Is Cloning Morally Justifiable in Modern Science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DE NERO
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cloning
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the moral implications of cloning, particularly human cloning, and whether it is justifiable in modern science. Participants explore various aspects including ethical considerations, consent, potential benefits, and the distinction between cloning humans and cloning organs.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the morality of cloning people, suggesting it may be wrong to experiment on individuals without their consent.
  • Others argue that consent before birth is not relevant, as all individuals are born without their consent.
  • A viewpoint is presented that cloning is amoral, with the assertion that experimenting on people is likely immoral, thus raising concerns about the ethical implications of cloning technology.
  • There is a distinction made between cloning whole human beings and cloning specific organ tissues for medical purposes, with some participants expressing skepticism about the benefits of human cloning.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential side effects of cloned organs and the implications of cloning individuals who may not be the same as their originals.
  • Some participants speculate on the potential benefits of cloning, such as providing a healthy alternative for individuals with disabilities, while others challenge the practicality and ethical considerations of such actions.
  • There are discussions about the lack of real-world applications for human cloning and the possibility that it may not provide significant advantages over traditional reproductive methods.
  • Some participants suggest that genetic engineering may be a more effective solution for preventing congenital illnesses than cloning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on the morality and practicality of cloning, with no clear consensus reached. Disagreements persist regarding the ethical implications, potential benefits, and the relevance of consent in the context of cloning.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include a lack of empirical evidence regarding the benefits of human cloning, unresolved ethical dilemmas, and varying definitions of consent and morality in the context of cloning technology.

DE NERO
A friend and i have been discussing the implications of cloning.
basicially, i would like to know whether you think cloning people is right or wrong morraly, or if we should experiment in the name of science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Originally posted by DE NERO
is cloning morally right or wrong

You got to come more correct than that, young brutha...
 
Actually we pretty much know what cloning is all about don't we? Isn't that what identical twins are?
 
science, it looks like, can give life to more or less arbitrarily shaped clone, a human like any other, that'll grow and ask for his mother and father.
 
..and, would you want to be a clone-experiment in the name of science, without having been asked before..?

(if you clone yourself with your permission, your clone-twin will still be a clone-twin-individual with maybe another opinion on this, who actually was not asked.. he might even post-refuse his permission by hopping the cliffs like a lemming.. he/she might as well be proud to be the first 'independent' ..we just don't know, but i think we needn't necessarily know, do we? should that risk be taken? 't would be 50% chance, half a birth, half a dead-bound, half a man?)

..and besides, ..what would you call herhim?

my beloved-myself-brothersister: Reagenze-3-25-CTTAGCT Jones? :)
or just Jack, Jackie? ..with or without "Jones"?
pfehw..imagine

:)

..what if scientist-clones feeling other than commonly born man, feeling 'independent' of any law would start mass-cloning by themselves start a revolution, a war of the FFL, the "forefatherless"..
you can forget about human evolution, genetic pool, aso., then..

..too many implications, no one can overview..
it's like daring to walk a rotten footbridge to a shore that doesn't in any way look better - you only risk it, when you absolutely got no other way ..not of mere curiosity.. (and, reckoning for all..) not even of meanness, i guess..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmmmm...consent is an issue I have rarely heard mentioned!
 
It just doesn't seem to me that consent before birth is germane to the topic. All of us were conceived, carried to term, and born without our consent. A clone would be in no different situation. I apologize to anyone who got a visual of their parents when her conception was mentioned.
 
Cloning people is Amoral.

Experimenting on people is probably immoral, so we shouldn't be experimenting towards cloning technology with people, but in generall we aren't. So there is no issue here.

Once Cloning is of good enough quality, there is no real reason it shouldn't be done.
(there are arguments against it, but there are always arguments against anything)
 
cloning a whole human being? or cloning specific organ tissue for organ replacement?

human cloning i feel there is no benefit with the little research done on it, so far in the animals there hasn't been any beneficial proof, why would there be any for humans?
 
  • #10
I agree with Kerrie. I find human to be untenable. People may want to create a clone of a dead loved one. But the cloned person will not be the same. If it's just for clonning organs, then I'd approve. But, would there be any side effects(in the person who receives the organ) if there were to be a discrepency in the growing of a cloned organ?
 
