| Human Cloning: Playing God | |
|
Luke - ex-Student  |
Human Cloning: Playing God Lucas Ammons
Dr. Jenkinson English Fundamentals 27 November 2006 The year is 2016; a boy’s parents wait nervously in the waiting room of a hospital. Because of kidney dialysis the boy is dying. The doctor’s can not use a kidney from the boy’s mom your dad, because they are both smokers, and the family has a history of smoking. A kidney could be taken from a healthy donor, but the boy’s body could reject the organ. The only option now is to take a hair, skin, or blood sample from the boy to create a clone. Certain ethical issues need to be addressed before human cloning should even be attempted though, if ever. I will endeavor explain the different types of cloning, to persuade the reader and or readers that human cloning is the sinful pride of mankind’s ego. That human cloning is nothing than another term for premeditated murder/aborting a baby. Also I plan to prove human cloning could used diminish genetic purity. There are three main types of cloning: therapeutic cloning, reproductive cloning, and embryo cloning. Therapeutic cloning is according to Wikipedia; an online dictionary, defined as research cloning. Reproductive cloning is the process extracting stem cells; the cells of an unborn baby that can be turned into any type of cell, be it a muscle cell, brain cell, bone cell etc. Embryo cloning is the process of cloning is the process of taking the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing organism, to create another; twin babies are example of this natural cloning. This information was sighted from Religious Torelance.org. Liberals thinks that human cloning should be legal because human cloning would be “beneficial” due to the fact that a person with spinal injury could be cured if the use of stem cells would allowed. What those people don’t realize is that they are killing a baby by taking the embryo’s stem cells. Human cloning is another way of saying abortion because in order to make a clone its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) must be put into a cell that has had its DNA removed, killing the cell, then the DNA of the organism to be cloned is inserted into the now empty cell. A jolt of electricity is then given to the cell; cell division is the result of that. Liberals say that human cloning should go ahead because animal cloning, as with Dolly the sheep has been a complete success, this is wishful thinking on their part because they’ve failed to see, or just ignored the setbacks animal cloning has sustained. The death of a cloned Asian guar calf also known as a Pyrenean Ibex acquired just days after it was cloned, in 2000. Certain animals such as dogs, horses, monkeys ,and chickens that cloned are resist to systemic nuclear transfer; DNA is taken from a cell, then DNA from another cell is placed in that cell. Ninety percent of cloning attempts fail one hundred nuclear transfers could be needed to create one clone. Cloned animals have been shown to have certain disorders such as high numbers of infection, growth of tumors, and decreased immune function. The utter failure of cloning living species has also been matched by the failure to clone extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth, because the DNA of the mammoth has degraded. The last reasons human cloning should not be attempted is because genetic purity, by I mean human offspring born of two parents that have different genotypes (genetic traits) and different phenotypes (physical traits) would not brake down the human genome because new genetic material would be introduced, but cloning would cause genetic brake down because of the same DNA would be used over and over again. Information found on website Cloning fact sheet. Cloning is not the only way genetic brake down can occur unfortunly. For centuries the royal families of Europe; Hapsburgs, Romovs etc. were all relatives, by marriage or birth. As a result of this however that was if one family line had a disease that disease could easily spread. Lastly God created the heavens and the earth, and all the animals and plants that inhabit the earth, but his greatest creation was Adam and Eve, first man and women on Earth. “The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7) God designed everything in the universe, and who we to think we are better then him, If god wanted cloning to exist he would have made us all (humans) clones. _______________ Lucas Ammons |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! |
| Comments |
|
cHoSeN oNe - Retired 
|
So let's say I became president. Is it wrong for me to create a GRAND ARMY of the REPUBLIC to counter the increasing threats of the separatists? _______________ Get busy living, or get busy dying. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Quote: accuracy of scientific entries
My first statement. Quote: When dealing with scientific data, and mathematical information its been determined to be about as valid as an actual encyclopedia. But that's the only time.
Using an encyclopedia also seems to fall out of favor with the teachers I had at about the 8th grade. Either discouraged or flat out told not to use them. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Jan 07 2007 10:03am. |
|
Kenyon - Lord of the Dance 
|
Quote: If your teacher is letting you regularly cite wikipedia as a source then they are a moron, and should be flunked as a professor.
