Sorry this discussion area is now closed. Below are comments by visitors.

Treatment of clones, Ron
Saturday, March 15, 1997 - 12:33:45 am:

I think that as long as the cloned human being is treated the same as
all other human beings (well, maybe better...) then there is less moral
dilemma here. If a person clones him or herself just to provide organs
to transplant, then I have a problem. I think it would provide a
marvelous experiment to investigate the nature vs. nurture
controversy.

To Clone or Not??, Dennis Gould
Saturday, March 15, 1997 - 05:20:49 pm:

The DNA duplication is disturbing to me. We recently developed ways to
prove a person was involved in a crime or not. With exact DNA in 2 or
more people, where does that leave us with scientific proof of crimminal
involvement? To clone animals, fruit & veggies for food may be a partial
solution to the world food problem, but for mankind, I think it's a
serious mistake. Too many twins/triplets etc. running around, & some people aren't attractive??? The question of God's job to create doesn't hold water with me. If God didn't want man to clone, He wouldn't of given science the knowledge to discover cloning, but I feel He meant it for
food purposes. Besides, cloning takes all the fun (Love) out of SEX!!

Maybe, James Henry Carr
Sunday, March 16, 1997 - 06:51:22 am:

The only moral delemma I see is that the world doesn't need any more
people. We are overpopulated now. The only thing I could think of would
be if we could clone a great person right before he dies so that we could
still have that person around to contribute to society, but does cloning
allow for all of that person's traits?

human clonimg, jen
Sunday, March 16, 1997 - 04:56:07 pm:

I think that if we cloned humans there might be an increase of unsolvable crimes because the police wouldent be able to tell who had done it because there would be more than identical person

organ clone, spring
Sunday, March 16, 1997 - 05:36:45 pm:

we may not need clone human, but just clone some organs when that is needed
for transplant, so we can give everybody who is on the waiting list a
perfect match organ( from his/ herself).

Clones not Same, Tony Lenzi
Monday, March 17, 1997 - 12:40:26 am:

I don't think that there is any reason at all that is acceptable
for the making of human clones. I can see cloning animals for meat
or plants for food, but why a human. Just because a person looks
exactly the same as his clone doesn't make him exactly the same.
Even identical twins often have different personalities, and one may
excel at something that the other doesn't. Cloning Micheal Jordan doesn't
mean that the clone will also be a basketball great. Jordan worked hard
to become who he is today. Secondly, what if cloning back fires. How
do scientists know that there isn't something they forgot. What a
cloned sheep mutates or something? Could new diseases be brought about?
There is still too much we don't know for us to start cloning.

Cloning, Wizzman
Monday, March 17, 1997 - 06:44:15 pm:

Ever sense mankind decieded to be civilized mankind has stopped evolving. But all the other animals in the world are still evolving. If we don't explore this path to improve are genetic make-ups we could all be left behind the nature evolution processs and go the way of the dinosaur....

Hate?, John Doe X
Tuesday, March 18, 1997 - 09:31:21 am:

I am not one to fight against progress. I am almost fanaticaly sure that Proggress is the only thing that will save the human race; but yes, I do have a few reservations about cloning.
Now, I have read the numerous articles how a clone would NOT be the same person as the person the person was cloned from. See, even now i have demonstrated my fears about civil rights issues
About human Cloning. If we do clone humans, it would most likely be viewed as just a clone, not a person. It might be very possible that "clones" would be turned into slaves for the "original".
So, with that in mind, I think we should be very careful about cloning humans, as we might have another civil war.

cloning humans???, pete
Tuesday, March 18, 1997 - 11:05:07 am:

I do not think that there are any acceptable circumstances for the cloning of a human.
If an organ is needed for transplant, how long will it take for the clone to grow to the right size for the recipient?
Then when it comes time for the organ to be 'harvested', does the clone have the right to say no? Does an individual who has been cloned have the same rights as one who was not?
I think it would be better to focus research in the cloning of organs not huimans

, Anonymous User
Tuesday, March 18, 1997 - 12:13:44 am:

Much has been made of the possibility of cloning human beings since the breakthrough in Scotland. The fact of the matter is that the only concievable use for human cloning is that of cloned organs to be used for transplant. This would eliminate the inherent problems in transplanting biologically incompatible organs, which are often rejected, and which force the user to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his/her life. Therefore, the president's question of whether human cloning research should be banned is absurd. The public's fears of cloning causing a "brave new world" are unfounded. Simply put, there are no practical reasons to clone an entire human being. We already have a very effective, and enjoyable, means of reproduction. Some believe that duplicate DNA will interfere with criminal investigations. However, such a situation would have to be planned years in advance of the crime, to allow the person to be cloned, and then to allow the clone to be raised. With those two primary concerns alleviated, it is unnecessary to hinder the efforts of cloning researchers any longer.

hell yeah!, grace pugh
Tuesday, March 18, 1997 - 10:38:53 pm:

Of course it can be used for unethical purposes...can't everything?
I just think that its a wonderfully amazing little toy scientists can
play with, in fact, I wish I had one. And of course the nature/nuture.
debate. Could you imagine knowing for certain exactly how much
of you and your culture is from genes and how much isn't...WOW!

Future of Cloning, Charles Darwin
Wednesday, March 19, 1997 - 06:48:13 am:

The possibility arises that we as humans will become immortal as a result of cloning. However, I believe this to be unlikely since the fact that if we keep taking cells from clones to make clones then hazardous mutations will arise in our DNA sequence. Therefore, after future replications our clones will be unviable and die. With cloning the need for sexual intercourse may very well be unnecessary to procreate. Therefore, sexually transmitted diseases should be on the decline.

From a nine year old, Carmel
Wednesday, March 19, 1997 - 11:47:25 am:

No, I do not agree in cloning any human beings under any circustances.
Cloning, is taking science too far.

No More Hitlers, Deborah Leslie
Wednesday, March 19, 1997 - 12:00:36 am:

Under NO circumstances should cloning be used for human beings. I cannot think or even imagine why we would ever need more of one person; that person is unique and needs to be treated as such. The thought of cloning humans is absolutely terrifying and needs to be strictly restricted.