  • #11
cloning happens all the time, just not in a lab.. then again you could argue that the human body is a lab too...
 
  • #12
I do agree that with limited research, cloning could be a disaster, but, eventually, we would be able to clone whole people. What are the benifits? What if someone was born handicapped. couldn't their clone lead a normal life, if their clone was made from a healthy cell.
Also, it would only not be a problem if the scientist had their permission. But LURCH is correct. non of us gave permission to be born, it was our parents, in the case of cloning, the person being cloned.
There is also a problem in operations of organs being rejected. cloned organs would not be rejected, and we would never need to wait for one to become availiable, although cloned organs would take time to produce.
 
  • #13
Any country which can find moral justification for war should not have a problem finding one for cloning, imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Cloning...doesn't really have any benefits. I find it amazing how much people really don't get cloning. There is very little difference between giving birth to a baby naturally and cloning, other than we have trouble cloning. AS soon as we figure out the technicalities of it, great, yay...we'll be able to make people pregnant.

Morons. We've been able to do that for years.

So what does it mean to give birth to a clone? Well, what's it like to have twins? They look the same, but they each have their own character traits right? Well, think about this. They are two people who have the same DNA, and are brought up in the same environment...and they are still different people. Imagine what a clone will be like of someone who was brought up in completely different environment.
Originally posted by Parsons
I do agree that with limited research, cloning could be a disaster, but, eventually, we would be able to clone whole people. What are the benifits? What if someone was born handicapped. couldn't their clone lead a normal life, if their clone was made from a healthy cell.
Well, if it was a direct clone, no, the clone would have the handicap too.

If you genetically engineered the clone to not have the handicap, then it wouldn't...but at a time when such technology is available, it would make much more sense to just prevent the original person from having the handicap.

But most importantly...whats the benefit here? You aren't fixing the problem faced by the person with the handicap...you are just replacing them. Do you plan on killing the original handicap? Or do you think they will just fade into the background as the new and improved version of them is born?

Anyway, I am yet to hear of a real good applicable for Cloning Human Beings. In fact, with that in mind, I have actually heard of many good reasons not to.

but, even so, I do not think we should 'Ban' such a technology. It is not inherently evil. Its just something which people will quickly realize was a waste of their money. They could have just had sex the old fashioned way and had another kid.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Another God


Well, if it was a direct clone, no, the clone would have the handicap too.

If you genetically engineered the clone to not have the handicap, then it wouldn't...but at a time when such technology is available, it would make much more sense to just prevent the original person from having the handicap.

Depends on the source of the handicap. Birth defects can occur from a wide range of causes other than genetic. But you're right about not helping the person born handicapped. What good have we actually done them by making a clone of them?

As to a good reason for cloning people, I can think of only a couple. If two people want a child, but one of them carries a gene for some congenital illness, or if the two of them carry recessive genes that pose no threat individually, but combining them would create a risk, then it would be usefull to conceive a child that carries genes from only one parent.
 
  • #16
But again, by the time that Human Cloning is safely available, I am sure it would be much easier, and much more practical to have the parents concieve an egg or however its done (Egg and sperm donation), and have the egg genetically altered at the mutated alelle.

This way you get the two parents in the kid, they both feel the special bond (rather than 'Oh, it YOUR kid' which has a reasonably large chance of occurring to at least some degree) and the problem is non-existent.

So still, I see no advantage to cloning at all. (Please offer more possible advantages. I'd be interested to hear one.)
 

Similar threads

Graduate Is the QT "no-cloning theorem" suitable as "Chronological Protection"?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Would 'you' be in control of a clone of yourself after you die?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
What Makes You Unique from Your Clone?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Writing: Input Wanted Are Clone Ships a Better Alternative for Space Colonization?
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
How can I clone a USB drive to a VFD file for use in Windows?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Wire size and type for gain clone type amp?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Question regarding posts that intersect science and politics
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Is Free Science really just intellectual theft?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Programs Finding a Major for Genetic Engineering & Cloning
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Thinking about Encouragement for Youth
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K