Cloning
 

Well, Bush has done it again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...dc_7&printer=1

Why does he feel the need to bring religion into his presidency? Now, before you respond, think about it. In all scientific studies, cloning works, and thereputic cloning can help people who have lost limbs, eyes, incurable diseases, etc. Now, what's the argument against cloning? Religion. Now, i'm sorry to any catholics or people of other religions against cloning, but there is no proof on that side of the argument. Take away religion, and Bush's argument falls apart. Sure, you have the whole "upholding human dignity", but what does that mean to you if you have an incurable disease? A person with AIDS would probably rather try thereputic cloning. Then, they at least have a chance. Also, look at who most strongly opposes cloning. The Catholic Church. Now what does that tell you about Bush's argument. I believe he's turned into a fanatic, and has some serious problems.

Now, while the traditional cloning, making a copy of yourself, may not be the best idea, thereputic cloning could save millions of people. Now, Bush is pretty much condemming those people to death. I thought he had enough of that in Texas, but apparently he wants to go for the million number mark.

Sorry if this seems a bit negative, just had to voice my opinion somehwere, and this is the best place, cause i know i should get intellegent feedback. :p

I rather agree with you.
This is also why I didn't want Bush as president. Though Gore would be no better, at least we wouldn't deal with this.
Religion IS politics, there is no seperation. People are ran by their beliefs and morals, or supposedly are. In order to look like he's letting morals and not politics guide him, he is following religion as closely as possible.
Don't limit stem cell research.
Don't ban the research of human cloning.
Certainly, I believe personally that no human should be completely cloned. However, I believe that we should be able to grow another arm or limb for someone that has been maimed, or possibly knock out the gene for a disease...
I would hate to be brought down to childish rambling, but Bush has done nothing but stupid acts since he's been president. He handled 9-11 well... For about 2 days. His speedy entrance into war was a mistake, as well as this!
I listen to him speak sometimes and wonder, how the heck does a man like this afford his own suit. He makes words up on the fly... Actually I now have an idea. Thanks for posting this, I'm going to watch this argument closely, and probably contribute when I have more time.

That alone is highly arguable. There are bad apples in every religion, but this is another argument, another time. Perhaps you could set up a thread for that one?

Heh, now, i'm not going back on what i said about religion, but yes, i am slightly religious. i go to temple (i'm jewish) occasionally, i follow some traditions, but being a conservatist, i'm not crazy about being kosher or stuff like that. now, while i do belive religon can help some people, like those that stem cell research (or cloning) would help. religion gives them a reason to keep going on, and in that circumstance, religion is a great thing to have. in politics though, the answer is a big N-O!

i guess the "seperation of church and state" never really happened. it's time's like this where i believe democracy comes close to failing. one idiot who manages to make it to the top can screw everyone over. hopefully smart senators (like those behind Daschle and his counter bill) will prevail, because in all seriousness, if the USA wants to keep it's technology up to date, we must research into cloning and stem cell research. if this was a more open board, i'd say something else, but it's not in FIRST spirit in any ways, plus, i have a feeling i would greatly offend some people, so i won't say it.

i think all president's should have to be athiest. :D

YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT HOW RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT GO TOGETHER. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WERE FOUNDED UPON THE WORD OF GOD. YOU SAY RELIGION HASN'T BEEN PROVEN TO BE A FACT, WELL NEITHER HAS EVOLUTION AND YET MANY PEOPLE STILL INSIST UPON PUTTING IT IN THEIR DEBATES OF SCIENCE AND OTHER THINGS. I BELIEVE MYSELF THAT CLONING IS WRONG. I DO BELEIVE HOWEVER THAT TO CLONE ORGANS AND OTHER THINGS IS ALRIGHT BUT TO CLONE A HUMAN JUST SO A SCIENTIST CAN GET A NOBEL PRIZE? I DON'T THINK THAT IS RIGHT. AND AS FOR GORE DOING BETTER? IF GORE WAS IN OFFICE WE WOULD HAVE GUN CONTROL WHICH MEANS IF SOMEONE ROBBED YOUR HOUSE OR RAPPED YOUR BROTHERS, SISTERS, AND OR MOTHER YOU COULDN'T USE ANY WEAPON TO FIGHT BACK. RELIGION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. ALL IT IS, IS THAT THE MORALS AND ETHICS OF GEORGE BUSH WERE FOUNDED ON HIS RELIGIOUS BACKROUND. AND ALL YOUR TALK ABOUT RELIGION IS JUST BECAUSE RELIGION IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU AND IT CHALLENGES YOUR BELIEFS. AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW MANY THINGS IN THE BIBLE HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE!