No Big Deal, Colleen
Wednesday, March 19, 1997 - 01:47:07 pm:

Cloning is just another kind of reproduction. It doesn't involve sex, but many species of creatures don't have to have sex in order to reproduce. So I don't see what the objection to cloning is. We simply would have more options open to us. There is nothing inherent in the process of cloning that dictates that it will be used for good or for evil. In fact, it may be very helful in terms of saving endangered species, or helping infertile couples be able to reproduce.

When to clone, Chris Chatland
Thursday, March 20, 1997 - 05:16:01 am:

When "clones" are given full legal,individual Human Rights,and when the
general public recognize that these so called clones are nothing but
"Intentional Twins",not fully formed xerox coppies of an already
existing Human Being.We are obviously not there yet!

Why?, John Doe X
Thursday, March 20, 1997 - 12:46:52 am:

Hey, its me again. I was reading Grace Pughs comments about can't everything be used for unethical purposes? I have a question for her: does that make it right? I mean, just beacsue someone uses a gun for unethical purposes doesn't make it Ok. And, Also You appear to be rather ignorant of the potenial effects. Genetic engineering could may well end life as we know it; and why would you want a clone? My best guess is well, a slave. See where this is heading? this is exactly what im scared of. And I am also going to comment On Collens letter. Cloning is just another form of reproduction? Think of it this way: say we give up sex in favor of cloning. Sex creates uniqe individuals. With cloning, there would be no new people... and eventually I beleive that the human race would die out, as there would be no change; this may be an old arugument but scince a "clone" has none of the expiriences of the original; there wouold be no progress, and no evolution; think of it:5 diffrent saddam husiens.... 10 of Charles Herwitz...... boom. Sigh. oh, well. And, i do agree that cloning could be benfital extra organs and such, but we need to see the big picture; but apperently, some of you are to short sighted to see it.

Something To Think About., Chiddo Luna, San Jose, CA
Friday, March 21, 1997 - 12:16:34 am:

Life and existence to me is not your physical being but more your thoughts, your ideas, your memories, your acknowledgment of individual thought. If we clone someone then send them out in to the world to be there own person, they create there own existence as an individual. John Doe X and his Why? Passage make many good points, John grazes an idea that is very true and very scary, the extinction and evolution of the human race. Imagine that for every 10 people one clone is made and sent out in to the world to function as a Individual in society. This person is not carrying his own set of DNA, but rather then DNA of another, soon the gene pool of the world gets smaller as more and more clones are produced. Eventually this will expose the human race to a disease or virus that has the power to wipe out the human race. Cloning to continuing someoneís life such as a scientist that is making ground braking discoveries is surely a grand idea, we do not have the ability to transfer thought and acquired knowledge yet. However if we did posses this knowledge what would make life such a unique and wonderful experience? What would make us strive to complete things, it is the limited time of life that keeps humans on our tows and ever striving forward, to evolve and discover. Colleen, (No Big Deal) said "it may be very helpful in terms of saving endangered species" however we would have to start cloning the endangered species almost be for they are ever endangered to maintain the gene pool needed to survive and endure disease and viruses. My view on cloning is that we should us it only as a stepping stone to cloning organs and plants. Besides we really have NOT cloned anything, we just weeded out natures way of preserving a race and protecting from total eradication. The day we duplicate the entirety, including individual thought and memory, is the day we have truly cloned a living being. Feel free to write me on this subject. chiddol@ix.netcom.com

Yehaw!, TravisCro@AOL.com
Saturday, March 22, 1997 - 07:59:59 am:

I think that if cloning was used to create healthy organs,for transplant, that it would dramatically decrease or eliminate rejection of the organ by the body. Of course they would need to find some healthy organ cells from the person that needed the organ transplant.

the fun side of things, Seiger
Saturday, March 22, 1997 - 09:31:27 am:

One thing's for sure. We can count on extremeley dangerous animals of the past(dinosaurs) to destroy us if not careful. If we can develop copies of viruses than we could work with them by studying ways for it to attack viruses that are alike. Cloning would allow us to break the spread of AIDS. May be we could make copies of one virus and train its copies in a different environment to do work such as the white bloob cell. Cloning could create social problem too. Suppose you like this girl but she has identical copies. What are you gonna do? Date all of them to find the perfect match, If they all like you then poligomy is all good. Another thing would be the cross between the Neantherthal man and modern man, I think there we would create a new race.

Insta-sib, Barrie
Saturday, March 22, 1997 - 05:17:20 pm:

I was 39 when my son was born, and now he's 15. He often talks about wanting a brother or sister and I tell him I feel for him, but it's just not in the cards. Then after the sheep, I said, "That's how you can get a brother--we can clone you. You're okay, and I wouldn't mind two of you." The next day we had a fuss getting ready for school and I walked out the door agitated and angry. He asked, "You still want to clone me?" I cracked up! with a sense of humor and timing like that, I'd clone him in a heartbeat!

Go ahead - CLONE!, Tatyana
Sunday, March 23, 1997 - 03:46:08 am:

Lets face it, how can we resist it? Isn't cloning humans the FIRST
thing you thought of when they cloned the sheep?? OK, so its not
without its problems,be they moral or physical, but don't we have to
try it, just to SEE! Other than contact with aliens, or rejuvenating
the dead isn't this the scientific DREAM that we all have??

SAY NO TO CLONES!, Edward
Sunday, March 23, 1997 - 06:35:30 pm:

I don't think that humans should be cloned under any circumstances. First of all, it would ruin the image that each person is different and an individual. Second of all, cloning is risky. It took about 300 tries to clone the sheep. The other cloned sheep had major disabilities and were deformed. What would happen to the other 299 babies? Third, cloning humans would ruin almost all of the modern ways of identifying criminals. The DNA, fingerprints, lip prints, and eye retinas would all be the same. Cloning humans for any purpose is inethical and risky.

Cloning, Annonymous
Monday, March 24, 1997 - 11:10:55 am:

I think it would be fine to clone humans as long as they weren't treated differently from the other "original" human being. And as long as they didn't hurt anybody in the process of the cloning.

