---- THE ETHICAL ISSUE ----

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.
---- THE DISCUSSIONS ----

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 overwieght woman rather than do excercise she will sit in front of the tv. I also propose a admenment to patent law one that states that a patent will only be given if it is shown that it can imploy more people that it will take out of work. One more further point. Yes there will be a human cloned there is proably one already cloned. And I for one think it is pretty stupid. Why the hell do I need a doctor screwing around with my DNA. Especially when my DNA will loose it's adaptiablity. Let me illustrate. The common cold for example it is a virus. If for some reason I get sick I go to a Genetic doctor he inserts some DNA to get me back on track. My DNA will become dependant on it. Then rather than tough it out. I will be fine. But here comes the next cold. and the doctor has no more DNA. Well shit what do I do?. If I had stuck it out my body it self would be self-contained no need for anything else.


Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2001 8:18 PM From: rennith@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am wondering what will happen if a virus is somehow helped by cloning. If say person a has a gene for cancer will the clone not have the same gene. and if so will they try and weed it out. And who is going to define the perfect DNA. the one that should set the standard do we define it as the individual who goes to harvard, athletic body. Then again we are dealing with the idea that some people are born not equal. There goes Democratic way of life. I am also wondering the person or persons motives concering the issue. So far I have only seen people who are greedy or people who are not happy with thier lives. As for the couples who can't have kids. There are many kids who need homes. There is adoption. It is socally irresponsible to abandon those children. Also it is easier to keep diversity the current way of reproducing The child is concived in love hopefully. and if not well that is a entirely different problem. A child knows what his/her parents think of them. And a child who is cloned if not from the same person(the father) then I am not worth very much. I have to have someone's else's DNA. Futhermore let's say that we grow organ's they may and may not work. Have you ever put a trasmission inside a old car. Works fine but soon the engine will fail. Then you have to replace that. Then the seats look old. Pretty soon you just replaced the whole car. Also I personly like the idea of getting old and passing on. I am not a greedy person who wants to control everything. I like people to change places. Plus I think it gives the soul rest. Plus the idea of genetic engineering of food. This is really scary. The reasoning behind such a thing is world hunger. It is proposed that GE will increase food production ending hunger. That could already happen but the problem is distrubution not the food itself. Plus The people who would benefit from this type of research are few when compared to the rest of the population. I do have empathy for them so don't think of me as not being human.


Date: Sat, Dec 1, 2001 1:11 PM From: wayfarer49@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I don't much care whether humans are eventually cloned. The important issue is whether it can be done safely, without increased risk of defect. It will always be a marginal activity anyway, in relation to the totality of births, and the revenues generated from those willing to pay could be channelled into the rest of the health care system, research, etc., if properly regulated. One could ask what would possibly motivate a person into wanting to be cloned in the first place, but if in some cases there are unsalutory answers to that question, those answers would in many cases be no different from those to the question of why anyone would want to procreate at all.


Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2001 3:16 PM From: gdisaac@charter.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi my name is Genesis and I go to Siever middle school and I think that it should not be done so please tell them to stop NOW or try to reach the presindent or theSuperintentdennt and what up with Anthax.


Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2001 From: Benbub@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I dont think cloning humans should be allowed. I mean the basis of the whole reproductive system is to have different people. Without people being different do you think the world will ever progress. And also wouldn't that just a waste of time and food. It would amount to nothing having the exact same image and mental use of someone else. And another reason I am againsty cloning is because some rich yuppy with enough money to get it done will just get even lazier and have a clone of themself and not do any work for his life but make his clone do all the work.

Sincerely, Bob Robs


Date: Sun, Oct 14, 2001 8:58 PM From: lhollow@qwest.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believed in my second class in psycholoy that after reading about mutations and other biological deformaties it would be a benefit to medicine to develop a study on gene chemical makeup and soley to examine adding one gene to another to make it whole, but why doesn't any on of the studies show or benifit this type of restoration of defects and mutations? I remember reading one case study from some genetic researchers that inserted a healthy copy of a gene into a person with cystic fibrosis and once inserted into the nostrils the cell was penetrated and carried the healthy gene which successfull mutated making normal protein which corrected the chloride effect and curing this form of cell defiency. This I believe is what these genetic/biological cell study - makeup should be geared to. Correcting and healing those that are deficient not recreation of something already there.


Date: Tue, Oct 9, 2001 7:45 PM From: jmb286@psu.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I do not see the necessity to clone people. But I do not think this is what scientists are actually doing. At least not how most people take the phrasing of that to mean. And I think that is the problem. When people hear of cloning, they think it's making the exact copy of everyone and having doubles or triples of yourself walking around. That is just not the case, but people are afraid of what they do not understand. There are many benefits to cloning and further research in cloning. I think cloning in humans can be a very valuable thing. Cloning skin cells and things like that. A think cloning of animals for science research is a really good thing for taking variables out of experiements.

I think this is a topic we need to further educate ourselves on before making decisions or really putting our ideas out their. Especially teachers. This is one of those touchy topics that everyone has an opionion on, but few truly understand. I know I need to learn more.


Date: Thu, Oct 4, 2001 5:50 PM From: a.arirose@juno.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The issue of cloning is in no way different from any other issue this world has ever faced in any period of time. Who really is in control anyway? Who do we really think we are to assume that we, as a human race, have the capability of creating life? This is ridiculous in every respect. Our founders of The United States of America recognized their lack of intelligence to form such a constitution that we enjoy today. Benjamin Franklin said, "I firmly believe that without God's concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." He knew that as men, they were incapable of building a document that escapes the human predicament, but with divine aid we are enjoying life today. How can we so soon forget who is really in control?

As for cloning, I believe nothing is alive without a soul and thus said, that adult mammal cloned in Scotland must have a soul. Does he not breathe, eat, ambulate, and live? Did these scientists create that soul? I think not. There is no way to do so. We have not the power and never will. The only way this mammal could be alive is that God has given that body a soul. That was His choice, He can give or He can take, this is something we, as a nation have forgotten. Our nation, built on a founding of "God's concurring aid" has indeed forgotten who really is in control. Cloning a human will never create life, or even create a body for that matter. It is still a miracle at the microbiological level that God has allowed to take place; that He has allowed a soul to be a steward over. Our founding fathers remembered that in their endeavors, and more than 200 years later, we as a free nation have forgotten. The constitution was indeed passed and cloning has begun. Cloning may be good, but who is to say we have created life? God can give and He can take, let's leave the deciding up to him because really, who is in charge? My opinion on this matter remains indifferent, but what needs to be realized is this: never will humans have the sole capability to create life, God has granted us this knowledge to get this far and He will always control the miracle of life. Let us never forget that as not only a united nation, but as a human race.

Your neighbor under the same "God We Trust", Austin A. Rose


Date: Thu, Oct 4, 2001 6:50 AM From: jong81182@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I'm neither for nor against human cloning. But i'd like to see the first ever human clone. I'd love it if this clone is of one of the doctors performing the process.


Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2001 12:55 PM From: sykoben2@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am a firm opponent of human cloning and think that under no circumstance should human cloning be allowed. However for arguments sake, allow me the following debate.

We as americans have made a split decission over the abortion issue. The outcome does indeed allow abortion thereby letting me make the following statement. If a human fetus were actually a person prior to birth, abortion would thereby be murder. Since abortion is allowed and murder is not, I submit that a human fetus is NOT a person until birth.

With the previous statement being made, I move to say that a scenario where a fetus is made by meens of cloning is NOT a person and thereby organs removed durring pregnancy (prior to the fetus becoming a person) would not compose the crime of murder, but an abortion with usefull biproducts.

Upon removal of much needed organs, they could be developed into fully usefull adult organs. (I now declare I have no documentation to prove the previous but for the sake of continuing the argument I would like to assume that procedures could be made.) Once ready, the organs could relieve needs for numerous organs and hence save thousands of lives of those who would otherwise die.

The same procedure could be done on normal abortions, not just premeditate cloning pregnancy abortions. All this being said I say that organ reproduction via cloning would be no more immoral than artificial organ use or even ordinary medication.

Ben Sykora (sykoben2@yahoo.com)


Date: Mon, Sep 10, 2001 4:32 PM From: Corssalvador@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Marriage, family, as well as social relationships and the stability of society would be in risk of weakening if clonation became a common practice.

Would lead to a society without parents and deeply manipulated. All generations and each human being in particular is entitled to his own identity, to have family links and have a continuity with the previous generations.

When procreation is rationalized, that is to say, when it depends on a laboratory, then comes the abolition of the embodied personality of man. This makes the human being depend on an incarnation and a descending of a machine.

The progress of medicine, the safeguard of the environment and the development of technology may change in better the destiny of mankind, making of it a "single family". These are words by John Paul II, which reveals to the world: computer has changed my life. How to define, then, the relation between today's Church and the recent results of scientific research?

The use of medical science, of the echosystem of technology may change the destiny of the whole mankind, transforming it into "a family". Science is not included among the signs of hopes for the new millennium, but it makes us curious.

Since the beginning of this century science has grown more humble, and it has reached a better underdstanding of his role. The discovery of Dna in 1953 has been a milestone. Researchers found themselves admiring something which goes beyond human explanation. Many scientists do not pretend nowadays to offer answers on God or on the secrets of human souls.

In the Bible is written "you, man, use you intellect to wrench the great secrets of earth and to exploit its at your own advantage". Human intellect is God's gift. Scientific research is a duty, if we do not use man as a tool, and if we do not mistake human identity with animal one.

Are you telling me if I'm against clonation of human embryo? To create human tissue and organs, the procedure is to extract an egg from a woman, to take away the nucleus and to insert into it a man's nucleus. With an electric shock we start the fecundation process, to keep alive an embryo for six or seven days, before killing him, stopping it's becoming a man. This issue concerns everybody. He is already a human being. If we manage to replicate a tissue, or a bone for a transplant there would be nothing bad. In the Gospel it is not forbidden to clone, but there is written - and it is a product of the Greek, Hebrew, and Christian thought, that every human being is son of the Universe and no man is master of another. Embryos are beginning of men and therefore they ought to be respected as an human being."


Date: Tue, Aug 7, 2001 10:25 PM From: vhonetoo@uswest.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi Doctor, Thank you for your site. I'm interested in cloning. It seems like a good idea to me.I know people can turn a good idea into a bad one. It appears to me it comes down to motive,just like killing someone. Intent is in degrees: 1st, 2nd, manslaughter, passion etc. I'm just a regular thinker( not very complicated) I hope your site can reach some one like me and not talk over my head. Victoria H. Simmons, Puyallup, WA, USA, vhonetoo@qwest.net


Date: Tue, Aug 7, 2001 11:07 AM From: kiki Why isn't it allowed to be unique? Why do we all have to look and be alike? I would not like to know if I was cloned, just the thought that someone 'ordered' me. I would not be an individual, I would be a thing that came to be, becaouse someone could not love my uniqueness.
Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2001 11:36 AM From: piivert@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hello i saw your page on the web about if cloning should be done or not. And I think it is an interesting subject to discuss, personally. I think cloning of humans is not necessary but cloning body pieces is... they are many advantages of cloning body pieces just think of what it can do for preventing death and helping ill people. But we most also understand the fact that we are living in a society with a huge amount of stupid people. And if the technology got to the wrong person or just out in public could end up in a disaster because right now have worlds population got over 6 billion people and it is rising every single day and the knowledge of cloning gives us the power to maybe control life. So I think you can maybe understand by yourself the consequences of controlling life.


Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2001 5:22 PM From: pnikulin@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hello. I just read some of the responses here. I think that one person here wrote that someone may clone Hitler. It would be nothing to fear about. Genes only determine the appearance of people. Even if genes somehow determine people character, their desire for power, nobody really know that the Hitler-clone will want to conquer the world. Most of the stuff that makes someone's character is the environment that he is encircled with.

But I am against cloning. What do we need cloning for? The only reason we can think of for cloning humans is for infertile couples. But why not adopt? Why make more people to feed. It would be better for everyone if we just adopted. But if we are cloning headless humans, there is another argument-we need them for tissues and organs. Why can't we genetically alter animals for that purpose? We don't need to make headless humans at all. You can clone animals for health purposes and to bring back the extinct species, but humans are not extinct. At least I think that they are not. We can get the organs from animals. But I think that scientists want to try to do something new every time. So, it is of course understandable, when they try to find arguments to support their researches. And here is another reason why I am against cloning-I believe in God. And I think that this phrase can explain everything.

Pavel


Date: Wed, Jul 18, 2001 8:22 PM From: chubby2@optusnet.com.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I THINK THAT HUMAN CLONING SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS THEN EACH HUMAN BEEN WILL NOT HAVE THERE OWN IDENTITY AND IT COULD SOME HOW PASS ON DISEASE


Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2001 11:36 AM From: power_prophet@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

As for me, I believe that although there may be down sides to cloning there are some upsides. As for science just like everything else in the world there is a good side and a bad side. Sure Adolf Hitler or the next guy who wants to start a world war may clone himself but does that mean that we should stop our human advancement just because we are afraid of what MIGHT be and not what is. Just as Ronald George said we don't know the future we don't know what the hell is going to happen so I say lets do it and see what happens. We have made mistakes before but hey that's life. As long as we learn then it's all good. So is this where we stop just because we are afraid of the possiblities. Everyone has taken a chance in their life some have paid off and some haven't and I bet most of you don't every want to take that chance out of your past because you learned so much. Don't limit yourselves because your afraid. Embrace your fears and prepare for the future.

=====

§Panda§


Date: Tue, Jun 19, 2001 11:39 PM From: janet@anzca.edu.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Natural methods of reproduction have already created six billion people and counting. Thousands of children die every day from malnutrition and easily preventable diseases, many more live lives of grinding poverty with no chance to realise their potential. Other species are being wiped out at an unprecedented rate, and the environment on which we all depend is being systematically degraded by the insatiable human demand for land and resources. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, the artificial creation of yet more people is seen as a worthwhile use of precious money, time and research effort. Cloning ethical? I'd say it's positively criminal. There are a lot of brilliant scientific minds working on the cloning project. I'd like to see them put their energies and expertise into much less glamorous task of finding ways to care for the world and the people we already have.

Janet


Date: Sat, Jun 9, 2001 1:27 AM From: yellowstoneguy@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

While there are many things which will go wrong with cloning of humans, I believe to some extent it is inevitable that indeed the human being will be cloned, if it has not happened already. The major focus then should be not on should it happen? But will we embrace it or deny it. While I believe the possiblity of many good and poor results, I believe essentialy as with all revolutions there will be a long period of discovering ethics only through action; not merely the talk in which we are engaged. I believe in God, and the soul of man and believe that while cloning will produce carbon copies, we ourselves are merely toying with creation...we are still wholey unable to "create". I fear for the future, but not to the ends as maybe do....For many of us, we must trust in God's will and pick our fights for him. While technology does exceed our own humanity, I believe that God's will far exceeds them all as has been shown throughout the ages. Perhaps a tower of Babyl is being built, but we must trust in God. For example cloning will greatly narrow the gene pooll, thus lessening our adaptability, thus making us more succeptable to genetic weaknesses and genetically favored disease and such. However, gene modification could account for those weaknesses. In any case, cloning has a future which in uncertain. We've known since we first believed in Christ that his time will come (look at the sequence guanine guanine guanine upside down and you may see the mark) we must act only when the devil is definately at work, so not to destroy useful tools which God has provided.

***

One quick note, evolution of man has very much stalled do to the success of our ability to adapt through knowledge. Genetic research in a way... is simply taking a step, that our knowledge had previously impeeded....and now will likely fuel the evolution of a new species...greater than ourselves....haha....we laugh at that....but it is said that nature will find a way. In some way we have malcontributed to nature over our time as a species. Perhaps we are aiding in the death of our own now outlived and naturally unwanted species.

***

For those of you out there scoffing and cursing at the horrors of cloning... please feel free to educate yourself...

those who are educated will be in better position to make a difference.....

believers must get in the war to fight a battle

God bless you all, Believer and Biology major


Date: Sun, Jun 3, 2001 3:09 PM From: MizzZippy@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I'm only 14, I'm just doing a little research for school, so my opinion may not matter. But I believe that cloning is wrong. I read a lot of other responses to your question, and every one covered what I was thinking, except this. 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.


Date: Wed, May 23, 2001 4:30 PM From: 019051@bremerhigh.qld.edu.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe cloning of Humans is wrong. We, under the watchful eyes of God, should not try to BE God. It is against everything we should believe. If we are to start cloning there are possible consequences in our final judgement. I, for one, demand I do not get cloned. It discusts me.


