Cloning of Humans: Will it be Ethical? Should it be Done?
It was announced by a team of scientists at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland, that for the first time an adult mammal has been successfully cloned by anyone. The procedure is simple enough that it would be easy for a human
being now to be cloned. This means that the genetic material from a person could be
easily obtained and inserted into an ovum from which the genetic material has been removed and that ovum now would behave like a fertilized egg and could develop, when implanted into a womb, into a person with the exact genetic makeup of the person from which the material was obtained--a clone. No fertilization by a male with different genetic makeup would be necessary. The issues are whether such cloning of humans should be allowed and if so, what are the biologic and ethical implications of such cloning.
Here is the question:
Now that it is possible to easily clone mammals, should cloning of human beings be allowed? What are the ethical concerns involved in making that decision either for or against cloning?
If you have an answer (or another question), click HERE and e-mail me a response.
Moderator's note: Because of the large number of responses to this topic creating a large file and in order to reduce the download time, I have divided the responses into two pages. The most recent responses are on this page. Please click
HERE to read the previous responses.
Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2004
From: tennisace182@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
For the past few years there has been heated controversy on the topic of cloning human beings. Human cloning is either "playing God" or a breakthrough in the scientific field. Even though much is noted on the ill effect of human cloning, it is beneficial to society because it enables infertile procreation, the knowledge of great thinkers is never lost, and people who have been in terrible accidents can live on even though their bodies can't be saved
Cloning a human being can give people who have continual miscarriages, or are infertile, the opportunity of having a child. Although the couple could adopt, they might want a baby to call their own. Some parents want to go through the pleasure of actually having a baby. This is why cloning would be a better idea for them than adoption.
What if Einstein could still continue his work, years after his death? He would have another lifetime to research. If we were allowed to clone humans, then the knowledge of great thinkers such as Einstein would never be lost. With great minds recreated in another body and time, they could use their minds to even greater lengths than when they lived. They could do this because they would have more sources for experiments available and the common knowledge of the world would be greater in a future time, so that would catapult their minds to create even more fantastic inventions and ideas. At one time it was considered impossible for people to fly; well the Wright brothers proved them wrong, and if they were alive today then they could use their minds to help in space exploration and other aviation feats.
When someone is unjustly murdered there is no justice for them. But if we could clone humans, the people who are killed in murders, or car accidents could be "brought back to life" in a sense. The people in these accidents and acts of violence didn't do anything to cut their life short. With cloning they would be given the chance to live again. Not just complete human cloning, if someone loses their leg in a war, then their leg could be cloned and they could walk again. Cloning would be a great addition in the medical world and would greatly lower deaths, and lifelong injuries.
Almost all of the time, human cloning gets a bad rap whether it is in movies, or the press spinning cloning experiments out of control. I do not feel that cloning should just be something that we use on an everyday basis, it should be used in moderation. Unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie "The 6th Day" when people's lives are not valued at anything, and whenever they die they are just cloned again. If we start Human cloning, then it should be only used in extreme situations. Even though we would have the ability to "raise the dead" we should still treasure the value of a human life.
i am a 15 year old sophmore in high school
Date: Mon, May 31, 2004 6:59 PM
From: CrystGra9@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think that cloning should be legalized, but only as a form as a cure to the problems of women having trouble reproducing. A woman with these problems myself, I would do anything to have a child. That would not only give women the opportunity to have a child, but not have to worry about, going to a sperm bank not knowing what parts of that babys genetics are from where.
I think it should be legalized, but only if the babies are not treated any different than a normal child, and does not have to go through a whole bunch of tests, for their whole lives. Also to the people who accuse scientists of"playing GOD", if God did not want the scientists to have the brain power to do this, they would not! God gave us the ability to learn, and to grow, mentally and physically. Maybe, just Maybe, this could be the beginig to what could lead to ways of correcting the this done wrong to this earth!
Crystal Sykora
Date: Wed, May 5, 2004 7:25 PM
From: cxr235_uno@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
i think that clonation is right, because it will solve too many problems to discapcited people, and to sick people, by clonating organ perts, by this alost child can be reborn, a geneticly damaged person can be fixed. This is like when people did organ transplants, some people said it was ethicly wrong, but was finally done. Clonation is not going to be accelerated with clonation, because anyway a couple can adopt a child; so it would be better that the couple have a child born from the female couple.
Date: Fri, Apr 30, 2004 5:50 PM
From: seannyfresh1@sbcglobal.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I do not believe we should continue to clone humans. Ok they proved their point, cloning of a humans' is possible, now let it go. If we keep cloning, the world's population will be half and half(clones and humans). By that rate all us humans will die off and clones will rule, but would they consider it a clone race or continue to call it a human race, and since they cant reproduce, they will die off, leaving no one.
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 2004 5:31 PM
From: Owna4xu@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think cloning should not be done and the reason for that is because its like playing with nature. Even if you make clone it will not be the same as the real person or animal.It will have the same appearence but it will not have the same memory's or the same way of acting and dealing with problems. Even if scientists do try to make a clone they should make a clone of organs not humans as whole.
Date: Thu, Apr 8. 2004 4:15 PM
From: mrsbilbrey@austin.rr.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think cloning should and shouldn't be allowed. Here's what I mean. Say you keep cloning an endangered animal. I mean, it'll help the economic system, but it'll also result in the wipe out of that endangered species if a certain virus hit the animal.
Cloning can be good also. If one of your organs goes "bad", then you can replace it with the healthy clone's organ. NO MORE DONATING ORGANS!!!
Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2004 2:20 AM
From: marinamilidou@yahoo.gr
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
AN ANSWER TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SYPPORT CLONING HUMANS. and i mean the whole thing, not just organs. Well, i read some of the responses here and some of them were really touching.
ill people, lost family members...most of you would prefer to see once more your child alive and then burn in hell ( if there is actually one) for ever! Am I wrong? so i am not going to touch upon the religious issue.
the detail that changes everything is that by cloning somebody, you don't come up with the same person. A dear person that is lost, won't come back! your relative was unique and a clone can't and won't replace him/her!!!!!!!!!
the thing is not whether God will be angry, but that you will make the cloned kid very sad, because you will expect from it to be like the first. and most important you will be realising day by day, that what you did, was not to offering your child a second chance but trying to forget that it is dead, so as not to feel anymore that unbearable pain.
don't try to fulfill your egoism but try to recall your dearest memories with it!!! i think this is the best for everyone and especially for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suggest that we all try to show our love to our family while we have them, because someday we will all feel like the people above and should accept death. What I am suggesting is one of the most difficult things in our lives, but that's how things are and no scientist can change that!
Regards,
Date: Thu, Apr 1, 2004 4:07 PM
From: jimt@netsync.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I was looking at the site because I am doing a research project on cloning.
I agree with it because it has great benefits and can do a lot for our world
and society. The people that do not want it b/c of religion are ignorant
because it is not playing the role of God. He put us on this earth to grow
and develop as human being and this is wonderful technology that we should
use. It can cure cancer and give transplants to people who need them. So I
think anyone that is against it is ignorant and cant be that religious if
they are just thinking about God and how people can be playing the role of
him b/c what if it was one of there family members that needed a transplant
well cloning could save their lives.
Date: Sun, Mar 21,2004 6:21 PM
From: suziecue87@cox.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
This is a very interesting debate, yes DEBATE. You see this argument will
never end, someone will ALWAYS have something to say about this issue.. or
really any issue at all. It is going to be a never ending subject, like
everything else. Someone will always disagree with something. And thats
not a bad thing. We would not have the things we have now if we all thought
alike and had the same opinions. Us, as human beings are not perfect, but
ofcourse, what is perfect anyway? Most of the people stating there opinions
on this website
are well....the "right ones", and I am stressing this " ". I mean come on,
since they are the ones being open minded here.... :/ No one is right or
wrong. People are saying that this is not the natural way, that this is not
gods creation, so the child may not be loved.
I have heard the name god over and over again, nothing else. So this whole
subject is really about a God. I think its great for people to have there
beliefs, and morals. That's how people get through life. Most need that
comfort. But I laugh at one particular thing that stumps me. Why do people
say scientist are trying to play the role of God? I haven't read any other
name except God. Why? If it is so unnatural, and evil, and so selfish that
anyone who agrees are sick, why would it be God they are trying to take the
role of? Isn't God an Awesome God? A great loving and caring god? Let me
remind everyone that the so called God most of you are talking about, is not
the only one out there. I know most of you who read this will be confused
about the point i am trying to get a crossed. But you see, the thing is
that i am not trying to make a point, I am trying to expand the mind. Some
opinions just don't have points to get a crossed. I ******think******
cloning is just the same as other advanced technology out there. Am I
sick? Evil? Going to "hell"?
***Judge me, and think again about who really is trying to play the role of
God.
Date: Sun, Feb 29, 2004 2:31 PM
From: rogannn_21@msn.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I support cloning, but not all types. Cloning of organs, such as the liver, kidney, heart, etc should be allowed. There are tens of thousands of people on donor lists that can live a better life with better organs.
I don't support the cloning of the human body as a whole or of the brain. This is not because I am religious (in fact I am not religious). I disagree on the principle that any clone created in a lab would not fit in in society. Society as a whole is scared of what is different, and if we introduce into the world someone who was synthetically created, the clone would not be accepted. They would be treated as lab rats, not as humans. Try to read the book Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes. It does not relate directly to cloning, but it is similar. A man who is mentally retarded undergoes an operation designed to increase his IQ tremendously. As he journals his life, you can see the troubles of his life as his family and friends don't treat him as a human being, just some lab rat that they are profiting from because of the research that they do on him.
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2004 9:28 AM
From: lindamsmith10@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I don't agree with human cloning. I believe that is crossing the line
playing with creation and isn't ethically proper.
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 2004 7:37 PM
From: LINT@peoplepc.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
The cloning of human beings has the potential for resolving many problems, but it also has the potential for creating just as many problems.
Unfortunately the people in a position to control and regulate cloning have a very poor record of restraining themselves and others when you factor in the money that can be made.
Cloning opens the doors to the creation of armies of psychopathic killers who would eat, breath and live to kill without a second thought. They could also clone not superior men as Hitler envisioned, but stupid men with low IQ's that could be used as work forces to fill the countries factories with cheap labor.
The human race and life as we know it could change dramatically completely destroying the family unit in favor of the individual who is dedicated to the state, or communism on a different level.
The perspective of the value of human life could change entirely with those making the decisions in society viewing humans not as humans but more like machines or cattle. With this new perspective it is not inconceivable that clones could be retired like an old machine, and even possibly being killed to make room for the new younger clones.
History has proven that the politicians can not be relied on to control these possible abuses of cloning. Ask yourself do you truly believe that the government would control these problems?
Though cloning could be the answer to many medical problems for millions of people I fear that its use would be abused and that future generations will pay dearly for those abuses.
Larry Trickett
Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2003 10:06 PM
From: shivani1220@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I stumbled upon this site one evening, and being undecided about my
particular viewpoint on the issue of cloning, decided to read about the
arguments for and against cloning to help me figure out where I stand.
After reading a few posts, I realized that while my personal disposition
encouraged me to believe that cloning at this stage should not be legal, I
found myself becoming a major proponent of cloning solely because of my
repulsion for the way opposition to cloning arguments are presented.
People continually harp on cloning being synonymous to "playing God." I
can't help but wonder whether these people actually have any basis for their
opposition to the idea of cloning other than this trite phrase. Reading
response after response of people stating that they think if humans are
cloned "sooner or later scientists will believe they are Gods," and "why
attempt to play the role of God when there already is one," and my personal
favorite "do you think God will love the clone if he didn't actually create
it?" cause me to wonder about the individuality and intelligence of the
supporters of these claims. The opposition to cloning seems based on ONE
underlying argument revolving almost entirely around religion, with no
rationalization or fact to support any claims.
What scientist is going to believe he or she is God? Contrary to what seems
to be common belief, there ARE religious scientists. The decision to become
a scientist doesn't go hand in hand with a renuncment of faith and religion
- religious scientists will no more believe themselves capable of being God
than a priest.
