get lucky and do it absolutely perfectly on our very first try? This is highly unlikely. To date all of our progress made in this field has been the result of continuous experimentation, and trial and error. Remember Dolly the sheep? She was the result of more than 250 attempts to get it right. Prior to her successful birth, that many sheep did not successfully grow, we had that many mangled attempts and productions of freaks of nature, creating hopelessly flawed creatures. (how would you like to be one of THEM).. Now with humans we are talking about beings who are even more genetically complex than sheep. To get to the stage where we can do it perfectly, we are going to have to go through experimentation, creating humans where we might not get it right. This required trial and error, and experimentation would not be considered “safe”, and since it is a requisite, then it means safe cloning will never happen without the earlier stages of experimentation. This experimentation is what lacks the safety, and is highly unethical. It is true that safety is a function of how new it is. But the technology has to be new, and risky, before it can be advanced and risk free, and that is the issue which allows us to say no to human cloning.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Phædrus wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: 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?

so what you are saying is that cloning is a wonderful idea because it COULD be used by the forces of revolution to overthrow the powers that be?


No. I'm not saying it's a wonderful idea at all. You see, I don't suffer from this cultural sickness of wanting to ban everything I can't justify.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Strawman, either provide an argument that isn't on the list or split. I'm not wasting any more time arguing something I already said I wasn't going to argue about.


Thankfully, science has always progressed despite bigots like strawman decrying the ends of their own soon-to-be-bygone ages. Cloning will come. I'm just interested if there were any real objections, or if you people were still appealing to the same old tired, ignorant drivel.


The only objection to cloning worth a damn on this thread I came up with myself. Predictable.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Oh, and I just wanted to take some time to laugh at a paragraph that I think best sums up strawman's ability to take an argument in a stupid direction:

Quote: Sounds like yet another unsubstantiated assertion. Go ahead and prove that one too. Actually don't bother, I can just disprove it for you. In my country there are people who have their identities stolen, it happens all the time, by bandits who do NOT have the same DNA as the victim. They do it by getting a hold of certain numbers and such. So it looks like there's at least one more way. Nice try though.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Strawman, either provide an argument that isn't on the list or split.

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I did provide an argument against cloning that wasn't on your list. It was that one that you didn't have an answer for and so just resorted to namecalling, remember?

And as a general rule, if you want to "debate" you probably shouldn't just outlaw the biggest counterarguments against your cause right off the bat because you can't handle them. When you play somebody in chess, do you ask your opponent to kindly remove his bishops before you get started, because you know they will give you trouble? I showed you how items on your list make cloning a bad idea. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they are invalid because you say so. :roll:

But seriously the fact that you feel you need to handicap the opposition is pretty pathetic. You decided to start namecalling, so I suppose I got a good name for the guy who has to stack the deck before he plays, the guy who can't address the arguments he asks for that aren't even on his list, yeah I'd call him a yellow bellied coward.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Strawman, either provide an argument that isn't on the list or split.

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I did provide an argument against cloning that wasn't on your list. It was that one that you didn't have an answer for and so just resorted to namecalling, remember?
I wasn't paying attention. What was the argument. Quote:
And as a general rule, if you want to "debate" you probably shouldn't just outlaw the biggest counterarguments against your cause right off the bat because you can't handle them. It's very telling that you consider those strong arguments. Quote: When you play somebody in chess, do you ask your opponent to kindly remove his bishops before you get started, because you know they will give you trouble? You also don't let them bring checker pieces with them. Quote: I showed you how items on your list make cloning a bad idea. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they are invalid because you say so. :roll:
Any intelligent person can see they're invalid. Nobody, including me, supports cloning without accountability, so #1 is out. Twins are more alike than clones, and twins aren't illegal, so #2 is out. Vanity is merely a motivation, not an act, and nothing else is illegal just because you're doing it for the wrong reasons, so #3 is out. Cloning can exist completely independent of genetic engineering and vice versa, so arguments against the latter do not apply, so #4's out. And if you're concerned about the increased number of abortions, you can discuss cloning and abortion on the abortion board, so #5 is out. Quote:
But seriously the fact that you feel you need to handicap the opposition is pretty pathetic. You decided to start namecalling, so I suppose I got a good name for the guy who has to stack the deck before he plays, the guy who can't address the arguments he asks for that aren't even on his list, yeah I'd call him a yellow bellied coward.
You nailed it, I'm scared. Please don't reach through the computer screen and punch me, I'll do anything you say.

The only thing I'm scared of is wasting more time on garbage arguments.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: I wasn't paying attention. What was the argument.

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.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: It's very telling that you consider those strong arguments.

It's also very telling that you don't have the guts/ability to show how they're not.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Nobody, including me, supports cloning without accountability, so #1 is out.

Forgot to read my post about #1, huh.. I'd like to know more about that "accountability" trump you have. I'd like to know how we managed to perfect the art of cloning without first experimenting. I won't hold my breath.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Twins are more alike than clones, and twins aren't illegal, so #2

So because we haven't outlawed twins then a clone could never develop personality or identity issues as a result of being a clone. Whatever you say!

Hey do you want to have a debate about abortion? I would like to hear some good arguments against it. As long as it isn't about

1.health and safety of the fetus or mother, because that's really a function of how new abortions are.

2.loss of a soul, a potential human or a chance for life, because a queen bee's eggs do develop into larvae and then worker bees and they don't lose their soul.

3.humanity of the fetus, since people can just use a coat hanger

4.gay marriage, because that's a separate issue entirely

5.increased child support, because that's also a separate issue.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: I wasn't paying attention. What was the argument.

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.

You object because it will hinder human evolution? Any other eugenic sympathies you want to tell us about?

Are you really going to make me offer an anti-eugenic argument in the 21st century?

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: You object because it will hinder human evolution? Any other eugenic sympathies you want to tell us about?

Are you really going to make me offer an anti-eugenic argument in the 21st century?

I can't make you do anything. In fact I can't get you to address any arguments against cloning. Even with you cherry picking you cop out on every last one. I guess I'll go debate with somebody else who actually has a pair.

But "eugenics"? Don't use big words that you don't know what they mean.

[Jason.Spade]

I have a response that I think is valid.

Concise Brevity wrote:
We are growing up in a society where the lines between 'good' and 'bad' are being blurred further and further.

Cloning provides massive amounts of fallback material for the human race- extra organs, individually grown, to additional populace. Essentially, I'm saying that it becomes easier for the typical person to do something ridiculusly foolish and feel no consequence. If organs can be grown and replaced, there is less of an emphasis upon doing activities safely or smartly.

I propose that morals would further degrade and bring down the general intellects, or at least common sense, of society.