IntellectualLoafing.com E-mail This PageIntellectualLoafing.com Notify Me of Updates Discussions | Activities | Topical Issues IntellectualLoafing.com Complete List of Pages
Global Warming | Index

Human Cloning

A Valid Solution For Childless Couples

 

In March 2002, an Italian scientist claimed that he will be ready to produce the first human clone in under 2 years. He has justified his research by stating the benefits for infertile couples (many have already signed up as volunteers). With his technique, a cell from a male would be inserted into the egg of a female which would then continue to grow as normal, producing an identical genetic copy of the male. However, with animals, the successful birth rate of cloning is 4% with half of those needing to be put down due to massive deformities.

  1. Should human cloning ever be allowed?
  2. Should scientists be allowed to carry out research into cloning to improve the success rate?
This debate has taken a very serious turn with the announcement by Brigitte Boisselier, chief executive of Clonaid, on 30 December 2002 that Clonaid scientists had succeeded in producing the world's first cloned baby. The DNA results are still awaited...

Jump to the latest comments

Jump to the poll / comment box


  1. Absolutely not to both questions. Human cloning opens up such a huge can of worms that it just isn't worth it. If your child/relative/partner dies why not just make a genetic copy of it and have it reborn? Or having said that why don't couples get genetic copies of both of themselves so that their love can have a second chance after they are gone?

  2. Surely a childless couple are better to adopt than to enter this minefield. You may say that a parent would rather raise a child connected to himself, but would you really want to raise an exact genetic copy of yourself? To see what your life could have been like with a different upbringing?

  3. Identical Twins are exact genetic copies, do they have this identity crisis with who they could have been?

  4. Genetic cloning is wrong for so many reasons, and to try and justify it with the excuse that he is helping infertile couples is ludicrous. Think of all the orphaned children in the world. We are not made to be cloned, there are too many repercussions, both moral and biological that could have serious implications on our society. Human life is already cheap enough, but the fact that you could merely clone yourself again in case of death is like reaching immortality itself.

  5. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component, the mind, cannot be cloned. The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.

    That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called 'The Web of Interactions'. This conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.

    On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world. The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the same as the mind of X's clone of person X. If the mind can not be a cloned then neither can the person. (See the Full Article)

  6. Put simply: Even a genetic clone will become a different person. Identical twins may be identical genetically, but their individual responses and experience of environment make them different individuals anyway. Cloning possibly has a use in producing organs which could in the future be transplanted into yourself when you've drunk your liver to death, clogged up heart with cholesterol etc. But as already said, fraught with ethical and moral potholes.

  7. When humans have come close to doing something that was once though of as being impossible I'm sure these same conversations have occurred I'm sure. "We can't open up the human body to try and fix it! Think of all the harm it would cause!" I believe if our minds have the capability of figuring out how to do something, it will eventually be figured out, and then it's up to us as a society to figure out how to stop our discoveries from killing us off...

  8.  Cloning goes against the natural process of evolution and natural selection (though it is far less of an important matter now than it was in, say, prehistory, since now pretty much any human being can survive the environment and have offspring). If, for example, a man is infertile from birth, the natural processes would weed his DNA out of the common human gene pool and make the species as a whole, "stronger" and "better" (no offense to infertile people). But if that man gets cloned, it carries a grave genetic defect to another generation, one that should never have been carried.

    ...of course, in a natural habitat, say, blind people wouldn't be able to reproduce either. We have built a society that facilitates such things, and it is obviously a touchy issue; I cannot possibly say that we should prevent blind people from reproducing. [Nor would you want to? - Webmaster]

 

take my poll at:Human Cloning Poll:
htmlGEAR.com

 

 

Join the debate; Add your comment below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you want to receive the IntellectualLoafing.com newsletter containing all the latest additions to the discussions and developments to the site?

 

Then add your e-mail address here:

 

 

 

 

 

top  

}IntellectualLoafing.com E-mail This PageIntellectualLoafing.com Notify Me of Updates Discussions | Activities | Topical Issues Please send all comments to WebMaster@IntellectualLoafing.com
Genetic Modification | Index