As for the question of God's love for a clone... I can only pity any person
who lives in a world ruled by so judgemental and condemning a Being. Does
God not have tolerance or understanding?
As for one mention of being against cloning since clones "might have the
same personality as everyone else, and we are all individuals" - while I
applaud the attempt at originality and the overcoming of the "playing God"
argument - as of yet cloning personalities is not possible. Personality is
formed by a combination of many different factors, including environment and
circumstances of life and so on, and circumstances and environment cannot be
exactly replicated. As a result, no two people can have exactly the same
personalities.
Major props go out to the few people that managed to bring up rational
arguments and actual, possible consequences should cloning humans be
pursued. The increasing susceptibility to death as a result of changing
conditions, brought on by loss of variation within species due to asexual
reproduction, was a compelling argument and brought up good points. The
idea that cloning would lead to a decrease in the worth of human lives also
brought to light an interesting viewpoint that I had never before
considered. I hope more people make an attempt to come up with some
reasonable arguments against cloning, rather than simply parroting some form
of the phrase "People who clone pretend they're God."
Date: Sat, Oct 25, 2003 6:44 PM
From: Syd12_11@msn.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Dear DoktorMo,
First of all I just want to say that this web site is very interesting. I have learned a lot from the "so called" intelligent people on this site. I only call them "so called" because the people who have given their opinions have done just that. Given what they know. To stay with the topic I believe that Cloning of Humans is completely and utterly wrong. Yes it sounds like a good idea at first but then when you start to look at the scientific aspects it makes you wonder just how far science is willing to go. The idea of cloning sounded bad to me in the first place because the person or child for that matter has no say in how it is being conceived. Yes I know, no one knows how or when they were conceived. But when you think about it all the physical pain the child is going to have to endure is unthinkable almost unbearable. Would you want your child to have to go through that, just for the sake of science? Well I hope you answered no, because if you did, then maybe you need to be looked at by a doctor because something is not working right inside of your brain. Anyway cloning is NOT ethical in any way, because yes I know you are tired of hearing is but its is wrong religiously and if YOU don't believe it then when you die ask God for me. Okay? Taking God's role (for those of you who can't stand the saying "Playing God" I've changed it up a bit for you) as giver of Life is not only wrong but it's not fair. You didn't create this world so why should you get credit for it. You shouldn't try to create a life that has already started and then ended. Luv2blab@comcast.net stated that her family members died and that if her son died(heaven forbid) that she would love to clone him. I'm am sorry for saying this but how sick is that. I hope that your son NEVER hears that ever in his life. That is down right terrible and that would make me very upset my mother forever for wanting to try and replace me after I died.
God DID in fact put us on this earth to make it a better place, but have we done that? No! We really haven't we have just messed it up completely. We have polluted the air, trashed our roads and highways, we have trashed our streets and neighborhoods with drugs and violence, not to mention hate crimes. But all science can worry about is how can we clone a human? What a stupid question. Why not try to make a solution for the growing air pollution or make a water powered car or safer jail or hey why doesn't the government give scientists more money to go and research a cure for cancer and AIDS. Instead scientists are WASTING their time and our tax dollars on something that is entirely irrelevant to the world. What is making another person going to do. The person is going to DIE anyway. Why would luv2blab@comcast.net want to make a new son if he is going to die in a few years. The pollution is getting so bad that the atmosphere is going to erode away soon, but yet the scientists don't want to tell you that because it's not as interesting as human cloning now is it? Why doesn't luv2blab@comcast.net just ADOPT a child instead of making a new/old one? If you think about it, it just doesn't make any sense. I'm not going to sit here and preach about God but obviously that is just what it's going to take to get people out there to understand. We CAN NOT under any circumstance play God. It will ruin the world. It will be over before you know it. God said in the Bible in Revelation, that if all of mankind would believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins then we would have everlasting life that the world would be free from sin, sickness, diseases, sadness, darkness, loneliness, anything you can think of that makes you sad would be GONE!!! Gone can you believe that? But no, we will never find out because people refuse to believe. And if you believe and are a Christian but you believe in cloning then I'm sorry to say but you have just contradicted yourself and you should repent for that belief.
That is why Cloning should not happen because it is wrong scientificly but more important it is wrong Religiously!!!
Sydney Williams 17 St. Louis
Date: Fri, Oct 24, 2003 8:39 PM
From: MACI55@cs.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think that if the cloning of humans is done, it could be a good thing infact a solution of population in a part of the world were they need more people of there kind, but of course there are some negative thing to cloning humans. For me I think it is really awsome that science has advanced so much in the past years. I have been inspired from all of this cloning stuff to be a scientist when i grow up. If you havn't caught on i'm 13 years old and my science teacher got me interested in DNA and all of the cloning stuff, well thats all the time I have for now, hope to write back soon.
Date: Tue, Oct 21, 2003 9:51 PM
From: Everhart22@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Cloning would regress us at the evolutionary level. I am sure everyone is aware of how important the diverse gene pool that we are creating is to our existence. Human Cloning is wrong, but genetically engineering an embryo is right. This would eliminate so many diseases and the quality of life woud improve as well as the quality. I am for stem cell research and against Human Cloning. How arrogant do you think these people are that they want a copy of themselves! I know about the couples that can't have kids and this could be the answer for them, but I would like to direct their attention to all the forgotten children that have already been brought into this world; homeless and alone. They need parents to love them too. Maybe God didn't allow certain people to have children because HE knew their would be so many other depraved children to care for.
Date: Thu, Aug 7, 2003 4:56 AM
From: ali@css1.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Dear DoktorMo,
I came across your web site regarding the cloning of humans. I wanted to address this issue with you...
ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION LEADS TO EXTINCTION.
Let me explain. As you may well know, animals and plants that use asexual reproduction OUTCOMPETE their sexually reproduced counterparts, INITIALLY. Meaning, sexually reproduction of that species will discontinue in favor of the more efficient asexual reproduction.
However, the fatal flaw of asexual reproduction is the inability to adapt to major or catastrophic change. Currently, our planet is impacted by several meteorites per year. Some of these asteroid chunks carry viral DNA (particularly those from Mars). This viral DNA will seek out and attack those animals and plants that CANNOT ADAPT, namely, the products of asexual reproduction -- As was the case with the dinosaurs.
Major catastrophes have occured in our planet's past, which we have been able to overcome. The ONLY reason we were able to overcome catastrophe was because of sexual reproduction. I'm certain you are aware of the "Deluge" mentioned in the Bible, which occured around 10,000 years ago. This Deluge is mentioned on all the pyramids, as a warning to survivors of major cataclysms.
I urge both you and your colleagues to refrain from cloning or asexually reproducing animals and plants for the sake of that species, for they will surely not survive future catastrophe.
Regards,
Alison Reed
Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2003 10:33 AM
From: chelaj84@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I definetly don't think that human cloning should be permitted. it should be banned, i don't understand how cloning a mammal was allowed. i think it is unethical because if human cloning begins, sooner or later these scientists will believe they are 'gods'... they want to do somethinng that is not intended for them to do.. it's not their job to create humans...i think our society will become a disaster if it isn't on its way already.
DoktorMo@aol.com
AM
0:33 AM
Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2003 6:29 PM
From: ShannonFinn76@msn.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I agree that therapeutic cloning should be allowed, as this would be beneficial, and not doing any harm to a person. Reproductive cloning, however, should not be allowed. This would be done purely for ego purposes. Could cloning be done after someone has died to replace that person, like Luv2blab discusses? If it could be done, would that clone be less of a person because it was a replacement? How would that make it feel? Would we value people less, because we could just replicate them? Cloning someone we have lost would be selfish and self-serving. And she needs to do a bit more research, because at 8 wks, a fetus isn't "a blob of mucus". But that is an entirely different issue..
Date: Thu, May 8, 2003 4:33 AM
From: emilyhart@optonline.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Hi. I am not too young, or that old, but I am ahead of my class, so I am researching cloning, and whether it should be done or not. My first opinion was yes I agree. But after reading most of these articles, My mind is a complete balance. But this goes to some people who have entered a opinion, you should think about what is going to happen, instead of saying if they clone one or two... But that’s not going to happen. The only thing that I can come to agree with is replacing a lost child. I mean, who would want to miss the chance of replacing a lost child? Especially infants, because you will barely notice the difference, but a toddler would have developed a real personality, and you cant clone personalities right now. Also, if we cloned people, what a shock it would be to learn that you shouldn’t exist, your no one. Clones would get lonely, and figure out their is no point of life for them sooner if they were treated like lab specimens. So now I guess I agree that we should prohibit cloning, for it is wrong. But deep down, curiosity burns within us, and who wouldn’t be a little excited, or awed on the child side? It would be awesome, but more of us know that it is wrong. Even though there is, a small wondering. We must over power our wonderings and vote for what we think is best. Cloning, or not.
Date: Thu, May 1, 2003 2:23 PM
From: volleyballdream@yahoo.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I am against human cloning. it is like playing the role of God. The cloned person would really not have parents. they might have the same personality as someone else. and we are all individuals. We shouldn't play the role of God. 14- Indianapolis, IN
Date: Sun, Apr 20, 2003 7:07 AM
From: standur@qatar.net.qa
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Cloning of humans simply isnt right. When scientists clone someone they are bound to treat them like a lab rat, which isnt very fair. Sending a clone out into the world would be unnatural. If god wanted an exact of someone he would make them a twin, so why attempt to play the role of god when there already is one.
Date: Tue, Mar 25, 2003 10:00 PM
From: MotorMouth90@msn.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I Think cloning body parts like livers and lungs are ok, but not actual humans.
If you clone someone they won't have the same personality, right?
(Going by a religious opinion) Do you think GOD will love the clone even if he didn't actually create it?
Date: Tue, Mar 18, 2003 8:10 PM
From: Corngirl49@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Doc-
There are but three types of cloning. one of which is adult deoxyribo nucleic acid cloning, you are cloning an existing creature. the second one is when you are cloning a sick person's tissue or organ for transplant.now if you like cloning human cloning when a whole person is being recopied into the world i do not understand how this is right. you would not have parents unless you were a test tube baby. you would have no parents no parental guidence or your own DNA.now if you think that you would want to be exactly like a person head to toe, inside to outside you would bassicaly want to be the clone of somenone else. but if you say you want to be a clone it sounds odd. but to make a clone of tissue to save a life a single, not the same as anybody else life, it sounds right.
Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2003 1:48 PM
From: luv2blab@comcast.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
First of all, thank you for having a forum for people to express their opinions. I was trying to decide on my research topic...2 young females (both 23 unmarried w/ no kids) in my class decided to do their paper on why cloning is wrong and should be outlawed. I threw an uneducated opinion/statement out to them and both of them shook their head in disgust. I told them that I am a mother of an adorable and healthy 6 yr old boy but for the last 6 years have not been able to give him a sibling....that if anything every happened to him (prior to age 18) that I would jump at the chance to clone him...and even more....I'd luv the opportunity to have another child....not to mention...had the scientists been able to conduct controlled research and experiments that I may still have my uncle who died at 32 from diabetes, my grandfather who died at 59 from cancer, or my grandmother who died at 67 of lung cancer. Needless to say I left class that night desiring more information about cloning and
o choose this as my topic. With all that said....I have been spending my evening reviewing the pros and cons of cloning. I was disgusted to see that Bush signed that bill on Friday banning any type of cloning research. I am a human, an American, a tax payer, a mother who is unable to give my son a brother or sister, recently been diagnosed with PCOS, and I'd like to know why Bush didn't ask me to vote on this topic? We only get a one way ticket on this ride called life...I'd like to think with all the hell on earth that we can continue to improve the lives of our children for future generations...not to mention I'd like to be here a little longer to see it all happen. As for this "playing God stuff"....we've got more proof and evidence of cloning then we do that their even is a God or heaven! Let's stick to the facts! If you need religion in your life to feel structure and comfort then that's your business...but I believe in the here and now. Let science continue to explore our world
As you can see that is a big issue for me...I cannot stand it when "religion" takes a stand in issues that relate to all humans. All that I ask is that before you take "a stand" in this forum that you do what I did and seek out facts. Then give your "opinions". I even visited reproduction sites to confirm that an embryo is nothing but a ball of mucus up until the 8'th week ( for all you pro-life folks). AUGH! I could go on and on because of Bush's decision ! Live long and prosper : )
Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2003 7:35 PM
From: Heydudedrawme@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think that it would be very interesting, but it wouldnt be fair to the clone if scientists made it into a guine pig and did tests on it. If it is human then why do tests on it? We know the human anatomy, what would be the difference? and if there were any defects then they would be able to tell while it was in the womb right? and if we really want to know how they thought back then then we should let it live a normal life. plus back then they believed what they were taught, so if we teach it normal things then it will be a normal person, well except that it was a clone of course, but hey whats the diff?