Date: Thu, May 10, 2001 12:08 PM From: ronn_themack10pastmaster@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

This is my philosophy. Read it if you care.

I don't call cloning a step in medical advancement. It is simply an evil. Scientific advancement have two sides. Every scientific advancement need not necesserily end up being a benefit for mankind. Want to know a sucess rate for cloning?- 0.35%, or in some 1000 attempts, only 3 could turn out succesful! Then you might ask "wheres the rest 997? The rest 997 is simply garbage output, that is turned to dust and then discarded somewhere. Then, through this vindictive trial and error process, are we not playing around with life? "A mere contraption, a soul-less machine, a xerox copy of someone else possessing zero original ideas, emotions, conciousness, and feelings" - thats my definiton for a clone. And in society, with scant respect, a clone is a CLOWN!! So all you fools out there, I'm telling you this. This is not something I wrote with simply religious considerations. If you knew what cloning actually is and visualize a future where human beings will be simply created in a laboratory, you'll know what I'm talking about. We're playing nature....we're interfering in things that we know nothing of. Who the hell has seen the future? Who the hell can tell that all these "earthly" experiments on life will not end in catastrophe? Infact, this is the most controversial subject after biological and nuclear means of warfare. Cloning is moreover, intimidating major religious faiths that bind more than 50 million people in this world. Would they allow such a thing? And don't argue that we should simply stop fighting with these scientists and provide them a good peaceful experimenting environment! They shouldn't even dare think about proceeding any further. "Hold your horses...scientists of the world! If you guys out there think that through cloning, you're really creating some big victory for science and that you'll have your wonderful names carved underneath in golden calligraphy, then your making a grave mistake!!"

-Ronald George, freelance writer.


Date: Tue, May 8, 2001 4:33 PM From: wattsever@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Well i think personally that human cloning is good in one way because what if one kid just suddenly dies from let's say a car hit the kid and the parents find out that they cannot have anymore kids so mabye they dont want to adpot because it takes too much time and is not really related to their familys.. so it is positive in one way if you have a abortion and you relize your mistake, hey you can clon the baby...but it is bad in one way cuz it wouldnt be exaclty same personailty or uh it is hard to explain but that is what i see in ways cuz i try to see all goods and bad so dont look in the bad look on the good side and balance it.... thanks


Date: Tue, May 1, 2001 8:25 AM From: mrymouse@home.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think it would be ludicrous to clone human beings. Create another minority group when you find it difficult to coexist with the present status quo. Go back in history as far as possible and then review the facts all the way back up to the present. Not one example will you find where a seemingly good idea wasn't eventually exploited and abused. We as a race have demonstrated even in current events that we are not the mature being we like to believe we are. Rather, we are selfish, self-absorbed, childish and irrational. Wars are still being fought, murders are still committed, people are still starving etc. Management of ourselves and our planet resources must be obtained before we even consider mucking around with the natural world.


Date: Sun, Apr 22, 2001 2:13 PM From: Vincebato@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

To whoever may concern: Hi, I am currently a student at an Orange County Community College. In respose to your question i would say that I am against clonation. I know that it may bring good thing to hummanity but I also think that hummanity can not take God's role of creating life. And even more how would this organism wold develop is another question to take in consideration. It wouldn't have parents, therefore it wuoldn't have values either. I believe is not hummanity's role to do such a thing.


Date: Fri, Apr 20, 2001 2:25 PM From: Carmenangelita@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

MY NAME IS JENRY AND I DON'T APPROVE THAT CLONING SHOULD BE LEGAL. WE ARE NOT GOT TO DECIDE TO CREATE A NOTHER PERSON THAT JUST LOOK LIKE ANOTHER ONE. IT WOULD BE THE SAME LIKE THE FIRST ONE.


Date: Wed, Apr 4, 2001 8:40 PM From: staarr@pacbell.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hello, I don't believe that humans should be cloned. We are not the God of the universe so we should not try to recreate his art projects. Also, what if some weird maniac wanted to take blood samples from Hitler and all of the sudden we have tons of little Hitlers around trying to take over the world? Where would be then? And another thing, people should not clone humans because of the population overflow problem. Thomus Malthus was a reverand, but also an ecologist, and I think he had the right idea. His idea was that civilization will eventually starve itself because population is growing faster than agriculture.


Date: Sun, Apr 1, 2001 2:55 AM From: jordanthedevil@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

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? I think it should happen concerns, would be for many the soul. -Prove to me that we have souls, and prove to me that it is wrong or impossible to capture this soul and put it back in a working body.(this is based on the idea in the 6th day, I am not an expert...but I am guessing that there is now conceivable way of taking a 'picture' of a mind. But cave man would have thought that we would be able to fly?] another may be the fear of abuse. -there is a risk, it could go either way, men could be engineered for war or slave labor. like the movie Gatica, class ranks. accident? -genetic diseases transending species. genetic alteration -perfect human race, boring essentially. But hypocracy lies in those that value the right of the individual...what about the millions dying of cancer and other genetic diseases? I have barely touched base on the issue...but if you have any respone to this, I would be glad to hear it.


Date: Tue, Mar 20, 2001 4:00 PM From: jgacitua@entelchile.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I really dont think it is correct to clone but if you want to be cloned and you sign and promess it I think you should.


Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2001 9:53 AM From: narpher@home.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hey I personaly think that it shouldnt be that big of a problem. Also in responce to the person who said that a clone would be a soulless machine my responce is "Shure they are the exact genetic match of whoever is the original, but that dosnt mean they wont get their own ideas and dreams and have souls only GOD can tell the answer to that." Im am in support of cloning efforts, think about it why dont the people in opisition to clones just not get cloned and leave everyone who wants or dosn't want a clone have their own choice.


Date: Thu, Feb 8, 2001 12:25 AM From: christian.braedder@mail.tele.dk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

To whom it may concern.

I realise that scientists needs to do research in order to make progress, but I find ethically very wrong to start cloning humans when every scientist knows that there is a high risk of failure or deformities ???

I find it repulsive.

I believe that there a big moral obligation for the scientists towards the general population. Information and debate to/with the public is very important about this issue.

The failure rate on animals should drop to a very low level before starting cloning people in my opinion.

I seriously question the moral of the scientists involved when they risk a life( a non deciding party ) and are uncertain of the outcome.

Topics like abnormities, prematurity, complications during pregnancy etc. etc. are not investigated enough yet. When I think about these topics I actually create an opinion which is against cloning. It is NOT worthy offering an embryo a life as a physically or mentally disabled person.

Every scientist wants to reach a results before everybody else( because of fame and money ) and simply neglect the fact that they are playing around with human life !!!

In principle progress in science should not be on behalf of somebodys life when they aren't able to give their own opinion.

Regards, Christian Braedder, DK - Denmark


Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2001 1:04 PM From: wrobison@bellatlantic.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Isn't it possible that the babies might be born with serious abnormalities such as being deformed or prematurity and isn't that considered deliberate child-abuse? I was watching a special on t.v. where this doctor who stated that the world is ready for the first human clone and that he would be one of the first to initiate such a project said that it sometimes takes many abortions, or as he put it, there's a chance that abortions would occur since the same thing happens when cloning other species, so I wondered if retardation and other similar issues would pose a serious threat to the legalization of cloning. What do you think?


Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 11:53 PM From: cailab@tin.it To: DoktorMo@aol.com

We are against human cloning, because it's impossible to recreate human dreams, consciousness, emotions.Our question is: How will the clone live? He will be like a machine without a soul!


Date: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 12:37 PM From: sgeile@email.msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that cloning humans is wrong. Some feel that is can prolong life by using the organs, but how can a human be stored to only be used when needed. I also think that it is impossible to clone humans, because no clone could have the exact conscience that I have.


Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001 4:32 PM From: stephanie5867@home.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think cloning should not be allowed.It would be cruel for a clone to know or find out that they are only a copy.All clones will only be copies of the real things.Also they would probably get made fun of alot when they have to go to school.At the time I am doing a report (debate) at school and i am against it.So i need practice talking about it :)


Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 12:45 AM From: ctanti2000@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have just read neubeat@hotmail.com's posting on this interesting discussion.

First of all, I would like to point out to the author that people are not ignorant if they have different opinions and religious beliefs from yours.

Remeber that science will never answer everything. I am not a religious person in the sense that i do not go to church but i believe in God. I believe that God created everything, not in 7 days but a much longer period.

I am not a scientist but i consider myself an intelligent person and well capable of discussing the cloning issue.

Basically, i agree research will continue and methods to create 'spare parts' of humas should be found.

To do this, we must NOT creating humans to kill them to have parts. It is inhuman and not moral. I believe we have scientists that are able to solve this problem.

The idea of having a perfect copy of myself stimulates my imagination but i do not believe the clone will think as I think, act as I act etc because the clone will experience situation different from those that created the present me.

This is what i think and like everyone's opinion, it should be respected.


Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001 7:28 PM From: CatrinaGreen7@email.msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Well, I personally think that cloning of a human as a whole being is wrong. However, I do feel that the clonong of organs and tissues of humans willgreatly benifit the human race. With the information we would gain, there may someday be cures for disseases. Also, organ transplants may become easier by cloning organs. This way the organ will have a better chance of being accepted into the body.


Date: Thu, Jan 4, 2001 2:41 PM From: JoelMcl@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

In response to an earlier contribution: Death need not be feared by all humankind. Death is not the "most dreaded occurrence among all of humanity." The very God that you so fear exists is reason alone not to fear death. I'm not trying to be preachy here, but wouldn't be more than just a little sad and pathetic if life constituted a human's existence on Earth, and nothing more? I'd be a little disappointed, that's for sure. If you are so afraid to die, then by all means pursue the fountain of youth. Now, to cloning: Strict legislation needs to be enacted now to ensure that evil doesn't abuse the immense scientific and humanitarian value that cloning has. What would Adolf Hitler have done with cloning technology at his fingertips? Think about that before you argue for no-holds-barred cloning. Cloning does have a use: Imagine a world free of the worries of organ donation or blood donors. Extinct animals could be brought back by the very race that pushed them off the planet. Let's use it for good, and do our best to keep it out of the hands of evil. -J.G.M.-


Date: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 7:14 PM From: abi1167@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

God if anyone remmembers very well supported the belief that the earth is flat. He also was present and He in fact stood guard behind those who said that the earth is the center of the universe. When men attempted to fly .... He thought it was a bad idea and those who dreamt about walking on the moon were lebelled "evil". Attempting to walk on the moon means attempting to reveal God's secrets!

But today God supports the fact that the earth is spherical, sun is the centre of the universe, and He dosen't care if you want to travel beyond your Galaxy. The only thing that baffles Him is "the cloning of human beings".... He thinks that it is an evil which one man should concieve.

I think that God is saving cloning for the generations upstream. They are the spoilt little lucky brats. After cloning themselves, they will begin to clone clones and the past generations which will include ours. Those of you who wouldn't like to be cloned better have an inscription like this "THIS IS THE ORIGINAL CORPSE OF XXXX Y. ZZZZZ. PLS. DO NOT CLONE" on your grave. A very good reason for my third generation clone to laugh! Abimbola Sodeinde.


Date: Tue, Dec 5, 2000 4:00 PM From: mmaiorana@kana.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

To those of you who think cloning is a way of achieving immortality: Ridiculous! How can you possibly clone your consciousness, that is, the essence of what makes you who you are? You are not merely a collection of organs, tissue, bone, and blood that can be duplicated and then infused with a carbon copy of your thoughts, memories, experiences, dreams, and everything else that I think of as the undefinable soul of a human being. Maybe the artificial intelligence gurus out there will someday find a way to digitize the mind, transfer it to a CD, and copy the contents to your clone, and even then, I wonder, will that be you?


Date: Sat, Dec 2, 2000 1:09 PM From: annb01@bellatlantic.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I was asked by my 9th grade biology teacher to find some topics for a series of bioethical debates. I have settled on this topic, simply because it has so many tie-ins and implications that almost any debate started could remain interesting, and productive for quite some time.

I believe that, in any case, cloning research should be pursued. I don't think that many who have posted on this site realize that Pandora's Box has been opened for quite some time. There certainly are potential advantages and disadvantages to having this knowledge, but we as a race are at a very dangerous point. We currently have a glimpse of the knowledge and power that can be obtained with technology, but from what I have been able to observe, none of the wisdom that should accompany these gifts. My point is this: If those who are willing to be responsible with the knowledge they acquire, DON'T pursue this knowledge, then those that intend to be irresponsible with this knowledge, certainly will. The eternal quest for knowledge is one thing that makes us all human. And I do not believe that this quest can ever truly be stopped. This in itself is a blessing, and a curse.

Thank you for your time and patience. Sincerely, Jeffery M. Balough

P.S. If you have any comments, topic suggestions, or simply wish to have a discussion. I can be reached at: sirbalough@yahoo.com


Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 4:41 AM From: aberrie99@gwc.org.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is my firm belief that cloning should not be done. Through cloning a man ( or woman for that matter) could live for ever. A dictator could rule for many hundreds of years. I would also like to bring your attention to a book named 'Brave New World' a book written on the result of cloning and genetic engineering in which everyone has been controlled to act, feel, and want the same.


Date: Fri, Nov 17, 2000 4:12 PM From: gummy_bear2000@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hello Doktor Mo, I am a student, and am doing a project on the ethical issues of cloning when i stumbled upon your web site. And, like the others, have an opinion about this subject. I feel that cloning humans is completely wrong, and unethical. If scientists start the cloning of humans, we may end up with something that we never expected. We may have a race of these creatures of, whom we know nothing about. If clones are created it would only be for the soal purpose of creating a class of people who are inferior to us. These creatures will have minds, and hearts of their own, and, it is not in "mother nature's plan" to be creating a race of slaves. It's as if bringing someone to life, while letting it die at the same time. Some may argue that cloning will help us gain immortality, and, yes, it may. But, I personnally would much rather leave this earth when it is my time to go, and not to let my children pay a thousand bucks for some scientists to "play god" for me. It is much more natural, and, it is in god's plan.

To conclude my response to your question, I don't think our world is ready for such a technolgy yet. I don't know, maybe during my grand children's time, we'll see. I mean hey, it's the 21st century...anything can happen!!


Date: Sun, Nov 5, 2000 6:30 AM From: ps@pmoonga.freeserve.co.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have a major question If human cloning goes ahead what would happen if the cloning technique produces defective embryos or handicapped children?

Ricky Moonga, moongags@hotmail.com


Date: Tue, Oct 31, 2000 3:10 AM From: dr_matthias2000@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Greetings fellow Scientists, Cloning is a verry contraversial discussion. There is a very wide diversity of awnsers and beliefs already posted. There are those who use God as a scapegoat, Those seeking to never die and those who think it is morally wrong. One point i found quite interesting is that people would clone people and use them as a lower "Slave" Class. in fact i think the Millitry would find an army of a 1000 mindless clones of the perfect soldier quite usefull when in a war. Could even name them all with numbers. Cloning yourself so you never die..... although many would like to never die and keep influencing the world.... it is false and every one has there time to die. Also by cloning you would think you would be the same in every way... even down to keeping the same beliefs views and personality. However your wrong. Do identicle twins think the same way... no! You would create a person with the same physical characteristics but there mind can be influenced by a many things. Just think of it.... would you thrink the same way if you were brought up by a bunch of rich snobbs compared to some poor farmers?

didnt think so.


Date: Tue, Oct 31, 2000 2:50 AM From: doc_willhiem@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have read your views on cloning and whether god wants us to clone or not is utter trash because none of us can actually say what god's view is and when people are talking about god they are always just showing their own views but with a very shabby excuse. cloning is good in some respects but not in others so we as a people shoyuld make up our minds and reach a decision soon before it goes out of control

Doc_WillHiem


Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 3:37 PM From: mavalca@bigfoot.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have been doing serious reserch on this controversial and innovative topic which is cloning. I have come to the following conclusion: Cloning should be seen as one of the many new technological developments that are ocurring in our world today. It should be welcome and appreciated since many can benefit from it. It can help for the reserach of many diseases. It can help to reproduce the organs only and be able to replace them on humans in desperate needs. Cloning may also help to revert aging an the study of cell development among many other reasons. The way I see it, cloning is not "creating another human being"; cloning is helping a human being to continue with their life.

The people that are against cloning should be more open-minded and consider the possibilities and contributions that cloning will bring to our society. For the people who are trying to ban cloning research, I say to them: stop being so selfish. Maybe many lives can be saved by that research. Put yourselves in their position, if you were almost dying you would want for some kind of research to save you. That kind of research may just be the cloning research.