One- please do not type in all caps, it is hard to focus on.
2- you obviously do not know what you are talking about by your incoherent strings of "setences" if we can even call it that.
3- Bringing up the mention of rape in a topic such as this is simply ludicrous. Pay atttention in school, and learn how to approiately present your points.
4- You have just lost all credit with me through that post. Present yourself in a dignified matter and I will actually pay attention to you.
5- Gore would have never completed the gun control laws. There would have been more, but guns would still be out there as always.

ok, first of all, thank you republic for showing why little lee132's post was a bit out of hand. Second, Little Lee 132, read everything republic said twice, saves me the time of writing it out again.

Now, on to refute your "contentions" if i may call them that. Your first "contention" is based upon the constituion being founded upon the word of god. true, we even say "...One nation, UNDER GOD..." in the pledge every morning. but, that has nothing to do with modern politics. america is a much more diverse place, with many religions. in my view, religion has no place in the government, unless you have a completely uniform (everyone of the same religion) state, which i don't believe there is even one today.

now, why can't government and religion mix? well, a very simple reason. each religion has different ideas. catholicism is very strict, belives in traditions, and so on, while sometihng like say, Hinduism, is a very different religion, with very differnet views. take that, and the amount of diversity within a nation, and you have a potential deadly mix. look at India. durig their independence movements, religion and government mixed. the result, chaos. same thing with Israel, and i feel bush is mishandling that issue to, but that's another story.

your second "contention" was in complete agreement with me. i feel i have nothing to say on this one, cause i obviously won on this point.

your third "contention" delt with something about you, or a family or friend being raped or robbed, and gun control laws from gore not letting you kill the person committing the crime, or some incohernt drivel like that. i'm sorry, but i never intended this to be a Gore vs. Bush. we had one already, obviously Bush won, although i can't say certain things i'd like to about that. anyways, even if Gore was elected, if there was gun control laws, no one would listen, and they would fall through. as you say yourself, the constitution is founded on the word of god, and guess what the second ammendment is? yep, the right to arm bears, oh wait, no, it's the right to bare arms (yes, you can wear that short-sleeve shirt in florida) :p. The fact that the right to own a gun is in the bill of rights means only some really dedicated politician will ever get it off the books, so i don't think you have to worry about that.

your fourth (and i believe last) "contention" deals with my inability to accept Bush's morals and ethics, and that religion is offensive to me. well, let me ask you something. DID YOU READ MY SECODN POST IN THIS THREAD!?! IT EXPLAINS THAT I AM JEWISH, AND I GO TO TEMPLE, AND I HAD A BAR MITZVAH, AND I DO EVERYTHING A NORMAL, CONSERVATIST, JEW WOULD DO. that done with, i feel you just lost part of your "contention". now, about the part where Bush's morals and ethics go against mine. well, that's an obvious one, anyone can realize that. why do you think i started this thread? to listen to your rambling? also, i know many things in the bible are true, and i have a rather good explination. the bible was written AFTER some of them occured, as a story, to teach morals and ethics to the children. the entire old testament was written after the events occured.

i think that covers all of the garbage that has defiled our previously-plesant and intelligent discussion. now, i hope we can all act like big boys and girls here, and not have stupid responses because we are a bit angry. also, Little Lee132, the PM you sent me was rather inappropriate. You basically invited me to come and prove you wrong. i'm normal easy-going, but when people of your caliber annoy me, well, it's not my fault when you get what's coming to you. now Little Lee132, please either go away from this thread, or respond in a coherent, civilized way, without any half-baked thoughts.

Well, for starters, my name is Replic. It has a different meaning from Republic as well as pronunciation. No problem though, most make that mistake.
2nd of all- Religion and politics are married, as much as you would like to keep it seperate. Politics are controlled by people who believe in a religion, thus bringing them together. It is impossible to seperate. And for the record, Aethism is a belief and therefore might consitute as a religion, so no, aetheist presidents will do no better than WASP ones. For those of you that don't know what WASP is, according to statisitcs (though I may be wrong with Bush...) every president up to Clinton had been White Anglo Saxon Protestant, EXCEPT for John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I do not know Bush's religion so I'm not sure if this is true anymore. This is getting into a completely different topic with a different level of complexity, so save any further thoughts and opinions on this for another thread. If you want, create it, and PM me. I'd love to participate.
As for cloning- the payback from it could be amazing. Diseases convential medicine can't cure could be cured. Limbs lost will no long be life-changing but a temporary experience as a new limb is quickly grown. To hold back this research is ludicrous! If I would go to hell for reasearching with stem cells (even though I would have no clue what to do as I am not a doctor) I would risk it if it meant better improving the conditions that humans lived in.
As for the pope (should iI capitalize pope? I don't know... does it fit under proper noun?) warning that Stem Cell research is evil... well, that was a dark moment for our dear Bush. It shows he is too serious about his religion in order to bend when needed. Why does the pope, a person with power only in the Catholic's religion, get to exercise power over Bush?
This is a deep topic, but I must say, the problems that come with the ability to fully clone a human being, such as being able to "raise an army" of super soldiers, is purely fictional and nearly impossible to do so. I'm sure the government could regulate cloning in such a way that it does not hinder its status yet prevent full human beings from being cloned.
Why oh why do I go against cloning full human beings? I disagree in playing God. This sounds like a religous moral or comment, but it is simply the wording that makes it sound so. Humans are arrogant creatures, and who knows what would happen to that arrogance if they can create life in a matter of minutes.