Date: Sat, Jan 11, 2003 7:37 PM
From: hrblock@yta.attmil.ne.jp
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
People seem to misunderstand what the phrase 'human cloning' means. when they say that they're for it, they explain the cloning of stem cells which i think is major good. and when against it, they're talking about cloning a whole human, which I think might be very destructive in the long run. Does 'human cloning' mean cloning a human or cloning human cells?
This is a great site by the way, I learned alot. thanx
Date: Thu, Jan 8, 2003 10:27 PM
From: ROYA151@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think cloning of humans is ok, but the fact is that we still don't know the outcome.
the formation of a natural mamal starts from puberty of its parents. there are many things we still don't know about cloning, perhaps once e learn more about cloning and once we are sure that the result of a cloning procedure would be a healthy human, then why not?
Roya
Date: Sun, Dec 28, 2002 6:24 PM
From: Pill_sanj@xtra.co.nz
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Hello Doc..I am an asian indian man from New Zealand..I have diabetes, Spinal surgey and recently underwent Radioactive iodine treatment for my mild hyperactive thyroid and now hypothyroid and on life time of medication..most times I feel depressed with weight gains and aches and pains all over my body..
I think cloning can help cure all my diseases....anyway it is my own stem cells which is giving me a new life...It's like a twin brother giving his kidney to other to save his life..the only difference with stem cell is that my clone gives up his or her life to save mine.
If doctors can destroy an organ..they should back it up with a replacement organ..i think stem cell is the way to go.
Anyone who has a debilitating illness will know what it feels like to live with the pain...it is so very easy for healthy people to say it's not ethical to clone...but when something happens to them..their reaction will not be the same..
Date: Thu, Dec 19, 2002 9:30 AM
From: d_neesby@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Your site is interesting but I was actually looking for information on the argument of genetic engineering. Since they are kinda related I want to tell the readers a few arguments presented by Crichton (author of Jurrasic park). In the opening pages before the story, Crichton introduces three very good arguments.
One is that the research done in the past was very often done by universities and other non-partisian organizations and there weren't many. Now there are over 500 thousand genetic research companies all conducting research for personal profit.The research done back in the days was done for the good of mankind, to help the human race, and where the scientist weren't making much profit. This makes the research companies strive to get their "item" on the maket. When research on something this powerful is conducted in haste and for profit mistakes and errors are bound to happen.
Also the government has no regulations on the research that is being conducted. In the past the government kept close eye on the research, now with so many companies its very hard and also the companies relocate to forgein countries where they can escape the U.S. regulations (very little to none). The U.S. patients place is being over loaded with patients on genes. Scientist are trying to produce square trees and calvin klien scented body odor and are quick to patient their idea. Once again when research is done in haste, for profit, and without regulations mistakes will happen.
Well, I don't have a concrete stand on this issue yet but ideas are forming. Oh yea, all this hitler clone stuff is ignorance. Noone knows whether Hitler clone's will behave the same but then again who cares. The arguemnt is whether it's ethical or not, not whether the enviroment or surronding will produce Hitler's. Answer an argument with something you know. This is nearly a fact, there will always be someone trying to make a lot of profit and have evil thoughts and use this technology the wrong way.
So read Jurrasic Park especially the opening pages on Genetics. Crichton even manages to stay away from the "Playing with God" issue and focuses on issues related to everyone. I feel we should continue to research and understand human life but with much more regulations and restrictions. If we make a mistake in genetics the results could prove disasterous.
Date: Wed. Dec 11, 2002 12:36 PM
From: Joel.P.Mendel@saint-gobain.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Wow. I guess I thought people would be a little more open minded and
informed on this forum. Both sides seem rather extreme. The major discussion
of cloning/stem cell research isn't the idea of creating new beings, spare
part people, or armies of clones. It's fixing old ones. That is, with stem
cells, you can fix the old cells of other people. Actually implanting the
DNA of an adult into a cell and creating an exact clone is still very far
from being easy. And many scientists think that type of technology will be
very far off. So I think I'll keep it as just stem-cell research.
The benifit of this type of research could solve every disease known to
mankind. Literally. Can you imagine a world without disease? That's what
they're working towards. There is no more noble a cause than that. However,
the question is how you get there, and what happens once you get there.
So first, how do you get there, or, does the ends justify the means? Yes, an
embryo is used for these stem cells, but at a time when the amount of cells
is something to the order of 100, vs. the thousands needed for just a heart.
So there is no brain, nor a heart or lungs. Just a ball of cell which have
no specific designation yet. This is what makes them so valuable, because
they can become any type of cell the scientist wishes. Therefore, it can
become a lung cell if someone has lung cancer. So the question is:Is the
embryo a sacred thing which we cannot kill ethically? That is normally based
on your religious position, so I'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot
pole. However, the question becomes whether it is worth the killing of one
person to save more people. If you could save 1 million people by killing
one innocent little girl/boy, should you? Questions on this are hard to
answer as we (the United States) killed many more innocent people in
Afganistan liberating them than Osama bin Ladden did in his 9/11 attacks. So
the ends justified the means for us. On the other hand, we don't justify
killing serial killers often even though they have killed many people (see
the sinper incidents in D.C.). What about taxes? We take money from one set
of people and we give it in terms of unemployment to people who have not
earned it. Is that so bad? What about nuking the entire Mid-East to stop the
terrorists from attacking us? Once again, this question drives to the core
of your philisophical belief system.
The next question is a little more in depth: What happens when you achieve
this cloning ability?
First this will open doors to use other forms of the same technology to make
these evil clone armies we all think of (thanks to star wars for that). Will
someone try to make a whole bunch o' Hitlers? I have no doubt someone will
try. Insane people with enough money will always try to do bad things.
However, will a Hitler clone think the same way? I guess I like to believe
that some of my experiences effect my personal views. I think both genetics
as well as environment create me, so could you create this clone of an evil
Hitler? Sure, but he's not going to think the same way as the old one did,
unless you put him in the same environment. Besides you can put anybody in
that environment and make them insane dictators (look at all the evil
dictators we've had so far). So this question is rather irrelavent in terms
of recreating an exact duplicate because you can teach anyone to be hateful.
As for armies of clones, yes it is possible, but at the same time,
light-years of technology away, and it would be easier to get normal humans
(cheaper too).
What about individuality? Will we lose our individuality when we're all
cloned? No more than identical twins have lost theirs.
Another thing people get upset about is that humans are flawed. Clones could
be made eventually to eliminate those flaws, or stem cells could fix those
flaws. The "playing God syndrome". If humans weren't meant to be that way,
should we make ourselves this way? So here's the pros and cons I can think
of: Obviously, stronger, faster, smarter, etc humans are all pros. Basically
that's the pro side. The cons include pushing the technological envelope
before we know what we're doing (i.e. what if we genetically programed all
people to die when the CO2 concentration reached a certain lower level, we
could wipe ourselves off the planet in a decade). This is something we do
every time with new technology (atomic bombs) because to understand new
ideas you have to push them to the edge. Another con is infinately
increasing the lifespan of humans (this could really mess up the
environment). If people never died the population boom would go from
geometric (x * 2) to logrithmic (x ^ 2) and could seriously increase world
poverty and hunger (among other things).
After reading a couple hunderd emails on this, I want to elaborate on the
playing God thing a little. I think man has been trying to play God since we
first set foot in Eden (if you believe in Eden). (Once again depending on
what you believe) Ever since we had the fruit of knowledge, which was
God-like. We think. We harnessed light, another of God's creations. We make
matter and energy. It doesn't get much more God-like than that. Except for
maybe creating life itself, which is the next logical step (which we
somewhat do already with in-vetro fertilization, and have done with Dolly).
But which step is the wrong one? Just the last one? All of them? (I actually
kinda like electricty) Some people are worried about where the soul will
come from in this new being, or where it will go depending on which specific
subject you are talking about. I guess I just wonder about how come a sperm
and an egg both have half a part of a sould but not both? Why doesn't all
cells have part of a soul, which together make up a total soul? I don't
think we're going to make any souless being by making a clone. As for
killing off the soul of an embryo, how do we know when a soul is created?
How can we tell if a soul could be adsorbed? The answer is we can't. It is
also something we cannot determine with any test. My feeling is any living
being has a soul. So since we don't know how the soul gets there in the
first place, I'm pretty sure it will get there no matter what we try to do,
I don't think we can prevent something from having a soul.
Now just one last point, some people are getting pretty upset about the idea
that we're pre-ordering what we want in a child. However, that's a
completely different issue. That's genetic engineering, which is something
we research all the time (the human genome project). Put that on a different
discussion board (P.S. for a pretty cool movie [which assumes the worst
possible outcome] on that topic watch "Gattica"). Speaking of which, I don't
see that here? DoktorMo, can you add that?
Well, this wasn't necessarily to put my opinion on paper, just to set a
slight standard and some background information on the subject. My personal
stance is still pretty unsure, as I am personally debating whether I believe
the ends can justify the means.
Joel Mendel
Date: Wed, Dec 11, 2002 10:49 AM
From: jasopark@yahoo.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
ok im 16 and im doing bio ethics in class and i think cloning would be
beneficial to us in general as long as people would have a guideline of
sorts so who ever would be cloning would not go too far. Such as cloning
certain species of plants and animals would be ok as long as it had a
very large positive outcome such as bolstering an almost extinct species
and habilitating them to survive in the wild as we do with injured
animals that were once wild. Another example would be to clone certain
plants that would be beneficial to us and the world in one way or
another such as replenishing the rain forest
Date: Wed, Dec 11, 2002 10:40 AM
From: Joel.P.Mendel@saint-gobain.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Hello Dr. Maurice,
I'm a chemical engineer, and I've been reading a whole lot more than I did
in college (I recently graduated), so I've been taking crash courses in
current events. During school I more or less lived in a cave. Obviously I
had heard of cloning, but I hadn't been able to give it much thought. I have
had a class on morality in college, which I thought was extremely
interesting, but at the same time, I was having other questions I was asking
myself (do I believe in God; Is the Catholic Church the closest aligned to
my beliefs; Is working for an oil company which is destroying the
environment something I am okay with; etc). Anyway, I came to this site
because while I have concerns about cloning/stem cell research/euthanasia, I
haven't heard other opinions on those topics except from extremist groups
(which although often funny, seldom enlighten). I came to your website to
find exactly what you have. (by the by, thanks).
Just because these are some of the other things I've been thinking about,
thought I'd throw in a couple suggestions:
1. I know that most people are going to say I'm insane, but is it moral to
increase the life expectancy of humans/should there be as many people on the
planet as there are?
Reasoning: Before people get upset, I'm not saying that we should
kill grandma. What I'm saying is that if we're trying to end world
hunger/poverty/environment/etc. having less people on the planet will solve
all those problems. Maybe not a nuclear holocaust, but possibly just to the
point where the amount of people being born equals the number of people
dying. Maybe just keep the population of the planet low enough to let the
planet recover as fast as it is being destroyed.
Environment: When everyone lasts an extra 20 years longer (or has 15
children), they keep on eating/breathing/driving/using electricity and all
of those things take away from a set amount of goods the planet has to
share. Is it moral to use things now which will take away from the next
generation? My children will have less ozone/oil/coal to exploit as I do,
because I'm using it up faster than it can be replaced.
