Cloning

[Keith Chester]

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.

[Ian W.]

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 )-
when are these message boards coming up? sounds like an interesting idea.

[DanL]

Originally posted by Robocardgrl5
Cloning definitely could help many people. But just think if that technology ended up in the wrong hands. Imagine the possibilities.

Originally posted by Greg McCoy
a ban on all human cloning, at least temporaily, is needed to try and keep crazy people from trying out reproductive cloning.

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

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!

[Keith Chester]

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

[Wetzel]

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...

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
In all scientific studies, cloning works, and thereputic cloning can help people who have lost limbs, eyes, incurable diseases, etc.
...

I doubt this is true, simply because it hasn't gotten that far yet. I have no evidence other then statistical logic.

Originally posted by Replic

...
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.
...

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.

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
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
...

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.

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
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
...

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.

Originally posted by Replic

...
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
...

I agree that they are married. Bush is Protestant, so it does hold up.

Originally posted by Replic

...
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!
...

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.

Originally posted by Replic

Why does the pope, a person with power only in the Catholic's religion, get to exercise power over Bush?

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.

Originally posted by Unidan

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.
My point of view is: If you want to include religion in science, then science should have a say in religion.

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.

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
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.
...

I'm afraid I do not understand which rights you are refering to.

Originally posted by Ian W.
[b]
...
if i develop a disease that's incurable. cloning WOULD have found a cure, if bush hadn't stopped it
...
[b]

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.

Originally posted by Unidan
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.

I basicly agree with this. Nicly put Unidan.

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
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?
...

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.

[Wetzel]

Originally posted by SuperDanman

...
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.
...

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.

Originally posted by Greg McCoy
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 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.

[Bondage]

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.

[Wetzel]

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.

[Bondage]

*deleted*

[DanL]

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."

[Bondage]

*deleted*

[Gui Cavalcanti]

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.

[Ian W.]

Wetzel, some very good points, even if i have a huge headache from all the reading off the moniter. 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.

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.

[Keith Chester]

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?

[Unidan]

Just bumping this up.