Cloning is not photo-copying., Stacy Braslau-Schneck
Monday, March 24, 1997 - 11:16:32 am:

The only circumstance I can think of to clone a human is if that one human had some genetically valuable trait - immunity to cancer, say, or a hyped-up immune system. Then those people who have this gene could make up a larger part of the population and add to the gene pool. Otherwise, every child born is unique, regardless of whether that child's origin was cloning, articifical insemination, the splitting of an early embryo (as in "identical" twins), or good-old fashioned sex.
Clones are twins. They're not mindless, they're not evil, they're not lower-status humans, they're not machines or automatons. They're also not the same age as their adult source (by definition). They're not even identical to their adult source, since "nature", the physical, mental and social environment that surrounds us, plays a strong part in how we turn out. Hitler's clone might turn out to be a very nice guy. Einstein's clone might be happy in the patent office or out womanizing. I think both the dangers and the advantages of cloning humans are over-rated.

The Family Experience., America's Youth
Monday, March 24, 1997 - 12:45:08 am:

Under no cicumstances do I think humans should be cloned. The whole existance of the human race has counted on the atraction of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together and have a family of their own. just because we CAN doesn't mean we HAVE TO. It is immoral to deprive a person, even a clone, of knowing wich traits you get from your ancestors and the whole belonging to a family.

Star Wars, mike brown
Monday, March 24, 1997 - 06:55:53 pm:

Interstellar colinization could provide an interesting use for the technology. If the DNA donor cells could be preserved it would be a method of increasing the genitic pool which could be transported.

The Rights of Cloned Humans , Amanda
Tuesday, March 25, 1997 - 07:44:45 am:

If and only if the person was treated as a true human being and not treated as some crazy experiment, then it could be okay to clone humans.

Find something else, Jessica Wagner
Tuesday, March 25, 1997 - 07:48:58 am:

I beleive that there are no execptions to cloning a human being because it is no right of the public to intervene and take on the act of God allow nature to stay as it is and go find a cure for AIDS!

Nope, Me
Tuesday, March 25, 1997 - 07:51:57 am:

Under no circumstances is it acceptable to clone human beings.
When a donor is needed for human transplants, if it is meant to be, God
will allow a donor to be found. When cloning for sports teams or other
selfish reasons, the odds are that the clone would turn out nothing like
the original.It is a waste of science's time, money, and effort.

, JMO
Tuesday, March 25, 1997 - 07:58:09 am:

I think cloning is a power just waiting to be abused. I think if we start cloning people we defeat the purpose of creation and reproduction. It is morally wrong to clone humans for any reason Period.

Cloning, John karavas
Tuesday, March 25, 1997 - 09:55:37 am:

Cloning of humans is inevitable - so many people with so many motives to do so. When it happens we will have an entire new batch of moral and legal issues to debate. In the end, the losers will be those who came to this earth by way of cloning.

NO, JJ
Tuesday, March 25, 1997 - 12:28:55 am:

I Don,t thnk we should clone. People shoundn't play god.

I disagree!, medomom
Tuesday, March 25, 1997 - 08:03:27 pm:

I do not agree with cloning human beings. I feel that this is interfering
with nature and with the ability God gave us to create children.

Clone Away, My Children!, Rob
Tuesday, March 25, 1997 - 10:18:37 pm:

I think people have to get over the fact that we, as humans, are no more than a haphazard collection of cells. There's no mystery there.

People need to lose this silly notion of "morality" and "human rights", and realize that people are just walking objects whose complexity has simply allowed for the process of thought.

That said, we should clone any and everything we can get our hands on. It will teach us a lot more about the workings of DNA, we could fight disease, have more food and just generally have a lot more fun.

, Anonymous User
Wednesday, March 26, 1997 - 06:16:10 am:

Abosolutly not!!!!!! People are who they are because of their heritage and that would be a disruption of all human intelligence to have replicas of Cindy crawfords.

acceptability of cloning, anonamous
Wednesday, March 26, 1997 - 01:48:50 pm:

I believe that the cloning on humans is unexeptable under any conditions. It God wanted there to be more of us humans he would have made us. As it is the world is over populated and we don't need to help it along any more that we are.

Cloning is unacceptable, Anakin Skywalker
Wednesday, March 26, 1997 - 06:43:12 pm:

Let me put in very simple terms: cloning is wrong.
Who are we, human beings, to play God? Think back to the
Promethean myth: Prometheus stole an element he wasn't allowed, and
it summarily destroyed him. Will that happen to humanity?? There is no
possible way scientists could have figured out all the possible outcomes
and consequences of cloning.
For instance, if we cloned a bunch of sheep because they produce the best
lamb chops, a disease may develop that is specifically tuned to a partiuclar
genetic code. IF this code was the same for all sheep, well, there wouldn't
be any more sheep in the world.
To support other people's point, DNA testing is used in many court cases,
including the famous O.J. trial. Instead of the probability of O.J.
being the murderer 1 in 10 billion, it would be 1 in 1,000, because, lo
and behold, there are now 20,000 O.J. Simpsons.
Basically, NO TO CLONING!!!

Anakin Skywalker

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
-Darth Vader, A New Hope

No Human clones, J Attard Gozo Malta
Friday, March 28, 1997 - 04:25:17 am:

If human is cloned selfishness would be the bigest problem to face

ppp-207-212-159-12.scrm01.pacbell.net, Anonymous User
Friday, March 28, 1997 - 09:38:27 am:

I think that cloning humans could have some dangerous consequences. If
the clone were an adult, for example, it would be able to seriously
injure, or even kill somebody, but would probably have no concept of
morality (ever read Frankenstine?). Also, it's duplicated DNA could be
EXTREMELY unstable, possibly causing multiple mutations, either
painfully killing the creature or, far worse, unleashing a monster too
horrible to imagine. (A science fiction movie on that theme would be
interesting, though.) Better experiment with something like a mouse, &
keep tranquilizers nearby.

Sucks, doesn't it?!, Akkina
Saturday, March 29, 1997 - 09:54:09 am:

I think that it would be acceptable to clone humans for medical research, and if it would somehow save somebody's life. You could clone a person who is sufering from heart disease and give thim a heart transplant. You could also make a clone of the president to confuse terrorists. But no matter what scientists do with their knowledge of cloneing, it will someday fall into the wrone hands and create a major problem. Sucks, doesn't it?