War/Hunger
I think we can also mostly agree that the great majority of violent
crimes/cults/wars are waged because of, or to draw attention from, poverty
or hunger. I know US farmers make more than enough food for the whole
country, however, we happen to have good conditions and ton's of land for
the purpose. However, countries like China and India which are very
over-populated [as evident from their hunger/poverty level] don't have the
same luxury of having good farming land. Therefore they cannot sustain as
many people per square mile. And Importing enough food to completely sustain
them all will be extremely difficult until new power/transportation
breakthroughs are made. Therefore, why not try to limit the population of
those countries? Why not let the starving children in Ethiopia starve so
those that survive can eat enough and become healthy? Is it better to have 4
healthy kids than 8 starving ones? I know that's very easy to say from my
armchair and computer eating M&M's, but its just something I think we take
for granted. Lets just question it.
Poverty:
As for the poverty part, I think it is actually a unsolvable question. You
can't have less poverty unless you have absolutely no poverty. This is
because unless everyone has exactly the same amount of possessions (and if
that were the case, what would drive inventions?), the people with less will
be in poverty. Maybe we should just work on lowering the discrepancy between
the rich and poor (i.e. do people making over 1 million really need a tax
break, or can they afford a 500,000 dollar tax?). I feel that the 5% of the
populous in the US that makes the greatest amount of money can deal with a
little higher taxes. Look at the Middle East/Communist Countries/Indonesia.
All have large discrepancies between the wealthy and the poor, with the
worst in the Middle East (so far as I know) which seems to be the biggest
problem in the world. Is the Prince of the Saudis looking for a job? I'm
thinking no. I feel a happy medium between complete capitalism and socialism
is required for humanity to peacefully exist while still advancing. So isn't
it possible that people would spend less time thinking about anti-Semitism
and anti-American slogans if their belly's were full and they had
jobs/money? History seems to repeat itself all to often, because this is
what caused the French Revolution, and yet here we are, a couple centuries
later doing the same damn thing. This time, though, the regime was smart
enough to blame it on someone else (the US and Israel). The only problem
with this solution is if there are too many people, it may not be possible
for everyone to get a job to make any money at all. Which brings us full
circle to reduce the population to its steady state. Just a thought.
Next question: Does it matter whether it is ethical for one type of
cloning/research and not another?
It seems to me that by definition, when things are deemed as unethical, only
the ethical follow the rules. However, not everyone is ethical. Is it
ethical to research ethical areas if they open the door to unethical
cloning/stem cell use/whatever? Normally this isn't even a question because
research doesn't normally have these fine lines, but this time, with
different ethical dilemmas so close in scientific advancement, it poses
something I find very interesting. Do we rate the benefit of the possible
good to all possible bads? Also, if we outlaw it here, I can assure it will
be done somewhere else. Many people question the ethics of developing atomic
energy. However, the technology exists and it is obvious we have
difficulties preventing its use. [Hell if I know the answer to this one yet]
Last quesiton: Do we honestly think that reducing funding for one area of
research is going to keep technology from expanding?
So first, do we think that government funding is the only way to get money
for research, because I gaurentee that there will always be a wealthy
benifactor who can help fund research (maybe not even in this country, but
definately somewhere in the world research of an unethical type will be
performed). Are we better trying to fund it through normal means and they
try to control it, or do we let this supposed benifactor to determine the
goals of the project (vs. the government). This is pretty similar to the
abortion arguement that since abortion is legal, more people participate in
the act of it, yet if it were illegal, more drastic/unethical measures to
prevent abortion would take place.
Second, no matter whether funding exists or not, at some point, the
technology will become available. So if we are just delaying the inevitable,
are we really doing any good at all?
Just a couple of the thoughts bouncing off my head. Wonderful website. I'll
get back toyou on what I think after I have read a little more.
joel
Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2002 9:26 PM
From: Nayegararg@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I'm a jr. in high school and I'm not a pro on this subject but, after reading most of the peoples opinion i think that we should actually be able to clone because it well help us discover many cures for diseases it will also be a success in biotechnology. i personally think that its OK, we'll be saving lives. and about playing with God I'm not saying that its OK but, we always play with good when we have transplants or implant. because we are hurting our bodies which is good.
Date: Fri, Oct 18, 2002 6:42 PM
From: shasha@as-if.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Although I believe that the actual cloning of humans is wrong, I still
think that we, as the human race, better understand ourselves and expand
our knowledge in this area. I fear that cloning will not only be used for
the good (example regrowing an organ instead of waiting for a transplant)
but it may fall into the wrong hands and amount to some of these
far-fetched ideas that people have already. Cloning takes away from the
respect that we have for human life. Human life should be studied, but NOT
tampered with. I hope that doesn't sound too paradoxical.
Date: Wed, Oct 16, 2002 12:12 PM
From: Cuddlebum333@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Hi. I am only 15, and I am not claiming to understand anything about this matter, except based on the responses that I have read, that human cloning would be a good thing, if used in a controlled manner. However, I am doing a debate on this topic, and I unfortanetly have the negative side, which means that I must say that genetic engineering is not good for society, only I can't find any really good basis for it. If anybody out there thinks that human cloning is unethical, would you please email me your GOOD reasons and facts (i.e. NOT "What right do we have to play God?"), so I may have evidence to present my "case?" Thanks, Julie
Date: Mon, Oct 14, 2002 1:42 PM
From: originalsugarbaby@comcast.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think that cloning is absolutely wrong...no doubt in my mind. Its not right to play the role of God...He is there for a reason. If we did end up cloning, what if some mad man got a hold of it and decided to clone Hitler? If its a clone, since a clone is exactly alike, then he will probably make the same decisions he did back when he was alive. Then there is the purpose that we want clones in the first place...to supply people with organs if one should fail. If you create a person, which is alive and since it is human it has a soul, and use it only for its body parts, that is wrong. You can not make something alive and leave it there, with no say in what happens to it. God creates people to live and to live life to the fullest with a so
ul and everything, not to be created and used as a scientific object.
PART 2
ok...my first letter was just my flat out opinion on this subject with out having read some of the other opinions on this site. now...after having been at my computer for almost two hours reading this different views...i have much more to say.
first off, i want to start off by saying that i'm only seventeen years old, and yes i am catholic. in fact i'm looking in to this subject for my youth group meeting as this years topics fall under the catagory of Human Dignity.
since apparently people on your site who are for cloning are sick of hearing about God, I give you this... leaving out the touchy subject of God. If you want to talk about embryo's and whether or not you are human at the point of fertilization, did you even bother to think that that child's heart IS BEATING before the mother even knows that she is pregnant? I'm sorry but Ii thought that if your heart was beating I thought you were alive and therefore human. and as for the person that put an embryo is not human until it is out of the mother and breathing ON ITS OWN....ok so what if one of your family members is ill and is put on a respirator?? that person is still considered alive, even tho that person is not breathing on their own. so yeah...how is an embryo not a living thing?? oops sorry, i must be crazy.
for those of you who think that when you clone someone and put that person in to a different life style that that person is not EXACTLY the same as the original you are wrong. it doesn’t matter that the conditions change. Your chromosomes and your genes will tell what you are going to be like, and how you are going to act, regardless of where you are placed in society! if you clone something it is the EXACT copy, personality and all.
And yes, i know that if someone that i loved needed an organ transplant or something, sure I'd want them to be able to have that opportunity. but I would not want that to come of the clone of that person or any other person on this earth, because its not right. that person should have rights and if you are using them for "spare parts" like a car, they have no rights. and IF you are going to use your clones organs, once again your chromosomes and other DNA will play a part. that organ failed for a reason...whether it was something in your blood or what, but it failed. if you put that EXACT same organ with the EXACT same cells and structure, that organ will undoubtedly fail again. so then where will you be? and yeah if i got in to a car accident or something where i lost a limb, sure i'd want it back...but you know what, that’s why they made prosthetic limbs.
Now with that out of the way...i'm going to bring God back in to the picture. Yes, He gave those gifted scientists the brains that they have and have allowed them to use it to their fullest potential, so I don’t think that God will send them to hell. it really all depends on how they use their knowledge. since people like to use abortion as an example for that, i will too. Abortion is murder, and therefore a mortal sin. that scientist/doctor will need to do some serious repenting. Cloning also goes to far...that is when you are placing yourself above God...meaning that the original structure of Creator over Creation is reversed...therefore they are placing themselves in the role of God, which is not what He would want...at least that is my opinion. He gave us the knowledge of medicine to help us. and you know what...for those of you who think where is God in those who are poor and needy and when we are in danger? He's there...probably more so with them, just not in ways that some people would think. Whether you are Christian or not, cloning is wrong. Religion has a lot to do with it, sure, but its also where you place your morals and how you apply your education on life in to matters such as this and abortion and where ever else ANYTHING that has to do with Human Morals, Human Rights, or Human Diginity.
Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2002 10:01 AM
From: amylaing@ipa.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I have no doubt in my mind that this is wrong. Cloning humans would be
playing God and that is not our job. If this was done it would cause anger
and danger. Bad idea.
Amy Laing,RN Mena, Arkansas
Date: Sun, Sep 8, 2002 12:39 PM
From: corsaro@usc.edu
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I realize that cloning may advance certain aspects of science, that I myself do not understand. However, like many other people, I am forced to wonder why it is so important to play God. Human life should not be manufactured. It is a natural process that should not be copied. Humans are not machines to be duplicated. I wonder, how would human life as a whole benefit from the accepted process of cloning?
Date: Mon, Aug 26, 2002 2:02 AM
From: Helmld@Hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Well, I have read some of your e-mails and I can't believe what I'm seeing. First, Cloning can be a wonderful thing. A possible cure for every disease out there. Of course "Religious" people will have a problem with that, as "God" is the only one who should create life. But the scientists of the world, and many others of us, who may or may not believe in "God" , can still see that the benefits would be spectacular.
Date: Tue, Jul 30, 2002 2:52 PM
From: divetime@citlink.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
It would be unfair. Simply rude to create another race. A mummyfied race with no end. It would also be surprisingly stupid to even consider such a thing as to clone an entire human. We would be creating the " Surpirior Race " as few like to believe. Leaving God out of it, we would be create the End of the entire human race. And Clones WOULD be our End.
To imagine something being created that would have a learning ability above our own, strength, and something that could easily become unstoppable, is by far,unthinkable,and incredibly stupid. They WOULD evolve into a higher state of life, and would eventually be uncontrollable, the human races end.
Even to suggest that they would THINK like us is UNBELIEVABLE!!! Humans have bad steakes! By cloning something with bad streakes you'd end up with something with a bad streak...only smart enough to do whatever they wanted, and not get stopped. In my part....cloning parts is okay, but a whole human clone ....would be wrong.
Date: Sat, Jul 27, 2002 7:50 AM
From: priscillamrichardson@attbi.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
My medical ethics students have been discussing the cloning issue...here are the class thoughts.
Cloning of humans will be used for 2 reasons: Therapeutic and Reproductive Purposes. The Therapeutic benefit will be a positive and may lead to cures for parkinsons, alzheimers and other diseases; Reproductive benefit is more of a social benefit to limited number of individuals...such as parents wanting to clone a child who has died. The cloning issue provides a "slippery slope" ethics that began with Abortion Ethics in the 70's...which made abortion (killing of human/potential human life) legal...the moral issue will never reach closure and continues...the primary question...when does life begin and who has rights over this life continue to be debated from abortion to embryo research to prenatal diagnosis and continues with the cloning debate. Our society will continue to create legal decisions that weigh the benefit of the few versus the good of the group...what each person needs to remember is that making a procedure legal does not make it moral...only you can decide that!
Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2002 6:57 PM
From: carolyn@calis.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
DoktorMo:
I recently read your website article on cloning of humans. I felt compelled to respond to your question of whether the cloning of humans should be allowed. My answer is twofold and a resounding "yes" given certain Darwinian caveats.
1. I believe that the research of human cloning should continue (or openly begin), with breakneck speed for the purpose of understanding an intellectual property or subject, in order to develop a comprehensive and reliable reservoir of knowledge and information on that subject, until it is determined how this information could (or should) be ethically applied and by whom it should be used. For example, would cloning really upset the evolutionary scale? And how many more Hitlers or Asama Binladens should be allowed in the world? Should evil be allowed to flourish? No!