I'm in the process of setting up a message board specifically for topics such as cloning, politics, and world events. I just thought I'd let you guys know I'm working on it...

Sorry bout getting your name wrong, stupid me :p. Anyways, you are right about the marriage of politics and religion, and i guess while a comprimise in the middle is ok, i believe Bush has gone slightly too far. While having god mentioned in law, and on money, and stuff like that, it's fine with me. when religion begins to interfere with things that give so much back to humanity, well, that's where i begin to get mad. and if the pope can influence bush that easily, well, i think that's a problem. the idea of the pope started in a different world than today's, and i don't like how he can so easily influence world leaders to make potentially horrible choices. as to cloning full humans, that's somethnig i don't agree in. thereputic cloning and stem cell research is something that could definitly benefit humanity though.

<edit>
also, when this message board gets set up, let me know, cause i'd love to join, get some intellegent discussions going. i've always been interested in these things.

Please, if you want to insist upon that debate, let's look at this fact: Gravity is a theory, it has not been 'proven', since there's no way to test every theoretical spot where gravity can apply to see if something might magically float away; but, you don't see many people questioning gravity.

If you want to use religion as a deciding matter, do your research like the scientists that have toiled over laboratories to find out methods of cloning, and how to benefit mankind. See how scientists have worked day in and day out only to have their dreams basically dashed upon the rocks of religion's ego.

My point of view is: If you want to include religion in science, then science should have a say in religion. If you don't like it, then simply keep your matters to yourself. Believe what you want, pray to who you want, but give people a chance before you nullify it on an agnostic 'truth' like religion.

Personally, I don't think Bush should have the right to even speak of religion in any of his bills, it puts an automatic bias on all his decisions. Either way, he excluded every other culture/ethnicity/belief besides his own selfish desire to ban it, because his parents assumed it was wrong, and taught him no other way.

I wrote a term paper not too long ago on the matters or religion's impact on science, I'll post it after this, if you wish to see some more of my opinion (with actual textbook gibberish :) instead of my non-sensical ramblings, please, read on [it touches on some other subjects as well.])

--------
http://www.unidan.com/scienceresearch.htm
--------
By the way, some of the information there might be updated, and if anyone wants my sources (calling all uber-nerds ;) ), just ask.

Thanks for reading :eek:

Wow, thanks for the paper and stuff. I'll start reading it immeaditly. Interested in the boards I'm trying to start?

Definately sounds like a good idea, heh, if I wasn't so dedicated to the board I post on currently, I'd probably become a regular :) good luck with it though, it sounds great.

/end redundency.

Wow, just read the paper, and while a bit on the long side (at least, i never liked reading long things like that :p) it was extrememly informative and very well written. I hope some more people read it, would make for even more interesting convesation.

All that I am trying to say is that you have offeneded me and many other people by saying that cults and religion are exactly the same. Instead of talking about cloning, you have brought religion into it by offending other people as well as myself. And about the part of not letting Bush make decisons w/ his religious preferances....all that means that he wouldn't use any but he would base his decisoins on the morals and ethics that he has been raised to believe. Ian W., you say you are Jewish, so does that mean that things you read about and things that have affected Jews in the past do not reflect on the way your morals are based? I'm not trying to start a debate, I 'm just trying to see your points and show you mine as well as other peoples.

To begin my reply Kelly, I must thank you for being more civilized this time.
If you have been offended, apologies all around, as that is not our intent.
However, you have obviously misread some of our posts and I urge to reread.
As for cults being religion, I will now state one of my views which in no way reflects team 25.
Cults and religions are the same, to a point. Both are based upon belief systems. Cults have been given a bad name because many cults are simply ludicrous and take advantage of people. Remember that Christianity was originally a small sect of followers for a radical new religion. In other words- an old cult. The same goes for many world religions that started off. The difference is that they grew to full fledged religions. In a hundred years, who knows what cults may be powerful world religions (though I must say recently this has proven to be... not likely recently.)

