1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,784 Posts
    It is pretty likely that some time in the future, probably within our lifetimes, human cloning will be possible. I'm not talking about the sci-fi style exact copy of yourself with your memories and behaviours clone, I mean growing a little baby version of you in a test tube and letting it age into someone who looks just like you.

    Possible points to discuss include:
    The ethics of human cloning
    What actual benefits it could serve
    Whether or not it is worth the resources
    Would cloned humans be treated as equals

    Personally I am all for this sort of stuff. I can understand why people would be against it for moral reasons but I think scientific advances are more important than not "playing God"

  2. Post #2
    The King Of Zing
    minilandstan's Avatar
    September 2009
    14,878 Posts
    I don't see any reason not to, although I don't exactly see us having a need for more humans at the moment. I'm sure sex is fine for now, but in case we needed test subjects for weapons and what not, I guess that would be a more liable solution. Having grown test subjects rather than normal people.

    I could see in the future a whole racism thing against clones. Like signs saying "No tank born", and "Original only".

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,784 Posts
    I don't see any reason not to, although I don't exactly see us having a need for more humans at the moment. I'm sure sex is fine for now, but in case we needed test subjects for weapons and what not, I guess that would be a more liable solution. Having grown test subjects rather than normal people.

    I could see in the future a whole racism thing against clones. Like signs saying "No tank born", and "Original only".
    I'm not really for using clones as test subjects unless they have been engineered specifically to be brain dead. I suppose with human population how it is there isn't much need for cloning, but when we eventually colonise space, the population might get spread pretty thin and they could end up being used as cheap or free labour.

    I thought the same thing about people being discriminatory against them though.

  4. Post #4
    The King Of Zing
    minilandstan's Avatar
    September 2009
    14,878 Posts
    I'm not really for using clones as test subjects unless they have been engineered specifically to be brain dead. I suppose with human population how it is there isn't much need for cloning, but when we eventually colonise space, the population might get spread pretty thin and they could end up being used as cheap or free labour.

    I thought the same thing about people being discriminatory against them though.
    Well you have to admit, nobody's going to miss the clone. Nobody had sex to make him, he doesn't have parents, no friends, no nothing. And the fact that if done correctly, he'll never meet anybody. He doesn't know loneliness, because he doesn't know others exist. So honestly, in a sense, as long as we keep him in a room for his entire life, he is brain dead.

  5. Post #5
    New Cidem's Avatar
    April 2010
    1,883 Posts
    I cannot imagine a more horrible hell than being a sentient clone of someone. The brain dead test subject idea sounds perfectly fine to me, though. If they were sentient, I doubt they'd get the same rights as normal people. No ability to vote, get payed less, etc.

  6. Post #6
    The ethics of human cloning would be the same as fathering a baby.
    The benefits? Well, you could clone people but induce them in a coma for organ harvesting but this is as moral as having babies for the same purpose.

    If you have the child for harvesting purposes, you'll be taking a life, but if you don't harvest it, you're not going to father them, since that's why you created them. Not having the kid is worse than having the kid and harvesting him which is worse than having the kid. Now, from this you get that having the kid is better than not having the kid. This ignoring all other disadvantages of having a child.

    Yes, it most certainly would. Cloning would provide us a great window for eugenics, without the problem of stopping people from breeding. And you'd have to admit, to have 7 or 8 Tesla's or Einstein's to do the genetic tango would be great.

    No, but they should. Since they were created "from the rib" of someone else, they'll be considered as inferior because they could not exist without the original.
    This, of course, isn't really a valid reason as the origins of something isn't important, merely the characteristics are, and a clone would be exposed to different experiences, terminating in a different human being.

  7. Post #7
    Homez's Avatar
    June 2010
    207 Posts
    Between the OP and the OP's avatar, I got the Jurassic Park theme stuck in my head.

    I wonder who would be legally responsible for a clone. Would it be the person who's DNA the clone originated from? The person/couple who chartered the clone? Maybe it would be handled the same way Sperm Banks do it. In any event, I imagine a clone would have the exact same rights as any other human.

    Whether cloning is right or wrong is also an interesting question. I don't see anything inherently wrong with it other than (and I think we can all agree) it isn't natural. If it came to a vote, I think I'd go for it.

    There are thousands of practical benefits I can think of, but most of them are limited based on the humanity of the clone. If it were viewed as a possession, which isn't likely, you could harvest organs from it. A more humane reason for it would be if a couple couldn't have children, but wanted an alternative to the conventional IV procedure. At least then your child won't have 150 half siblings living within 5 miles of you.

  8. Post #8
    Well you have to admit, nobody's going to miss the clone. Nobody had sex to make him, he doesn't have parents, no friends, no nothing. And the fact that if done correctly, he'll never meet anybody. He doesn't know loneliness, because he doesn't know others exist. So honestly, in a sense, as long as we keep him in a room for his entire life, he is brain dead.
    The human brain is programmed to feel happiness from certain things and unhappiness from others. He would feel loneliness, but he would not know why.

  9. Post #9
    Sixer's Avatar
    February 2010
    555 Posts
    While I can imagine cloning having useful applications with the thoughts discussed above, there's a whole moral aspect missing to this (here we go...)