Although I wouldn't say Wikipedia is the 'most credible source' out there, I don't think it's the cesspool of information hell that it's made out to be, not even comparatively. Check out this quote: Quote: The British science journal Nature facilitated a study that examined the comparative accuracy of scientific entries in Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in December of 2005. Nature found the two sources to contain a similar amount of errors, with each having 4 serious errors relating to misinterpretations of important concepts in the pairs of articles reviewed. A considerable amount of minor errors were also found in Wikipedia and Britannica according to Nature: "Reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
Makes you think, doesn't it?  This comment was edited by Kenyon on Jan 07 2007 09:40am. |
|
Fire - Student 
|
I believe that's un-credible. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Quote: Tell me what's better: Book or website written by one or a small group of people, with no one to tell them that their information is wrong, or a place with thousands of viewers who check every single article and fix any mistakes almost instantly
I'll add more based on this point. So you're telling me that a book written by a person who has possibly spent years or decades researching a subject; Likely had editors and fact checkers looking into matters while it was being written. Then after publishing is read by many experts of the same field which will then review it determine its credibility and will continue to be used as a reliable source. You're going to tell me a website where any moron from high school on up can go in write in information that is unverified, can stick an opinion in there and act like its a fact, is more reliable than a book. That really is laughable. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Rinzler - Student 
|
Most Flawed Point of View Record Holder: Darthmike Jan 2007-Current _______________ I fite for teh usars!1 |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: Wikipedia is about the most credible source out there.
Sorry but its about the most unreliable source out there. When dealing with scientific data, and mathematical information its been determined to be about as valid as an actual encyclopedia. But that's the only time. There's a reason they need to stop people from vandalizing some pages, as well as disputing neutrality of others. You're better off going somewhere else to get your information or follow wikipedia to the source of its information and determining if that site would actually be credible. If your teacher is letting you regularly cite wikipedia as a source then they are a moron, and should be flunked as a professor. They should also be reading wikipedia as well for whatever topic is assigned so they can spot when its being plagiarized in a report. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
xAnAtOs - Student |
Quote: Wikipedia is about the most credible source out there.
what? are you serious? what makes these thousands of viewers reliable sources? who authenticates the material? why should i trust it? for all i know a five year old could have edited the articles. why cant you critique books or websites? tell them they're wrong. tell them they suck. (and btw, ive only brought up a couple of the unlimited reasons why wikipedia is not a credible source) _______________ Brother to Luke Skywalker and (SKX) Dark Blade 
Lag Brother to Acey Spadey 
Jools is my best friend.
<Henkes> nebody feeling like abusing me with a lightsaber?|+Smilykrazy grabs Gradius, beats the living CRAP out of him, then throws him into a huge vat of ACID |
|
DarthMike - Student 
|
Quote: Yes, I would agree with most of the posts below. I would suggest getting much more informed before you write a prejudicial thread.
Also, things like Wikipedia and Religion are good to stay away from when making an argument. Why? 1) Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by the public, and isn't credible, and 2) because most people already have prejudice against religion, and will be immediately turned off by religious remarks or references. I agree that cloning full humans can have bad consequences, but that's not what all cloning is. EDIT: Oh yeah, and paragraphs are your friend. Eh? Wikipedia is about the most credible source out there. Tell me what's better: Book or website written by one or a small group of people, with no one to tell them that their information is wrong, or a place with thousands of viewers who check every single article and fix any mistakes almost instantly? People think Wikipedia's open-editing scheme makes it un-credible, but is actually the exact reason why it is credible. And most people have prejudice against religion eh? You do know more than half the world is religous? _______________ "You can't get Windows on a Mac because the drivers are not compatible." --- Some dude from the Geek Squad "So if you have quad-core, you have four times the RAM, right?" --- Some guy at Best Buy This comment was edited by DarthMike on Jan 06 2007 06:30pm. |
|
Flugel - Student 
|
*Prepares for flaming* 
I don't see what's wrong with cloning... Your post just seems to go about it being against religion. Can anyone explain? This comment was edited by Flugel on Jan 06 2007 06:24pm. |
|
Ashyr - Student 
|
Yes, I would agree with most of the posts below. I would suggest getting much more informed before you write a prejudicial thread.