Thank you for your attention. Marcela Lopez......Honduras, Central America


Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 6:01 PM From: mbridgew@mesastate.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that cloning is wrong!! We should not be trying to play "God." Humans need to have limits and a boundary when it comes to ethics. Humans need to remain having children the natural way between a male and a female or else we will have complications.


Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 3:55 PM From: gemini88@bellsouth.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that cloning should be allowed only if scientists agree to use this technique correctly. The idea about creating 20 albert einsteins is completely ridiculous, i mean there was only one albert einstein and he's already dead so people should leave it that way. As i said before i still think that cloning should be allowed but it should be used to create more organs,or to find cures for diseases.Not to clone people. god placed us here on earth and he gave us the idea of cloning, we should not abuse it.


Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 10:41 AM From: Amanda_O'Driscoll@tmgroup.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I don't think the desire for immortality and the fear of death should ever be a reason for cloning human beings. If we clone to avoid mortality, won't we lose the appreciation of life and happiness? It hangs next to the ying and the yang theory of not being able to have positive without negative. I feel many people will be able to enjoy and fully appreciate life without death hanging in the balance. It would take the "thrill" out of everything from extreme sports to waking up in the morning. Furthermore, who is to say that we don't come back? One comment indicates that time has a beginning. I would also like to add that time, at this point does not appear to have an end (at least in human knowledge). Also, why must the world be looked at in a linear fashion? Is it not more circular? We come to be, incorporate energy and whatnot of those of the past and then we pass and are used in others energy. So, why can't we literrally circle back around a thousand years from now and come back into existence withou a scientific aid. I really don't think cloning will aid in furthering anything in this world as it currently exists, unless of course we use cloning to create needed organs for people who so desperately need one to finish enjoying the life they are currently experiencing. Cloning entire humans on the otherhand, has very dangerous and far reaching consequences. If we begin to mess with the gene pool, mistakes could occur, the pool could be narrowed and many other dire consequences affecting the human race could come about. So in response to human cloning being the possible cure to mortality, may i also add and note that it could also be the cure to life for all of us in the human race for all time.


Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2000 5:46 PM From: watsonbl1@juno.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

DR. MO, WHILE DOING A REPORT ON THE ETHICS OF CLONING, I HAPPENED UPON YOUR WEBSITE. THE DEBATE IS INTERESTING AND I, OFCOURSE, HAVE AN OPINION. I FEEL THAT CLONING IS BEST LEFT ALONE. OFTEN, NEWS REPORTS TELL OF YOUNG TEENAGE MOTHERS ABANDONING THEIR BABIES AND STATE HOMES ARE OVERCROWDED WITH YOUNGSTERS THAT ARE UNWANTED. THE PLANET IS OVERPOPULATED AS IT IS. WOULD IT BE WISE TO BRING MORE LIVES INTO THE WORLD? ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT COMES TO MIND IS THAT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY IS LARGELY TRIAL AND ERROR. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE "FREAKS OF NATURE" THAT DON'T TURN OUT QUITE RIGHT? JUST A THOUGHT.


Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2000 6:11 AM From: 8902AE97@priorycofe.surrey.sch.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think the cloning of humans should be done and then we can be seen by our childern in the future.


Date: Thu, Sep 14, 2000 3:44 PM From: kylekayak@ameritech.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that cloning should not be allowed at all. The main reason which supports my thoughts is to look at the earth. Before all of the effects of industry ruined certain parts of the earth is was just fine. If we mess with the natural human being the same will happen to us as a race we will become ruined. The human being is an amazing thing, the power to think, love, and operate in a society like no other is the best thing know to us in this world. If cloning is allow all of this and more could be lost at your cost. We should be more worried about the many other problems on Earth than the fascination with cloning. What about hunger in poor counties, or world peace. Do we trust all the other people in this world to be able to clone? I think not. There are better and more positive thing to be spending are time, money and rescuers resources for listening.

Kyle


Date: Sun, Sep 10, 2000 6:50 PM From: neubeat@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

There are a considerable amount of ignorant people that have responded to this topic both against and even for the cloning of human beings. My intentions are not to offend anyone, but the people who mentioned God as a reason not to clone human beings: I am addressing you. It should have become apparent to you that evolution is factual and has been proven so through the means of science. In lamens terms: Human beings are a young species that evolved over thousands of years, and were not just "placed" on earth, as we are today, by the hands of "God" at the "dawn of time" ( I hate using phrases like that because one should know that time has no beginning, and is simply a fictional medium that human beings created to measure the limitations of their lives. Time is parallel to the infinity of the universe). Now that any "moral" objections are laid to rest, there is another question that some people had brought up: Is cloning human beings necessary? The obvious answer should be "yes". Speaking on behalf of humanity, I would like to say that no human being should ever have to die, death is the most dreaded occurrence among all of humanity ( I, unlike those whom I spoke of earlier, realize that there is nothing that precedes death and it is, therefore, the termination of the only existence one will ever have ). Now I realize that there is an extremely large amount of people that will never read this or even care to, and out of the minuscule amount of people that do actually read this, many will never go through the revelations that I have undergone in my lifetime, and, therefore, never understand this. Immortality lays within the cloning of human beings, that is why I say it is necessary.


Date: Fri, Sep 8, 2000 5:09 PM From: sunni1@flash.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

to whom it may concern. I think cloning is a good idea to help find cures of dieases and mental illness in all ranges. I have a daughter who is mild retarded and has no brain damage and when I had her genes tested the genetic specialist told me she wish she could say something was wrong to say why my daughter was like that. but all the test she took came out normal. If they had a clone that was say retarded then I feel they may be able to study that clone and might have a great chance to find a cure for those people. I love my daughter just the way she is,but I know her life is much harder and as a loving mother I wish I could make her life a lot easier.thank you for taking your time to read this.sunni....2000


Date: Fri, Sep 8, 2000 3:46 AM From: dfinch@bigpond.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Alright. I've read a whole lot of wild answers here, and I have gained a lot of new knowledge. I have learnt more about cloning and seen a lot of different views on it. Well, my opinion is that we shouldn't clone humans. It would surely be a bad discision. 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. For example, take Africa. Take Apartheid. Black people - seen as the lower class humans - are abused, stricken of their rights. They couldn't get a good job in the seventies, when apartheid was ripe. Black people were banned to their houses, killed on the spot, abused, raped. Basically, they weren't seen human. This still happens today, but to a lesser extent.

What I am suggesting is that these clones will be seen in the same way. These clones will be banned, killed, raped, stricken of their rights and privlidges as humans. Surely, you can see the upheaval cloning shall bring.

Keep in mind that I am sixteen. I am researching this topic for my philosophy class. I really don't know much about it at this stage, so you could disregard my opinion completely. But you know it will happen...


Date: Sat, Sep 2, 2000 7:57 AM From: wagnew@bigpond.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Most people seem by default to fear the unknown. It should be explored. Having sex is a far easier way to reproduce so all these people who are worried about overpopulating the world are dreaming. God made penises and vaginas he wanted us to reproduce. Producing by cloning is just a more sophisticated way of doing things. Cloning is no different than having a twin separated by an unusually long time period. A twin that would get very good quality advise because his older twin knows him exactly and can give him all the knowledge of hindsight. Imagine what 20 Einsteins could do for science. Imagine cloning the oldest surviving man and oldest surviving woman.How old would the the offspring between their two clones live? After all longevity is, at the moment our only hope of achieving interstellar travel. Wayne Agnew, Brisbane Australia


Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 7:46 PM From: sdr23@drexel.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi, I am a student at Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. I was browsing the internet searching for information on Teleportation and the ethical issues involved. But after reading these pages on human cloning, I decided to express my opinion.

I am totaly against cloning. Do you realise that most of you approach the Human Cloning issue in a very positive manner?? It is going to cure cancer, "manufacture" new boddy parts, recreate dead parts etc. This is so ridiculous!! Look back into the history of humanity. 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. I personally believe that we didn't learn how to properly and safely use new developments. Scientific descoveries are so powerfull and complicated that we may not be able to use and control them.

Remember the atomic energy? Everybody thought it was the greatest discovery ever!! It meant the end of the energetic scarcity. In april of 1986 through the catastroph in Cernobyl the science gave us the

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.

thank you, sorin roibu


Date: Tue, Jul 11, 2000 12:16 AM From: hartonochang@student.unsw.edu.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear all, This whole topic is an extremely interesting one. And there are such varied an informed views on display. However, is cloning necessary at all? Why would people want to clone other human beings? I can only think of one or two scenarios. The first would involve infertile couples. If the husband was infertile, one of his body cells might be taken, its DNA extracted and put into the nuclues of the female's ova, thereby producing a 'clone' of the father, but one whose mitochondria will be inherited from the mother. So in a way, the child will be related to both his/her parents/sibling....now that's confusing.

As for cloning body parts or transplant, i dont' think it is possible to clone a body part from a single cell. it must be made into an embryo and allowed to grow to a certain stage. Then stem cells can be harvested from these embryos. What happens to the embryo afterwards? Is the use of an embryo as a stem cell bank any different from creating a human clone to harvest body parts from it?

I'm not against or for cloning at this stage. I don't know if human cloning will be possible in the near future or not, but if Dolly is anything to go by, all those countless numbers of cow embryos discarded should start ringing alarm bells if human cloning is going to be attempted. What value do we put on human embryos?

Finally, more than human cloning, there is the big issue of human genetic engineering. At least cloning is the replication of genetic material that is already there. With genetic engineering, different genes may be put into the human genome: and these added gened may be even from different animals.

Where is a line to be drawn with human biotechnology? From Hea-Won Park, Sydney Australia. twopigtails@hotmail.com


Date: Wed, Jun 21, 2000 2:10 AM From: mcluch@juno.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Human cloning could be the answer to all our problems on earth. We all know that overpopulation is a problem on our planet. Through human cloning we could regulate height and weight in order to fit more humans into special buildings built just for the "clones". These clones could be designed for various purposes. We could design clones to do all those jobs we hate....like scrubbing our toilets and showers. Actually we could design clones for ANY purpose. Of course "natural breds" would always be superior no matter how desirable the genes of the clones are...well just because it's the natrual breds that are designing the clones...and they will make sure it's that way. Of course if we are adding all these clones to our world, then natrual breds will have to be limited. The natural answer to that would to stelilize all human upon birth and then have them "earn" the right to breed. Of course money could always buy the right to breed...'cuz money talks and always will. Yeah cloning is a good idea. Being progressive and improving upon life is the scientific way. We wouldn't want to be backward and old fashioned would we?


Date: Tue, May 30, 2000 8:32 PM From: hrtbreaker@mindspring.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The answer to human cloning is a simple NO. The bible says that GOD SAYS, I knew the before you were in thy whomb. Wich means GOD created everyone as a special induvidual. With the exception of twins and so forth. But a Twin like everyone else was created through natural conception and not science. Besides dont we all know that no twin is truly identical.Wether physical or mental or spiritual. This also meens a big NO on abortion. Unless you dont believe the BIBLE. In this case I ghess nothing matters anyways.


Date: Sun, May 21, 2000 1:45 AM From: kknight@pacific.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Currently in the US, there is senate debate regarding the funding of research that may clone human embryos for research purposes, specifically, stem cell research. I have been intrigued by the bizarre incongruency of the existing policy which allows for stem cell research to be conducted using 'left-over' or 'donated' embryos from fertility clinics, and also fetal tissue from aborted babies also being an acceptable source of stem cells. If our society is concerned about the morality of our treatment of embryos, why do we split hairs over the source of the embryos? And, to me, it is even more absurd to feel stem cells from aborted fetuses are more 'acceptable' than a cloned embryo - as a cloned embryo, in and by itself, cannot develop into a fetus without further manipulations.

I personally feel that our knowledge and curiosity, and also our ability to create life by cloning, does not pose a threat or challenge to anyone's God, what/who ever that may be. For we are not in competition with any supreme being for position, power, or any other tangible measurement of worth. It may be, if there is a supreme 'being', complete with an emotional response to any of our action - well, it may be that we are fulfilling our promise, and moving that much closer to realizing godhead.

For those who would examine the nature of god, in an exciting way (at least, to me!) - explore quantum physics! It will open your mind, and bring you closer to a truly spiritual experience, as opposed to a man-made religious experience!

I do not wish to sound disrespectful to anyone's beliefs, but the cloning thing is beyond 'duplicating' oneself! Stem cell research holds keys to unlock and free people, and animals of this earth, from debilitating birth defects, and sustained injuries. We need to focus on healing our planet, not ways to harm it.

Look at your family members . . . if one member had a spinal cord injury, and was paralyzed, and stem cell research had led the way to a cure, how many of you would decline the treatment because it had been based on research performed on a cloned embryo? Would you, instead, thank your God for the awe-inspiring existence of stem cells, and of our minds for being able to utilize them?

I'm curious to hear from any/all of you on this perspective . . . email me if you care to, but please post here, too, and let's discuss this further.

Thank you.


Date: Sun, May 14, 2000 4:37 AM From: chamilou@alphalink.com.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If there is something unique about the human being, is it not that we are created by other human beings and that our physical and mental characteristics and makeup are derived from our creators..parents. If we are to be created from only one person (lets say a male) the notion of "family" will be abolished or will surely deteriote. What effects will this have on the cloned child? On society in general? I feel that the issue of changes to society and family is very real and serious. If you have any thoughts on this matter I would be interested to hear your ideas.


Date: Sun, May 7, 2000 5:15 PM From: henman@webtv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

no u should not clone then it is man made any living thing should not be man made.


Date: Thu, Mar 23, 2000 10:26 AM From: bateman_m@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The problem as I see it with cloning is not so much the ethical or religious issues involved in interfering with natural reproduction, but the simple problem of space and population. Today, we are already beginning to face problems with urbanization and over-population. Space to grow food is decreasing, energy resources are depleting and most troubling of all is that physical room is decreasing. People are running out of space to expand! Mountains, water, forests and animal habitats are all inhibiting humans from expanding fully, and being necessary to the natually processes of earth, they always will! So, even if technology could support the population by genetically engineering food crops and inventing new energy resources, there is no physical space for humans! The solution could be space exploration and inhabitation, but let's face it, the population is growing exponentially, medical breakthroughs are making it more difficult to die every day and cloning is on the verge of being implemented; we do not have enough time to put space inhabitation into practice.

Therefore, the cloning of humans should not even be considered as a possibility. Cloning would only contribute to the problem of over-population, and with no solution in sight, that would be a serious mistake.


Date: Sun, Mar 19, 2000 2:26 PM From: trapa@iactiva.cl To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Do the inteligence will be traspased though the cell?for example: if a einstein is cloned the inteligence of him, could be traspassed though the cells. could that happen? Is there a small or big difference between a cloned and a "natural man"?cuold this transform in a ethic war?


Date: Fri, Mar 17, 2000 8:40 AM From: MAHVP@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear anyone who reads this, I came to this web site to do some reseach for a debate I was having in my sience class, after reading these opinions, and doing other research, I think that there is definently something wrong with taking an embyo and manufacturing a human being, one of us. 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.

So you tell me, what if it does work, what happens to the clone?

Matt Haskins


Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2000 5:56 AM From: cresmed@sudnet.com.ar To: DoktorMo@aol.com

In relation to clonation I think it is attempting against nature that has given us a perfect life free from geneticall manipulations. What changes could suffer the cloned people? Functionally it is clear that anomalies in fecundation for example between related person produces geneticall illnesses, what changes could happen in a fecundation between cloned individuals?

As a catholic I share the opinion of avoiding the aggression to human creation that represents clonation.

Dr Josˇ Cantarella (Surgeon). Buenos Aires, Argentina.09-03-2000


Date: Wed, Mar 8, 2000 5:17 AM From: cresmed@sudnet.com.ar To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Cloning a man will never produce an identical organism. First of all we have to consider the diferent age that necessarily should have the cloned organism and his environmental circumstance (Remember Jose Ortega y Gasset: You are you and your circumstances). Even cloning various organisms from a single man or woman will never produce identical developing circumstances. The intra uterine developement is not uniform for all the fetuses implanted, depending from the palce of implantation, the vascular territory of each fetus and the growing condition of the placenta for each one. Finally they never could be born in the same moment and have the exact education. They could be very similar like inivitelline brothers but never equal.

I dont see any ethical problem in imitating nature. A person when borned has human rights as anybody and becomes a citizen of some country woth civil rights.

Dr. M‡ximo Croci, Buenos Arires Argentina 08-03-00


Date: Mon, Mar 6,2000 2:58 PM From: kimberlycanales@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

For the sake of argument, say your against the cloning of human beings. What sort of moral limitations would you recommend for the practice and how would you support them?