Well, for starters, i never compared religion to cults, cause they are two seperate things (in my view). Secondly, the reason why bush cannot make choices based on his religious preference is because there are people, like me, like the muslim down the corner, or the buddhist monks, or anyone else who is not a christian, it could possibly offend. when you are the leader of a multi-religious nation, you must let go of your religion when you lead, because there are people who go completely against that religion for various reasons.

now, going back on topic. bush made a choice that goes against my beliefs, and i believe infringes upon my rights, if the bill is infact passed into being a law. there is nothing that i can think of in judiasm that says you can't do htereputic cloning. you yourself i believe said that thereutic cloning is fine with you. bush wants to outlaw anythnig that has anything to do with cloning or stem cell research. this could possible have detremental effects upon my life. if i develop a disease that's incurable. cloning WOULD have found a cure, if bush hadn't stopped it. now, i'm going to die because bush made a choice based on what his parents taught him. this is where i argue with his choice. i hope that hte bill is not passed, because if it is, america will fall behind in many aspects of biology. this is something easily preventable, but as long as bush uses his religious preferance, the problem will be there. now, can we switch back to the original topic, which is based on cloning, not religion?

and yes, thank you for being much more civil this time. i don't midn when people criticise what i say, as long as they do it in a polite/civilized manner. ohterwise, everything turns into a flame-fest, and everyone looses.

To blatantly rip off someone elses idea:

History up to a point can be learned, it has patterns, and the decisions that have been made in the past have led you up to that point, but do the decisions of the past have to affect the decisions of the present?

Without taking time to base your own decisions leads you to pre-meditated ignorance.

Anyways, the point is, if he wants to just 'automatically veto' any bill that comes in without giving any consideration, why have we elected him as our leader? Religion or not, biasing the fate of millions on beliefs that might only apply to a small percentage of people isn't going about things the right way, scientifically nor religiously.

The matter isn't about religion, it's about eliminating ignorance, just unfortunately, we have pseudo-fundamentalists bringing it forth, giving the populous no choice in the matter.

dangit, why do you always say what i'm trying to say so clearly and easily? i don't like you, you have a nice vocabulary. :p

apart from the joking though, unidan is right. i mentioned the fact that when bush said no to any cloning law, i got rather mad, because by doing that, he is effectively signing the death sentence for millions of people. now, how can anything, science, religion, or otherwise, say that this is good? even if you go and say cloning is bad, the only way around to a good result is to go through with the cloning experiements, and discover cures to incurable diseases.

ever heard of "the ends jusitfy the means"? forget who said it, but it basically states, any way you use to get to a point justifies the end result. sure, it doesn't work for the houlacost, but it does work for something like this. in the end, the people still win, because in stead of dieing, they live. sure, some embryos might be used in te proccess, but according to many soruces, life does not start until you ahve a beating heart. more proof for this. an 8 celled mass cannot have thought. there are no specialized neuron cells, therefore negating any idea that everything from a zygote on is truely living. sure, it might be alive, but is it a thinking, breathing, being? no, it's just a ball of cells, that one day may develop into a human child. don't forget, there are many stillbirths, so all embryos aren't destined to become children, which may put a dent in some ideas.

A religion is just a cult with more members...

I have nothing else to contribute (however this is a great read) I agree that politics and religion should be seperate things. Simply on the fact that religion clouds judgement which results in a poorly run state.

Time to add my two cents in =D

I am also deeply upset about Mr. Bush's decision. By stopping cloning, he is essentially stopping human progress due to what I feel are conservative beliefs. Stem cell research and cloning may very well be the most significant discovery of the 21st century. Everything that the transistor did for computers, human cloning and stem cell research may do for the human race.

How often have you heard about stories of people mangled in wars suchs as Vietnam or Korea? Stories about how people have lost limbs because of essentially guerilla tactics (Bush would call them 'terrorism', by the way. Terrorism seems to be the favorite word in politics since 9/11). How many people do you think lost limbs or damaged critical organs in all the recent suicide bombings? How many people die of diseases such as Parkinson's every year? People with Parkinson's slowly lose their memory day by day. Imagine the pain felt by families at that. Imagine witnessing your father, mother, or other close relative that is dear to your heart slowly wither away and lose all the memories that you share in common - everything that you have ever done together gets slowly erased. Then there is cancer. The breast cancer rate here on Long Island is one of the highest in the nation. Cancer is something that you can't change and is usually fatal. Stem cell research and cloning offer the possibilities of curing all of these. Does Bush really have the right to bring human progress to a halt? No, no he doesn't.