Get Used to It, Eventually, Ted Myers
Saturday, March 29, 1997 - 12:59:32 am:

Following the procedure by which Dolly was cloned, human beings can probably be cloned just as easily, probably within a year if someone wanted to. Given enough time, someone will make a human clone. Will we be able to deal with this eventuality when it comes?

Some cultures in the world believe human identical twins are bad omens, and as such are treated less well than other babies. This is probably true in tribes where the population is so small that people have very little experience with twins. Likewise, with every scientific advance the human race, like a small tribe surveying a new landscape, is challenged by ethical questions so alien that we are likely to invent taboos designed to avoid them.

Go gently into that good night.

Keep the debate alive!, Tiffany Noecker
Saturday, March 29, 1997 - 06:02:22 pm:

Allright, Ted Myers! If history has taught us anything about human nature, it's that we are stinkers at heart and we will do anything that catches our fancy. Hey, one of our oldest folk stories concerns a youth who was specifically warned against eating a piece of fruit. Didn't stop her then, did it?
Luckily, we are in the age of communication, so ideas are being shared and spread more quickly and unilaterally. At this point, our best defense against a monumental backfire in cloning is a huge national gabfest. We need to discuss this endlessly, playing it over and over again for the benefit of those who didn't hear it the first time. We need to hear the opinions that arise from fear so that we may address them adequately.
I am intrigued by the promise of rejection-free organ transplant and the nature vs. nurture question, and concerned also about the monoculture problem (the dwindling of the gene pool) as well as the huge potential for abuse. I am quite sure that every application which has been mentioned with disgust already will rear it's ugly head again as the technology progresses.
To answer the question, I would have say that whole-human cloning does not have immediately obvious benefits - at this time, it seems to be self-serving and exploitative. There are numerous civil rights issues, forensics concerns, moral jet streams, and evolutionary speed bumps to consider. Hopefully, we as a race will talk about all of this long enough that the message and the morality will sink into the heads of those who actually control the technology. I hope that we can turn this world debate into an adult conversation. We'll get a lot more accomplished if we don't have to spend time sifting through the alarmists' diatribes. Hopefully we will be able to hammer out a clear set of directives before the actual success of a human cloning experiment. I would rather live in a world where scientists like myself already had clear and well-documented parameters for cloning experimentation. After all, what if 1930's germany or 1990's Bosnia had already had fully implemented and widely accepted Civil Rights Laws? Indeed, we should not go gently into that night: we should all be carrying the lamps of knowledge!

Human cloning, Charlie
Saturday, March 29, 1997 - 07:49:41 pm:

I think human closing is immoral. The clones would not be treated like normal human beings. They would not have a unique genitic structure.

MLK, Jr. & personality, Jessie
Sunday, March 30, 1997 - 12:35:53 am:

I don't think that cloning humans will be anywhere near acceptable until we know if a clone would act like whomever it was modeled after. It wouldn't be acceptable to clone Martin Luther King, Jr., only to find out that he was a rascist, now would it?

Absoultely Not!!!, Elizabeth
Sunday, March 30, 1997 - 02:18:29 pm:

Under no circumstances! How would you feel if you were cloned? What
a disater! They could have someone like Hitler cloned and that
would be the end of the World as we know it! Also I've got a question,
does the clone act like the person it is cloned from? I would hate to
have someone just like me and they could probably even clone someone
without them knowing it!!! I think its a terrible idea!

NO CLONING!, Kerry
Monday, March 31, 1997 - 05:48:23 am:

I don't think thier should be cloneing . We would not be able to tell each other apart.

Like the Hemmingways"?, Edward J Dwyer
Monday, March 31, 1997 - 06:45:43 am:

I am not quite sure whether cloning humans should be done. What I do know is that cloning a human would make a physical carbon copy, but if you think it would make the person's character and personality the same, you're an idiot. I have yet to see proof that murder and psycho tendencies are solely gentically passed on. (Were ALL Hitler's, Manson's, & etc. ancestors psycho also?) How they came about, as well as EVERYONE in this world, is a combination of genetics, environment, PARENTING, etc. Now that is not to say a clone made from Dahmer would not follow in his father's footsteps just for the sake of continuing a legacy. (Quite the possibility with the Hemmingways')

net533.lib.umanitoba.ca, Anonymous User
Monday, March 31, 1997 - 12:37:52 am:

I think it would be acceptable to clone human beings if the father was not able to produce one for whatever reasons.

to clone,or not to clone?, Anjali Motgi
Monday, March 31, 1997 - 03:39:26 pm:

I defenetely do NOT think ANY human should be cloned!!! You would feel like
there's nothing special about you, because you would be a copy!

Random Thoughts, Anonymous User
Monday, March 31, 1997 - 09:56:16 pm:

Cloning? No way! All things happen for a reason. Species die out for a reason. Am I the only one who saw Jurassic park? People die for a reason. If nobody ever died due to cloning, say I can keep coming back as the exact DNA of me, then the world would get full. It's already too full we don't need anymore humans! And as far as the treatment of clones goes: It looks a little Star Treky to me. The idea of making clones and then "harvesting" them for their organs repulses me! If we think that clones could live normal human lives their entire lives, and think that we could make clones to cut them apart and use their organs we really don't even need to cosider ever cloning humans!!!

A Christian Perspective, Kyle Arens
Wednesday, April 2, 1997 - 08:26:18 am:

I think that the cloning of humans is against God's original plan, therefore it has serious moral consequences that need to be adressed.

No Human Cloning for me, Thank You!!, RJO
Wednesday, April 2, 1997 - 11:21:55 am:

I think it is unacceptable to clone human beings, it being a potentailly dangerous matter. It brings other things to mind, such as moral diallema,and other things.

No Guinea Pigs Allowed!, Alayne
Wednesday, April 2, 1997 - 03:42:41 pm:

I don't think cloning human beings is as big and exciting as people make it out to be. Just because a person has identical DNA as someone else doesn't at all mean that they'll act like the person they were cloned from. The genetic factor is there, but they won't have the same experiences and environmental factors as that person had. I suppose it could benefit science by letting them determine what factors are environmental and which ones are genetic, but a person shouldn't be created solely for the use of science and to be used as a guinea pig.