Date: Wed, Mar 1, 2000 10:01 AM From: jkarels@itctel.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear Dr Mo:

I am a student at Deuel High School and I am in Mrs. Lundbergs advance Biology class. I learned that they should not be using animal for experimentation when their are other ways to get around it like cloning. People can clone the parts that they want to experiment with and not use animals because it not the same thing. They can also use the real people with the disease instead of animals to. Animals weren't put on the earth to be experimented on but to run freely. So their are my reasons why we should not use animals.

You can contact me at fireEater_69er@hotmail.com

Jason Toben


Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 7:19 PM From: juckert@itctel.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear Dr. Mo,

My name is Sara Uckert and I am a senior at Deuel High School. I am working on a Filamentality site on Human Cloning. Before I started researching human cloning, I was totally against it. I felt that there were people out there that were sick enough to clone humans. It is like we don't have enough people in the world today.

As I was researching for class, I began reading papers from scientists that say they could cure cancer and the risk of heart disease. I began thinking that human cloning could be a good thing. Scientists and doctors can make a kidney for a little girl who wasn't fortunate enough to have two kidneys. They could also make a finger for a man who lost his finger in a farm accident.

I guess you could say that I am both for and against human cloning. I hope that scientists do not get carried away with human cloning, but use the projects for good medical uses. Thanks for your time.

Sara Uckert


Date: Sun, Feb 6, 2000 7:41 AM From: hannon@erols.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that some theologians might argue that cloning may be regarded as a higher standard of humanity....something that truly separates us from animals and the evolutionary program. But, there are drawbacks that you have already mentioned where misuse of the process and misapplication, i.e., where humans are cloned solely for purposes of "manufacturing" human organs. So, as you so wisely have stated, let the dialogue go on. There are many, many points of view I'm sure about this, and many varied side issues that will also need to be addressed. I'm just glad that someone has been willing to offer a forum where people are offered the opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions. Best regards,

Ann Marie Hannon


Date: Fri, Dec 24, 1999 12:21 AM From: Ssoto@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Now that it is possible to easily clone mammals, should cloning of human beings be allowed?

This is the question that has opened this forum. Unfortunately, the question is slightly loaded. It presumes that cloning is an easy process, which it is not. Ever wonder why the Roslin institute has only cloned one lamb?

The problems with cloning are myriad. First, it is a risky enterprise. To achieve 1 successful Dolly, you have to try about 300 times. This means that three hundred fertilized enbryos are sacrificed to make one sheep. Since this would mean three hundred HUMAN embryos, we are talking about creating and destroying 300 persons just so that one might live. now, some people will lay down their lives so that others will live. A soldier who dives on a grenade, so that his comrades are kept from harm, shows the nobleness of the human spirit and altruism. But there is none of this in cloning. 300 die just because the process is so ineffecient! The regard for human life is not elevated in this process but rather we sense that something has been lost, that there is something wrong with the whole picture.

Even if the human clone is created, we still do not know the risks that this will entail. The telemeres are protective 'caps' on the ends of chromosomes that are gradually eroded away as we- and sheep- age. Dolly seems to have inherited 6 years of erosion from the 6-year-old sheep that donated the mammary gland cell used as donor of the nucleus in her creation. This result is the first evidence that Dolly has inherited 'aged DNA' and it is very likely that she will have inherited 6 year's worth of somatic mutations too. The risk of cloning may well be the creation of individuals who have aged DNA and the potential for medical conditions which are currently limited to much older individuals. Indeed, lifespan may be one of the factors which is decreased as a result of this process. I think we would be hard-pressed to view cloning as an 'easy' and 'safe' process at any point in the near future.

Lastly, cloning brings about critical problems in terms of personhood. Everyone assumes that the cells used are human cells, but this does not necessarily have to be followed. 'Blank' animal cells can also be used. Currently, work is being down to create strains of animals which have human DNA for purposes of creating antibiotics and other medications. The U.S. Patent office specifically states that something which is human cannot be patented, but what about the genetic makeup of clones? If clones are not completely human, do they have full constitutional rights? In the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that Scott was only 3/5's human, and thus was property, not a citizen. What is clones are genetically only 3/5's human by virtue of their genetic profile? The law has been incorrect in the past, and we continue to live in shame with the knowledge of how this country treated the slaves during that time. We do not need to repeat the past to relearn this lesson. Cloning is clearly an incorrect application in regards to human beings. The risk is too great and the rewards too small to make cloning a viable avenue for humans to travel upon.

Stephen Soto de Mayor


Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999 7:20 PM From: kimberly.cronk@neicoltech.org To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am writing in response to your question regarding cloning . I am currently researching for an opinion paper about cloning and ended up at your site. I am strongly against cloning. I believe that it is not mans responsibility to play God and jeapordize the evolution of any living being. There is no way to condone cloning as far as I am concerned. Creating lives should be left to our creator and is not anyone in this world's right to make adjustments to the way things are. What the hell do you need animal and human clones? For medical research? I don't believe that. It's just the scientist way of justifying something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place. Thank you for letting me express my thoughts.


Date: Tue, Nov 30, 1999 9:14 PM From: cuhe83@prodigy.net.mx To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The human it's not a creation of god, the human it's a natural creation. If we have the oportuniti to improve our characteristics we should do.


Date: Mon, Nov 15, 1999 4:38 PM From: martinez@brightok.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I don't think cloning is right. I think that it is invading God's territory. Although I can see some good uses for cloning, I think in the long run more harm would come from cloning than good.


Date: Tue, Nov 9, 1999 3:48 PM From: the_G_force@webtv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I don't believe cloning is ethical. Because creating human beings is meant for god to do....something god should be the only one allowed to do so...


Date: Tue, Nov 2, 1999 3:15 PM From: D2O2doublG@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Oh HELL no! Humans are God's creation. He made us. If cloning is such a good idea, why didn't he just say, "Yo Adam, want a woman? Just mix this gene with that one, and then add some of this, let it set for 30 minutes, then stir..."? I MIGHT allow it for, like, the mammoth that they recently discovered - we could learn more about it. MAYBE. But this is HUMANITY! Do we not have enough problems with starvation, sin, murder, abortions, etc.? Come on, we have enough people in this world!


Date: Mon, Nov 1, 1999 12:28 PM From:stoffie@mweb.co.za To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi all

A quick "thought experiment" if you wouldn't mind...

In the case of twins, a cell divides into two exact copies of itself first, and from there two seperate embryos form. Is it correct to say that this is cloning of what otherwise would have been a single human being, except that it occurred naturally? The difference is that now we have found a way of accomplishing this artificially. Is there a similar example in the field of genetic engineering? Suppose a farmer loses part of a maize harvest to frost. If the remaining good crop is used to grow the next season's crop, and this "selective breeding" continues for eight generations, the farmer would then have a new strain of maize that would be frost resistant, and this would have been achieved naturally. The difference is that nowadays eight seasons is an necessarily long time to wait; the same strain of maize can be made overnight in a laboratory, artificially. Now, obviously cloning and genetic engineering are not the same thing, and the logic behind these examples could be wrong. Also, my intention is not to try and come across as "pro-cloning" or "pro-genetic engineering". To be honest neither of these issues "feel right" in my mind; they both constitute a fiddling with things that should be left to "chance". It is also not my habit to answer controversial questions with more questions, but I do believe that formulating the right questions is the first step in any (useful) inquiry process. I find the discussion emerging on this web page to be very interesting, and hence I have offered some contributions. Please challenge them; it is late in the evening and I actually stumbled onto this web page while searching for web literature on a thesis topic which is totally off this subject, so I don't expect my arguments to be sound!

Cheers all

C. Maritz


Date: Wed, Oct 27, 1999 6:50 PM From: cypher_789@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am a sixteen year old kid who is doing a project on cloning the human being? is it ethical or not? to start i would like to say that i am against it, i have read all the responses and have come to a conclusion. the cloning of human beings is not right. to create a human with no parents, no sense of belonging and no sense of who she/he is, is not right no matter if you're religious or not. thanks allot for listening!

Cypher


Date: Thu, Oct 21, 1999 11:32 AM From: Schultz@agape.twu.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have read most, (though not all) of the responses to your question and feel it necessary to note that a large majority of respondants seem to fear that if human cloning became possible, it would lead to mass cloning programs. This is just not likely to be the case. Admittedly, there would be some who would seek to be cloned immediately, and even some who would not have the best intentions for the resulting child, but the vast majority of people would be normal adults who for whatever reason desire to have a child who is genetically related (yes, identical) to one of them. It should also be pointed out, however, that this is still a ways off. While it is possible to clone mammals, it has not yet been shown to be a reliable means of reproduction in those animals in which it has been accomplished. Until this is done, it doesn't even make sense to consider attempting to clone a human. Once more, however, this does not mean that we should sit idly by waiting before we act to regulate and control the actual research and act of cloning humans. The preliminatry attempts by world governments (USA, UK, etc.) to determine the morality of human cloning were, at best reactionary first stabs. Further investigation as to the possible effects, both positive and negative, are necessary before we can possibly determine the true moral status of human cloning.


Date: Tue Oct 19, 1999 6:58 AM From: millerf@uq.net.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is quite fascinating the way that our society is moving nowadays, I may sound very old fashioned but it was not too long ago that we could perform certain operations and now we can duplicate ourselves perfectly if we wish to do so. I find it exciting and also quite frightening. While we could be like the man in "Multiplicity", I haven't seen the film but I know the general idea of where it was headed, and create an exact copy of ourselves so that we can do no work and live like Kings and Queens there are other issues that must be addressed. Since the clone has the same genetic fingerprint, what would happen if that clone of ourselves committed a crime, or what would happen if someone cloned us without our knowledge, which is plausible, then how are we to be responsible for such actions. These thoughts were just off the top of my head but lets consider the actual question being raised, is it ethical to clone ourselves and when should such measures ever be used? I think in some cases it would be good, for example, if somebody needs a bone marrow transplant or a heart transplant then such measures would be good. A heart or bone marrow from a healthy clone, providing the disease is not also cloned, means that the body would not reject the heart or bone marrow. Then in such a case as this I would agree. But where should the line be drawn in future. Is it then right to clone someone who has suffered an accident from which they will never recover right? Or if they are comatose? If an infant is still born could the mother clone that child and raise its clone as if it were the child she carried to term originally? These are issues which should be left alone, for medical reasons such as heart or bone marrow transplanting the use of cloning is of great scientific advancement but in an everyday capacity it is immoral. Putting these sorts of decisions in easy reach of every day people is wrong. If you remember not so long ago a woman wanted to use the sperm of her dead husband so that he could still be the father of her children even though he was not alive to do so. She took that case to court and won, so one must wonder how long it will be before people, not only women, start to take cases to court wanting friends, relatives or pets cloned so that they never have to deal with the pain or grief of understanding that the person or pet whom they loved so dearly will be genetically identical to the person they lost but their social environments and experiences will undoubtedly be different and therefore they will not be the same person. As stated above, for medical reasons alone, cloning may be very useful and even life saving, but for any other usage cloning is wrong and should not be used no matter how painful the loss is, once someone, pets included, is dead or a vegetable the clone will never be the same as person, or pet, that they loved so dearly. Grief is natural, however painful.


Date: Sun, Oct 10, 1999 11:02 PM From: Steven.Green@austrade.gov.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think the cloning of humans is the same a giving birth to identical twins. We don't treat one twin as an original and the other as a copy. So why should be treat a clone as anything other than a person. I use the term, person, in the Kantian sense. A person is a rational being that should be respected as such. Given that their experiences can never be the same, the clone will not grow up to the SAME person as the 'original'. They will bear a striking resemblance, but their personalities will be different due to their different life experiences. Just like twins, only not born at the same time. I don't see cloning becoming a major threat to the world population as many seem to worry. But it will find a place in childless marriages, same sex marriages and other relationships where, for some reason, the couple cannot produce a child by any other means. There are other more immediate uses of cloning that do not require the clone to grow to maturity or even become a whole human. Such as growing perfectly tissue matched organs. The controversial uses include the cloning of an infertile woman then 'harvesting' the 12 week old fetus for its ovum. The eggs will be the same as the woman would have produced. The immature clone would be discarded in the process. But the woman could go on produce children, her children, using IVF technology. This use is sure to get same treatment as the abortion debate. Is a 12 week old fetus a person? That's another question. In summary, I can see cloning as a benefit to us in the future, and not as the sinister force that a lot of people fear.

Steve Green

"Have the courage to use your own understanding" Immanuel Kant


Date: Sun, Oct 10, 1999 8:20 AM From: Jmcdoja@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The answer is hell no. Cloning a person would lead to many problems. We hear of such a problem with the world's population, why do we want to add to it? Especially with people who have no identity. No fathers, no parents, no sense of who they are or where they came from. Cloning is immoral and totally ludicrous. Thank you.


Date: Thu, Sep 9, 1999 2:01 AM From: julieshaw@microsoft.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

We now have a technology that we have never had before it is right that people should be scared, but fear never helps anyone one, think we can use this to our advantage. If human clones were produced then an ethnic minority may one day arise and we have seen many times in history and even today (Kosovo) has shown how cruel humanity can be. It would be ethical to clone selective human organs,but not the human, for medical purposes as the spirit is part of the emergant property that we entail , when we lose a finger our soul does not go with it.

Robert , Andrew, University of Calidonia, Glasgow, Alba (Scotland)


Date: Thu, Sep 9, 1999 2:01 AM From: julieshaw@microsoft.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

My own view on this highly controvesiol subject is that it is a step forward for medical sciences, but in saying that I also see the dangers on the horizon. If this technology was to to be miss used we could all suffer, I'm not talking about the relation cloning has with Hitler but with what it would do to society in large. Think of a world is already to small for every one here and we're thinking of adding more people.

Andrew Iain Bell (U. of Calidonia, Glasgow ) Scotland.


Date: Tue, Jul 20, 1999 8:21 AM From: surfer_izzy@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear DoktorMo and Cloning Forum,

The ethical issue of cloning is not all a spiritual matter, the scientific aspects must be taken into consideration when choosing to clone a human being or not. I personally believe that human cloning should be accepted by society as a whole and not revered because of a natural fear of not knowing. Adhering to a religion or spiritual side of something is only due to a fear of not knowing...it is true that there has yet to be a human clone, but cloning a human being is the same as a male and female having intercourse and producing a child. You still choose conception and you still choose to have a child, and in the bible it states that a child is a child from conception meaning that clone or no clone a human being has a soul/spirit any way you look at it, the only difference would be if you constantly told the cloned human being that it was a clone and it would possibly have adverse psychological affects on him/her for the rest of their lives.

Sincerely, Izzy Chen


Date: Thu, May 27, 1999 3:02 PM From: jonathan@bioconcept.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Upon the question of cloning, I believe that one cannot conclude the individual act of cloning to be moral or immoral.

I personally believe that the correct philosophical framework for viewing cloning is Utilitarianism. Unlike Dr. Gavaghan, I do not feel that the issue of cloning can be restricted to the individual's decision. Any decision that an individual takes that has severe potential effects on others should not be placed solely in the hands of the individual. Particularly when the individual is likely to be mis- or un-informed. (but not uniformed!)

In viewing cloning in as a Utilitarian, one is forced to consider all conceivable positive and negative ramifications that may result. From this, we would conceivably be able to ask the bottom-line question - will cloning benefit or harm society?

Evidently, this is an extremely difficult question to answer. To compound the problem, the pace with which science progresses will always be much faster than the ability of society at large to weigh of the consequences. I would suggest that it is in the shorter-term that many of the benefits can be seen, while the hazards would become apparent in the longer-term. I would also suggest that while philosophers, lobbyers and scientists debate and attempt to sway public opinion, advances in the scientific knowldege of cloning are rapid and numerous.

Would it not be prudent to consider rapidly developing (or improving) guidelines through which we would be able to come to moral/legal/ethical decisions (and to enforce them if necessary) instead of debating over issues that we do not fully understand?

At the moment, we can not fully evaluate the benefits or harms that could result from cloning practices. To determine whether or not they are moral would be even more difficult. I do concede, however, that at one point, in the near future, we will need to make decisions despite being 'in the dark' about certain issues. When this necessity arises, I only hope that we will know where to start.


Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 8:59 PM From: jbp0@orica.com.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Please note I am using my husbands email address.

