Debate Clones

A clone is nothing more than a fraternal twin, so what's wrong with it?

 

To answer the last question in your list of them, "what would you say to a clone" It would depend on the clone.

If I knew the guy (or girl) that the clone came from I would have to kill it. Strait up.

If it was just some random clone I would just avoid it. It would be like talking to a shell of a person with no soul. I know, I know "Religion, flame him!".

 

The thing is, just because you clone someone, that doesn't necessarily mean the clone will be absolutely identical- certainly, they will have the exact same genetic material, but while their personality/attitudes might be very similar, they will still have something about them that is different from the original- this brings up the nature/nurture debate.

The kind of cloning you're talking about goes something like "I have your DNA, *poof* there are two of you now"- that seems extremely unlikely. Far more feasible an idea would be that, were we to develop the technology to clone human beings, the 'clones' would start their lives as infants, and gradually become adults.

....I'm really just babbling and trying to avoid writing a term paper.

 

does the clone have the same rights as a real person, or is it treaten as some random garbage?

 

Again fraternal twins are nothing more than clones. They have the same genetic make-up. Yet there are differences in personality, intellect, and emotions. A clone is nothing more than a twin. They are a person, not a shell of a person. Thinking otherwise is buying into the hollywood rendition of clones.

 

True. But I think the point is that, with things like memory input (thus covering both the nature and nurture aspects), a clone would be, for all intents and purposes, an identical person in all senses to the outside world. That's not to say that they would live identical lives from that point onwards, or that they would make the same decisions and take the same path in life, but that's more equivalent to one person who theoretically makes one choice, but in an alternate time line (badly put, but you know what I mean) makes a different choice.

I'm not quite sure what's really being asked here, but in terms of how you'd treat and think of a clone as a person then I'm on board with rusty, there would be nothing inherently different about a clone from a 'normal' person.

I think a more interesting sci-fi inspired theory to discuss would be good ol' Star Trek transporters. I mean, that's basically a cloning system isn't it? Yet the original person is effectively destroyed in the process, and replaced in the destination by the clone. It all depends on how you view consciousness and existence, some people have theorised that our conscious minds are not continuous in themselves, that each instant they are effectively starting a fresh. There's no way of discerning which is true just from our current position, since any 'clone' or constantly recreated human mind could not be aware of this fact, they will always think they are that same person. I dunno, it's one of those things that can be read in to way more than is worth it, and definitely more than Gene Roddenberry did when he thought it up.

 

Hmm...time to tell you folks a story that I heard on Stargate SG-1 (lol)

There's these aliens that have continually cloned themselves in order to achieve immortality, and eventually after genetic degradation, they have lost the ability to reproduce sexually and if they cloned themselves further, they would suffer more genetic degradation.

Also...identity theft can be a problem. Like somebody captures your clone and brain washes them into killing a bunch of people and then you will be blamed for it. Or your clone lands in jail and someone sees you on the streets and you will be sentenced to jail also.

 

I don't really think this will ever be a problem. Think about it. If scientists discover a way to clone people, do you think the government will let the public do it? Everyone would want a clone in case something happens to them. The population would get out of control, and people would die from starvation. I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything but I think we already have a way to clone people, the government just isn't going to let the public know about it.

 

Not know about it now, but maybe in a few hundred years, it might just happen. Maybe we all have to live in fallout shelters because of a nuclear war that just decimated most of the population, and the government introduces methods of cloning and encourages it to boost the "population."

But that's just me.

 

I just saw this thread and before it dies out... I wanna bring it back...

First of all, to those who don't know, the technology to clone humans exists/has existed for a while now. Anyone ever hear of Dolly the Sheep?

And to be frank, I'm sure most people hear know a few clones. That is, if you've ever met twins... nature's natural clones.

The only reason people have yet to be cloned is because of the ethical reasons and risks.

Reproductive cloning of mammals has a 90% failure rate.

Also, because cloning involves cloning someones DNA, the clone, although it will be born as a baby, will be internally, the same age as the person it was cloned from. This makes clones age faster, and die sooner, which is argued as unethical and unfair.

On the upside, cloning could be very useful to society.

-Infertile parents, gays/lesbians, single women (as opposed to artificial insemination) and parents who lost a child could all have a child.

-Therapeutic cloning, which basically clones someone to create cloned stem cells, to develop organs for transplants, is also very useful.

-Less wait time for people needing transplants
-could cure certain diseases, like Blindness, by cloning retinas
-Would prevent tissue rejection, without need for immunosuppressant drugs, which makes the patient susceptible to disease because it weakens the immune system...

Basically, I am not positive on my personal stance on the issue, but I think that with funding and more research, the benefits of cloning will completely outweigh the risks.

But that's just me weighing in lol....

 

A person is a person. You do relize how cloning works right? You take the DNA from a person and put it in the embryo in a female. The baby will be born and raised being the exact same person. It is a human and should be treated like a person, even if they are cloned.

 

just thought id say that we have cloned an organic being but it is born as a baby from the womb with its mother/ fathers genetic identity

 

I think that cloning should always remain illegal. People don't understand that their clones are really PEOPLE. They aren't man made copies of themselves, they are actually a real human being with the same DNA. The clone should be treated the exact same way as the person. Yes, if everyone wanted a clone, the population would double in size and starvation could be a big problem. Were going to end up with that problem any way in the future because the population of the world is growing rapidly. I don't think that the government will ever let people clone themselves, its so ridiculous. Some people say that why not clone people just for their body parts for replacing someone elses. One again, you are taking body parts from the clone, killing them, to save another human being.

 

Humans (in a way) adapt too their environment (evolution) if you clone a person they will usually end up becoming very different according to the environment.
Also, if you genetically clone someone they will probably be completely different, but they might have things that are common such as eye colour.

 

I honestly dont think that cloning is right, because it is just copying not greating a new being.

 

No genetically cloning someone creates a genetically identical being, but, just like with natural cloning (twins) they can grow up different because of how they are raised, and the environment they are raised in.