What it comes down to is that people are afraid of the Future. Cloning does offer some disturbing possibilities, but what significant human achievement doesn't do that? It is the nature of humanity to use every step forward for evil. However, denying progress based on some negative posibilities is silly. EVERY leap forward comes with these.

Take the transistor, for example. The transistor made modern life today posible. But the transistor also made every modern evil possible. 9/11 - that was due to the transistor. Nuclear weapons? Those are due to the transistor. Biological warefare? The transistor. Mass production of weapons, such as those that caused genocide during the Serbian war? Couldn't be possible without the transistor.

Despite the destruction offered by the transistor's power, saying that the transistor was a mistake is a completely ridiculous argument. Computers have shaped life as we know it. Increased education, organization on a global level, communication in an instant - admit it, you can not live without the transistor.

What Bush is essentially doing is he is stopping human progress. Bush is stopping the creation of the 'transistor' because of all the negative possibilities that it offers. He is overlooking the good that will come from it.

Think about it - you could stop all the horrors of modern life by going back in time and stopping the creation of the transistor. However, you would be stopping so much more. By stating that Bush will veto any bill that allows cloning, he is closing ALL the doors offered by that new technology. Looking back, no one would stop the creation of the transistor. Why is cloning and stem cell research any different?

Well put, Dan.

Also to, Ian's reply about conception and life, personally, what I think makes people so willy nilly about killing a fetus is that they're considering it a 'human' member of society.

Where you have to draw the line is: Do we attribute emotions and love to the baby after it is born, or before? The child obviously isn't aware of it's surroundings, and if it means using tissue samples off of ABORTED embryos, so be it.

You desecrate the 'corpse' of a body that had no cultural value yet. I understand the moral issues with destroying a fetus, 100%, heck, even I am a bit grossed on how the procedure goes, but like Dan hints at, you can't have progress without some costs.

If we abandon all research, even adult stem cells, used without hurting anyone, will lose all their purpose, turning a potentially non-negative attribute into something that was eradicated because of ignorance.

edited due to me extreme stupidity when i have no sleep. :p

Maybe it's just me, but I think it is odd how many FIRST people are so anti-religion.

corrupt people???
 

I myself am a Christian and I am undecided on this debate. I can see all points of views but I find it sad that almost all these post are anti religion. Like it or not religion and politics go together. I understand why many think they shouldn't. Some religions go against others. In the politically correct world that we live in today it's easy to take no side. However, this isn't a perfect world and we can't all get along and state our opinion without upsetting the oppossing side. Someone always gets overemotional and carried away. Not everyone cares about what the other person feels. Yet those are the people that want to be respected and sided with. Be thankful that Bush just vetoed the bill and didn't try to get rid of it. Maybe his conscience is telling him he needs to wait or doesn't want to be responsible for what may happen. It might be wrong for him. To each their own. Has anyone stopped to think about the fact that there are many corrupt people in the world. Cloning definitely could help many people. But just think if that technology ended up in the wrong hands. Imagine the possibilities.

Re: corrupt people???
 

*applauds then returns to her corner to be forever silent*

I'm officially throwing out my statement to be forever quiet..I just have one observation..

Somone said something about how many people in FIRST aren't religious. I have an idea as to why..FIRST is about science, math, and technology, all of which boil down into logic. With most religous beliefs, things cannot be divided into nice little logical slices. That's where faith comes it, to mesh the pieces together..without faith..religion and logic don't always get along so nicely

..just an idea..I myself live in both the words of logic and religion, so maybe I'm disproving my own idea..oh well..just a thought

Hmm, many people seem to see this as the anti-religion thread it seems. well, as littlefish180 said, science and religion don't mesh all that well. but if you think about it, most people in first are at least a little religious, praying to god that their team will do good, or that their robot will at least move for the next match, etc. first is not completely devoid of religion.

also, i'm not sure if i said this already, but if you dn't have a complete seperation of church and state, you can possibly wind up with a situation similar to India, where muslims and hindus have somewhat hard times getting along.

Science and religion are two totally different things. Science deals with what can be proven and tested. Most, if not all religions are faith-based. You have to take what they say on faith. The truth of any religion's beliefs can't be proven by science, period. Science is what we can prove. In my opinion, science and most religions mesh just fine.

I think President Bush did the right thing. While it is terrible to think that many people will not benefit from thereputic cloning, a ban on all human cloning, at least temporaily, is needed to try and keep crazy people from trying out reproductive cloning.

Sadly, it is practically inevitable that someone is going to clone a full human being somewhere. And many people will probably not benefit from these discoveries that could have happened. The morality of any cloning is kind of in a gray area, and I think that until we figure out where we stand we shouldn't mess with it.