Unfortunately it matters little whether or not we have strongly held beliefs about human cloning because the reality is that the advancement of science will not be halted. Once the technological challenge is set neither prohibition nor public outcry will prevent it from happening, as with most example of prohibition it will simply be driven underground. Lets be mature and realistic and tackle the issue head-on, act now to protect the rights of the individual on this issue. We should control science rather than have it control us as seems to be the current situation, as a community we can decide whether the cloning of the human species will be used to help or to hinder.

Natalie Manser


Date: Thu, May 6, 1999 5:20 AM From: gen5td@SOUTH-02.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am a geneticist whom is falling in love with philosophy and is in the midst of instigating a career change to the subject. A phenotype, or character trait is formed due to the interaction of the organisms genotype (genes) and it's environment. As a clone would exist in a different temporal and spatial location to the "parent" organism. There fore it is my opinion that they are not the same people. Derek Parfett in his book reasons and persons puts forward the following. In the future star trek teleportation exists. It's mechanism is to scan your exact molecular composition reproduce it precisely then destroy the original copy. This in effect gives the ultimate clone. But is the clone you? You have been killed. Assuming that personality consciousness etc. is biochemically determined you are stumbling into a grey area.

In a inverse situation. You are cloned. The "alternative you" proves to be of more worth to society than you in what ever field you would like for the purposes of discussion. The "alternative you" befalls illness that requires organ donation. Should the clone be allowed to die? Or is it appropriate that you have to donate your organ to it as it has proved to be more worthy than you?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I am severly dyslexic so please ignor any grammatical / spelling errors.


Date: Fri, Apr 30, 1999 7:58 AM From: C.Gavaghan@law.gla.ac.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Just discovered your excellent discussion site - keep up the good work! I assume that one posts contributions to the discussion pages by emailing you? If so, please feel free to include the following:

'I'm not going to spend too much time on the theological points that underpin about half of the anti-cloning postings. I'm not a theologian, so I can't say for sure, but I'm reasonably certain that the Bible says little or nothing about cloning. In contrast, it very specifically prohibits homosexual acts, sex outwith marriage, and the eating of certain foods. Yet most western democracies have bans against neither of these activities. Anyway, the fact that cloning may contravene someone's religious beliefs should not have a bearing on whether it is allowed or prohibited by law; don't you Americans have a constitutional protection against the imposition of one religion on everyone else? You should be proud of the traditions of religious freedom on which your nation was based, not trying to implement laws more suited to a medieval theocracy! Isn't the forcing of religious views upon non-believers precisely what your ancestors fled Europe to escape?

'I imagine that all contributors to this discussion would agree that a repeat of the eugenics programmes of recent German, Swedish, and indeed American history is something we should strive to out utmost to avoid. However, such programmes were the result of a mentality that saw the perceived welfare of the state or nation or race elevated above individual liberty and choice. My argument would be that to minimise the likelihood of such repressive regimes reoccuring, we should be striving to maximise free choice in the area of human reproduction. Genetic and reproductive technologies did not cause Nazism, but were a tool of it, just like jet planes.

'When we start dictating to adults what they can and cannot do with their own reproductive capacities, for the greater good of the country or the species, then we trully are on the slippery slope to totalitarianism. Cloning, like almost all reproductive matters, should wherever possible be a matter for individual choice. (It goes without saying that the clone would be entitled to exactly the same rights and protections as any other person.)',

Thank you,

Yours sincerely,

Colin Gavaghan, Lecturer, Institute of Law & Ethics in Medicine, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK


Date: Wed, Apr 28, 1999 11:29 AM From: l_romo@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Now a days, we are talking about cloning a lot. I think that we are not ready to start cloning human beings, because this would be like creating lives by ourselves, and I think that is not possible. My beliefs do not accept this kind of actions. God is the only one who can create lives.

I know that now a day we are cloning animals, and I think this can help us with our food chain, because the quality of the food we eat will be better. Also, I believe that cloning plants is also being made, and this helps us improve the characteristics of the plant, also to make them stronger to any kind of weather, so they are not affected by the weather, some diseases, etc. In the future, this cloning parts of human beings, like kidneys, lungs, hearts, muscles, etc. will help many lives. But this kind of technology really needs to be secured and perfected, so that there are no mistakes being made. An error of this kind can create mutants, diseases that cannot be stopped and really bad things. Another point is that is we will clone human beings just to get the parts we need is not ethical. If separate parts are being made, maybe that will be OK, but if we clone human just to get our spare kidney or some part, that is not right.


Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 2:51 PM From: lidcas@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

In my class of "Sociocultural Values in the World" we are discussing ethical subjects and among them is the cloning of humans. I'm personally against it because it just can't be right to make copies out of persons just to use their organs. I mean, what happens to those clones afterwards? Do they have a mind and a personality of their own? Or they don't have feelings and emotions? There are so many questions still unanswered, at least to people like me, who are not scientists, and that's why this is so controversial. Besides if we have laws that protect the intellectual property rights and punish those who copy someone else's work without authorization, why should we allow technology that copies human beings? Because this technology could always fall into the wrong hands to be used for non-scientific purposes. I think I have, or rather my parents have the copyright for me, so I wouldn't want to authorize anybody to make clones out of me, it would be too bizarre and unnatural.

Lidia Castillo, International Business student at ITESM Campus Sonora Norte, Hermosillo, Mexico


Date: Wed, Mar 31, 1999 9:41 PM From: cogborne@golden.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am presently researching information for my grade 12 law class on reproductive technologies, I am to write a thesis paper from a Canadian law perspective. So far I have come across many different opinions concerning what is ethically right or wrong; however, I have also been exposed to many of the benefits of such scientific advancements, such as cloning human organs for those who are sick, etc. I believe that it is possible for humans, with their new found capabilities, to take their power too far. Just think back to Nazi Germany when Joseph Mengele did experiments to try to clone humans in order to reproduce the aryan race. Just imagine how terrifying it would be if such a power existed in the hands of some other fascist? However, with strict regulations and laws, and open communication bewtween the scientific communities of other countries, I believe that the consequences of new scientific advancements could be very positive. And though ethics and morals are extremely important, we must try not to let them be so important, that people will die when cloning could give them the chance to live.


Date: Sun, Mar 28, 1999 2:22 PM From: jseverino@unphu.edu.do To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hello, I'm medical student. I've learned about medical ethics in my med school. And we're discussing now this topic. I believe that cloning human beings is unethical because it goes against the very first principle of medical ethics: Every human being is autonomous, unique, and unviolable. If this principle is correct, cloning couldn't be ethical because human beings wouldn't be UNIQUE. They would be copies of the original version. Playing with genes and life it's a tricky dilema. Somehow it could benefit human life but it can destroy it, if the technology goes to the wrong hands. Imagine what can happen to a human life (even if it's cloned) in the time of perfectioning this technology. Even thou they are cloned, they still are human being, and an error in this experiment can bring a lot of pain and suffering to this person. In the Declaration of Geneva, it say that "the health of my patient will be my first consideration". If we understand this phrase, we should prevent any pain and suffering from this future human being. Suffering it's not only from the flesh, it's also psychological. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". We have to think about how this persons born by clonation could feel. It's very easy for us to be thinking of good things that could bring us clonation, but it's is for the wise to be thinking about how the cloning person would live, feeling that they are just a product of scientist, that they are not unique, and that they have been violated their first principle of ethic.

Lillian Camino, dr.Lillian@usa.net


Date: Sat, Mar 20, 1999 10:46 AM From: Pete@polygon.demon.co.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is an advance in technology, you cant stop it, you may delay it but you wont stop it. It may help growing new limbs etc. for people, as long as it is not abused it will be fine. It wont be like sci-fi stories, the clones wont be the same, no two people are alike, charecter comes from experience.

-- Peter Doyle


Date: Sun, Mar 14, 1999 12:32 PM From: bowtastic@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I would think that there is enough unwanted humans (babies) in this world without science making more. Work on getting all the babies adopted and not aborted first. There would be no need for fertilization clinics and cloning procedures. The current cost of health care has sky rocketed and yet scientist want to increase this cost ( because then can do this procedure). Then let all the scientist that want to do this pay for it. I will not pay for this kind of technology. It's time that science put their efforts to the issues that need attending and not create more problems. My idea of medical technology is to help humanity not bankrupt it. Please look at the cures for Diabetes, heart disease, Lupus, and the list goes on, don't create bigger problems, leave creation up to GOD.


Date: Sat, Feb 27, 1999 7:56 PM From: User53179@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Cloning human beings is a marvelous advancement in science, however, what purpose does it practically serve? There are too many people, anyway, due to the onslaught of overpopulation in developing countries and creating more people [clones] would be impractical. Many people are afraid to clone humans because they feel they will be used as slaves and menial work. This is irrelevant. If we needed slaves and humans to do menial work, there is a plethora of humans on earth to accomplish this and this is not done. Our technology has helped surpass this. If clones are needed to repopulate or fight in a war, these tasks are remotely applicable. Also, clones may be used as subjects of biological experiments. This would prove useful and adventitious, again, however, there are plenty of people currently on earth to be experimental subjects, so again producing clones is useless.

Maybe sometime in the future there will be a useful application for human clones in the future.


Date: Sat, Jan 16, 1999 11:37 AM From: HEREKBOBO@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi - As an ethics major, I have grappled with the question of human cloning. Ethically and spiritually, I feel that it is wrong. Cloning is the proverbial "Pandora's Box," once opened, we will never again be able to recapture it's contents. It seems to me that there are a variety of ways this will be used. For example, in his book, "The Biotech Century," Jeremy Rifkin (I don't have the book in front of me, I hope that's how to spell his name) unfolds the possibilities of headless human clones that can be used for "spare parts" if the originator ever breaks down. What kind of existence would that be for the clone? Technically, the clone would have no consciousness, but, it seems to me that in order for it to sustain body function, it would have to have a brain stem, which means that it would be able to feel different sensations. My god! Isn't that the kind of torturous existence that Hitler was striving for fifty odd years ago? Can you even imagine having a "spare" hanging around in some warehouse? Beyond the fact that cloning could increase life span to an unheard of high (where are we going to put all of the new people that will never die?), spiritually, when does the clone become a person with what we so fondly call a soul? Do we have any responsibility to these new creations, or will they be used for function only? Even if clones are used for good, such as enabling sterile couples to have children, I can't see anything but bad coming from this new technology. When will the government step in and decide that these creatures would be the perfect expendable soldiers - no family, no personality, so soul... I'll step down from my soap box now - Thank you for the opportunity to sound off!

Kimberly - Marylhurst University


Date: Sun, Jan 10, 1999 8:04 AM From: danib54321@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that, as demonstrated by the many responses already on this page, cloning is a very controversial, and personal topic. Personal because since the cloning of humans has not yet been performed all of our guesses as to the consequences of that event would be just that- guesses. The most we can do to assess the issue is to look at it from a scientific perspective, as well as one of ethics. In reading the comments which were posted on this page I was disapointed in how many people based their arguments on religion. I believe that growing organs for organ transplant is fine but that we should not create cloned human beings because that could easily get out of hand. If we were to clone people, they would not be perfect humans, as some of the people before be have implied, but rather clones of imperfect beings. If we want to see the results of cloning, maybe we could satisfy our curiosity by cloning a primate and watching the effects.

-Danielle Buckley (I am a 14-year-old freshman in highschool) danib54321@aol.com


Date: Sat, Jan 9, 1999 1:24 PM From: GemOfLight@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Looking at the posts about whether it's ethical to clone a human or not, I see a few themes repeated over and over again, most of which haven't been addressed.

The first of these is the idea that cloning humans is wrong, yet a number of people say this without giving a reason. Some people also say that it's acceptable if we "take care of the clone." Giving a person human dignity involves a lot more than taking care of him or her. Giving a person human dignity involves respecting him or her as an individual. Obviously, not everyone is going to treat a clone as an individual. A number of people are going to treat him or her as an experiment, a freak, a scientific oddity. Furthermore, the person from whom the clone is created will be treated in the same way. A number of the posts on this page show the same sort of thinking, the idea that a clone isn't "really human." Perhaps if it were possibly to have every single human being treat the clone as a "normal" (whatever that means) human, it might be more acceptable. Still, we're forgetting about whatever psychological damage in either the clone or the person who was cloned. It would be quite mentally distressing to know that you were simply a curiosity.

Furthermore, cloning may lead to entire evolutional stagnation. It's true that humans have already essentially escaped from evolution (and I'm not trying to sound as if I'm against medicine or corrective lenses or anything else), but with cloning, we would remove ourselves from the evolutionary cycle entirely. We'll never have the chance to develop more desirable evolutionary traits if we simply keep the same people alive time after time.

Furthermore...well, I could keep discussing reasons why cloning a human would be unethical, but this is getting quite long, and there are several other arguments I'd like to address.

Another point that I keep seeing repeated is the idea that it's not right to stifle scientific work. Obviously, this isn't true. (kemist1@earthlink.net posted "1. All learning and discovery is good 2. All knowledge is good. 3. Therefore all learning is good. Education is nothing to be fearful of.") What the Nazi scientists did was "learning and discovery" -- does that mean we should've let them torture all sorts of people to test their freakish scientific ideas? Should we let scientists in favor of eugenics come along and manipulate each of us so that we're all identical because it will be "progress"? There is no inherent value in progress; where progress is separated from ethics, it becomes invaluable.

Also, a bunch of people keep saying that cloning will help us live forever. This simply isn't true. If your clone is created when you die, you won't still be alive. Two people with the same genetic makeup aren't the same person; they don't share the same consciousness. Ask any identical twins--they aren't just one person in two places at the same time. The people who see cloning as a way to make one person live forever are forgetting that our development is influenced by more than our genes...experience is as crucial a part of personality as genes.

Finally, the argument that "God wouldn't like cloning" doesn't hold up. Not everyone believes in the same god/goddess/deity/. Just because one religious group believes in a god/dess who doesn't agree with cloning (and I doubt that any sort of holy books were written recently enough that the issue was even addressed) doesn't mean that a code of ethics has been provided for the whole human community.

I'm sure I've forgotten a lot of other things I meant to say, but thanks for reading this excessively long response.

Responses to me at gemoflight@aol.com are welcomed, and I'm sure responses to the website are every bit as welcome. Also, anyone who wants to question the validity of my arguments--I'm only a high school student; I'm not by any means an expert on any of these issues--is welcome to go ahead and question.

Jena


Date: Thu, Dec 17, 1998 12:38 PM From: First.Last@Gpisd.Org To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel that cloning would be an advance in the Science field, but there should also be rules. The things that should be thought of are: 1)The safety of this cloning (Not just anyone should have access) 2)It shouldn't be done all the time, and 3)The clone should be treated as a human being. If we are going to create a human being from another, it should completely be taken care of.


Date: Tue, Dec 1, 1998 5:36 PM From: Plinkplop@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi!,

I think that human cloning its self is pointless. I can see the point in isolating cells to reproduce the organs and help patients with transplants. When raising a clone what are we to expect? Another question is when the techique of cloning becomes known to more of the population, we have people who could abuse the techinque to make many clones. Cloning in America, and not to mention the world. Too much cloning could result in genetic defects. Another part of this is, who would be the parent(s) of the clone?

Kelly Hoglen, Enka High School, Enka, North Carolina


Date: Wed, Nov 4 1998 1:27 PM From: cdickson@gbhs.rjuhsd.k12.ca.us To:DoktorMo@aol.com

Using techniques of cloning, is it possible to keep an (individual) organism alive "for ever"? What is the current thought on wether or not this is a feasible hypothesis and what assumption can be or are being made in answer to this question?

Chet Dickson


Date: Fri, Oct 23, 1998 9:52 PM From: kemist1@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I recently read some of the comments people had about whether we should allow cloning. For one it should be stated that science is a learing process, and to stop it or stiffle it is wrong. Know one really knows if a human can be cloned. For one it would probably take about 500 attempts before one viable egg took inside a volunteer host. Meaning it is still in its infancy stages and there are several other problems to work out before we can say for sure each attempt will work. Secondly the other discoveries that may occur outweigh someone's fear the "what if scenarios". I quess what I am trying to say is simple 1. All learning and discovery is good 2. All knowledge is good. 3. Therefore all learning is good. Education is nothing to be fearful of.


Date: Mon, Oct 19, 1998 7:04 AM From: first.last@gpisd.org To: DoktorMo@aol.com

hi, i have some opinions about cloning human beings. i think it is wrong. It is not of God's intentions or of our morality. I understand that cloning people will help us live longer(eternally) but if God had wanted us to live forever no one would die. I don't want to live forever. I believe that human clonong will happen but I don't agree with it.

