I was reading an article recently, the author was strongly against cloning, allthough he didn't say why (cloning wasn't the main point of the article), so I was wondering: what's so bad about genetic engeneering, cloning, birthcontrol and other beneficial but controversial stuff (I mean besides god says so, as god hasn't spoken for at least 500 years)
and let's keep this one civilised, after all we've asked them about it.

Well, for me in such things it's a degree of unpredictability coupled with a certain ammount of unnecessity and the lazyness that comes forth from seemingly easy solutions without eye for possible consequences.
But of course this topic is formulated so broadly it's impossible to throw it out in general :P

should I split it three ways then (cloning|GE|BC|)? I kind of thought they were part of the same *problem* (for the lack of a better word)

I guess genetical engineering is a new technology, and as with every other technology you have to be careful and research it well...
About cloning, genes degrade too heavily for it to be efficient, Dolly only lived
half of average sheeps life and her death was caused by a diesase that sheeps get when they're old, so you could say she died of "old age"

Yeah, the reason Dolly died so young is becuase that she was the age of the sheep the DNA was taken from when she was born. This is becuase the reason that peopel get unhealthy as they get old is their DNA decaying and developing faults. The DNA that Dolly was cloned from had already aged about 4 years, therefore cutting that amount off her lifespan. Technology has improved and scientists have learnt from this though.

Cloning is not something I want to see people accomplish. Genetic engineering is different, if you are modifying your own genetics or by use of cyborg type stuff. Now, birth control is something entirely different. Considering that all live arose from Primordial soup, I do not see the difference in loss of life from boiling a spit bubble or flushing your crap down the toilet than using some form of spermicide and abortions. Bacteria is living celled organisms too, yet we kill them by the trillions daily. I guess the government should say that all men are prohibited from getting a vasectomy, even though they are reversible, because it could prevent the creation of potential life. Life is life. We kill ourselves daily then complain that we are killing potential humans? Oh no, that "currently unwanted child" has to grow up in a potentially worse environment, which can perturb its mental settings, and thus could end up with criminals, or much worse, rapists or psychopathic murderers. But then again, any human being has the ability to do that. We are the more advanced mammal, and yet we can be feral and stupid all the time....

Since when could any foreign power, no matter how powerful, say "No, stupid. You gotta have that kid. We don't care whether you can take care of it, we'll put its sorry behind someplace else, regardless of how miserable its life may be." Or, "You will go to hell if you kill that potential kid."

Stupid *meeeping* government, you guys know you buy your mistresses abortions...

actualy you can't alter your own Genetic code (well you can, but that would be like correcting errors in all the copies of war and peace by hand), it's more like cloning++.
by the way, does anyone consider puting electronic devices in yourself wrong? if so, what's your resoning?


P.S. Wierd, I had you down as one of thems 'mericans... :blink:

Well, I think cloning bodyparts is OK, cloning whole people is useless.

May sound pretty simple, but that's my opinion regarding this. I don't care enough about the whole DNA topic to have a more differentiated opinion. ;)

The Catholic objection is that every child is a gift, not an object. It is the child that has rights to life, not the parents that have a right to conceive. The child has the right to a genetic mother and a genetic father, bound to each other by the sacrament of marriage. So the act of cloning violates the rights of the cloned infant and assaults the dignity of marriage [my wife takes her faith seriously, so we have a catholic catechism within easy reach].

A secular humanist (but not pure materialist) would argue that each child deserves to be a unique being, but the expectations of a clone to have the same qualities, interests, or aptitutes will try to stymie a clone's attempt to be its own person. Given how difficult to replicate the complete developement history of an
individual (especially if you can only rely on the subject's memory), the clone is less likely to resemble his parent than the parent's siblings.

The Twin Studies that give the impression that clones will resemble their parents are flawed, at best, or, at worst, outright fraud. Based on identical twins, clones will be their own people.