Here's the Caveat: I believe cloning should only be allowed under limited circumstances and only if it achieves or supports the highest of human endeavor, say for example, to allow the creation of life to preserve a life (organ donors, heart transplants, cancer patients, etc.). Perhaps there are portions of cloned human elements that could be reconstructed from the individual for his or her own preservation which would benefit the individual or human race at large.
To censor, or postpone conclusive research in this field based on a moral or ethical foundation suppresses the process of science and seems tantamount to choosing ignorance versus intellectual pursuit and higher understanding of any topic or subject. Censoring the pursuit of learning is the equivalent of lying or deceiving others by simply keeping them in the dark. Not a good choice....
2. I am 50 years old. I have finally met the man of my dreams and for the first time in my life would like to start a family and have children. I've besieged my brain with articles on ovum donation, adoption, and overly loving my nieces, nephews and children of friends.
For God sakes man, why not make the process of cloning available for "childless couples"? Childless men and women regardless of age, sex, religion and ethnic origin could benefit from the availability of cloning and the understanding of how a cloned human and their partner could actually conceive.
Many thanks.
Date: Wed, Jul 17, 2002 8:43 PM
From: thibadeaux2000@yahoo.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think there is something wrong with the people
against cloning, i think these people have no
information to base their opinion on and are blinded
by what the media is telling them cloning will do just
so politicians can ban it. I think that the reason
people are against it is because many people are
ignorant to what cloning can do and are just eager to
shoot their mouths off. Im almost discusted with all
the people who are against it and shouldn't be saying
anything at all untill they have factual information
First I think that playing god is the worst bit of
information to base you disagrement on. IF their is a
god, why doesent he end suffering and poverty and all
the horrible things many people face in the world
today. Where is "god" when all of this is
happening."Playing god"? If you truely belive that
playing god is wrong, what about all of the fertility
drugs and invitro fertilization. Also what about organ
transplants, that could be considered "playing god"
The playing god topic has been worn out. Im really
sick of seeing these one sentence post opposing it and
all they say is playing god is wrong. One i like
especially is this "why are scientist try to play god.
leave god creation alone" the people who post this
stuff obviously put no thought into the topic.
Second the whole subject about its unethical to create
people exactly alike is completely false, although a
cloned person might look exactly alike, if you put
these two people in completely different life styles
with different parents, I am sure that they would
develop completely different personalitys.
Thrid, the people saying that nothing good can come
from cloning are completely wrong. If the ignorant
people out there would cut the scientists a little
slack, they one day might be able to clone single
organs which would be completely healthy and
transplantable. This could be a huge advance in modern
medicine, because there are so many people out there
who need transplants and so little organs to give
them. Most people out there would hate this idea until
someone close to them needed one, maybe then you might
understand how good cloning is.
Fourth, the whole issue about enbryos depends on what
you consider a fully alive person, acording to the USA
law a person is not really "human" until they are
born, this is why abortions are illegal. If you want
to fight for rights of enbryo and fetus life you
should do away with abortion before cloning. Cloning
takes place in the embryo stage where the "human life"
is only a single cell which contains great potiential
to save hundreds with jsut one enbryo.
Finally, do you notice how posts that oppose this
topic are unusually short, i will tell you why this
is. The people who oppose this topic are ignorant
misinformed people, and because of them politicians
are limiting the scientists ability to research this
subject that has huge potientian in the medical and
scientific fields
"how would you feel if you know that you were only
brought in this world for one purpose, to be used for
spare parts." -The people who are brought into this
world for spare parts are no more than a ball of cells
when they are used, they are never actually humans!
"play god" - i have seen this written a thosand times
in this board and is the most absurd thing i have ever
heard anyone who would use this as any sort of fact to
back up their opinion has no arguement at all
"By cloning, you are risking becoming like the borg" i
cant even begin to talk about how stupid this is
I am only sixteen and i came across this board and was
compeletly appauled by the views of some people on
this board, if you are going to include the words
"play god" in your post you should not be posting at
all. One more important piece of information
Christianity is not the largest religion, the largest
religion is "no religion"
Date: Sun, Jul 7, 2002 5:27 AM
From: dr__Bob@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
First let us clear the air on playing God. Cloning is no more playing God than in vitro fertilization or any other assisted reproductive technique. In fact it is no more playing God than any other aspect of medicine. Either it is appropriate for man to manipulate his environment including reproduction which is what medicine is all about or all of medicine is in opposition to God.
Secondly cloning is no more or less unethical than any other form of assisted reproduction. Clones are not duplicates of the donor in any sense of personality and may not even look that similar. We already have clones walking among us - identical twins are biological clones - and we have had for millions of years yet they have no special powers.
As far as genetic engineering of children we have that in a minimal way without cloning thru prenatal sex selection. Doubtless as our knowledge of genetic information increases we will develop other techniques but these do not need cloning to be done; they can los be used in in vitro fertilization. Now whether any or all of these techniques my be ethical involves far too many alternatives to discuss in this topic. Suffice it to say that cloning does not require genetic engineering nor vice versa.
All of the above relates to the concept of whole individual cloning; the cloning of cells to produce an arm or a leg requires a much more complex understanding of genetic control than we have today and represents a totally different question. Of course if we ban all research in cloning then knowledge cannot develop and all of these thorny problems are avoided as are all of the benefits.
Date: Mon, Jul 1, 2002 5:32 PM
From: alian70@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
why are scientist try to play god. leave god creation alone
Date: Wed, Jun 26, 2002 7:37 PM
From: KickInKen@webuniverse.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
What is with you guys and GOD this and GOD that. If god doesn't want us to clone something then science wouldn't allow it. There are tons of benefits from cloning. What if one of you know it all's get into a car crash tomorrow. I'm pretty sure if you had the option of having them putting another leg or two back on you, you would take it. And even though you may be a heartless soul, there are people out there who have their kids killed by some idiot. I am close to damn sure they would want to have their kid "reborn". You people should not just think about yourself. The clones would think just like us anyways. Their not some war cyborg. They would be human to. Think about that.
Date: Sun, Jun 23, 2002 3:45 PM
From: JNHallam@msn.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Dear Dr. Mo,
I am totally against cloning. I think that if we are going to clone that the parents of the clone would be able to chose what traits they want their kid to have. That is like saying that we don't like the trait that God has given us.
-13 year old from California
Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2002 1:55 AM
From: satyen@samoatelco.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Hello! My name is Minnie. I am 15 years of age. I am doing a debate at school on cloning. I think cloning should be banned 100% because it is highly unethical and totally wrong!! No one on this earth has a right to exceed his/her limits as a human being and stand in God's place. NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO PLAY GOD!!
Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2002 11:07 AM
From: anne@wscpa.freeserve.co.uk
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
It's kinda wierd as I have to do a talk on cloning for school. I had no idea so many people like me think it's wrong, loadsa people seem to be asking the question WHAT RIGHT DO WE HAVE TO PLAY GOD????
I think we should answer that before we start cloning any human being.
Date: Mon, May 27, 2002 4:44 PM
From: JuicyFruitBabe13@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Cloning is more than "highly unethical!!!!" If we're not God then we don't play God! In the science/medical world, cloning may be a wonderful blessing, but how would you feel if you know that you were only brought in this world for one purpose, to be used for spare parts. I feel very very strongly that this is wrong. We reproduce, but we don't clone. Why would you want to be exactly like someone else, twins, triplets, quadruplets are one thing, but that was nature working, they weren't created in a lab. Scientist don't have that right!
- Shanna
Date: Fri, May 17, 2002 11:23 AM
From: abaker@midlands.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I am just a green horn so to speak on this subject. I came accross your web site after typing in stem cell research in the address bar of my computer and started browseing the web sites.I have read some of the emails you have received,so here is my two cents worth on the subject. Websters dictionary describes a embryo as a developing human individual from the time of implantion to the eighth week after conception.It does not take many smarts to figure out if left to its self will become a human individual the same as you or I or anybody else on the face of this earth. There is no reason or right of any individual on gods earth to take the life of another helpless person to the benefit of another regardless of what some may think in this day of political correctness. From what I have read there is other ways being explored to accomplish the same thing,or am i wrong on that?
Respectfully Alvin Baker
Date: Mon, May 13,2002 6:30 PM
From: maryil@yahoo.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Ok, I don't think that clones will end up being the
second-class citizens ((has someone been reading "A
Brave New World" too much?)) or human lab rats; our
society wouldn't put up with that. I don't think that
clones are going to be used to form giant armies to
take over the world, either ((I mean, come on!)).
It's just a matter of ethics. Clones are going to be
the children of people who can't have them naturally;
they were going to have I. V., but then some poor
mis-informed soul was like, "Hey! since this is the
year 2067 and everyone's doing it, why don't we have a
clone? Wouldn't it be neat to have a little version of
me running around?" ((just an example! NO, I'm NOT
being psychic...))
Like I said, it all depends on what you believe is
right. Personally, I think that making a baby in a
petri dish is sick and disgusting and totally
unnatural, but not a threat to the earth as we know
it.
You're all crazy.
-Maryil, 13 yrs old
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2002 1:07 PM
From: tigergirl086@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
OK pigs and sheep are one thing, but to take a human and clone them is just wrong. Who are we to play god. And what if something goes wrong somewhere along the line. Like if the place where the embryo where kept was to be broken. Why would you want someone exactly like your self any way. In every way they would be like you. Unless they ended up with some kind of mental disease.
Date: Sun, Apr 28, 2002 8:32 PM
From: SimMan180@cs.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Ok, heres my thing, don't know how many people reading this are star trek fans, but here me out. By cloning, you are risking becoming like the borg. A race of ppl who communicate and follow the orders of a supreme being, who are not individual. If you are a clone and you are surrounded by nothing but clones, it would be easy to start a fad, one person does it another follows and because you are all alike you end up with a race of clones that are 1 and no more.
Date: Tue, Apr 23, 2002 11:11 PM
From: FHamby3110@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND HE IS THE CREATOR NOT MAN.I THINK
CLONINEG PERIOD IS AN ABOBONNATION TO THE ONE WHO CREATED US.
THAT INCLUDES ALL PEOPLE.
Date: Sat, Apr 20, 2002 8:28 PM
From: cheekynat@bigpond.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Hi my name is natalie i am a yr 12 student at copperfeild secondary in melbourne australia. im doing an oral presentation on cloning of humans and i have to argue should it be allowed 4 medical reasons only.Well i think that no it shouldnt be allowed and if we r going to clone we should ONLY DO IT TO REPAIR DAMAGED HUMANS AND NOT TO CREATE THEM....
Date: Thu Apr 18, 2002 6:35 AM
From: drawal@bigpond.net.au
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
The society and the politicians are confusing the definition of life by regarding the fetus in the womb or an embryo in a petri dish as life. Objectively viewed the fetus is just another organ that grows in a woman as a result of fertilization of her egg with sperm from the opposite sex. The fetus uses mother's blood, oxygen and nourishment as it grows inside the womb. It does not breath independently nor has its own blood circulation. It behaves just like any other organ until it is shed by the mother when it becomes too heavy to be carried. Once out, the new-born takes its first breath of air and that is when life begins -as we understand it-after its cord is severed from the mother.Yes, the fetus has movement in the womb but then the heart in our body moves too. Likewise, a hybridized embryo in a research laboratory from unwanted or donated sperms and ova represent just a seed but not life for the cells are artificially nurtured under in-vitro conditions applied to the culture of many different types of cells for research or production of vaccines etc. Such eggs can hardly be referred to as representing life or as living beings- just like seeds of hydrid tomato or grains.We use live yeast to brew beer or making yogurt but we cannot see lifesaving and therapeutic potential of embryonic stem cells. It would appear that the restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells by various governments are more political than ethical and cruelly obstruct the development of life saving therapy for hitherto incurable diseases in humans. An equanimous evaluation of the politicians and their decisions becomes the reponsibility of the media in the interst of humanity in mankind.
Kindly note that the writer is not a genetecist nor has vested interest in the commercialization of stem cells.I will be grateful if this view could be considered for opinions in your group. I think the topic will stimulate a reasonable dialogue!and may interest your group. Thanking you.
B.Rawal,Ph.D.
P.S. Please note that a copy has been submitted to The New York Times for public exposure.
