the discussion has mostly been moved here:
http://www.freewebz.com/openthoughts/
or more directly here:
http://pub15.ezboard.com/bopenthoughts

That's not completely true. Hindus and Muslims in India have not have more trouble getting along than, say, blacks and whites in America over the past few centuries. And India does, I believe, incorporate separation of Church and State.

i feel bad for the pope, i mean dealing with all the sex scandals and stuff. Its just a matter of time before he steps down.

also, For everyone's informaton Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion, so jewish, christianity and all similar religions are based on our beliefs. since we dont accept converts,we are small but still full of pride (and hot air in my case) just look at my quote

First of all, I see no moral dichotomy between human cloning and any other kind of reproductive procedure like in vitro fertilization. Each involves the artificial creation of a human being, and, therefore, rights, obligations, etc. would be the same.
In addition, no one is blindly putting faith in cloning. What cloning proponents are saying, however, is that it is ridiculous to waste the opportunity that we are currently presented with for the sake of faulty moral arguments. (I mean no offense by this; I respect the opinion of those who disagree with me, but I would respect it more if they were consistent. If they feel that somehow in vitro fertilization is moral while cloning is immoral, then they are morally inconsistent.)

The diffrence is in the source and how it is used. The bit I'm saying is not just strait making another human, but the use of the clone for parts, or just making new parts.
Also the source for most of the experiments is the stem cells in fetuses, which is where the moral diffrence from in virto fertilization differs. In vitro fertilization is the same as having a baby, just it is in a test tube.

I hope my point came across, for some reason I'm not able to be very coherent today. So to attempt to sum it up:
1) The source of material - fetus vs sperm/egg
2) The use of cloning is not, at this point, intened for reproduction.


Wetzel

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take a short nap and wake up groggy.

India does, however, even with the seperation of church and state, have religioin incorporated into politics, though there are many exceptions

I think it is not so much about religion as rather about ethics. The question is when a life starts and from what point of time on someone has the right of personality. If you killed an embryo after this time for therapeutical purposes, you would clearly have committed a murder. Considering human cloning to get full grown up humans, there is still the question about the right to a unique identity, which is, as far as I know, part of human rights. If you clone someone, you clone with the person's DNA a certain part of the person's identity and thus deprive them of their humanrights. On the other hand, even if the person agreed to get a "clone brother/sister", there is still the problem about the clone's human rights.

I do not mean this to be absolute, but just as a look at the topic from a not neccessarily religious contra-cloning standpoint. The topic is very controversial and to important as to be decided with one badly written paragraph.

Religion has been brought into the arguement because it has in the past caused people to disbelieve solid facts. That's the whole reason behind me not being fond of religion. I'm agnostic myself. If you don't know what that means, then you have lost all right to attack me. Go look in a dictionary.

Galileo anyone? Earth the center of the solar system?

Without research, who's to say that something is right or wrong? What if we were to assemble cells on the atomic level (not that it can be done today, but future...)? It's just a random arrangement of atoms... Is that illegal? Are we just going to outlaw science altogether?