Mix-Ups, Erika
Thursday, April 3, 1997 - 02:58:32 am:

Actually, I think cloning humans would be a horrible thing to do. Firstly, people would find it so easy to two-time other people in relationships. What if you and your clone didn't get along? Would you be at each other's necks? Who would want to be eternally arguing with a 'brother' or 'sister' that was supposed to be the perfect pal, just like you? The world would be in chaos...

Cloning humans is kind of odd because it would be funny if you were looking at yourself and there wasn't any mirror. , Homeboys
Thursday, April 3, 1997 - 11:18:47 am:

Murdering, Heather
Thursday, April 3, 1997 - 11:24:55 am:

When you clone someone, they are a real person. They have emotions and thoughts and everything a normal person has. To make them only to use their organs is terrible. That is killing someone just to make someone else live.

Science, T.Zylla, Ed.d
Thursday, April 3, 1997 - 01:09:03 pm:

Whatever we decide to do about human cloning, it is certainly a complex issue in which the SCIENTIFIC community, not the POLITICIANS should be taking the lead.

Organ cloning, Molly
Thursday, April 3, 1997 - 02:27:45 pm:

I believe that using cloning for the purpose of organ reproduction would be sutiable.
There are a lot of people out there waiting for livers, kidneys, hearts, and other organs
for transplanting. Hundreds of children from all over the world are born each year with
irreversable birth defects each year. Being able to clone these organs from healthy ones would
go a long way towards solving this problem, and it could very well mean the difference between
life and death.

clones, dave
Thursday, April 3, 1997 - 03:08:19 pm:

it seems to me that if we can clone people to harvest organs,
we might also use clones for all manner of testing, i.e. drugs,
new surgical procedures, etc. would you rather have new technologies
tested on a mindless clone of you with more accurate results, or on
dogs and rats?

nac-new6-s43-115k.nac.net, Bob Z
Thursday, April 3, 1997 - 04:44:51 pm:

Very scary concept. Power hungry people. Ego driven people will use this science to meet their needs.

Have you people no curiousity?, Martin Metke
Friday, April 4, 1997 - 04:18:07 am:

Well, here I thought I was writing something original when I decided to
comment on the whole cloning thing. I think you all should know that I am
decidedly FOR cloning, for many reasons, not least of which is plain old
desire for knowledge. If you are against cloning and a close-minded indiv-
dual, feel free to skip this article...it's only gonna make you mad.
The technical problems with cloning aside, there are too many benefits
to the technique for research in this area to be cut off. For instance, I
believe that, in the process of research into cloning humans, invaluable lessons
about our reproductive processes will be unearthed. The benefits from the Human
Genom project, an cataloguing endeavor which differs from cloning mainly in that the
DNA that its researchers reproduce is not in any way viable, has already produced
several breakthroughs in the areas of gene therapy and genetic-disorder testing, simply
by allowing scientists in other fields to observe the workings of hjman genes. I've no
doubt that any cloning research will produce similar side-benefits just in the search
for better cloning techniques. The cellular causes of cancer and the precise requirements for
successful embryo development are just two areas which could very well use such information.
By cloning every member of a group of endangered animals several times, raising the clones,
and mating different clones in different combinations, wildlife conservators could increase an
endangered population's diversity exponentialy in just two generations. The clones would allow
both extremely fast regeneration of the original poplulation (clone the originals as many times
as needed to keep the group viable) and the ability to artificially increase diversity (since
various pairings of the originals could be mated simultaneously, via clones.) I know some of
you think that clones aren't real creatures, but think of it this way: Which would you rather
have, clone Manatees, or no Manatees at all, hmmm?
Now, about clones as fresh meatlockers for transplantees, don't worry! Haven't you been
keeping up on the latest in biotech? Transgenic pigs are being designed to carry *non-rejectable*
human organs. Pigs that would become bacon bits and footballs anyways now can also extend
the lives of scores of people who would otherwise die from lack of suitable donors. Soon, pigs
won't even be necessary: at least two companies have patented artificial frameworks on which to
culture live skin and liver cells. Given a few years, I don't doubt they'll have the ability to
grow muscles, hearts, everything the unhealthy person needs to extend their life. Just hop on
down to the organbank, deposit some samples, and Voila! in a few years, your replacement organs
will be waiting for you.
I notice that some of you are mildly paranoid that big brother, the Megacorps, or just your
neighborhood megalomaniac will try to clone themselves and take over the world. I say, so what?
If Our Illustrious Leaders have the time, money, and energy to devote to this project, let 'em!
Any government that attempts to retain power through cloned presidents or genetically engineered
super-soldiers is asking for a revolt anyways; they're just going to hasten things once their
citizenry finds out about any illicit dictator-xeroxing. Besides, any world leader is on his or
her fifth decade already, so a clone would only be in its twenties when that leader would be ready
to retire. Think about it, seriously: there's no percentage in super-soldiers; they cost too much.
It's much easier and cheaper to just train regular people to be blank, unfeeling machines than
it is to have blank, unthinking machines custom-built with bigger muscles and go-faster stripes.
I myself prefer to contemplate the benefits to desperate, honest folks that this technology
can provide. Say a couple is not just sterile, but perhaps nearing the end of their reproductive
cycle, or the wife is physically unfit to carry a child to term. Or suppose (Fundamentalists and
prudes, you should skip this. I won't be responsible for raised blood pressure) that a same-sex
couple wishes to have a child. Any of these couples could adopt, true, but at the cost of any
chance of continuing their genetic legacy. Suppose then that they, having exhausted all other
avenues but one, turn to cloning and genetic manipulation to ensure that their two lines join and
continue. Is that such a horror? Oh, I can hear you shouting already, "Boo! Hiss! What about
those poor, orphaned children? What about the scandals of same-sex couples with kids? What about
the evil of genetic manipulation?" To you whom I hear, I say, "FOR SHAME!" Isn't the current
adoption system perpetuated by religious factions, with their insistance on forcing young mothers
to carry unwanted, un-looked-for children to term? Would it be so horrible for that system to end,
replaced by a method of offering true offspring to otherwise barren couples? I think not. Would
same-sex parents be any less loving, or less effective? No, not according my gut feeling, or recent
studies. How about that "evil" genetic engineering? What's the difference between specifically
engineering a zygote for desired traits and choosing a mate who has desirable traits? Only the
level of specificity. Besides, from the comments I've read I'd have to say that most people
are darn conservative, an attitude which would cause most parents to request a minimum of change
in their child's genetic makeup. Most people think, if it ain't broke, don't fix it; if it IS
broke, just fix it enough.
In answer to those people who claim that cloning is "against God", I say get with the times.
That argument has *never* worked, because it is not a true argument. If there is an almighty God,
how can anything in this universe be against His plan? (Note: I use male pronoun reference only for
convinience: you should see how convoluted things get without *some* pronouns) How can you, an
integral part of that plan, see what your God has decided? How can we, creations of God, go
against His devine will? If we can, He can't be too bloody divine, now can He? Either there
is free-will and self-determination, in which case it is our own lot that we must choose, or we
are ruled by Divine Law, and what we do is a required part of some Grand Design. Sorry, that
argument got used against bathing regularly and flying, among other things; do you really want to
give all that up as well?
To those timid souls who feel that human genetic experimentation is unethical, I ask you,
why? What is unethical about the further delving into knowledge? Are you wary of unrestricted
experimentation? Surely not, in this day and age. To think that it will take *Ninety* days to
for the presidential panel to decide on the ethics of cloning, does that not prove that
no rash decision is possible in today's political atmosphere? The days of wild experimentation
are long gone, replaced by rigorous standards. I doubt that you need worry about researchers
gone mad with the heady power of clone-creation.
If it is the moral questions of altering the human race's genes directly, think about what
we do when we elevate athletes and models to such high position in our society. Are we not
deciding what traits are desirable? The question comes down to this: are we as a society ready
to dictate directly what individuals may do with their genetic material, their basic essence?
I certainly hope not. Besides, I don't think that a society which allows any damn fools to off and
procreate without thought to the consequences can honestly tell those who decide on an alternative
method of reproduction and who have the wherewithall to fund that method that they are not suitable
people to be copied.
Basically, cloning is one of those scientific breakthroughs that will be exploited, no matter
what. The irresponsible suggest that we bury this knowledge, hoping it will go away; that will leave
our society wholly unprepared for some unscrupulous abuser of science who has the determination
to use this technology nefariously. It is only by setting down standards, by responsibly controlling
the development of technology, that disasters may be avoided. Cloning is rife with possibility, are
we to just give it up? To throw this, possibly the secret to long life and good health, back from
the sea of discovery with a surly,"thanks, but no thanks?" Are we as a society truly so cowering and
afraid? I sincerely hope not. But I must ask you all this, as my final argument: Have you no
curiousity? Don't you want to *know* what cloning will bring? We can postulate 'til our posteriers
fall clean off, but that won't help find out for sure. I don't know about you all, but I'm for
this. I want to *know*.