Sincerely, Jennifer(TX)


Date: Wed, Oct 7, 1998 3:00 PM From: vhs@iamerica.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hello, I am sending this in response to the question on this discussion page. First of all I would like to let you know that I am a 17 year old senior in high school and the concurrent English class that I am in has been reading Huxley's Brave New World. In my opinion, cloning of complete human beings is wrong for many reasons.1)In the wrong hands clones could become slaves and that would not be right no matter how many people say," It doesn't matter because they're not human." How would those people know? Clones come from human beings so they must be at least a little human, right? After all, if cloning of humans is successful then they could think, feel, eat, breathe. Aren't those some of the things that make us who we are?2)Who died and made the people who are in charge of the whole cloning operation God!! It is not our place or right to create life in that manner. If God had intended for us to reproduce in that way, then He would have made it so,but He didn't so we should not. As far as the question of whether or not clones have a soul, untill we meet God we will not know and maybe that is the way it should be. I am not saying that it is wrong to go in search of greater knowledge, I myself seek it, but there are some things that we will not know in this life.


Date: Tue, Oct 6, 1998 9:46 PM From: soraya@lawtonok.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Cloning in humans exists presently as twins. Even in twins, individual personalities emerge through environment and life experiences. It is these life experiences that form and shape us into the humans that we are with help from a nebulous component that we call a soul (or "character" for those that may have a hard time with "soul"). While we may be able to duplicate the embryonic cells that constitute a clone by definition, from the split second that these cells embark on the long journey to maturity, the roads diverge and the outcome will ultimately be different then the original product. Before we can look at cloning from an ethical or religious viewpoint we need to look at it from a scientific stance. Cloning of genetic material is as possible as twins are possible. Environment takes over from the cellular stages. True replication of a human is really not possible due to all the variables involved in making


Date: Fri, Aug 7, 1998 10:55 AM From: a100131@smail.Uni-Koeln.DE To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am not against cloning of human beings.I see no real danger. Why should mankind make clones of themselves.To be perfect?These "perfect " human beings would probably helpful for us.But they can opress us like slaves,like we do with the third world.In our eyes these people seem to be uncivilised , in perfect human we would be the uncivilised.Reminds me of the Movie "GATTACA". Otherwise you can't create a perfect thing.Evolution will show us better things.The biggest danger in cloning is that we will ignore the evolution and realize it when it is too late.Viruses and other nice things on earth will do the evolution,mankind not if they are multiply themselves only by cloning. OK good bye

mr_orbital@hotmail.com


Date: Mon, Jul 6, 1998 8:01 AM From: alexism@hol.fr To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I don't think taking it from the religious side is right ; let's be more pragmatic : Clones already exist : there are twins . The real problem is who should be cloned and who shouldn't . To my mind , cloning people wouldn't be good , because it would stop our specie's evolution .

alex


Date: Tue, Jun 23, 1998 3:59 PM From: beaschov@enid.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am greatly displeased with the individuals who expressed no moral concern for cloning. I am not an expert on the matter, but am fearful of this concept. We should not become overinvolved with technological advances so that it destroys our humanness.


Date: Thu, May 21, 1998 2:36 PM From: oboingo1@email.msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

hello, i am 15 years old, and i read many responses on your page on human cloning. i am writing a paper on that subject, and i would like to say its wrong. And, it IS playing god. It is twisting nature, and screwing up with what God intended for the human race. God meant for us to reproduce sexually, if he wanted humans to clone themselves, he wouldnt have given us reproductive organs, an offspring of two parents has the traits of both of them, and has a soul, a clone, made from one person, to be just like that person does not have a soul, and that person then loses their individuality.

And for people that argue that there is no god, and we are here to go whatever we want, take this into consideration. If you walk into a biulding, and you see a huge spectacular statue, and you ask who made it, and they tell you, no one made it, that it just appeared out of nowhere, you are going to of course argue that that is impossible, it had to have someone who made it. Likewise with us, how can anyone say the universe, and the human race was an accident, how is something so organized as the human body going to come about as a result of nothing?

jared -oboingo1@msn.com


Date: Thu, May14, 1998 4:14 PM From: sheilac@kalama.doe.Hawaii.Edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that it's not such a good idea to clone humans, due to the fact that it may cause problems in life. If it fell into the wrong hands of a human being, they can create massive problems. For example, if someone got a hold of the technology to make a duplicate of a certain human being, and they persuaded that clone to do the most utmost serious crime, is it fair for the real human being to suffer the consequences of the clone? So this also could cause majar problems in our society.


Date: Sat, Apr 25, 1998 11:11 PM From: dblackie@pacbell.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

What entity makes the decision? Who should be cloned? How about the politically powerful? Hitler, Stalin, Clinton, Nixon??? Or maybe the wealthy? Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Michael Jackson??? Those that "everyone" agrees are put on this earth for the good of mankind? Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr, Ho Che Ming, Malcom X, Mickey Mantle???


Date: Tue, Apr 21, 1998 3:30 PM From: morales@amaonline.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hello there. May I tell you something about myself before I answer that question. I was researching for a persuasive paper on "Bioengineering: It will revolusionize humanity, It will destroy humanity." when I cam across your question. Personally, I believe the latter. Anytime one changes the existence of any organism, that organism will always be polluted and unnatural. To take it further, human cloning, of it's own nature will evolve so that it produces masses of physically perfect automatons. Eventually turning humanity into the Alphas and Gammas of Adous Huxly's Brave New World. I do give the opposition two points: 1)The next step in evolution is "self-programming," and 2) the human body is just a complex machine, and should be subject to technology just as any other machine. If number 1 is true though, then the dinosuars became extinct because of the lack of "self-programming." Besides, this fells in the view of any creationist. For number 2 to exist, them man would have to consider himself nothing but a group of molecules working together. I personally feel that I am more. But if we were not more, thenwe have lost our soul before we discovered it.

Sincerely, Trace


Date: Thu, Apr 2, 1998 10:49 AM From: bmullins@flash.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think the question is very important, and only time will tell how far cloning will go. From a purely scientific stand point, cloning humans would be VERY useful. If a human could be cloned one could find out exactly what traits are genetic and what traits are learned. A person could be two places at once! But the real question is how MORAL is human cloning? I believe it depends on your faith, in other words: do you believe that mankind is just another animal evolved from other animals or do you believe that mankind is a unique creation of God? Many people say that cloning is immoral and don't know why. I once heard a person respond to the question as "it just isn't right." "Ethics" is an interesting thing to me. It's like most people accept that some things "just aren't right, but they see it as a HUMAN thing, and not a thing of faith, which is what morality is all about. I know a lot of (if not most) professors of science and technology believe in evolution and that you should do what is "natural" to you. Many claim there is no God, but in a sense, Atheists are their own gods! My point is that I have a religious view upon the subject. I feel that EVERY human being, cloned or not, has a soul that must be held accountable before God. How would the clone feel if he knew he was "just another Dr. Mo"? Each and every human feels things like insecurity and responsibility, it's our nature. But who will hold himself accountable to the wellfare of the clones? That's our choice.


Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 12:24 AM From: JAINTAO@prodigy.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have been in the midst of a debate from a theological standpoint as to whether human clones would have a soul. What are the possibilities that we could create a population of "soul-less" twins? If this is the case, is it any more or less ethical to use these soul- less creatures in medicine to sustain life (via organ harvesting) than it is to harvest berries, or eat meat to sustain life? If we allow cloning for any other purpose (recreating ourselves as our offspring for instance) what would happen to the family unit as we know it now, if brothers and sisters, cloned after their parents, could fall in love and marry(no longer an issue of incest)...only to clone themselves again? Would we find ourselves populated by the same "superior" pool of DNA eternally? and ultimately without souls? Even with souls, the ability to master a perfect population based on genetic superiority has an eerie ring to it. To clone a human form for medical purposes is a tricky ethical question. I am though, far more concerned about the ability to "shop" for the perfect offspring and the loss of the diversity that might result. What a cold place the world would be.


Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 4:58 PM From: arreynol@ehc.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

There are many aspects of this issue that I agree with, but at the same time there are others that I have problems accepting. For instance, when a human is cloned for organ donations what do we do with the "cloned human body'" after the organ is donated? Another issue that is unclear to me deals with our rights. What kind of rights will clones have? Are we going to have to change our Constitution to include "cloned humans"? I feel there are many positive aspects of this issue, but for now, I think there are too many unanswerable questions.


Date: Thu, Mar 19, 1998 7:20 AM From: cmmoretz@ehc.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Of course cloning should be allowed in some circumstances. Suppose a child is dying of bone cancer. There are two options: 1) the parents must either have another child or 2) the child is cloned for a bone marrow transplant. Of course there has to be regulations concerning such acts. We must be careful not to let the population get out of hand (is it already?). Also we mustn't clone humans at millions of $$$...that way patients with cancer can get cured frugally, instead of paying the doctors taboo amounts of money.


Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 3:22 PM From: jpmccrac@ehc.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel that there is nothing wrong with the cloning of humans. I think that the primary reason it puts such a bad taste in most people's mouths is that they feel that we are so much different than other animals. Perhaps if the news of Dolly, instead of accompanying a discussion on how higher mammals can be cloned, had included a discussion on the possible advantages of cloning in the livestock industry, Dolly wouldn't have made quite as much news.

However, we humans feel that we are special, above all other animals. This is true, to an extent (after all, we don't have to worry about mere survival anymore, do we?). I feel though that we are still essentially another animal, and if humankind has seen fit to use other animals as resources and things to be bred (and now cloned), then why not other humans?

James McCracken, Emory & Henry College


Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 3:08 PM From: trtaylor@ehc.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If God wanted humans to be cloned then he would not have made the woman with the ability to give birth. Why make someone the exact same as someone else, don't you think one is good enough. I know that people would not want someone else just like me running around. I enjoy being unique isn't that what is so fun about the human race.

Tawyna Taylor, Emory & Henry College, P.O. Box 9001, Box 320, Emory, VA 24327


Date: Mon, Mar 16, 1998 11:49 AM From: NKLOCKO@ycpo.yavapai.cc.az.us To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Your topic reminds me of the controversy over "test-tube" babies. In vitro fertilization is now considered by most reasonable adults to be a miracle for those unable to conceive in the normal manner. Why not a clone? Let's call them delayed twins. Do natural identical twins feel that there is something unnatural about their conception? Or for that matter, should children born from in-vitro fertilization feel that they're unnatural? However, I do feel that we must proceed with caution. Nancy Klocko, e-mail nklocko@ycpo.yavapai.cc.az.us


Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 2:41 PM From: Eric_Ditwiler@hmc.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Recently Richard Seed, a Harvard physicist, shocked the world by announcing his intention to establish a for-profit human cloning clinic. Almost all of the publicized reactions were negative, yet I never heard a clearly delineated argument against the proposal. Seed himself, was the subject of many ad hominum attacks while most detractors simply assumed that their readers would agree with them. This led me to ask just why we abhor the concept of replicating ourselves.

Even though our traditional concept of self is as an incorporeal soul occupying a material body, in practice and from the point of view of an individual mind-matter entity, the line is hard to draw.

It seems that part of our uneasiness comes from the fear that a duplication of body will cause a corresponding duplication of soul. But, we have only to look as far as the nearest set of identical twins to absolve ourselves of this fear.

Perhaps the real fear is that it will become common knowledge that there is something very different about two genetically identical organisms. We are not bothered by the somatic differences between cutting and cactus, so it must be a mental difference that we are now saying to be totally a product of different experiences.

To say that our souls are a product of experience is to say that they were not created by God, and this is what I think is behind the near uniform distaste of the prospect of human cloning.

Without divinely created souls, the original moral problem reduces to the practical problem of identification of individuals, but a new moral dilemma is created.

I can no longer "clone myself." I can only replicate a younger version of my body. Experience will provide that body with a soul that is distinct from my own. The clone will not be me.

This leads me to question the morality of producing sentient clones for the purpose of harvesting organs, yet there are people now who are having children for just this purpose.


Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 9:09 AM From: krause@CLEMSON.EDU To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is absolutely ethical. The individual produced would be no more like its parent than an identical twin. I think the news media loses sight of reality and sees only the science fiction version of clones growing at incredible rates to adulthood to becoming contemporary with the parent, a source of a new "Evil Army." In actuality, the cloned human would gestate and develop as any human infant, through childhood to adulthood in the normal course of events. A person conceived this way would be indistinguishable from any other human being. As such, there is no more (or less) reason to fear growing clones for harvesting of organs than we fear harvesting of organs from living humans now. Any person who had himself cloned for evil purposes would have to wait a generation for the individuals to grow up, aging all the while himself. Would a Hitler impregnate thousands of women to raise an army? Not likely.

It is human to desire to have children to perpetuate ourselves. A clone would be just a little more like us, perhaps, than our conventionally conceived children. Certainly a clone would be raised in a different environment than the parent was, and therefore would be different from the parent. An advantage might be to clone someone of considerable talent, and begin earlier to train and develop that talent.

Bringing legislation to prevent research in this area is to cripple advances in medicine in other areas, and to do, once again, what Pope Urban did to Galileo.

Dr. Lois Breur Krause, 265 H. L. Hunter Chemistry Labs, Department of Chemistry, College of Engineering and Science Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634-1905, (864) 656-2680


Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 5:00PM From: pete0248@frontierhealth.org To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel very confused that there is even a discussion on the possibility that cloning would be a "good" thing to do. The idea of using these "clones" for organ harvesting is not even feasible to me considering that the "clones" do not magically appear as a mature adult. They would have to be born as any human fetus and go through stages of development and life. The issue here does not seem to be is it right or wrong but rather what is the point in the first place. Our planet is already reaching over population and it seems that there is no stop to human reproduction or introduction of a "one child per family" world-wide policy so the idea that we need any other means than natural animal reproduction seems to be a ridiculous notion. Secondly, we must take into consideration genetic variability. If we begin to clone animals, plants, etc at an overwhelming rate then the genetic variability will be reduced until there is no variability. In that case, there would only need to be one virus, one bacteria, a single pathogen to end an entire lineage of individuals. The idea has no point, no relevance cloning should not be done if only merely for the reason that it is not practical.


Date: Thu, Feb 12, 1998 6:38 AM From: dialogs@javanet.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think the sociological implications of our country's attempt to create legislation around the issue of cloning speaks volumes, in and of itself. It certainly indicates a society which is incapable of reflection before action. My major concern about human cloning is really a pre-ethical one. That is, it seems to me that it is vital that we all need to engage in a thoughtful process which focuses on what the possible consequences of cloning a human might be (practically, morally, spiritually, ethically, etc.) and, only when there is some clarity in these areas, should scientists move ahead to do it.

We already made this mistake in relation to atomic power; we need to learn from that experience that we are capable of providing ourselves with the means for mass self-destruction. If we were to clone humans, for what purpose would we do so? Would we create ANOTHER distinction between humans which could be used to create or maintain economic, social and political domination? Let's work out the problems we already have and figure out what further issues cloning might raise in light of the way we know humans operate.

Julia Halevy, Department of Applied Psychology, Antioch New England Graduate School


Date: Thu, Feb 12, 1998 10:43 AM From: marcm@college.ucla.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Though I am fascinated by and generally a proponent of science, I must admit to a vague uneasiness about cloning humans. Sure, I am excited by the thought that at some time in the future--nearer probably than I suspect--I will be able to farm my own replacement organs; I am also wary of the real possibility that evil empires (yes, they do exist) will exploit clones and genetic programming to carry out their most heinous intentions. Pharmaceutical research has yielded miracle drugs; it has also yielded biological weapons capable of destroying all human life. Thus it will be with cloning.

Having appreciated Bob Dylan's uncanny observations of humanity for all these years, I am haunted by one of his lines: "for man has invented his doom, first step was touching the moon." Either literally or metaphorically, Dylan lays bare the ethical dilemma: what will the Truly Evil accomplish with this remarkable technology? Very reasoned minds predict absolute horror.

And here we must weigh good and bad. Yes, using the technology of my car, I can easily drive 100 miles per hour. At that speed, I can get home from work twice as fast, giving me more time to spend with my family. That's a very good thing. Conversely, driving 100 miles per hour will surely place me in harm's way, raising the real spectre of my never returning home again. I choose to drive 50 miles per hour. As Bob Dylan also said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Marc Mayerson, Assistant Dean of Social Sciences, UCLA College of Letters and Science


Date: Mon, Feb 9, 1998 12:17 PM From: stubasejm@usao.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am a communication student and am in an argument and debate class in which the statement of our current debate is "Human Cloning is ethical". I am on the negative side trying to prove that human cloning is NOT ethical. It's been difficult as there is really not enough experimentation or research to prove either side. I don't seem to have a problem with cloning for the purposes of eliminating the shortage of healthy organs or eradicating faulty DNA diseases, but my question is this: Can single organs be cloned or grown, without having to grow the entire human? If not, does the human have to be conscious and "alive" in order to keep the organs healthy? I DO have a problem with cloning humans simply for the harvesting of organs! I also read that you consider that an ethical dilemna as well. Yours and others responses to my questions will greatly help me develope my own opinions as to the ethics of Human Cloning, as well as shed some light on the subject during our debates.