My $0.02 :)

Also: I don't know all the particulars of cloning organs, but this doesen't make sense to me. Lets say your heart starts having problems. They decide to grow you a new one in a glass jar with your DNA. Once they start, it will take at least 9 months to develop into a baby's heart. It's going to take at the least another 14 or 15 years to become mature enough to be a decent replacement, right? Won't you be dead by then? Also, if the problem is genetic like a lot of medical problems, it will still be there in the new heart! Does this make sense? The logistics of this don't quite make sense to me...

Hmm.
Don't label people before you understand them fully.
I am not religious. I was raised a catholic, and consider myself some form of christianity, though I believe that only at times. My religion is my own, my philosiphies. This is not anti-religion, as I am religious to logic and thought.
I am not saying that religion, however, is irrational. This is a different argument for a different thread. My message boards are almost up where you can argue this all you want, and once it's done, I invite all of you to come and argue it. Should prove to be interesting to havenothing but a controversial message board.

about the cloning a heart thing. i believe the idea behind cloning a heart is to take a stem cell, and somehow grow just a heart "in a jar". they are trying to now make eyeballs (human that is), so i'm pretty sure with some trial and error, the ability to produce things like a heart will be widespread.

replic (ha, got it right this time :p)-
when are these message boards coming up? sounds like an interesting idea.

Re: corrupt people???
 

Points such as this, along with morals, seem to be the main arguments against cloning. Morals are something that there can be no right or wrong on - you're morals are your own beliefs, and that's not going to change. Personally, I feel life begins once cells differentiate into specialized cells capable of cognative learning. However, thats my opinion. Arguing this topic will lead nowhere.

What I do want to argue, though, is the quoted two points. Of course someone will try and abuse it. However, as I said before, can you name any significant step forward that HASN'T been abused? The car? It has ended up in the wrong hands. Electricity? It's been used by crazy people for evil. The airplane? "Imagine the possibilities" if an airplane got into the wrong hands. What it comes down to is does this mean that we are going to ban cars, electricity, or airplanes? I'd like to see the politician with the guts to suggest that. But then again, it would be doing us a favor since it would be getting rid of so much evil :mad: :mad:

My biggest problem with Bush is that he's using a ridiculous argument to justify a decision based on strictly religious, and so, his moral beliefs. Yes, I said that you can't change moral beliefs, but my previous statement is not hipocritical. Bush's decision was strictly based on religion. However, what do you think would happen if he said, "It is against my religious beliefs to allow cloning." Yes, outrage. So instead of using religious, he says 'moral' and says now the technology won't fall into wrong hands. And because of this, he is allowed to do it.

I have no problem if you make your decision based on religious beliefs. But if that is the case, stand up and SAY that it is for your beliefs - don't use a ridiculous argument to justify them. If you do, then lets put a ban on tobacco, guns, planes, cars, electricity - heck, you can even use a spoon for evil. Lets ban spoons too!

Simply put, brilliant point super danman. I love how you put that, absolutely loved it.

Ok, I just found started reading this thread today. First off, I am a fairly devout Lutheran. Mostly due to my paster I had from whenI was 6-16. He was a scholar first I belive. HE went and read the orginals in the Greek and Hewbrew and whathave you. He then but them in cultural context of the times. Logic and religion do go together, in my opinion. BTW, all statements contained herein are mine and are not represenative inanyway of my team.
Now, to reply to some individual points...
I doubt this is true, simply because it hasn't gotten that far yet. I have no evidence other then statistical logic.

I agree. Its his morals that define him as religious. (Or is it the other way around?) I thought that someone standing up for what they believed was a good thing. Granted, they should listen to arguments against what they believe, and of swayed, then change their mind after thought.
At least by using his morals rather then politics there is a better chance to understand which way he will vote on a given issue.

The seperation of church and state means that there is no established church. In other words, one is not favored or discouraged more or less then any other. Precluding religion from politics and government compleatly would shut out the morals and beliefs of a large percentage of Americans.
I unforunatly must take offense at the 'smart senators' bit. That is basicly saying that those who don't share your viewpoint are stupid. I would have to draw a parallel to FIRST. If you think the best way to win is to be a ball bot, would you think that goal bots are stupid? I hope not. There are merits to both sides of the argument. Please refrain from calling one side or the other stupid.


LittleLee, thanks for stoping with the all caps, it bought back memories of the Apple, and reminded me how old I am getting.


So what about the special interest groups? They are just as diverse as the religions. Envrionmentalists, car manufaturers, abortion activists(for and against), gun control, anti-globalization, the list goes on and on. I see great diversity there, and many don't get along. I do not see the fighting here among religions that there is/was in other countys, and I belive that is because of our freedoms in the Bill of Rights.