Also, things like Wikipedia and Religion are good to stay away from when making an argument. Why? 1) Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can be edited by the public, and isn't credible, and 2) because most people already have prejudice against religion, and will be immediately turned off by religious remarks or references. I agree that cloning full humans can have bad consequences, but that's not what all cloning is. EDIT: Oh yeah, and paragraphs are your friend. _______________ Top ten reasons to get a better computer...|My fan This comment was edited by Ashyr on Jan 05 2007 10:53pm. |
|
SaZ - Student 
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My views my paper are intended to anger anyone.
O.O What I was O_O about too, a couple posts down. this is weird... but its good! training for j3d4i! dont give in to your anger dudes! lolol as for content of this threads... i kinda feel like im surrounded by nerds lol _______________ playing jk3 since 30th of january (2005), member since 1st of february. [Unofficial Master to Vision and Z�diac ] If you can make a fool of yourself infront of 300 people you can do anything - Jaiko D'kana This comment was edited by SaZ on Jan 02 2007 11:38pm. |
|
Majno - Padawan 
|
Quote:
Quote:
My views my paper are intended to anger anyone.
O.O What I was O_O about too, a couple posts down. _______________ " You've just taken your first steps into a larger world. " - Ben. |
|
Menaxia - Student 
|
Quote: My views my paper are intended to anger anyone.
O.O _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
Esta - Student 
|
I hate to be another person picking away at your article, Luke, but sometimes things just must be done for the sake of a scientific point.
Quote: The last reasons human cloning should not be attempted is because genetic purity, by I mean human offspring born of two parents that have different genotypes (genetic traits) and different phenotypes (physical traits) would not brake down the human genome because new genetic material would be introduced, but cloning would cause genetic brake down because of the same DNA would be used over and over again.
Where to begin, I can hardly see the argument here. At least in the context of the little boy who needs a kidney to live, that is. Variation amongst a species occurs when who chromatids meet at the point of fertilisation, and during meiosis (the creation haploid sex cells), neither of which I'll go into more detail about, it's unrelated. The kidney has no part in genetic variation. The point I'm seeing in this scenario is that cloning organs is merely a way of replacing them with exact duplicates of the original organs. Quote: Therapeutic cloning is according to Wikipedia; an online dictionary, defined as research cloning.
If you want your article to be taken seriously by scientific groups, don't ever reference wikipedia. Reference scientifically authorized and accepted sources instead. As for a moral view, well again taking the scenario of the boy who needs a kidney to live... I say as long as it's organs you're creating for the purpose of sustaining life, it's okay. I believe morality to be about doing the right thing, which should always be the choice that makes everyone happy, (rather than what a certain unaccounted deity may have been interpreted to say). Hell, just keeping people alive should be moral enough in my opinion. We don't all have the luxury of being able to do so, if you have the chance to, take it. _______________ -Kauyon Draconis [Official master of Ataris] This comment was edited by Esta on Jan 02 2007 11:23am. |
|
Lirael - Jedi Council 
|
yw _______________ I can write my name with my sparkler. My sparkler > your lightsabre |
|
Masta - Jedi Council 
|
:clap:
Thanks a lot! http://www.iciyatou.net/bibliotheque/15052006/love-you.jpg _______________ Find out more about the Jedi Academy Aurochs here and more about Masta here! Married to Kain. |
|
Lirael - Jedi Council
|
1
I emphasised phronesis as opposed to sophia in the context of cloning since previously unknown factors in new technology are often found through practical experimentation. Having said that, Kuhn is probably right in asserting that scientific observations are always made in the context of scientific theories and so I do not debate that phronesis should always be relied upon at the expense of sophia. Aristotle inherited from Socrates an interest in the unity of virtue who seemed to have held there might only be one virtue. Whilst Aristotle did think that there were separate virtues, his view comes almost to the same thing since he thought one could not have one virtue without having them all. Again this implies that sophia and phronesis are both required. Bentham proposed that the sole motivation of humans is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This also seems to hold for other animals as well, so if this thesis is accepted one cannot deny that long term intellectual/sensual pleasure has relevance to eudemonia. Whilst I am aware Mill disagreed, preferring to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, and the role of nurture is not to be ignored, in the original context of cloning it is appropriate to note the similarity in their respective DNA. 2 Aristotle’s version that virtues are dispositions of character acquired by ethical training displayed not just in action but in patterns of emotional character suggest he would want it both ways However historical variation in the content of the virtuous is obvious and also implies a subjective (although not arbitrary) interpretation of the theory. Aquinas notably developed Aristotle’s account to accommodate Christianity whereas Hume used virtue theory produce ethics that would exclude Christianity. This historical reinterpretation and changing values cast doubt upon the Aristotelian presupposition that an understanding of human nature could yield a rational and determinate account