Thank you, Jenny M. Bendure


Date: Sat, Feb 7, 1998 3:00 PM From: tanderso@stevens-tech.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.comj

Is human cloning ethical?

First, I think it is necessary to define what ethics is. Ethics is the discipline of deciding and dealing with what is good or bad. Good and bad are relative terms, so it must be given the broadest scope necessary to deal with what is good and bad in general for all of human society. Philosophers have put millenia of thought to this, and we have a very good ethical


Date: Fri, Feb 6, 1998 7:59 AM From: rs72229@navix.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

How can you condemn science. Cloning like this would not result in the loss of individuality, but in the enhancement of the human race. We could take our most intelligent individuals, select the environment in which they should be raised, and clone them. Individuality would not disappear, and we could finally answer the questions about the effects of environment versus genetics. This is a wonderful opportunity, and we shouldn't waste it.


Date: Sun, Feb 1, 1998 11:59 PM From: sdublin@jet.laker.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am a Biology major, as many of the responders have mentioned of themselves. (I left the English program due to bad spelling so bear with me.) I have read each of the response sent in about this controversal issue and I believe that one thing might have been over looked. There is one fundamental question that science has led us to for generations. The question that could kill our gods, kill our individuality, and even kill our swelled feelings of superiority. It is the path to this question that I believe makes us all hesitate when this issue of cloing emerges. It is not the ethics, though that is what our consious uses to subvert the inevitable. It is the question of nature vs nurture. If these clones are clones in every sience, down to the likes and dislikes of a favorite song of a favorite album, what would that imply to us as "individuals" In seperate environments, the same could possibly be created. Imagin the backlash of information such as that could have. To truly know to what extent our genes create who we are as individuals. How not so far away we are from the single cell that divided and made two of what was once only one. two of the same, no different than what was started. And imagine the reverse, to compleatly different individuals, only the similarity of the features. Studys have been done on twins i am aware but with little or no creedence due to the lack of a solid sample group. imagin what we would know with hundreds of the same, scattered over the world expeienceing infinitly different environments, with what kind of results. Some of the most complex problems with mapping of genitics is the often unbelievable way genes work with each other to affect the expression of yet another. And how much was it the caffine your mother drank while she was preg. with you... and to know these secrets...... I would like to say that the ethics of such an idea in and of themselves is enough to make my skin crawl, all i wanted is to put forth the possibility of discovery. not of practice. it is an ancient question, one that is possibly sovlable. to what extent? and would you want to know the answer? to know that possibly every thought action, belief and passion is planed in every cell of you being from the moment of conception. i apologis for the sloppyness of this, i hope that a least a small part of this idea could be taken for furter conversation.


Date: Sat, Jan 31,1998 8:35 PM From: andrew@blissnet.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have a few things to mention on the subject of human cloning. The first is that "morality" needs to be based on a system of common law or understanding. I suggest that this common law be human equality. Now we must define what is human. Here I suggest we use a genetic standard to define human, such that the standard is easily testable with only a small amount of genetic material. Having defined our terms, I suggest that if the cloning of a human results in another human who is to be treated as inferior simply because s/he is a clone, or if because the person is a clone, he is denied the things other children take for granted, such as parents, then this represents an immorality. This assumes that a person could be perfectly cloned with no mistakes. Without this assumption, the argument is moot. Another worry in the cloning debate, is that the clone will not be an individual, but a copy of another person. What this argument leaves out, is the experiences that are unique to a person's upbringing and environment, and that according to some studies can determine up to 90% of a persons personality. If two clones are raised in the same household, then it would be an identical twin situation (happens all the time). If they were raised in different households, then they would be two normal, different humans who just happen to greatly resemble each other. There would be nothing to identify the clones from the non. In conclusion, if cloning were done in a responsible manner that allows the clones the same rights (emphasis on rights) and opportunities as non-clones then there is no problem in the undertaking. If and only if these conditions are not satisfied is an immorality occuring, or are the clones anything but human.


Date: Tue, Jan 20, 1998 12:03 AM From: VANGK32@gbvaxa.uwgb.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Greetings, I am new to this subject, but I believe that if our society were to clone people, then it should clone the children of abortions. In this case I could see a need to rectify a great tragedy. It would solve the issue of abortion. Those who want it can have it. Then once the abortion was discarded as waste it could be taken by those who want to save it to give it a second chance at a life that could never have been. The unwanted child could then be adopted by those parents who want a healthy baby. An abortion That was given up and treated as so much excess biological waste now given a new lease on life. That situation alone will create a new storm of thought. Who will truly have custody of the child once it lives? The parents that killed him or the ones who saved him? I would hope that the ones who saved him would. Given time, there will come a time, when someone will do it. And then America and the world will be a very different place indeed. In my view this would be the only instance, other than cloning of organ tissues, that a full clone would be necessary. And it would be right. Life is too precious to throw away like that. We were given the ability to create life by God, and now we have learned of to save those that could never have been saved. And every minute we debate this issue, another abortion is done, and another child is lost. Hopefully, those who have the power, will have the insight to use this technology to save those that can be saved.

Thanks for reading. Kao V. (Vangk32@gbvaxa.uwgb.edu)


Date: Sun, Jan 11, 1998 7:27 PM From: tjefrson@chicom.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that cloning humans should be rigorously pursued until a way is found to grow spare parts and regrow limbs. All this fuss about a law against human cloning is just the religious ignorant trying to legislate their nonsense again. Nuclear physicists have a law "If it can happen it will happen." exemplified by Hiroshima. If anyone thinks that the human form will remain as it is for long he better stick his head back in the geological record. With technology humanity will be obsolete even much sooner. Anyone serious about solving moral problems should see my web page at www.chicom.com/users/tjeff, or write me at tjefrson@chicom.com.

Charles


Date: Sun, Jan 11, 1998 4:39 PM From: emergenc@airmail.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am a student in the eighth grade writing a paper on the ethical aspects of human cloning. I have read a lot of things that say that human cloning is wrong because we would be playing God. Has this argument really been thought out? If human cloning is playing God, then taking medicine when you're sick is playing God because really you're doing the same thing. You're manipulating and defying nature. Taking vitamins is playing God. Exercising is playing God. And, most certainly, in-vitro fertilization is playing God. They are all essentially the same thing. I have also heard that clones cannot possibly be human. If you learned today that you were a clone, would you feel any less human? Next time you oppose cloning, look at it in terms of you instead of others.


Date: Sat, Dec 13, 1997 6:49 PM From: aantgaum@clic.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi everybody, like theophilus@mail.snider.net, I don't think cloning is ethical for this generation, but who knows, maybe in 50 years, mentalitiy will have changed... but I'd like to know something important about cloning (because I'm studying in biology) Is it really technically possible right now? What are the prerequisite for such feat? If somebody could me more about that (you don't have to simplify, I'll understand every medical term you use) I'd be very grateful Thanks a lot.

Antoine


Date: Thu, Dec 11, 1997 5:50 PM From: bridson@recorder.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi, I would like to say that the cloning of humans is unethical. I say this for a specific reason, we can clone humans, and we can change that humans genetic make-up. As a reult, if the wrong person got their hands on this technology, they could create themselves the perfect soldier. This could be the begining of World War Three.

A citizen


Date: Wed, Nov 26, 1997 9:05 PM From: derek@ubet.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The issue for me isn't whether we should or shouldn't clone humans. The issue for me is why we would want to. There isn't exactly a shortage of human beings on this planet. And who would you clone anyway? You'd have to look for some perfect person. And quite honestly, I can't think of one single person who would be worthy of being cloned. And even if they were, there is no guarantee that they would be as good without the memories, experiences and decisions that ultimately make a person complete.


Date: Mon, Nov 17, 1997 8:32 PM From: defaultuser@domain.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

No. Cloning is bad. If we start, who will say where to stop? It will get out of hand. It is not ethical, and should not be up to us to play god.


Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 2:08 AM From: jmdevrie@indiana.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Mr. theophilus@mail.snider.net, as an obvious theist, you are standing upon the beliefs that we, as humans, are struggling with God's original intentions. We continue to desire more control. you can denounce the artificial creation of human life as if we were playing God. Where do you draw the line? Would administering a simple medical procedure be enough to label it playing God?


Date: Wed, Nov 12, 1997 10:45 AM From: msylves3@immaculata.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe the cloning of human beings is immoral. It diminishes a human persons individuality and dignity. We are all created in the image and likeness of God and human cloning ignores this reality. It is contrary to the moral and natural law and simply it is wrong. End of question.

Michelle sylvester, student at Immaculata College, msylves3@immaculata.edu


Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1997 7:44 AM From: Peplinv@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I personally think it is immoral and unethical to clone the human body or any other being. In the case of cloning humans for the sole purpose of attaining body parts for needed transplants and such, is the clones life that invaluable? Doesn't the cloned human have emotions and feelings of its own? If we start to clone humans, how do we determine what is human or what is man made? If a "human" is more than 50% man made, is it really human? Should we feel pity on the man made creature if it is used in this society for derogatory puposes (working in sweatshops for little to no pay, extracting body parts at will, etc). When will it end? Human cloning might seem to be a good idea on the surface, but when you dig deeper into the matter, the world will see that the human race will in face cause its own falling out, and human cloning is just one more step toward distruction.

Victoria Peplin


Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 6:29 PM From: theophilus@mail.snider.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Human cloning presents a true ethical dilemma: if we CAN do it, SHOULD we do it? As a Christian, I believe that when we are dealing with matters of life and death, we should hold to the age-old traditional standard of natural life and natural death. No contraception or fertility treatments (invitro etc...) and no CPR, respirators or any other technique that would attempt to stave off natural death.

Human cloning obviously falls into the artificial life generation category as does other fertility techniques, therefore I would reject it on the grounds that the transcendant/immenant God (who alone has the prerogative as Sovereign Creator) is the one who determines when or if a person is born, as well as what physical and psycological characteristics he or she would have. This holds true as well for the time of death which would be in the hands of the Creator himself. The issues of life and death are of such import because of the belief that human beings have an immortal soul and therefore an eternal destiny. For these reasons natural (God directed, for nature is not autonomous) life and death should be upheld as the time-honored standard.

As human beings, we cannot "play God" in the truest sense of that term; we simply work with God-created raw material which we then shape according to our own desires thereby "playing God".

Because belief in God (that is, a belief strong enough to permeate a society and cause it to hold to certain religious ethics) is on the wane, there is no mechanism in our society strong enough (or wise enough) to set a standard. Technology is the only "god" that we acknowledge, and it knows no bounds. For this reason the classic ethical question: if we can do it, should we? will be answered in the affirmative any time we develop a new technology. This is especially true regarding medical technologies.

As Dostoevsky said: "if God is dead, then all things are permissible." It would seem in our day that the Nietzschean "Will to Power" is the order of the day. Because of this I believe that human cloning will be done. It is the logical conclusion of a Godless and standardless technocratic worldview. I would like to ask another question about human cloning before i give you my opinion on the topic. According to the experts, do you think human cloning is technically possible? What are the prerequisite?

Now I don't [think] human cloning is wrong but it would take few generations to completely accept it. It takes time to change a mentality.


Date: Sun, Oct 12, 1997 5:06 PM From: patb@webbnet.com To: DoktorMo@aol.comj

Before we begin asking the question of whether or not humans should be cloned perhaps we should ask the question, " Who are the people that are absolutely crucial to the procedure of cloning a human?" the answer WOMEN. If every woman said a collective no, you will not use our eggs or wombs and nurturing to create a human clone the question would be moot.

However, in the research that I am doing for my thesis on human cloning rarely are women's voices and their concerns heard re: this issue. If you are aware of any such input or information anywhere in the debate I would be most interested to hear of them.

Thanks, Pat


Date: Tue, Oct 7, 1997 7:31 AM From: vad4145@garnet.acns.fsu.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Now that cloning is possible, people are becoming concerned about human cloning. I do not believe that cloning whole humans is correct. However, cloning a heart ora liver for a person to live is great. Cloning plants and animals to help feed people who don't have food and plants so that there are more vaccines and crops.

Thank you, Vitina DeGregoria


Date: Tue, Oct 7, 1997 12:22 AM From: prelso@ma.ultranet.com (Paul Swenson) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I found the comment of someone before me claiming "god has no power, as proved by science" (or something like that) truly amusing. How can you ay such a thing? What about the origins of the universe. Something can't come from nothing. Another opinion I hold is that when one looks at DNA, it is but a simple strand of chemicals, yet it knows the position of every cell in the human body, the shape of of every nerve, the structure of life itself. In the Bible God speaks (sorry if I sound like a Bible-thumper here) of how he has convicted men of His existence through the things he has made. We don't know how a billion things that we encounter every day work. If there was nothing regulating the universe, would it not fall apart? Even atoms are a mystery. We have seen that like charges repel each other. But would the dozens of protons in an atom, with their clearly positive charges, not fly apart if there was not something that we can't comprehend holding them together? The protons are sitting right on top of each other! Ponder that for a bit, then mail a response. As for cloning, I can't really take a stand. It is merely an advanced version of genetic engineering. So is that morally wrong as well?


Date: Mon, Oct 6, 1997 10:04 PM From: stabilm@alleg.edu (Mark Stabile) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am a practicing Roman Catholic Christian and a premed student. I feel that science has done a lot of great things. There seems to be way too much gray area to make a decision at this point, but without restrictions things that shouldn't be done, or at least not done yet, often occur. For this reason, among several others, I feel that humans should not be cloned. I am not sure what the future holds in this field, but as someone aspiring to be a doctor, I feel that science shouldn't be solely for knowledge. Scientific undertakings should be done as to uplift society. Cloning humans is just a step too far, and shouldn't be even considered until enough good can be promised to outweigh the bad. Only at that point should the cloning of humans be evaluated. I don't think that it will ever be ethical. However, law and morality often differ.

Mark Stabile Jr.


Date: Sat, Oct 4, 1997 9:32 AM From: vditta@airmail.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

To imply that science in general, and cloning specifically, has made God expendable is ludicrous. Even though we as humans may be able to relicate some of the miracles of God, we can never replicate or replace God. My belief in God has never been threatened by any scientific discoveries or advances. God gave us knowledge and free will. As Christians, we should never try to halt scientific research or development. Instead, we as humans -regardless of whether we are Christian or not- should work to ensure that those developments are used in moral and ethical manners.non-Christians as well.


Date: Fri, Sep 26, 1997 4:37 PM From: lee9753@imap2.asu.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Human cloning should never ever be done. Not only is it unethical, it is impractical. Evolution through natural selection has spent all of time developing biodiversity for the sake of adaptation. If we start cloning humans, we will begin to decrease the diversity of our gene pool. This will decrease our ability to adapt to environmental changes. This means eventual extinction. Sure, there are people who argue that we will someday be extinct anyway, but is self-destruction really the way to go? We ought to die out fighting instead of causing it ourselves.

Leslie Easley, Arizona State University


Date: Mon, Sep 22, 1997 1:55 PM From: Sigma113@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Throughout the century it seems that the issues of most concern, especially with regard to the last 25 years, have been those in the area of bioethics. Cloning, however, opens up an entirely new window of scientific advancement for science, and moral decline, ethically. The fact of the matter is that the cloning of humans, while certainly holding astromonical benefits for the human race, is a bomb waiting to be detonated. While many would say that if cloning is kept within the confines of the laboratory, it would be perfectly safe, in point of fact, it cannot. As with any issue, one must always look and see if it is feesible to restrain the practice of something recently legalized. Examples of this would be assisted suicide and marijuana. In the case of cloning, the practice isn't one of choice for the participant because they are yet to be created. One may choose to have a doctor help them die or to use marijuana to reduce pain, but with cloning, someone is being brought into the world who is theoretically a duplication of one other. The market potential for such a practice is so great that the implications for illegal activity are endless. In essence cloning certainly holds advantages, but the use cannot not be restricted nor can it be beneficial to the parties involved.


Date: Thu, Sep 18, 1997 6:09 PM From: jes56@cornell.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The truth is that science has made god expendable and truly proves the fact that god does not exist because science has convinced us that he has no power.