Date: Wed, Apr 10, 2002 2:54 AM
From: kim@kimcronin.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Leaving the technical stuff aside I must say that I have seen no discussion
on the spiritual aspect of a cloned human being.
With the first cloned humans apparently now on their way and all this
discussion about the physical risks to that "being" the very essence that
sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom has been completely left
out of the debate.
To put it more succinctly - we all have a soul and are spiritual beings.
That soul is born out of the union of an egg and a sperm - an unique union
providing a fresh, new human life through a unique set of genes and
chromosomes and who knows what else in a spiritual sense.
If the human soul exists (which I believe it does) where will it come from
in a cloned being as the cell used to create it already has its spiritual
essence through the donor who provided it.
Will we be creating a new style of human being - souless - the walking dead
as they were called in times past.
Scott Balson
Date: Tue, Apr 9, 2002 3:28 PM
From: srmuro@prodigy.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I dont think so becasue whoever you cloned would have tobegin since an egg,and although it may appare the same the brain wont be the same.it also wont be fair for the animals espacally becase we dont take care of them and we kill them to eat them.it would also ruin the world because we are already ruinig the wourld.
Date: Sat, Apr 6, 2002 6:35 AM
From: msubasi@ug.bilkent.edu.tr
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
SCIENCE IS A WONDERFUL MEDICINE BUT NO MEDICINE IS STRONG ENOUGH NOT TO BE CONTAMINATED IN THE CAN IT IS KEPT. WE ARE NOT THE CREATORS OF THIS UNIVERSE AND BELIEF IN A DIVINE CREATOR DOES NOT SEEM TO BE VERY ILLOGICAL (WHAT IS LOGICAL?)
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GOOD AND WRONG GOD ALSO HAS!!!!
DOES THE GOD HAVE TO BE VISIBLE FOR YOU TO BELIEVE? YOU HAVE COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR ACTIONS.SOME SCIENTISTS CAN BE THE EMBODIMENT OF THE DEVIL AND CLONING ALSO CAN BE USED FOR THEIR DEVILISH PURPOSES. HOW CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT THE CLONED INDIVIDUALS WILL NOT START A NEW ERA OF SLAVES AND THE SCIENTIST OWNERS. AS SOME PHARAOHS DID IN THE PAST SOME OF YOUR CRAZY SCIENTISTS WILL DECLARE THEIR DIVINITY BUT THEY FORGET SOMETHING
"THEY USED THE CREATED MATERIAL WHILE CLONING"
IT DOESNT MATTER WHETHER YOU BELIEVE OR NOT IN A DIVINE CREATOR NOW BUT YOU WILL CERTAINLY WISH TO HAVE BELIEVED AT THE POINT OF DEATH.
Date: Fri, Apr 5, 2002 8:49 PM
From: minime__13@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
In response to travelwork@mail.com who seems to be fairly single minded. I
don't think that cloning should be compleatly banned. furthur research
could eliminate some deseises, but i think that strict guidlines must be in
place before anymore progress is made. Many people seem to confuse cloning
with genetic enginnering, which is where DNA is manipulated to produce
specific characteristics. cloning is the transplanting of an entire
nucleuse into an egg, not specific genes.
You also seemed to be annoyed by people who make claims and predictions that
can not be proven. so am I. I'm only 16 doing some research for a debate,
but I think you should follow some of your own advise and make sure you know
what your talking about befor you say it. "What about Asexual? Does anyone
know what that is? Well, it's very, very awful. It's this terrible process
of cloning that the majority of organisms do in violation of mother nature
and God every day" I cant tell if you were try ing to be sarcastic or not.
if you were you did a terrible job, and if not you have no idea about what
you are talking about. Asexual reproduction is natural, it is going on in
your body, your cells divide through binary fission, a form of asexual
reproduction. you also say "Do not include your own paranoid fears in your
argument as facts. You can never own someone. Some rich yuppie can not just
buy a clone, as that would be slavery, and that is illegal all over the
world" yet slavery is still around in parts of the world, the Sudan is an
example. just because something is illegal doesn't mean someone wont do it,
people are murdured everyday, thigs are stolen even though they are
illegal.
Another thing, you said that Christianity is not the largest religion in the
world, there you are wrong, it is no longer the fastest growing religin, but
it is still the largest religin.
Date: Sat, Mar 16, 2002 5:25 PM
From: travelwork@mail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
How about this. Let's actually look at the other side of the issue with a
little bit of knowledge, and not
pretend to take the only other side, opposing cloning. Oh, and how about not
starting out your response with
the a question, as if you initiated this, or base your whole argument on the
word "God" or "nature." And
how about some education? That would help a lot.
Every time I read a post, I get to enjoy fragment sentences and unbacked up,
vague references such as
tampering with mother nature, or playing God. God made each of us. God
should decide who is made. God
made us all unique. I am sick and tired of this point of view. Someone
please realize that Christianity is not
the largest religion in the world. And basing something such as religious,
unproved teachings compared to
facts is not a good argument. I see no proof anywhere within me that God or
anything has made me besides
the process of sexual reproduction.
Sexual, that means it takes two. What about Asexual? Does anyone know what
that is? Well, it's very, very
awful. It's this terrible process of cloning that the majority of organisms
do in violation of mother nature and
God every day. Yes, that's right, these scientist plants, and bacteria and
viruses proceed with making clones
everyday, every hour, without concern for the social implications of the
clone, or the emotional tramau, or
whether or not the clone will survive. those murderers! how dare they defy
god! And I'm sure they are
defying every other sort of religious figure, even those that share more
popularity globally, or group of
leaders, or religious figures, such as cattle, all over (even though I don't
even mention them like they don't
even exist or that I am concerned whether they do or not ,since MY god is
the correct god) ! I can not
believe that disgrace, those plants, that polymorphism! Polymorphism is even
worst! Those plants are
combining weird genes to make whole new strange organisms, like some MAD
scientists! I hate when those
plants defy mother nature. Going through the process of evolution almost
daily! I can not believe that they
would evolve like that in defiance to the seven days theory of MY god. MY
god says this, and MY god says
that, According to my warped interpretation of a small amount of nominal
proof that tries to explain
everything in one book, failing terrible with so many contradictions and
unprovable events.
Whether or not cloning takes place, it doesn't matter. It only matters as
much as the effort you put into
complaining about it, which in this message is a lot. But it's inevitable.
Cloning has already happened, and
is happening, but everyone is just so narrowly focused on humans. Does no
one realize people are made of
cells? That's all we are, just an organism with advanced stimulus and
response reactions to everyday things
to the point where we form "opinions" and "emotions?" If someone dies, they
die, you lay, you decay. The
same is true for every living thing on this planet. If you kill something,
it will not matter. It's only important
because societies put emphasis on life. Do all dogs go to heaven? How about
trees? How about bugs? how
about bacteria? Viruses? Bacteria die every millisecond, and new ones are
produced at the same rate. How
long do you go on caring that you accidentally stepped on a bug? Is it that
same sort of situation when you
accidentally kill a cloned fetus? What's the difference? Is it suddenly
classified as murder only at the human
level, but not at any other primate level? Or is murdering all primates
wrong, so a little less intelligent
species can bear the burden of acceptable murder? How about legalized
hunting? No, that's not murder, it's
just a sport, but cloning in the name of advancing the entire human race is.
So does GOD have a will? How
do all you religious fanatics "speaking for him" ( the term I use when you
make statements identifying God's
wishes) know that is the truth? Is God going to send the scientists to hell,
even though he loves everyone,
for accidentally, or even purposely killing a baby, even though he loves
everyone? Why would the scientists
kill the baby, either way? How about this. We're trying to help eliminate
pain and suffering, disease, famine,
hunger, things a just god wouldn’t have in the first place, wouldn’t allow
billions to suffer over and over
again in the most unbearable pains imaginable, just because he lives them,
because that is his will. Besides,
we can only think that humans would be cloned, not the largest of cows, the
most abundant producers, the
implementation of disease resistant or genes, that is not necessarily
cloning, but just a side knowledge of it.
Only that "cloning is bad, it's gross, against god, against mother nature"
And I'm sorry if I just plagiarized
about half of all the posts.
Do not include your own paranoid fears in your argument as facts. You can
never own someone. Some rich
yuppie can not just buy a clone, as that would be slavery, and that is
illegal all over the world. People will
never be grown simply for harvest. That is so far fetched that you really
must not have any knowledge of
political standpoint on killing people for organs. Do not base your views on
a single country, or it's
constitution. America is not the only country debating cloning.
Or, how about this. I don't like the fact that I am unique, that I'm a mutt.
I'd rather be more of a purebred
human from someone that is socially accepted than to be a cross and outcome
of random chance.
Uniqueness is nothing. It's again just some stupid opinion of how we should
live to make us feel better
about being on earth. And as far as just cloning goes, and the destruction
of fetus' at the multi-cell stage,
who cares? Do you care when you cut your finger and you bleed? Do you mourn
over the loss of your
blood, that might someday have their nuclei injected in an egg cell and
become your baby? Because that is
all very much so possible. A simple thing called Toti potency.
And cloning isn't going to be used to try to increase to world population.
Stating the six billion statistic is
just an easy way to oppose creating a new life. How about the fact that we
have so many people due to the
rampant reproduction of humans and the opposition to natural selection
(that's a huge part of evolution for
you religious nuts) that has gotten us here so far? Yes, we humans don't
like natural selection, in either our
classrooms or our lives.
And do not base your opposition to a subject by stating wild claims and
predictions that you cannot prove at
all. Examples, and goodbye, (travelwork@mail.com)
*1. Think about this; in 100 years from now, there will be a whole lot of
clones. These
clones will be seen as the 'menial class'. Not good enough for the
human-born of the
world. These clones will perform the menial tasks
*Hmmm, these are pretty good psychic powers
*2 Didn't we learn from the past centuries of the permanent danger that is
following us.
We have to understand that scientific development can also hurt us. Did you
ever thing of
the draw backs of human cloning. I think that there are a lot more issues to
consider
before cloning humans. I am sure that if we deeper analyse it, some horrible
problems
will come up, that will prove us again that cloning should not be done.
* Yes, and you clearly pointed out how cloning will hurt us. Thank you.
*3 i dont' think it is possible to clone a body part from a single cell.
hartonochang@student.unsw.edu.au
*Yes it is. We grow skin on rats (skin's and organ) hearts in pigs (heart's
an organ)
*4. Unless you dont believe the BIBLE.: hrtbreaker@mindspring.com
* No, because the bible is an ancient society's way of thinking and
explaining the world
due to their inability to do so through any other means, and to control
others.
*5 no u should not clone then it is man made any living thing should not be
man made.
* WHAT?!
*6 What happens if it does work? HUH? They'll probly end up in a lab for
their entire life,
having experiments done on them like some sort of freakish lab rat. When the
die, it's not
like they will have a funeral. I'll bet they freeze them and every 5 years
or so they'll take
them out and do another otopsy on them.
* Yeah, you're right. And also since all those in-vitro babies started in a
laboratory, they belong to the
scientists.
*7 I'm only 14, I'm just doing a little research for school. Cloning
couldn't bring any good
to us! Eventually, people would get cloned without their knowledge, or
someone would
clone Hitler or something. If you cloned humans just for their organs, how
would the
clones feel? Just to be alive for someone else to use, and then die when
they are done
with you? Clones wouldn't be accepted by other people. They'd be another
minority group
that was looked down upon. Its just immoral and should not be allowed.
* Okay, that speaks for itself, if you can think for yourself. Oh, and I
love the psychic stuff again, how
he/she knows the social implications of the clones.
Date: Sat. Mar 16, 2002 2:57 PM
From: hneater@juno.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I am absolutely against cloning. We are born as individuals and grew up
thinking that we are the only one just like us. Cloning is tampering
with nature, playing God, and going outside of our bounds as simple human
beings. We were not placed on this Earth to replace God. He gave us
life to live, not to take others away. The government punishes those
criminals who murder the innocent, what exactly are these scientists and
those insensitive blind people who agree with cloning, think this is? It
is plain and simple. Murder. Murder is defined as taking the life of
someone. And that is exactly what we are dealing with. Cloning should
be banned. 100%. Look in the mirror. You are you, and no one else can
be. Isn't that special to any of you? You are losing your uniqueness by
the second as these money scavenging scientist play God. Don't let it
happen.