of the virtues. However there do appear to be certain constants of human psychology that makes some virtues ubiquitous: everyone is likely to need courage and self control. I do not entirely accept the sharp distinction made between the perfection of rationality which I equate with intellectual pleasure and sensationalistic passion due to drawing parallels with distinctions of mind and body. If a strict monist functionalist model is applied, since either of these ‘options’ are experienced in the ‘mind’, they are fundamentally the same. If virtues are created through subjective valuations one must probably continue along logical positivists’ thinking that ethical statements such as ‘modesty is good’ are entirely non-cognitive. Whilst some might argue that this is unfair – ethical statements are based upon cognitive evidence, Moore points out that such a leap in logic from an ‘is’ (cognitive) to a ‘should’ (non-cognitive) is invalid. Since you asked for my own thoughts on this, here come a few leaps of logic of my own. I would argue that in some areas of theoretical physics, there are also leaps being made from the cognitive to the non cognitive. In certain versions of grand theories of everything, as well as numerous dimensions, parallel universes are also proposed. By definition separate universes cannot interact, so I see no reason why relative to myself, I could not define another universe as metaphysical. Yet Ayer (a logical positivist as I’m sure you know) argues that the whole of metaphysics is quite literally non-sensical and therefore can have no cognitive meaning. Thus I am left with a choice between the logic which asserts you cannot jump between the cognitive and non cognitive and maths with suggests that very possibility. Due many nuances and confusion of terms in the past, I would say maths is probably the more reliable. To have a cognitive – non-cognitive separation is in many ways impractical, few people really live by Kant’s view that we only know of our own qualia and can never be certain of the outside world So back to the original question – I’d disagree that the valuations of virtues are entirely non-cognitive and subjective but that doesn’t mean I would reject it for Aristotelian teleological methodology. I.e. I don’t think it is philosophically necessary to choose between the two 3. Certainly as time passes and successive consequences are known, one’s opinions can change – however is this valid? If you change your mind simply due to an unforeseen consequence, as previously discussed you are committing the naturalistic fallacy. The concept of double effect also comes to mind here, if you intended a good consequence which did occur, but also resulted in a bad consequence as an unintended bi-product, the original action itself is still not wrong. As for whether revisionism can refute consequentialism, I don’t think so when the two are so closely related. Predicting the future will always be a weakness of consequentialist theories but rejecting or accepting an action on the basis of the reassessment of the consequences is still in essence consequential. _______________ I can write my name with my sparkler. My sparkler > your lightsabre This comment was edited by Lirael on Jan 01 2007 09:35pm. |
|
Majno - Padawan
|
Quote: If I caused anyone to become angry with me, I am truely sorry. My views my paper are intended to anger anyone.
Some very provocative typos there, if they indeed are typos. _______________ " You've just taken your first steps into a larger world. " - Ben. |
|
Luke - Ex-Student 
|
If I caused anyone to become angry with me, I am truely sorry. My views my paper are intended NOT to anger anyone. _______________ Lucas Ammons This comment was edited by Luke on Jan 02 2007 06:13pm. |
|
Masta - Jedi Council
|
Lirael ~ i enjoyed reading your post. Since you seem to have a general grasp of the things you are talking about, i'd like to pose a few questions i have been pondering about whilst reading your post:
1. According to Socratic Intellectualism, eudaimonia is supposed to be the ultimate goal of all human beings. However, do you believe that phronesis alone, or indeed, the combination of the two intellectual virtues sophia and phronesis, would be sufficient enough to achieve eudaimonia? Infact, would you classify long-term intellectual/sensual pleasure as a form of eudaimonia, or deny this as a life suited for the beasts without anysort of connotation to eudaimonia at all? ~ like Aristotle put it so kindly. 2. The aristotlean link between virtue and eudaimonia, grounded on a teleological understanding of nature and humanity, is easily severed by approaching it with an existential view on human telos - and realizing that virtue is being created by us through valuations. With this in mind, eudaimonia would be freed from virtue's connection, rendering its interpretation almost arbitrary; because man would no longer be tied to a specific function. Would you rather accept the aristotlean teleological methodology with the function of man being rationality, and its eudaimonia being the actualization of the perfection of this function, or would you consider sensationalistic passion and pleasure to be more preferable in everyday life instead? 3. Do you think that revisionism is able to refute consequentialism? ~ as in, if it is possible to reassess the consequences of an action in an indefinite series of reinterpretations. I mean, people might change their minds about the value of an action based on the consequences as they reveal themselves; an action initially thought noble and wise may be disparaged later if it brings bad consequences. I know this is quite off-topic, and for this i apologize. _______________ Find out more about the Jedi Academy Aurochs here and more about Masta here! Married to Kain. |
|
Lirael - Jedi Council
|
Quote: The only option now is to take a hair, skin, or blood sample from the boy to create a clone.