Date: Tue, Sep 16, 1997 4:34 PM From: unaida@ix.netcom.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I vote a most emphatic NO to human cloning. Humans should not be artificially replicated--Man has no right to play god.

Nick Bilokonsky


Date: Mon, Sep 8,1997 8:48PM From: gabuckner@clnk.com (Gary Buckner) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that we should not clone mammals. God has granted us with reproductive organs and we should let our body function as made to. I believe that we are "fooling with mother nature" if we start to use the ability to clone. All natural happen for a reason, death and birth. Let God do His job.


Date: Tue, Aug 19, 1997 7:33 AM From: scipio@keyway.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

DoktorMo, As I was "surfing the Web" I read the some of the articles regarding human cloning. Varied responses have valid conclusions. We need to step back further and really evaluate "us" as humans. Are we really ethical? Or do we pretend to use it as a way to manipulate what we really want? Take the discovery of the nuclear energy. It seems most of the time and monies spent were that to destroy each other, yes there are reactors built for the purpose of generating electricity to help human kind, but the amount of monies spent on nuclear devices to destroy far surpass. With than in mind, human cloning will continue the same route and be manipulated like all great discoveries in science. Suffice it to say there are people out already attempting to clone humans if they haven't already done so. Would it not be ethical to tell us, the public if they have done so already? You decide. A.S.


Date: Tue, Aug 12, 1997 2:29 PM From: towill@vmmc.org To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If we set aside ethical issues for a second and just look at cloning itself, we see that it is in some ways very similar to a spontaneous process, and in another sense a reproductive technology (one among many). As far as being spontaneous, identical twins can, in a way, be thought of as clones of one another. The difference between twins and bonafide clones is, of course, that twins are genetically identical to each other, yet distinct from their parents, while clones and parents are the same. As far as being a reproductive technology, it is not radically different from current techniques. All fertility-manipulating procedures, to some extent, expand the sphere of control we may exert over the reproductive process. Cloning expands that control to include the derivation of the genome from a single source. If one person in a couple were infertile, or if there were a high probability that he or she would pass a debilitating genetic condition to an offspring, cloning could provide a way to have a child.

Now, if we get back to the ethical issues, and look at them in the context of the similarities between cloning and more well known and accepted practices, we see that these issues are also not altogether new.

Would a cloned person be denied a property of "uniqueness" that non-cloned people are presumed to have? Leaving aside trying to clarify what that property might be, identical twins provide some insight. Anyone who has known twins knows as well that, while remarkably similar in some ways, they are not altogether "identical". We could also say the same for any pair of siblings, or even some close friends. Where our unniqueness comes from is a facinating and importnat question; but it is not solely our genetic compliment that underlies our individuality, or for that matter our similarities. To contend that it is seems to me a very truncated and restrictive notion of uniqueness.

Would a cloned person be precluded the rights non-cloned people are presumed to enjoy? Most modern outlines of rights are predicated on the individual, regardless of how that person came to be. There would be no non-arbitrary reason for recognizing different rights for cloned individuals than for non-cloned individuals.

Would a cloned person be regarded as having been made in the image of the parent, and thus in some way expected or pressured to live as the parent dictates? Probably, in some cases. But isn't this sadly all too common with non-cloned people as well? That is not to say it is not a problem, but recognizing it only in the cloning situation is implying that it does not exist elsewhere, and, to some extent, using cloning as a scapegoat.

Is cloning against god's will? Is it unduly giving humans god-like ability? For me, here is perhaps where there really is room for debate. However, there is no reason to limit the question to the context of cloning. Just how far is all medical science, technology, and practice congruent with a divine will or order, whatever one may deem that to be?

Has our zest for seeing if we can do things taken precedence over the question of whether we should? Rather than something fundamentally new, human cloning is just the newest wine in these old bottles.


Date: Sat, Aug 9, 1997 5:27 PM From: merrick53@ainop.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

First let me say you have a wonderful page. I just stumbled upon it and it will be very helpful to me, as I am currently a pre-med student minoring in bio-ethics.

As for the issue of human cloning, I agree with your position that cloning for the use of organ transplants would be unethical. However, I would not be opposed to research involving the use of highly developed apes, such as bonobos, for this same purpose. I think, on the other hand, that there are many more negative reasons for research of human cloning than positive. In other words, the bad side heavily outweighs the good. If successful in cloning a human (and they are actually quite far away from this), then many possibilities, such as eugenics or organ transplants may result. Also, what of the birth-right to have your own unique DNA code? The clone would have the identical multi-histocombatibility-complex as it's 'parent', and would be denied the God-given right to be an individual person. There would be nothing distinguishing him/her from it's originator. This, in itself, is enough reason to stay away from human cloning. Personally, I see no positive results from it, only the possibilities for horrifying, albeit far-off contingencies.

-Robert Graves


Date: Wed, Jul 30, 1997 10:59 PM From: hervano5@uwc.edu (Heather) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I was reading many of the responses and this is a reaction to a majority of them. Considering I believe animals and humans to be equal, I have to say many of you(especially religious people) are very arrogant to believe that you are more special than a sheep. The question isn't one of right or wrong or what's natural(is it natural for us to rape the world of natural resources for a dominant human ecosystem? - if you're on your computer reading this you're a part of it also!!). We are just animals, and on this planet we are the only ones with the ability to reason out of abstractness. That doesn't make us special. It just means we can think abstractly. Get a clue, God isn't the issue here, neither is some ridiculous notion of an obsessed ruler trying to create the perfect race(first of all it would take 100's of years to develop an army, in which case whoever was trying would be dead!!!Not to mention 1000 other problems with the ridiculous theory so stop thinking about it.) Your view of God isn't important, the only persons' who view of God is important is the persons doing the cloning. It's not technology destroying the world, it's this technology vs. morality dillema. Hold off on the technology you say. Get rid of the morality I say. Before you freak out, open your mind. I'm not talking about immorality, that's the opposite of morallity. I'm talking about the absense of the concept of morality from the debate. There's plenty of uneducated opinions out there, and plenty of closed minds. Don't worry, you won't be cloned. Face it, we've plundered this world, and we live in it and use and abuse all it has to offer. Please get off Do You Think We're Gods? pulpit. Until you're ready to be responsible for your own subsistence, realize technology is here and your a part of it's culture. Cloning is here, what should we do with it?


Date: Tue, Jul 29, 1997 10:42 AM From: johnna@interchg.ubc.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Does the way a person is "created" have an impact on the moral rights that person has, or the obligations that others have toward that person? Does the person that was conceived by rape, "accident" (ie. unplanned pregnancy) or for that matter by in vitro fertilization, have a different moral status than the one conceived by consentual intercourse? Most of us would probably say "no", believing that the moral status of the person, or individual, is independent of the method of his/her conception. If this is the case, then it would be immoral to treat individuals--regardless of the means of their conception--as slaves, merely as sources for organs, as soldiers, etc. Does a person's moral status depend on their genetic composition? Some people have problems with the "non-uniqueness" of cloned individuals. We don't treat identical twins (or triplets, etc) differently, simply because there are two (or more) of them. Having one person with a particular genetic composition does not allow us to treat the other twin any way we please. The second twin is not a "worthless copy", but has moral worth in and of herself. Moral status is independent of her non-unique genetic composition, she has moral status because she is a person. The same would be true of a cloned individual. It is not the cloning--ie, the method of conception--that is the source of the ethical dilemma, but rather what we do with the individual once s/he is born. Insofar as such things as enforced military service, enforced organ donation, and enforced employment in a particular field are considered immoral for "the rest of us", they are also immoral for individuals conceived through cloning. I sincerely hope that none of you suffer the pain of infertility, and the inability to have offspring that come from your own body and exhibit a genetic link to your own past (insofar as this is important to you). Not all of us can say this. Cloning may become a viable option for those who suffering from certain forms of infertility and who deem it important to have a child that is linked in a fundamental (ie. genetic) way to themselves and their own family line.


Date: Sat, Jul 26, 1997 8:46 AM From: DocReading@sprintmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Legal--yes. Moral--probably no. Ethical--probably yes. Why should a cloned individual have any less opportunity to live than another? If the issue is lack of genetic diversity, then people produced by incestuous relations would fall into the same category. Certainly, this is a costly and resource intensive procedure, it would probably be unethical to publically fund such procedures when there are many people in need of more basic considerations. An interesting outcome of the current procedure practiced on a massive and productive basis would be an imbalance of the female to male ratio since the procedure can only be performed on an ovum. Would this imbalance produce any unethical results?


Date: Thu, Jul 24, 1997 10:39 AM From: a.m.hedgecoe@uclan.ac.uk (A.M.HEDGECOE) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

First of all a minor, but important point of science. Dolly the sheep is *not* genetically identical to her 'mother' (or whatever you call the sheep that donated the nucleus); they share the same nucleic DNA, but differ in terms of their mitochodrial DNA, which is vitally important for the regulation of the cell. This has been ignored, largely, by the press and commentators; is it important? Depends on how you view the importance of genetic identity. Those people who object to cloning on religious grounds ('it's against god') are voicing a concern, not just about cloning but about any form of intervention (such as IVF)in human reproduction. Personally I don't find these objections convincing; it's hard to draw a line between 'god didn't mean us to manufacture babies' and 'god didn't mean us to invest in any medical interventions which interfere with his will', but it's a very personal thing. My objections to cloning, such that they are, concern the psychological status of people who have been deliberately created in the image of someone else (perhaps to replace a child for example). Non-uniqueness by itself is *not* a problem (have you ever met a pair of identical twins; they are more genetically alike than a clone produced by the dolly method, and seem to get by!). The psychological burden on soemone knowing they are a 'replacement' for a predecessor tho', could possibily be unacceptable.

adam Hedgecoe a.m.hedgecoe@uclan.ac.uk


Date: Tue, Jul 15, 1997 5:18 PM From: Nrse4morph@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Obviously this issue, while different from, will raise many of the same emotion filled arguments as abortion.

Yes, it can be used unethically, as in organ and fetal tissue donation, and I suppose it COULD be used to raise a Super race. If you want to legisalate against cloning for the purposes of organ donation I agree, it is and would be amoral to create a life just for the sole purpose of sacrificing it to serve the needs of and individual who needed one or more of it's organs.

As to the Super race, I think we would notice several thousand, or million children being raised to form an army in time to deal with the adults responsible, and disperse them and stop their military training. Besides, One man's Superman! is another mans so-what?

Many of the issue regarding cloning are really non-issues. We fear armies of Drug controlled or innately evil Arnold Schwartennagers taking over. While I suppose it is remotely possible, the logistics are horrendous. We can't even force grow wheat in quantities to feed the world, but we are afraid someone is going to be able to force grow, and educate, and train, and physically condition, and psychologicaly indoctrinate, and etc..... enough clones at one time to take over the world? Please. And we won't notice it happening either right?

What if someone wants another person "like me". So what. People spend money on foolishness all of the time. People have and adopt children inaproppriately all of the time. We don't stop them, why is this such and issue.

Since I'm here, lets tackle another aspect of this. Leave God out of this discussion EXCEPT where moraly appropriate. I can think of MANY things we need to improve about our behavior before we drop them to throw a lot of useless emotional energy into this debate.

For responses please contact me at nrse4morph@aol.com

[ Moderator's Note: Also please write to me, too! ]


Date: Thu, Jun 26, 1997 7:17 AM From: guymalpa@usa.net (Guy Malpass) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Cloning could be a good thing if it does not get out of control. If somebody like Hitler got control of cloning we could just fight back like we did in WWII.


Date: Sun, Jun 15, 1997 10:52 PM From: beljim@alphalink.com.au (Philip Alexander) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Cloning should not be permitted, if it is people will eventually clone humans and that could end up in disaster. god did not mean for us to reproduce humans in that way. WE HAVE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS USE THEM... Thankyou for taking the time to hear my point of view.


Date: Wed, Jun 11, 1997 10:17 PM From: sinealma@localink4.com (J.R. Crimm) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is wrong. They would have no soul, no mind. They would not be unique. it is wrong.


Date: Mon, Jun 9 1997 8:56 PM From: hgg@vortex.is (Hlynur Gudmundsson) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear Doktor Mo: I was reading in the newspaper to day that a cult in swiss where making a company that made cloning of Humans possible that made me think it was a joke but it was not.

God creative the world and everything in it. Scientist have made the nuclear bom and made flowers that where not when god made this earth they have twisted and turnd every liveing thing made it different ... but not better I think then they did this they have just stept over the line I think and its a big step to hell.

when a man and a woman make that choice of haveing a child its a butyfull thing but when a man and woman make that choice to clone they are not building the same human just a part of what it was it wont be the same so why do they do it the soul goes with you when you die and goes to heven ore maby hell ...

i cry form them who make that choice to make a clone ... they are saying to god ... i can make one two ... but they are wrong ... it will be a mistake to make clones ... it cant be rigth i hope that it will never happen there are more better ways to make a human ....

thank you and good bye


Date: Mon, Jun 9, 1997 3:53 PM From: DaniB888@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

All right. Let's say that I thought cloning humans was a good thing. I don't but play along with me anyway. If I had myself cloned, for whatever reason, wouldn't I have to wait for my clone to develop in the womb (whose womb would be used?), be born, learn to ______ (walk, talk, read, or write could each fit here very easily), go through college etc. before she would be of any real use to me? If the answer is yes, then I ask, WHY BOTHER!? The clone, after going through all of this, and having had different experiences than I, may not even like me or vice versa. I'll be a heck of a lot older than my clone anyway, so why shouldn't I just go and have a kid of my own. At least then, I'd have the fun of making it!

Send responses to DaniB888@AOL.COM


Date: Sun, Jun 8, 1997 1:35 PM From: cwright@sfsu.edu (Carolyn Wright) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe we are taking this cloning thing out of proportion. The argument that we are messing with nature is skewed, we are part of nature, for us to clone is no different than an animal using the hunting skills it has learned. The arguement that we'll end up like Hitler doesn't make sense, as long as people have different personalities, which they will, peoples idea of perfect will be different too thus if they wanted to have the "perfect" child odds are it will look and act and be COMPLETLY different from the next hundred couples idea of a perfect child. As for playing god, how far different is cloning than using medicine to extend one's life?

If you disagree please e-mail me at Johnnyd579@aol.com


Date: Sat, Jun 7, 1997 9:20 PM From: boghoh@rpi.edu (mary boghosian) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Doktor Mo: Cloning of human being, is a major development of the science of human genetics. However no matter how many identical humans are cloned, I do not think it can never reach to what God has done when he created the human. GENESIS Chapter 2-7 says, "then LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostriles the BREATH OF LIFE, and the man became a living being". Human cloning can produce exact types, but can not give identical BREATH OF LIFE. By the BREATH OF LIFE I mean blowing air, from a supernatural source, where you feel its existance when your eyes are closed, you receive the air blow, you feel different after you received the air blow, you inhale the air blown on your face, but when you open your eyes, that supernatural thing is not there. The BREATH OF LIFE is God's choice and act. No human can give it to the cloned person. Scientist and genetic engineers should use cloning activities for the purpose of finding cures to human fatal and cacerous illnesses. Government laws should support such activities. Answers should be sought to how to use cloning to dicrease social and medical problems rather than the opposite. I would like to see cloning used as a cure to some fatal illnesses rather than the opposite. By the way, I have a PhD in physics and an MBA in management, and I received the BREATH OF LIFE from God, miraculously, which changed my life overnight.


Date: Thu, Jun 5, 1997 8:10 PM From: niteone@net1plus.com (josh willis) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think cloning is horrible and at school I am in a debate where I must debate for something I don`t believe in. I have to debate that it`s good. I think it is unethical and we are trying to play god. The world is already overpopulated. Why put more people on it if you want children just have. Because it will be so expensive anyway no one will be able to do it. Lovergirl


Date: Wed, Jun 4, 1997 8:55 PM From: KMspnc@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Is it theoretically possible to clone a grown human using the 'building blocks' of the human body, like a etherial soup to create a clone? The human body is made up of a simple chemical formula. But If you put the chemicals together you get a soup. Could that soup be used in making a clone of another human. And is it possible to create a clone with the memories and knowlege of the origanal using the origanal subjects brain. What I'm getting at is kind of a cloning/Lazaris idea. If this is not possible even theoretically, I have some ideas. I'm not a scientist but I know alot of bio-chemistry. I'm just behind on cloning.


MORE! Click HERE to read the previous responses.


To look at the results of our opinion poll on this topic, please click here.

Return to Bioethics Front Page


This page was last updated 7/18/2004