-C&C, flames, what-have-you, send to n9246789@cc.wwu.edu
-Martin Metke

Sorry about formating, Martin Metke
Friday, April 4, 1997 - 04:27:02 am:

P.S. sorry about the formatting. All I can say is, it looked fine on
my moniter.
-C&C, Flames, what-have-you, send to n9246789@cc.wwu.edu
-Martin Metke

Is curiosity enough?, Timber Rat
Friday, April 4, 1997 - 08:10:27 am:

Martin, you show much interest and undoubedly have given considerable
thought to the cloning issue; however, isn't it questionable to treat
curiosity as a 'primary' ethical value?

Scary, Pat O'Brien
Friday, April 4, 1997 - 08:54:23 am:

Just the thought of it scares the hell out of me. Hitler would have
loved to have had the technology !!

cloning, Bradley Witenhafer
Friday, April 4, 1997 - 04:09:45 pm:

Yes, I think so. Then they can make a city of healthy people.
So you can have more smart people and people that have blood that
can fight diseases. More inventions can be made.

No Way!!, Elizabeth
Friday, April 4, 1997 - 06:53:26 pm:

I do not think human cloning is right.I thimk we should keep it as it is.
Would man be treated EQUAL if we started cloning humans?
If we cloned humans, the clone would only look like the person who had been cloned.NOT think like him\her. In coclusion I say NO WAY!!!!

Clones, Kristofer
Friday, April 4, 1997 - 06:55:18 pm:

To think that cloned humans would be clones is rediculous. By the
very fact of their unique view on life, observing every moment of
every day just as you do, makes them unique, albiet superfluous. We
have too many bored people having sex now. If science could come
up with a means to insure the clone wouldn't have a brain, I see no
reason why bodies, without personalities, could be cloned for internal
parts. There are way too few doners to stem the tide of need on this
planet. There is no such thing as a soul, other than self-awareness,
so if the brain were absent, I see no problem. Meat is meat, and the
rejection problem would be solved. Of course, you always get into the
depths of hell from religious right-wingers trying to stem the
progress of everything, not realizing that the only constant in the
universe is Change. Cloning is here, and just because people got rid
of a few tomato plants years ago does not mean this is going to
go away. Rational people are fed up with fear-based people ruling
others in the name of some god. Live your life the way you want to and
if you don't want to be cloned, then don't. But don't tell others how
to live their lives as long as it doesn't interfere with yours. We
could be eradicating everything bad about DNA right now if it wasn't
for the fact that germ therapy is interdicted in this country and
in Europe. And you have no one to blame but yourselves if you have
a baby with genetic deformities. You could have gone to a doctor and
had it fixed. Now what do you do?

LETS KNOW MORE, PETER S MARTIN
Saturday, April 5, 1997 - 02:24:01 pm:

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE MOTIVES OF WHY THIS EXPERIMENT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF WE FIND OUT WHATS BEHIND IT WE CAN LOOK MORE OBJECTIVLEY AT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE. I WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING THAT CAN BRING OUT THE WORST IN PEOPLE. THIS CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE ONE AREA THAT WITHOUT SOME FORM OF CONTROL CAN WORK TO OUR DETRIMENT. BUT ALSO THINK OF THE MARVELOUS BENEFITS THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED.

, Rita Grant
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 08:12:30 am:

Yes, I think humans should not eat animals, because if they can eat poor little helpless animals I think humans should be treated the same way.

dialup-101.kingsnet.com, Anonymous User
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 09:01:30 am:

Absolutly not! Thousands of babies are killed each day, why clone humans when the real thing is being murdered?