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2002 6:03 AM
From: redheadsrock2@hoymail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think cloning is good for some causes and bad for others. First I
think it could be a new way of life. Go and get a clone at your doctor
type thing. Cloning could also be useful in medical areas. Oh and just
to let you know im doing a project on cloning. I have to debate against
another student. On my side is--against cloning. Theirs is for. I really
cant decide if its a good thing or not. but like others have said---what
about the orphans? Would a clone accept itself? Would it have
disabilities? I think it should be done but gov't controls it and make
laws about it.
Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2002 4:29 PM
From: MBurgoyne@adelphia.net
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I do not believe that mammals should be cloned just because we can. I feel that it is playing God. I know I was raised to believe there was only one me and there was nobody else in the world like me. I don't want that taken away from me. I think cloning will cause a lot of social and psychologial consequences and that it can be dangerous in many other ways.
Ethically, I believe it disrespectful to clone another person. It is taking away who they are. For example, if one wants to clone a dead loved one. That isn't allowing them to keep thier dignity and "self" and it is to me disturbing. We have to learn to live with out some things. We control everything and controlling the death of someone by cloning them is not good for society or our children or us. Cloning is something we WANT not NEED. Cloning someone who is already alive is taking away thier identity. A woman who has identical twins is different. It happened naturally it wasn't done under controlled circumstances. I just don't feel that this cloning is going to do anybody any good. We're messing with something that isn't our place to mess.
Date: Sun, Mar 10, 2002 12:56 PM
From: SPEEDYADI@aol.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
HUMAN CLONING?
WHAT ARE SCIENTISTS TRYING TO PLAY A ROLE OF GOD OR WHAT? I DISAGREE COMPLETELY WITH THIS ISSUE.
FIRST OF ALL, IF SCIENTISTS ARE CALLED "SCIENTISTS" THEN THEY ARE JUST THAT NOT GOD!!!!
I THINK THEY SHOULD JUST FIND CURES FOR SICKNESSES, BUT NOT TAKE PARTS OUT OF A LIVING HUMAN BEING TO LATER JUST KILL THEM......THEN THAT WOULD BE CALLED "MURDERING".
I GUESS IT ALL COMES DOWN TO ONE SIMPLE FACT. THE FACT THAT GOD CREATED EACH AND EVERYONE OF US TO HIS IMAGE, AND HE IS THE ONE WHO MAKES US AND GIVES US LIFE. I REALLY HOPE THAT GOD FORGIVES THESE MEN FOR TRYING TO EARN THEIR PAYCHECK GOING TO THE EXTREMES. I HOPE HE HAS COMPASSION OVER THEM AND I TRULLY BELIEVE THAT PLAYING GOD'S ROLE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO EARN A LIVING NO MATTER WHAT. HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THEIR DEFESE POSITION IN THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO FIND WAYS IN GIVING A PERSON MORE YEARS OF LIFE. BUT THEN AGAIN, GOD IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO DECIDES HOW MANY YEARS WE WILL BE IN THIS EARTH. THAT'S ALL FOR ME...MAY GOD BLESS ALL!
PRAYERS FOR OUR NATION AND OUR LEADERS...........
Date: Mon, Feb 25, 2002 8:01 PM
From: jespry@ix.netcom.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
"but the parents could opt to have a clone made of him"
That was a sentence fragment from a letter somebody sent you that I have to disagree with. The writer admits that it would be a completely different human being, but the point is that the parents might not realize it. They would want so much to get their child back that they would try to bring back the memory of some other completely different human being. How can this person be so sympathetic to the parents but so oblivious to the situation of the new human being? How would this kid feel if he or she knew that the sole reason s/he was there was to make up for a lost child? To be somebody they weren't? Could they ever overcome that? Or be free to be a different person in the eyes of their parents?
I don't disagree with cloning for medical purposes, but it goes to far when an actual clone is born.
- Jessica, 15
Date: Sun, Feb 3, 2002 12:03 PM
From: badyrnes52@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
DEAR DOCTOR MO,
Cloning is a very difficult question to discuss. In our society today we have many well- educated doctors and scientist that have capacity to do such a work as cloning of humans. Many of the doctors all around the world wants to try out experiments, and now they want to try out cloning of humans. Cloning of different types of animals is okay, I think, but not cloning of humans.
I do not think that it is a very good idea to start with cloning on humans. In fact the risk is too big, and there are not so many good reasons for to let the work be done.
On the other hand there are already enough people on our planet. As we said in the beginning, the risks are too big, and therefore we can loose many human lives.
From Bjorn Andre
Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2002 6:45 AM
From: martinliland@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Dear Dr. Mo
I can see two sides of the term "human cloning". One I consider positive,
and one I consider negative. I wish to talk of the positive first...
By cloning human organs, doctors may be able to create extra organs for
patients that need to replace their old and sick organs. A patient with a
heart that is no longer functioning properly, today has to wait maybe for
years until a fresh organ may be inplanted. And many, too many, die in the
waiting-queue. Cloning may also help scientists to discover new ways of
treating diseases that today are considered, more or less, uncurable in many
cases. For instance AIDS and many types of cancer.
But there is also a negative side by cloning that I can see, and that is
that the scientists researching and performing htese acts do not know
entirely what they are doing, I think. They are fumbling with the very
foundation of natural life, making life more or less artificial. Genetically
manipulated food, like extra red tomatoes and extra juicy apples, may be
safe enough to eat, but they do not know what this will develop into in the
end. They think and say that they know so much about it, but I don't think
that they really do. There are many aspects of nature that were considered
true in the past, and that has been reconsidered and changed. Like the earth
being flat and the sun orbiting the Earth. Thus I think scientists and
politicans should think twice amd scout the area before settling.
Martin Liland
Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2002 6:25 AM
From: star-trek@picard.as
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Why should we not clone humans?
1. Because we don't know what cloned persons will be like. 2. It would be
cruel to them to know that they were ordered, and 3. We can't guarantee that
they will not be born with any handicaps. Then again: 1. Maybe just another
reason to clone humans. 2. A person is just as much ordered when it is made
naturally. The parents want a kid, the way is comes won't affect their love for
it. 3. We can't guarantee that a "natural" kid will be handicap free either. We
can’t guarantee that some of the first kids will survive the cloning process,
but we can't guarantee an astronaut that he will be able to return to earth
after his mission in space is done. He knows what he will miss out on. Embryos
don’t. It can't think either and probably not feel pain. I know this may sound
cruel, but what isn't? We live in a cruel world and if cloning people can make
it a better place than I think there is a means to an end. And last but not
least, don't say this is to work against mother nature, because either all we
do is what mother nature wants or we defied mother nature the day we started to
walk on two feet. Commence cloning.
Marius
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 2:38 PM
From: tomgrosfjell@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I think cloning of human beings is highly unethical. People should not be able to tamper with nature like that. The society is so fixated on religion these days and clashes between religions. I do not think any religion will allow this. In vitro fertilization is also beyond my moral rules. Man is not the ruler of Earth, at least it should not be. At the technological level we are at for the moment, it would cause great pain to the 99% of the cloned infants that do not fall through the needle- eye, and can survive. There should not even be a discussion of this matter until it is absolutely sure that a cloned human being will survive without pain. As I dwell over this subject, I have come to the conclusion that cloning is not just tampering with the nature; it is clearly breaking the rules of nature!
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 10:36 AM
From: caitlin.arbuthnott@btinternet.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
hi i am a school girl and i am doing a debaite on cloning. i came to this web site to find reserch and other peoples point of views only i have ended up with lots of people sayin no cloning is wrong well here is what i think....
You and your partner can not have kids you are deply upset and are finding it hard to admit to your partners parents why you cant have children. You know that if you hadn't had the abourtion you would be fine and having the baby would be ok. you belive very strongly on being a blood family and you want to have a baby with your blood well now you can you can clone!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm great i'm fab wouldn't it be nice if there was another 1 of me to help me with my experiments. Cloning people with good brains can help u. if a clone found the cure to your disease would you take it? a clone is NOT a bad thing it may behave and look like you but it is still an individual.
I think pritty soon people could end up living amoung clones.
Do u belive in the saying it's doesn't matter whats on the outside it matters whats on the inside? well if u do then you should not mind if we clone or not as the clone only looks like them and if you belive in this saying then you should have no problem with cloning because a clone is an idividaual and the outside won't matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also all these people are saying how the bible says this and that about not cloning and how its wrong. Well didn't the bible teach us to love thy neighbour wheather they be ugly or have a disease because its whats on the inside that counts.
If any body agrees with me then i would find your points very usfull as i said earlyer the reason i am doing this is for my debait. if u do have any points please email me at Hockey_babe_1@hotmail.com.
Thank you,
Caitlin [age 12]
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2002 2:42 AM
From: guroslettebo@yahoo.no
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I absolutely do not think that cloning of human beings
should be allowed. Somehow God created the world and
he is the one who gives life. People can`t just mess
around with nature. There are several of examples that
can show how wrong it can go when people interfere the
natur. We never know the long-term consequences.
Something we just have to leave to the nature-that`s
the way life is. People are not smart enough to
control the world. It would be crazy if we started
copying people! Life is a gift and every person is
unique! Imagine how it would be if we could just order
a person with exactly the qualities we wanted it to
have, just like another article. Life is so much more
than that!
I know there are positive sides about cloning, like
healing diseases and giving infertile couples the
opportunity to have children with their own genes. But
I think there should be straight laws for
experimenting with cloning. Suddenly it will all be
way out of hand. What would it be like to know that
you was a clone,only a copy of someone else. What
would a world with identical people be like? And when
it comes to the infertile couples: What about all the
orphan children? Can we start cloning people, as long
as there are so many children who haven`t got anyone
to take care of them?
Guro S.
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 1:45 PM
From: qee_@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
"now that it is possible to clone mammals, should cloning of human beings be
allowed? What are the ethical concerns involved in making that decision
either for or against cloning?"
When you ask me if cloning of human beings should be allowed i`d have to say
no. The reason why I say no is simply my ethical opinion. My ethics prevent
me from thinking that cloning any thing should be allowed because cloning
interferes with the way the nature was meant to be. Why would people be
interested in doings such a thing? When the survival rate of the cloned
beings are so extremely low, when it even is a great risk for the “mother”
to carry the being and when studies show that cloning often results in
immense suffering for the cloned being I’m disgusted. Even if they want to
clone organs so that seriously ill people can survive their diseases, and
grow them in beings that has been genetically altered so that they don’t
feel anything I would have to object. No matter how good your intentions are
ALL forms of cloning should be globally prohibited. It is interfering with
nature
Egil
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 1:04 PM
From: ikoldal@online.no
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Dear DokterMo
I do not like the whole cloning idea. The only thing that maybe would be accepted is cloning of animals which are in danger of extinction. In many ways this is wrong, because it is meant to be that their time is due. That's the problem with cloning! You shouldn't fickle with nature in my eyes! Maybe it's the humans are the fault why the animals is due of extinction. This is an argument for not cloning people! The earth is not capable to have both the human population and an maybe larger cloning population. Then there would be a food shortage! By cloning people the man or woman looses their own right to be a unique individual.
My advices don't fickle with Mother Nature!!
Frode
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 12:30 PM
From: gul_bugg@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I feel that cloning should be a restricted area within science. If cloning humans were to be legal and doable we would no longer be a special individual, we would just be one amongst the others.
If cloning were to be used as a treatment to repair damaged cells and DNA, then that is something that we all could gain something from. But cloning can also be used to save endangered species like the panda and the Siberian tigers. By cloning individuals, they could multiply, and by that increase the number of animals, to a number in which it is no longer endangered.
There is a saying that you should not tamper with nature, but the human race has already been tampering so much with it, that we need to "tamper it back" to what it once was.
Also cloning can be used for more "good-purpose" things, like helping people in which is not capable of having children naturally.