I agree that they are married. Bush is Protestant, so it does hold up.
It could be amazing. Diseases could be cured. I agree with that. But that could is two sided. For now, my DNA is uniquely mine. DNA is even used in court to determine guilt or inocence. I think that things like this are being forgotten in the wake of 'THIS could BE A CURE FOR CANCER'. I think that there are many aspects that need to be considered, but are being forgotten. Coloning is a mojor technological feat. Once we start on humans, I do not see it stoping. That is the major reason that I currently do not support human cloning. There should be time to think these things through. What is the legal status of a 'clone'? Would they be the property of their creator? Full human cloning is technological fesable today. You say that the abiliy to raise an army of 'super soldiers' is "purely fictional and nearly impossible to do so". So was flying at one time. I feel that one the ball gets rolling with a arm here or a liver there, that it will lead to full cloning eventualy. As to the government regulating it so that it dosn't happen, abortion was illegal in places yet it still happened. It happened in a (usally) dangerous and unsafe maner by black market abortionists. So a moratorium on research to debate and discuss these issues seems like a good idea to me.
So they have the same opinion on something. Bush has said all along that he dosn't like human cloning. Also, the Pope is the head of the Catholic church, a large block of voters. While all Catholics will not vote the same way, the majority of them share common beliefs and will tend to vote the same way.


I agree. My pastor spent a lot of time studying old texts. Putting things in the cutural context of the times when things were writting to understand the meaning at the time, and how that translates to today. I make no claims to being able to repeat what I have learned from him. All I can say is that, to me, it makes logical, scientific sense.
Nice paper BTW.


I am goning to leave alone the cult/religion discussion.


I'm afraid I do not understand which rights you are refering to.
Cancer was suppost be be defeated during the 80s. Not there yet. Point of that is that many things may seem like they will work, but then don't pan out.

I basicly agree with this. Nicly put Unidan.


Is there millions of people now that would benifit from coloning? I think not. By the time it was researched and tested, it would be 20 years from now for it to be mainstream, or close to it. And as of yet, I have not seen any concreate scientific results that it would help. So by blindly putting faith in somthing that looks initially promizing is logicaly unsound to me.

Part 2
 

I am afriad of what it may bring. I think that takeing time to think about the possibilites is important. Time for this argument to percolate some. We have become a society driven by technology. Cloning is a new technology, but there are major ramifications with what happens. Cloning removes the error correction that automaticly happens every few generations.
I just had a rather interesting thought: Evolutionist belive that humans have evoled. By cloning, we stop the natural evolution, and begin to evolve according to our own will. In effect, man becomes the guiding force of nature.



Robocardgrl5 I agree with you. I am Christian and undecied. I think that more thought needs to be given to the subject before proceding.


I would have to disagree Greg that 'science and religion are two totally diffrent things'. There can be plenty of science used in religon. Just as gravity is not proved, God is not proved. Same with the Theory of Relativity. Scientists put faith in that. Being human requires faith. Paper money has value only because we have faith in the government. I guess I am somewhat confused that you say they are totally seprate, then say that they mesh just fine.


SuperDanMan: Yes anything can be used for evil. But there is more then just using it wrong. Who owns the DNA? There is currently people being released from prison/death row because DNA evidence exonerated them. So they take stem cells from cloned embryos/fetus. They use those to grow, say new arms. They then implant said arms onto several people. One comits a crime, and leaves behind some skin from the new arm. Someone else with one of the same arms is a suspect, and they take some DNA. Match. Proof of guilt. Things like these is why I think that some of the implications of our actions should be thought out before acting.

Now for a final statement to this horribly long post. I just felt compeled to respond to so many of your elouently put points.
I belive that, as with everything, someone will use it for evil. But
there is more then potential use for wrong, there is other social aspects to be considered. The above crime example. The havesting of organs. A temporary moratorium on research to allow time for discussion and serious thought about the pros and cons of human cloning.

Sorry Jeff to politicaly disagree with you again - but I have to.

To me, human life is more important than anything else. More important than politics and religion. And if we have found a way that could even POSSIBLY save lives I feel as though we should be REQUIRED to pursue it.

No, I don't think that mister billionaire should be able to clone his dead grandmother, I think that is rediculous, because that person won't BE his grandmother, just have the same Genetic Make Up- but if you can start cloning human hearts, and lungs, for transplant patients so many lives could be saved.

For me it has nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with politics. (though I am a Unitarian Liberal..) to me all it has to do is with human life.

Remember everyone is different, so try not to assume anyone's intentions. And try not to assume you know how "everyone" or a certain group of people thinks. All I assume is me.