Even if this were true, which Masta and Menaxia have already debated, that entails that every skin cell, hair or drop of blood has the potential for life. Later you condemn cloning techniques as 'murder'. However, have you considered your own actions? Everytime you lose a skin cell or hair (about 100 a day i believe)i do not think you go searching for it, even though just like those 4, 8, 16 cloned cell balls, they have the potential for life. Thus by the same logic you murder atleast 100 times a day too. Quote: human cloning is the sinful pride of mankind’s ego.
I'm unclear as to the precise meaning of your terms here. What ethical theory are you referring to? 'pride' suggests Virtue Ethics, however the juxtaposition of 'sinful' is incoherent as Virtue Ethics originates from Aristotle and modernised by thinkers such as MacIntyre and Keenan - not religious sources. In contrast 'sinful' implies a religious context which again you have left unspecified; perhaps Natural Law? You are using the term 'sinful' in a strict absolutist sense which is inconsistent with 'pride', the deficiency of the 'arete', 'modesty' as it is derived from Virtue Ethics which is unique from all other ethical theories as its detachment from the absolutist-consequential debate. Whilst the golden mean of modesty is absolute in its central position between the excess and deficiency, one cannot (according to Virtue Ethics which you implicitly draw upon) condemn another for an excess or deficiency at one moment in time - this is to misunderstand the whole basis of the theory which is concerned with people rather than actions. Virtue ethicists therefore put mistakes down to phronesis which must be gained in order to achieve eudaimonia. Surely in modern ethical issues such as this, phronesis is far more valuable than any theoretical philosophical musing. As for 'man's ego', in which psychological context do you mean this? There are many different theories about the role of the mind and its different parts. Since consciousness is often a confused term, you must be very careful to define exactly what you mean when discussing any 'part' of it. Also Nietzsche argued in regard to Virtue Ethics and the concept of ego that it is by no means 'sinful' as it is the motivation behind all of humanity's progress. Quote: Liberals thinks that human cloning should be legal because human cloning would be “beneficial” due to the fact that a person with spinal injury could be cured if the use of stem cells would allowed. What those people don’t realize is that they are killing a baby by taking the embryo’s stem cells.
'Liberals' as you call them understand very well the consequences of cloning. What you do not seem to understand is the underlying issue of the debate between absolutism and consequencialism. These Liberals agree with Fletcher's fifth Fundamental Principle that according to agape (a religious concept since the whole theory was based upon Christian principles)that 'only the end justifies the means'. Once again you do not specify what ethical theory these liberals are associated with. This is of great importance due to the religious implications of your previous language 'sinful'. If the liberals draw upon Fletcher's Situation ethic, both are talking in religious terms, however, if it is Utilitarianism you are referring to, founded by a secular social reformer there could be a crucial misunderstanding of terms. However, VERY broadly speaking, it is superficial to criticise consequentialist ethics on the first consequence of one single action as this is to put it in terms of absolutism with which it is incompatible. It is possible to produce organs and tissue without having to destroy an embryo and consequentialists would argue that although in the short term a finite number of embryos might be destroyed, the technology will sufficiently advance so that cells from the placenta will be routinely used instead and resulting in a potentially infinite gain which cannot be ignored. N.B. all ethicists, irrespective of their individual opinions on any subject, object to emotive language such as 'babies' as this de-rationalises the debate and is biologically incorrect - pre-embryo, embryo and foetus should be used determined upon the stage of gestation. Quote: they’ve failed to see, or just ignored the setbacks animal cloning has sustained.