    That being said, I think one of me is enough. Seriously; shit would go down.

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    l337k1ll4's Avatar
    September 2007
    4,002 Posts
    Cloning would be most useful if it were like EVE. When you die, your consciousness is transferred to your clone. Immortality would be fucking awesome.

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    DanRatherman's Avatar
    January 2007
    3,220 Posts
    Like said above, other than replacement cloning I can't really think of a fair reason to do it.

    Nothing morally wrong with it mind you, but it seems fairly useless to clone an entire person.

  12. Post #12
    A cardboard cut-out of a man.
    Mac2468's Avatar
    March 2007
    13,603 Posts
    I see nothing wrong with it. I don't know why it hasn't been attempted yet.

  13. Post #13
    BlueChihuahua's Avatar
    June 2010
    475 Posts
    Well you have to admit, nobody's going to miss the clone. Nobody had sex to make him, he doesn't have parents, no friends, no nothing. And the fact that if done correctly, he'll never meet anybody. He doesn't know loneliness, because he doesn't know others exist. So honestly, in a sense, as long as we keep him in a room for his entire life, he is brain dead.
    That's horrible. By that logic it would be a-okay to test diseases & weapons on orphans or hermits 'cause nobody's going miss them.'

    Or even worse, horrible abuse where the person is locked in a room completely isolated till their brain is soup! How can anybody not see something wrong with this post?

    A human clone is HUMAN.

    I see nothing wrong with it. I don't know why it hasn't been attempted yet.
    Cloning isn't too sophisticated yet. Birth defects & shortened life-spans are common.

  14. Post #14
    Gold Member
    Corndog Ninja's Avatar
    May 2010
    9,009 Posts
    I'm fine with cloning individual organs (like that trachea from a while back) but as far as full-size human clones go I am opposed to it.
    Although we've made great advances in the cloning field, it is still very far from perfect. Animal clones (like Dolly) often have many physical problems, aging prematurely and often suffering diseases or ailments. To attempt to clone a human would create a being with intense physical defects.

    Not to mention the morality, dang. I think that's one problem we can avoid by not cloning humans. Hell, there is something intensely disturbing about something that looks exactly like a human being kept in a tank to be picked apart when someone's organs fail.

  15. Post #15
    T.F.W.O.'s Avatar
    April 2010
    7,680 Posts
    If we can tell our kids that they were adopted or unplanned, it shouldn't be too hard to tell someone that they are a clone.

  16. Post #16
    flyschy's Avatar
    April 2011
    573 Posts
    Well you have to admit, nobody's going to miss the clone. Nobody had sex to make him, he doesn't have parents, no friends, no nothing. And the fact that if done correctly, he'll never meet anybody. He doesn't know loneliness, because he doesn't know others exist. So honestly, in a sense, as long as we keep him in a room for his entire life, he is brain dead.
    Clones still have to develop in a womb and they come out as babies whom the surrogate will inevitably see emotionally as her own child. I can't see a lot that would be different between experimenting on clones taken away at birth and experimenting on new born babies taken away at birth.

    One thing to realize that someones clone will never be exactly the same as them, it's impossible. DNA imprinting is likely to differ which will cause phenotype differences. They will experience a different environment in the womb and grow up in different social conditions, and brain development which happens in response to environmental stimuli will also differ greatly.

    One of it's primary uses would be for infertile couples, if we can sort out the current problems with massive failure rates both before and after birth then I see nothing wrong with this because really a clone isn't that much different than an ordinary person. Social stigma would have to be overcome but this is already the case with both adopted and IVF children.

  17. Post #17
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,694 Posts
    I don't see any reason not to, although I don't exactly see us having a need for more humans at the moment. I'm sure sex is fine for now, but in case we needed test subjects for weapons and what not, I guess that would be a more liable solution. Having grown test subjects rather than normal people.
    Oh my god...

    Please explain more specifically how they would be used because that just sounds immensely screwed up.

    A test subject for weapons!

  18. Post #18
    Gold Member
    Rika-chan's Avatar
    March 2010
    5,611 Posts
    PETA supports it because then they would not need animal testing.

  19. Post #19
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,694 Posts
    PETA supports it because then they would not need animal testing.
    Knowing PETA, they may very well have said that in the past, if you're not just making fun of PETA.

    However, in every instance of "PETA tells Ben and Jerry to use human breast milk" or "...human meat" or something, it's quite clear to me that they wouldn't actually want those things to occur, they're just pointing out how ridiculous they feel it is that animal milk, meat, etc. are sold.

  20. Post #20
    Gold Member
    Rika-chan's Avatar
    March 2010
    5,611 Posts
    Yes, PETA endorses Soylent Green.

  21. Post #21
    Official worst poster 2011
    certified's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,579 Posts
    Yes, PETA endorses Soylent Green.
    I think you mean "PETA is the Soylent Corporation"

  22. Post #22
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,694 Posts
    Yes, PETA endorses Soylent Green.
    Again I am filled with the urge to say that most likely they're pointing out how ridiculous they feel it is to eat meat, if they actually said that.