Now all of you religious people out there, I'm not saying this to try to offend you, just to make you think. Do you think you'd have the same opinion you do now if you had never gone to church? If you never had that loving pastor who told you all he knew? If you were allowed to create your own religious beliefs instead of going along with your parents? Just something to think about.

I have nothing against religion and spirituality - just it getting pushed on the masses. Everyone should have the right to choose, without having someone elses religion get in their way.

faith Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
~www.dictionary.com

Everyone belives in something. Faith in government, a friend, an idea, you do not need God for faith.

*deleted*

Bondage, first of all, I think you are a bit out of line. First of all, "they teach evolution in schools becuase it HAS been proven. Evolution is no longer considered a theory. It's considered a fact. " Thats one of the most arrogant arguments I have heard in a while. NOTHING has been proven - there is just evidence supporting it. How many things have been taught in schools that are now 'wrong'? Is evolution today the same as Darwin taught it? Of course not - new evidence have changed the theory. Is it the same as will be taught in 200 years, if even it still WILL be taught? By saying it IS right, you are not only assuming there will be no further progress, but you are also assuming others' beliefs are wrong. Personally, I am Athiest, but have you seen me say that other peoples' beliefs are wrong? This is a discussion, so please respect other poeples beliefs. Your first sentence seems to me like it is in direct contradiction with your statement, "And try not to assume you know how 'everyone' or a certain group of people thinks. All I assume is me."

*deleted*

A quick step-in here to defend the cloning methods...
 

Alright, I'm defending the methods of therapeutic cloning here. For the record, I'm an atheist, but I won't get involved in the religion/science debate, because I don't have time and must get off to do homework sometime soon... I've read quite a few articles on how this is done in magazines like Popular Science, Discovery, etc. and online dispatches like Nature, so I think I can have my facts mostly straight.

The way therapeutic cloning was going (for limbs, organs, etc.) was not that these organs were removed from a baby at 9 months or some other strange concept like that. Limbs are literally grown.

Stem cells are used from embryos (or, alternatively, from the brain of the patient [note, same DNA as receiver] or spinal fluid [note, same DNA as receiver], but embryos work best right now) in a solution that lets cells grow in the types they need to be. Cells are effectively "grown" onto a mold of what they need to be - this was recently done where a sheep's heart was grown (from 0 to fully functional adult heart, no maturing necessary) onto a mold of what it should look like. A CAT scan was used to fully map every crevice and bit of material in a healthy heart, and then used as a base.

What's really a shame is that stem cell research was leaning towards making stem cells from our own bodies more effective - instead of using embryos, they were researching how to make stem cells available in your body to work for you. Therefore, there wouldn't be this massive debate over embryos

(Person 1: You can't kill a living human!
Person 2: How far back do you trace a living human?
Person 1: When they're in a mother's womb!
Person 2: So a zygote (1 cell, where we all start) is a perfect human being, even though millions of things can happen to it to make sure that it won't be alive when it leaves the womb?
Person 1: Yes.
Person 2: ...)

Which is where I believe a lot of the religious debate comes in.

One last thing. As for the cancer treatment using cloning methods, drugs would have to be custom made from a person's own DNA, so no mass-brands would be immediately available.

Wetzel, some very good points, even if i have a huge headache from all the reading off the moniter. :D i admit, i'm a bit of fanatic sometimes, and when i reread my posts, apparently i was a bit of one before. i accept the fact that everything that can be gained from cloning is an iffy, there's no 100% way of knowing that anything useful will come out of it. but, you must remember, bush's defense seems to be religion, hidden under the guise of morals, and the only thing backing up religion is faith, beacuse most of it has never been proved. i guess you can say i have faith in cloning and the advances it would bring. :D

the biggest problem about this debate is that there's not enough hard evidence for either side, although, it still is very interesting, and rather fun too. :p

Well this topic has taken a turn for the best, interesting wise.
I do not have much time, as I have to do something for Robotix soon.
The raising an army is indeed impossible, or so I thought, because to raise that many people, feed them, and thus conquer the world surprisingly would be imposssible. We'd notice and take care of it sooner. However, then I remembered something I read, a bit of history.
When India wanted to test their nuclear capability, just to see if they could do it (this is back in the 60's), they built a nuclear bomb. They did it outside the sights of US sattelites. They knew everytime it passed, thus cleaning up all materials and hiding everything everytime it passed. Finally they were done with the building of the silo, and set the bomb off... purposely set off exactly as our sattelite passed it over.
A nuclear weapon being built and tested, and us not knowing until after it exploded.
Makes me wonder, how much can you pull off without being noticed?

Just bumping this up.

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?