, Anonymous User
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 10:35:18 am:

I don't think that it would be acceptable because I don't think that they have done enough research to be able to do it.

inhumanity, patrick murray
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 10:36:32 am:

there should be no question, human cloning is morally wrong.It is
extremally sick of the scientists to play God. Also if clones of
humans were to walk on the street, instead of a zoo where they belong,
a new racial issue would surface.

, Anonymous User
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 10:36:49 am:

I think that it would be acceptable if a human was in need of something
that they can't get another of.

never, abba ca dabba
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 11:20:41 am:

humans should never be cloned

ebo's law, drew thibaut
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 11:20:49 am:

no circumstances

NEVER, Abbubica Yowanda
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 11:21:18 am:

I believe that only Allah should be able to produce new life.

cloning for the military, Kurt Schumacher
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 11:23:11 am:

I think that humans should be cloned for the purpose of the military. If you have an army of smart, strong men, then you would have the ultimate army.

never, abba ca dabba
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 11:25:44 am:

humans should never be cloned

, Lisa
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 11:27:07 am:

I think it would be acceptable to clone human beings only under the circumstance that they need some kind of transplant or something from their own body that only they could produce. Although I do think that it would be neat to have someons who looked and acted just like me, but I wouldn't do it just for the fun of it.

, Krisanna
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 11:30:05 am:

I think cloning human beings is not acceptable under any circumstances. This could cause many problems if the wrong people cloned themself.

just maybe..., RT
Monday, April 7, 1997 - 06:45:29 pm:

For a "twin" or your own tranplant doner....NO! Don't forget, the
"sheep method" requires a gestation period, and then the clone is
born from the mother as a baby, usually much younger than the original.
I can't ever see us ripping organs out of live children.
As for creating some sort of super army...C'MON! Mad science!
I would have to keep an open mind in a case where a loving couple
really wanted to have a child, and nothing else was possible. Perhaps,
if strict medical and legal guidelines were set up, this could be a
"God-send" to some.

easiest way out . . ., Manuel Rosa
Tuesday, April 8, 1997 - 09:01:13 am:

I agree that since is necessary and it have it place in the sociaty.
We cant prevent the incorrect use of science unless we prevent the
conditions for wich science could be misused. There are several good
things wich can be accomplish by cloning, like helping endangered spicies .
What I think is wrong is to be not resposible with our bodies, or the environment
and pretent to have a human parts warehouse , where we can find
a replacement if we damage our own original parts. Or to attempt to solve
global food necessities while we keep contributing to the hunger situation, by
damaging the environment or dispossing food reserve because it is not economically
possible to send it where is needed. Or because we cant control the birth rate, or educate,
or give insentive for people to control it.

CLONING, DREW MATSON
Tuesday, April 8, 1997 - 11:38:33 am:

Ithink that humans should only be cloned when we need people for a war,and NO other time.

Why???, Olaf
Wednesday, April 9, 1997 - 03:59:18 am:

I can't see any necessary to clone human beings. Maybe it willbe good to use this technologie in some areas in the world for foodproduction to help people.
Moreover there is a great danger if somebody uses this technologie in a bad way, for example crime, or to make soldiers for war. Just think about the developments
in the atomic area.
Thank you for reading, this was a message from Germany

Space Clones, Jeremy
Wednesday, April 9, 1997 - 08:02:41 am:

Cloning humans is entirely different than cloning anilmals.But, now that earth is getting ready for space travel, I think it would be okay to clone people, just to inhabit other planets.

human organ cloning, "Skip" Shultz
Wednesday, April 9, 1997 - 05:41:34 pm:

I'm against cloning the whole human being, but I am for learning the technique using animals
then applying it to cloning just the replacement orgen a human being would need so they wouldn't
have the "rejection problems" of organ trans-plants.

What's the price?, Judy
Wednesday, April 9, 1997 - 08:51:49 pm:

Whole people? What for? To live forever? Do people intend to clone micellaneous bodies and then chop them up, a leg here, a heart there, an eye for someone who needs one? Everything has it's price.

Okay, with limitations, Bruce Maynard
Thursday, April 10, 1997 - 09:13:08 am:

If 'the natural way', artificial insemnation and the like have all failed, then perhaps cloning a human would be acceptable... after all, it is really just a more difficult manner of in-vitro fertilization (and no doubt mujch more expensive). In no case,mhowever, should someone with a known genetic defect be cloned, nor should more than a generation or three be cloned from one another. Errors in replication of DNA would produce defects more rapidly than natueral processes, since the DNA groupings must be physically manipulated.

CLONING, Seth Martin
Thursday, April 10, 1997 - 05:35:25 pm:

My opinion is that cloning is pretty awesome. It would be cool to
have a clone of youself. But, some times it could go out of hand.
there could be wierdos tha would be cloning them selves hundreds
of times.

Organ Cloning, Paula Whetstine
Friday, April 11, 1997 - 08:18:32 am:

It would be wrong to clone the entire human being. That would add to the thoughts that scientists were "playing God." But much good can come out of this great technology. If organs were able to be cloned, the thousands of patients suffering from failing organs could receive them and gain their lifes back. Due to human and religious reasons, I believe scientists should not dabble in the area of whole-human cloning.

Moral Issues, Joe Cthulhu
Friday, April 11, 1997 - 09:56:19 pm:

It seems that the only REAL argument against cloning is that some religious folks consider it "Playing goD". The same thing was said when the Wright Brothers created the airplane.

Opposition to Cloning Based on Same Old Arguments Against Science, Jason
Saturday, April 12, 1997 - 03:19:49 pm:

While I certainly find the idea of growing human clones for the purpose of slave labor or organ donation, it seems to me that these undesriable situations will not be the necessary consequence of allowing human cloning. So long as clones have all the same rights and priviliges as any other human being, there is no danger of abuse of the process. Identical twins share DNA patterns and they still retain full autonomy as individuals; why should clones be different? What most of the opposition to cloning boils down to is either a religously inspired fear of tampering with human reproduction or the old argument that if man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings. I hope that argument doesn't still hold water. If it does, human cloning is the least of our problems.