'just ignored'? That is a great assumption to make. Again I think it is due to your lack of understanding of 'consequentialism'; most scientific theories and procedures require fine tuning - I suggest you look in to Popper's theory of Falsification or Kuhn's paradigmatic model of scientific discovery. Whilst you are entitled to your own opinion in your own paper, you must support it with evidence. Quote: The last reasons human cloning should not be attempted is because genetic purity
Quote: For centuries the royal families of Europe; Hapsburgs, Romovs etc. were all relatives, by marriage or birth. As a result of this however that was if one family line had a disease that disease could easily spread.
I believe the last reason is singular however this happens to be your penultimate argument. Once again, many terms are being confused here: initially you are supporting the concept of the purity of the human genome, and then turn in the same paragraph (I must admit I am making the assumption of paragraphs here) you criticize the inbreeding of royal families although this occurred often due to the concept of the purity of what could be termed the ‘royal genome’, let alone confusing cloning with selective breeding and inbreeding. Quote: his greatest creation was Adam and Eve, first man and women on Earth.
Ironic that on an issue concerning cloning and the changes to or ‘evolution’ of the genome that you resort to a creation account. Just like the ‘liberals’ you ignore the fact there are two different creation accounts with two very different meanings. If you wish to discuss cloning in the light of theological interpretations of Genesis you must be aware that there is no definitive interpretation – White blames the creation accounts as being justification for humanity’s dominance over the rest of the natural world and the resulting damaged caused, but that is another issue. Quote: If god wanted cloning to exist he would have made us all (humans) clones
Even deontological religious ethics such as natural law assert the importance of human reason and that it should be put to use. Many species reproduce asexually including aphids and types of yeast thus all their offspring can be considered clones and by your logic, God (or the flying spagetti monster) is in full favour of cloning. _______________ I can write my name with my sparkler. My sparkler > your lightsabre This comment was edited by Lirael on Jan 01 2007 04:51pm. |
|
Everon - Student - The winner!!! 
|
Mena and Masta, congrats you've boggled me with your uber knowledge of human science .
-Paragraphing kthx. This comment was edited by Everon on Jan 01 2007 02:30pm. |
|
Menaxia - Student
|
Quote: Because of kidney dialysis the boy is dying
If the boy is having dialysis - that is what's keeping him alive not killing him. Quote: The only option now is to take a hair, skin, or blood sample from the boy
Hair is dead protein. It does not contain DNA. skin, I think you mean a mouth swab there - as for blood, most of it isn't even cells so don't even bother looking for DNA there. Since current technology allows us to grow stem cells into specific tissue types directly, there would be no need to create an entire person. Quote: human cloning could used diminish genetic purity
Every time a cell of yours undergoes mitosis, the DNA frays a bit at the edges, which is one of the theories as to why we get old and die - because our DNA effectively wears out. Purity is hardly an issue when your genome is recombined with someone else's in order to create the next generation. Quote: killing a baby by taking the embryo’s stem cells
Ever heard of taking stem cells from the placenta? It's a heck of a lot cheaper, easier and it doesn't kill anybody. Quote: Human cloning is another way of saying abortion because in order to make a clone its deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) must be put into a cell that has had its DNA removed, killing the cell
A single cell does not make an animal. Dolly the sheep was cloned from an udder cell. I'm certain they didn't slaughter a whole sheep to gain a single udder cell. Quote: new genetic material would be introduced
No. It is simply recombined. The only way NEW DNA is introduced into a human is when you are infected with a retrovirus such as HIV which encorporates itself into your genome and hides there from immune attack. Quote: the same DNA would be used over and over again
Again - no. Every time yr cells divide the same DNA is not used over and over again. New copies are created, it's not the exact same bases and sugars that are used in the new copies. Quote: For centuries the royal families of Europe; Hapsburgs, Romovs etc. were all relatives, by marriage or birth
If you are referring to hemophilia in the current Royal family, the prevalence of that disease is a result of inbreeding not cloning. It would have been caused by a random mutation that yet again has nothing to do with cloning. Quote: Lastly God created the heavens and the earth
This is subjective statement. You cannot use this in an essay that is trying to convince people through rational discussion why human cloning is wrong. You have also totally failed to explore any points of view other than your own. You need to be to construct an argument that is able to combat the opposition not just ignore it. _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
Masta - Jedi Council
|
Quote: The only option now is to take a hair, skin, or blood sample from the boy to create a clone. Creating a clone of a whole person solely for the replacement of organs is a waste of organic material; cloning the desired organs directly is far more efficient, appropriate and would bypass anysort of ethical issues encountered.