As you may see, I am against cloning of humans based on selfish reasons, but it can help someone getting their long-wanted child, I say lets go for it. Also, cloning endangered animals I feel is a very wise way of using this gift that we have.
Elin
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 11:59 AM
From: ruth.odland@sensewave.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I don't think that it will be right to clone a human being. I think it is against the ethnical laws that we have in our society. I don't think that anyone should have the opportunity to play God and decide how the baby should be. It wouldn't be right to the baby either. There is a large chance for the child to be born with severe abnormalities such as malfunctioning livers, heart problems, genetic defects and so fourth. Think about the mother of this child; think about what she is going through. In many cases the clones grows abnormally large, often threatening to tear the womb. We van see after the first mammal clone, Dolly, which was the one success in 247 pregnancies. Almost all clone pregnancies end in spontaneously abort. In most of the cases the lives of both the mother and child is put in danger. Is this how we want it to be?
Torgunn
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 11:55 AM
From: geri-ol@frisurf.no
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I don't think that it should be allowed to clone human beings! What about
the kids who would become "clones"?! First of all testing on mammals shows
that in most of the cases the clone died and in almost all of the cases the
lives of both the mother and the clone were put at risk. Secondly: what if a
clone was actually born?! The prognosis shows that 99% of the cloned mammals
that survived were born with severe abnormalities. Furthermore one knows
very little about the long-term health of clones. Some evidence shows that
clones may not live as long as the rest of us, and they may have health
problems. When one are aware of these serious risks, is it than fair to the
clones to expose them to it? I think that we know to little about the
consequences that cloning a human being might have. I also think that every
human being is something unique, and that there is supposed to be only one
of us. I don’t think that it would be right for a child to be "ordered" to
for fill certain peoples expectations either.
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 11:08 AM
From: kennethskaraas@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
We don't find it smart to start cloning of humans. Because the risk is to big, and there are no good reason for why it should be done. One thing is to make new organs for people that are ill, as a medical treatment. But to make a copy of an all ready existing person, would be wrong. It’s a violation against nature. And it wouldn’t be right to create a human that would have a chance of being born ill, or with major damages.
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 10:31 AM
From: lisemvik@start.no
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
My opinion to the question: " Now that it is possible to clone mammals, should cloning of human beings ba allowed? What are the ethical consern involved in making taht decision either for or against cloning?"
As for me, I think that cloning human beings should not bee allowed. There are so many ways to get a baby, that people don’t need to generate a exact “look a like” baby. I think that if it is possible to create a “look a like” baby, many will use the opportunity to do so. But there are of course they who can’t get a baby, they who wants a baby, but they can adopt children who are already born. I don’t think that it’s ethical to clone human beings, there are just to many children suffering to day, why don’t take care of those instead? Why take the risk of having several abnormalities: malfunctioning livers, abnormal blood vessels and heart problems, underdeveloped lungs, diabetes, immune system deficiencies and possibly hidden genetic defects. All this have the cloned sheep been through, and several cows had head deformities, none have survived very long. Are we then ready to take the same risk with people? I also don’t want a person to be exactly like me, or other, God created human different, and I think that we should do it the way we are born to do it.
Lise Marie
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 9:25 AM
From: hmds84@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
What if everybody did look alike, people could live forever with each
others, no changes! Wouldn’t that be great? NO, I don’t think so. Everybody
should be different and unique. When someone dies, you can’t run and order a
new version. What if you lost your job because a cloned person where much
more qualified for the job, he was especially made for the job. Everybody
would be without job and totally dependent on the clones.
Think of all the rich people that copied themselves, because they wanted to
“live forever”. The middle class would disappear, everyone in the upper
class would use the clones to get more money. The jobs for the middle
classes would then disappear and there would only be two social classes, the
upper and the lover class. There should be very strict rules on cloning, no
one should take advantages of this technology. Everybody should use the
old-fashioned way, not the cloning way.
>P>
-Hans-Marius-
Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2002 2:16 PM
From: river_rat5@msn.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Most people that are against cloning do not understand the subject clear
enough to support their opinion. I do not care what they think, it just
bothers me when they make the attempt to convince others of their position
when they, themselves, do not even comprehend what they are saying. Cloning
humans can and will have many positive outcomes. To suport my opinion I wil
refer to a situation brought up in "The Sixth Day." Rememebr that sic-fi
movie with Schwartzeneger? There are two sick children in the hospital
located in adjacent rooms. In the first room is a child who has a liver
problem, if he does not get a transplant, he will die. In the other room is
a child with a brain tumor. He will dir no matter what. Two sick children
in adjacent rooms, one lives due to a liver transplant, one dies because the
cloning of humans and/or human organs is illegal. Had cloning of humans
and/or human organs been legal, the second child would have died, yes, but
the parents could opt to have a clone made of him. It is true that the
personality would be different and he would start off as a baby and not be
the same age as the one that died. The prents, though. Why put parents
through the horor of completely losing a child of all things? Because it
would be playing God? Who is to say what God's intentions are? Who has
actually spoken to God, Buddha, Vishnu, or any other diety of any religion
and heard them say, "Cloning is bad, thou shalt not clone."? Nobody. For
all anybody knows, cloning is the next big step for human kind on the
timeline that God has all laid out for us. I am only 17 and still havent
completed my research on this subject but I have done enough to understand
most of the risks and ethical matters revolving around cloning. I think
that it can be a powerful and highly useful tool for the world for many
different reasons.
please feel free to email me with any arguments at river_rat5@msn.com
A.J.-a random high school student
Date: Sun, Jan 20, 2002 9:39 AM
From: soundadvice70@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
If I'd be placed on the spot and have to guess, I'd say approximately 70% of the social aversion to human cloning is rooted in the nonsensical ranting of people like "diabolicmaniac@yahoo.com". Although the morality of cloning is a topic far beyond my short-sighted ethical grasp, the general fear of cloning arises not from moral conundrums but from ignorance. It has been said that man is inherently afraid of the unknown, and the prospects of human cloning are exactly that, unknown. As an experimental medicine graduate student, I've been involved in cloning in some form for the last three years. During that time we've worked on better methods of mass-producing insulin for diabetics, and the study of antibiotic resistant so-called "superbugs". I admit human cloning and prokaryotes (or bacterial cloning) are too different things, but the science is the same. I find it hard to understand how certain ethicists - ever struggling for equality among all living things - never seem to address the cloning of estrogens as immoral. I may be wrong but I don't recall ethicists clamouring over the discovery of the Duschene Muscular Dystrophy gene, nor the advent of PCR (polymerase chain reaction), nor did they squabble over the cloning-based identification of the causative agents of diphtheria, botulism and many, many others.
"diabolicmaniac@yahoo.com" claims that cloned humans, " will not necessarily become who they were meant to replace". I find this particularly interesting. Why does cloning equate to replacement? I'm assuming that by posting this message, your site at least finds these comments acceptable (if not commendable). I saw that you've previously discussed what exactly constitutes "death" in another forum here. By consequence we could extrapolate that the opposite is what constitutes life, and by consequence if "heart beating" and "brain function" are integral elements then someone please stop trying to save Brazilian rain forests, they're already dead. Of course, I am stretching your definition to places it wasn't intended to go, but that is exactly the point, our definitions and criteria for the acceptable must constantly be stretched and re-evaluated, and that process seems to have sadly gone stagnant.
Imagine for an instant you were faced with the impossible task of defining life. Where would you start, what is alive? Perhaps you'd remark that something needs to grow (metabolise) to be alive, needs to be able to reproduce, to adapt to the environment. Those would be good arguments. Now suppose you continued by trying to define what it is to be human. Maybe you'd include consciousness and communication and community in your definition and you'd be right. Now most difficult of all, suppose you set out to define consciousness. I doubt you could. Neither could I. In fact, all the other aspects of life including what it is to be human can conveniently be surmised in a giant flow-chart of biochemical equations, all except the notion of consciousness.
The point in question is simple, does being human constitute nothing more than fulfilling a predefined sequence of biochemical interactions, or is it something more? If it is, then how would a construct of these biochemical reactions be rightfully called human? When you claim being against human cloning does your chemical make-up feel violated, or does your sense of uniqueness suffer the consequences of your errant mind? Before resolutely condemning human cloning as immoral, make sure that the sun still isn't revolving around the earth, and that you realise that human cloning is only as immoral as the immoral human's attempting it.
Date: Fri, Jan 11, 2002
From: b_ball4u@hotmail.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
Cloning is the worst thing human nature has tried or has achieved! Why you
say because think of the later effects of this madness! It will inturn make
the gene pool smaller, it would have killed hundreds of thousands of
want-to-be-cloned-humans and would not nesecarily have done anything good!
It will also cost a lot of money that could go to something more useful or a
better cause! And all the people y\who think that if you made a clone it
wouldn't be your age, it wouldn't think like you, act like you, be like you!
it would lives it life as just another you except it with being
emotionaly,different than you so it just wouldn't work the way most people
think. And no it wouldn;t be able to pay your bills because it won't be old
enough when it is born!
Mc
Date: Mon, Dec 24, 2001 9:41 AM
From: diabolicmaniac@yahoo.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I actually wonder why do we need to clone humans; do
we not have enough people in the world already? And if
we do clone humans, what would it's practical use be?
It will be trivial to clone dictators or great leaders
nor will it be for great thinkers as their time had
passed and when they are born they will not
necessarily become who they were ment to replace.
I also think that if cloning will be a boost to
medical research, why dont we just clone whatever that
we need to be replaced individually instead of making
a copy of a person and then extracting it( which is
murder ). The technology for this is not far away.
Once human cloning is successful, the knowledge of its
research will be available to the masses that also
include those with sinister ideas (eg. maniacs,
disctators ). This will pose an international threat
as those persons might use the technology to create
superhumans or perhaps disease carrying humans that
can be used to spread terror aroung the world. Take an
example of the nuclear arms race just after the atomic
blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Summarising everything, i think that human cloning
will only give us more problems and the money that is
used to research it would be better spent in finding
medicines from nature before they are lost by our
encroachment of nature. The money can also be used to
increase the health of poorer people by giving them
better sanitation and medical services hence reducing
the death rate of a country. Funding can also be used
in better understanding the nature of our illnesses so
that prevention of illnesses will be easier hence
reducing the strain on medical systems around the
world and recuing the need for cures and stemming the
rate of resistance obtained by bacterias against our antibiotics.
Date: Mon, Dec10, 2001 11:25 PM
From: larder@ihug.co.nz
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I don't see what's wrong with cloning but I don't see the point in it. Cloning is like having twins they look the same but don't usually act alike.I don't think it's fair on the clone because it probably wants to be like everyone else.I read one letter and it said that if an animal was nearly extinct it could get cloned and breed more and increase the numbers.It might be a break through for animals but not for humans. I don't see the point in meddling and you might get an unhappy clone.
Date: Sat, Dec 8, 2001 8:05 AM
From: rennith@yahoo.com
To: DoktorMo@aol.com
I don't think it should be allowed. I have already
submitted a responce be permit me to further
illustrate my reasoning. One reason is purpose if
cloning were allowed to its fullest potential we would
loose the ablity to reproduce then how could we define
ourselves as life forms. And as technology grows more
and more people loose purposes in life. The mail man
because of email no longer really has a job. The
printer is loosing his job. And in the case of the
replicator if it is created would mean that only one
person would have control over things and everyone
else would loose thier purposes. Would is sad is that
every invention has come out off trying to be
different rather than trying to accept one another.
The car for example proably came about because Ford
didnt' want to take care of his horses. He was in fact
lazy. The Tv came about because some guy didn't wish
to go to the theater. Furthermore, I have benefited
from technology yes, but what is the ultimate cost
are we trying to back ourselves into a cave where we
don't have to talk to anyone. Where we don't even
need another person to have offspring well hell if
that is case why do we have children at all.
Technology ceases to become useful when it starts
elimnating man. Why not just create a robot to think
for you. hummmmm There is a idea. Then you don't have
to eat to talk hell you don't even have to LIVE and
you will eventually die. Case in Point have you seen
those people have healthy parents and grandparents who
don't have to go to the doctor very often, but for
some reason they are at the doctors office every day,
asking for more and more drugs. Or the overwiegh