Biodiversity, Robert Thompson
Saturday, April 12, 1997 - 04:47:32 pm:

Charles Darwin saw that biodiversity increases a specis chances for survival when the environment presents challenges to the survival of the specis. Our creation of hybrids of plants and animals has certainly been a great boon to our agriculture. But, this also increases our risks. A monocultural strain of a specis might manifest a previously unknown weakness to some agent that can easily damage or threaten its survival. For instance, we can easily loose a significant percent of our corn crop due to an outbreak of some disease. This is because most of our seed corn varieties are hybrids. They are descendents of a very narrow genetic line. Chances are good that a parasite will some day find this weakness and exploit it.

, Derrick Jenkins
Saturday, April 12, 1997 - 08:02:05 pm:

There should be no circumstance that we clone human beings because the person that is cloned would have no history of a family and would be the exact same as the other one. any way why would we even want another human being we need no human food source so let nature take it's corse

fuck you, Campoy
Saturday, April 12, 1997 - 08:05:44 pm:

There should be no circumstance that we clone human beings because the person that is cloned would have no history of a family and would be the exact same as the other one. any way why would we even want another human being we need no human food source so let nature take it's corse

, Anonymous User
Sunday, April 13, 1997 - 10:54:05 am:

I don't think we should clone humans. It's like playing God.

NO WAY!!!, Kate
Sunday, April 13, 1997 - 11:02:37 am:

I don't think we should clone humans. It's like playing God.
I think it's okay to clone animals because we use them for food and
it would be great to clone endangered species so they could come back
, but cloning humans is a totaly diffrent thing. It shouldn't be allowed

Make it so!, Chris L.
Sunday, April 13, 1997 - 11:21:48 am:

I believe that science will, in the near future, be able to grow the organ separately. There is no need to clone a person (and accelerate the growth, which we can't do - yet) just for an organ. Also, as Stacy said, "cloning is not photocopying". Perhaps if we built a replicator (also not yet possible) that had high enough resolution, we could actually duplicate (not clone) a human, preserving memories and personalities.

Cloning, like just about all technology, is neutral. It is not evil or good in itself, but the uses may be. For instance, if we use genetic engineering to make super-soldiers that feel joy in killing, yes that may be unethical. But if we use it to help people, cure diseases like Alzheimers, cystic fibrosis, or Parkinsons, yes that is ethical.

Why are we making such a big deal about HUMAN cloning? If someone messes around with human life, they are said to be "playing God". (I'm agnostic) What if we mess around with the genes of a supposedly lower creature, any type of bacteria? (which we already do a lot) Do the people who do that get labeled like someone who would try to do it with humans? Doesn't human life feel cheapened if someone can take a cell from an adult and grow a new human? Isn't that a big part of the debate?

, seeku ess
Monday, April 14, 1997 - 09:41:10 am:

i don't think it is right to clone humans. Because, like president Clinton said, it would be like "playing God" , and that is not right.

no way, kathy
Monday, April 14, 1997 - 09:43:08 am:

under no circumstances what so ever. cloning people would give this world more problems that it can possible handle. the world would be a total disaster.

human cloning, patrick plain eagle
Monday, April 14, 1997 - 01:26:20 pm:

It should be up to the person thet wants to cloned.Not president Clinton.

WE SHOULD CLONE, Trevor Warrior
Monday, April 14, 1997 - 01:30:27 pm:

I think that we should clone humans, animals and also vegtables
what if a major war breaks out and we need food. Or what if globel
warming comes and melts the polor ice caps we would be unable
to grow fruit so then cloning should not be banned.Maybe some
people may want to be cloned and if so we should clone them
and if we mess up we can all was try again. ALBERTA,CANADA

Why?, Dara J
Monday, April 14, 1997 - 07:08:20 pm:

Under no circumstances is it acceptable to clone human beings. It is
God's unique gift to man that we are able to create human life through
NATURAL procedures. It is not up to man to form a human being. The
responsibility rests solely on God, our creator.

Doe, John
Wednesday, May 14, 1997 - 08:34:11 pm:

If scientists can use the cloning process to replicate neurons or other
non replicating cells cloning would be very appreciative from people with
some kind of brain trauma. To clone whole humans would be a dubious
error on the part of humanity. Regeneration of small organelle should
always be explored. My opinion is biased due to having cerebral palsy.
Neurons can be replicated with this technology, so keep exploring under
strict ethical guidelines.

, Thomasina Haley
Tuesday, May 27, 1997 - 12:35:41 am:

No, because I wouldn't want anyone alse to look like me.

On the Cloning Issue, Ted
Friday, August 8, 1997 - 12:31:44 am:

I'd love to learn that Nicole Kidman was Clonable.

no way, Carrie
Thursday, November 6, 1997 - 03:26:56 pm:

If God didn't have anything to do with the creation, how can it have a soul?
If it doesn't have a soul, then how can it live(experience life, find religon,
etc.)

198.182.239.87, Anonymous User
Thursday, November 13, 1997 - 11:41:50 am:

I am writing a research paper on cloning- can someone tell me something useful?

Help!, Anonymous
Saturday, November 15, 1997 - 03:47:17 pm:

I, like the person above me, have a research paper to do on cloning. I need to find articles on cloning and would like to find them on the internet, but have had no luck so far. Anyone have any ideas?

reality check, Dan
Tuesday, November 18, 1997 - 12:51:20 am:

What makes baseball cards worth so much money? How rare it is, of course. So, in theory, if there is only one copy of a certain card - it is obviously deemed priceless. Dont we as human beings far exceed
the trivial value of a piece of cardboard?
Why clone? To get one step closer to immortality?...its something we will never reach anyway so why not live our lives and leave god's work to God.

207.99.102.69, lizz
Tuesday, November 18, 1997 - 04:26:50 pm:

I disagree with the cloning of humans under any circumstances. In the event of the loss of a loved one, to clone them, would result to having someone with a different personality. Many of our traits are inherited but, our personalities are altered also by our environment.

Cloning, IS it right., ???????????????
Friday, December 12, 1997 - 08:25:22 am:

If we were ment to clone, god would have done it himself. Why would he waste his time creating millions of different beings.

©1997 Exploratorium