Quote: That human cloning is nothing than another term for premeditated murder/aborting a baby. Certain types of human cloning do not require embryonic material at all. Also, stem cells derived from adults are potentially capable of generating entire organs as well - noone "dies" in the process.
Quote: Therapeutic cloning is according to Wikipedia; an online dictionary, defined as research cloning. Therapeutic cloning aka "embryo cloning" (different names - same thing) is one of the types which do not require anysort of embryonic material at all. All that is needed is the nucleus of a somatic cell containing the genetical information, and the nucleus of an egg. However, it is usually done with the intention of extracting embryonic stem cells from the cloned blastocyst.
Quote: Reproductive cloning is the process extracting stem cells; the cells of an unborn baby that can be turned into any type of cell, be it a muscle cell, brain cell, bone cell etc. Wrong. Reproductive cloning uses the very same proceedure as therapeutic/embryo cloning, the difference is solely in it's intent. Unlike therapeutic/embryo cloning which is usually done for the cultivation of stem cells, reproductive cloning is done for the generation of a whole animal; it uses therapeutic/embryo cloning solely as a preliminary step.
Quote: What those people don’t realize is that they are killing a baby by taking the embryo’s stem cells. For your information, what you refer to as "a baby", is a week old early-stage embryo containing approximately 50-100 cells. Just thought i'd mention it here.
Quote: Liberals say that human cloning should go ahead because animal cloning, as with Dolly the sheep has been a complete success, this is wishful thinking on their part because they’ve failed to see, or just ignored the setbacks animal cloning has sustained. The cloning of dolly was a full success because it proved that the genetical material from an adult cell was indeed capable of the generation of an entire new organism, by means of cellular-reprogramming. Also, it is generally assumed that the high death rates or disabilities displayed in animal clones are caused by errors or incompleteness in the process of reprogramming.
No comment on the political prejudice. Quote: The utter failure of cloning living species has also been matched by the failure to clone extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth, because the DNA of the mammoth has degraded. Obvious. One cannot recreate a certain type of animal without the genetical information derived from its species. Neither the procedure, nor the scientists are to blame.
Quote: The last reasons human cloning should not be attempted is because genetic purity, by I mean human offspring born of two parents that have different genotypes (genetic traits) and different phenotypes (physical traits) would not brake down the human genome because new genetic material would be introduced, but cloning would cause genetic brake down because of the same DNA would be used over and over again. I have never heard of such an occurance to happen as a consequence of cloning before. It is true that a reduction of genetic diversity caused by (i.e.) inbreeding can lead to all sorts of health defects in the offspring. However, during the somatic cell nuclear transfer the genetical information contained within the egg are removed prior to the insertion of the somatic cell's nucleus, thus hindering the merger between the separate genetical information. Even the cytoplasm's own short segment of DNA would be completely insufficient to cause similiar effects as observed with inbreeding.
Quote: Lastly God created the heavens and the earth, and all the animals and plants that inhabit the earth, but his greatest creation was Adam and Eve, first man and women on Earth. “The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7) God designed everything in the universe, and who we to think we are better then him, If god wanted cloning to exist he would have made us all (humans) clones. Bad argument. You won't convince anyone who doesn't share the same religious convictions with these type of arguments.
- I would recommend making sure that you are providing factual correct information next time. I would also recommend staying away from political prejudice and the use of biblical references. Using things like that may decrease your overall credibility. If you really have to create a religious connection, i would recommend presenting it in a more objective and sober way.. but that may or may not be a question of preference. _______________ Find out more about the Jedi Academy Aurochs here and more about Masta here! Married to Kain. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! |