    However you'd probably actually find a lot of people on this forum who WOULD support Soylent Green, pointing out that the human body is without value after death, donatable tissues excluded.

  23. Post #23
    BlueChihuahua's Avatar
    June 2010
    475 Posts
    Now I can understand creating human bodies without brains or heads to be used for organ harvests, but I have little idea what the purpose of cloning a complete human would serve. Everything I've heard elsewhere is always pitched in a bizarre sci-fi mindset.
    Doing it 'just to do it' seems shallow & a waste of resources.

  24. Post #24
    BenJammin''s Avatar
    December 2010
    6,414 Posts
    I say try it out of curiosity. If you are dead and are cloned after death and you somehow regain consciousness, keep it. If the cloned person is just some poor thing that is a replica of you but is still a different consciousness don't do it, because whats the point?

  25. Post #25
    Atlascore's Avatar
    June 2011
    8,766 Posts
    Let people do it, but only with total consent and understanding from the person being cloned that it'll be sentient.

    And don't do it for stupid reasons like organ harvesting, what's the point of growing an entire human if you can grow the separate organs themselves with the same DNA as whoever needs them?

  26. Post #26
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,694 Posts
    Shall I be the only one to place any value on the uniqueness of human life, and the human itself?

  27. Post #27
    Atlascore's Avatar
    June 2011
    8,766 Posts
    Shall I be the only one to place any value on the uniqueness of human life, and the human itself?
    There's nearly 7 billion of us, no one is unique.

  28. Post #28
    BlueChihuahua's Avatar
    June 2010
    475 Posts
    You could argue whether it's fair to clone someone with the expectation of the clone following in the footsteps of the original.
    Such as cloning a dead friend (adopting the clone as your child) to 'reignite their spirit.'

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,725 Posts
    I say no, there is no use for human cloning which isn't accompanied by a nightmarish moral dilemma.

  30. Post #30
    Dennab
    October 2008
    3,389 Posts
    There's nearly 7 billion of us, no one is unique.
    dont be so anti-social

  31. Post #31
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,694 Posts
    There's nearly 7 billion of us, no one is unique.
    Uh yeah... The only identical people are identical twins, and even they have their differences. Cloning in general just completely devalues us all.

    Imagine my son's dying of cancer. Does it help any for him to know that I can just get him cloned? No. It doesn't.

  32. Post #32
    flyschy's Avatar
    April 2011
    573 Posts
    Uh yeah... The only identical people are identical twins, and even they have their differences. Cloning in general just completely devalues us all.

    Imagine my son's dying of cancer. Does it help any for him to know that I can just get him cloned? No. It doesn't.
    Identical twins are more similar to each other than a clone would be to the original.

    Your genotype doesn't define who you are it just contributes to it.

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    Satane's Avatar
    March 2007
    3,678 Posts
    there's only going to be a reason for cloning when we can customize the dna and rule out stuff like eye problems etc

  34. Post #34
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,725 Posts
    Identical twins are genetically the same, so would a clone be, therefore neither is more similar than the other.

    Your genotype affects everything about you, so yes it does define you.

  35. Post #35
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,694 Posts
    Identical twins are genetically the same, so would a clone be, therefore neither is more similar than the other.

    Your genotype affects everything about you, so yes it does define you.
    If I recall correctly DNA degrades over time, this is why clones we HAVE created have died early.

  36. Post #36
    lulzbocksV2's Avatar
    April 2011
    1,418 Posts
    Lol I'm a twin. But I don't think we should create clones as test subjects. That sounds cruel and inhumane. Imagine if you were raised just to die/be horribly disfigured.

  37. Post #37
    flyschy's Avatar
    April 2011
    573 Posts
    Identical twins are genetically the same, so would a clone be, therefore neither is more similar than the other.

    Your genotype affects everything about you, so yes it does define you.
    Identical twins grow in the same womb at the same time.

    A clone would not grow in the same womb or would do so at a different time.

    Identical twins usually develop in the same social situation.

    A clone may or may not develop in the same social situation.

    Identical twins will usually experience similar stimuli during brain development.

    A clone may or may not experience similar stimuli during brain development.

    Therefore you can say that identical twins will likely be more similar to each other than a clone would be to it's original.

    And yes your genotype affects everything about you but is is certainly not the only thing that defines who you are as a person. It's a large part yes of it but not the only part of it.

  38. Post #38
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,725 Posts
    So what your saying is that they would be phenotypically different. That doesn't apply when talking about the genetic similarities. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough when stressing that they are genetically the same, not necessarily physically.

    Edited:

    If I recall correctly DNA degrades over time, this is why clones we HAVE created have died early.
    I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said but yes, clones do have a shorter life-span

  39. Post #39
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,125 Posts
    I'm against it for the simple reason that we don't want people being cloned with messed up defects and spending their entire life in pain and misery.

  40. Post #40
    Sixer's Avatar
    February 2010
    555 Posts
    That sounds cruel and inhumane. Imagine if you were raised just to die/be horribly disfigured.
    We do what we must because we can. For the good of all of us; except the ones who are dead.

    But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake, and the Science gets done, and you make a neat gun for the people who are still alive.