"Isn't it crazy.....?"

[bluntforcemama]

"Isn't it crazy that millions of animals are killed in shelters in this country every year and people are thinking so selfishly about cloning more of them?" said Mary Beth Sweetland, vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Norfolk. "They could do so much more good by going to their local shelter and adopting an animal on death row."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12634-2002Feb14.html



How do you feel about the cloning of animals. Is it the gateway to cloning humans? Where do you draw the line between resuscitation, reproduction, and resurrection?

 

[Andreina]

cloning is just another way of not accepting that death is an integral part of the circle of life. im against it.

Halo

 

[Ginny]

i'm an aardvark.....and outraged...

 

[G.R.]

Thank you.

In my eyes, it is even sad that people spend hundreds of dollars on pure breeds, but end up dealing with shitloads of degenerative genetic disorders and diseases, when they could have a happy, grateful and healthy (ususally) mutt pet from the pound or Humane society.

 

[JazzManJim]

Cloning will happen, in time. We have a horrible track record in the world with reining in scientific advances, even the ones we don't see as beneficial.

I think, though, that there are incredible medical benefits to cloning which could extend lifetimes by vast amounts.

Of course, we'd be overcrowding Earth something terribly. That's why I advocate a vigorous space program.

 

[lobito]

Thank you.

In my eyes, it is even sad that people spend hundreds of dollars on pure breeds, but end up dealing with shitloads of degenerative genetic disorders and diseases, when they could have a happy, grateful and healthy (ususally) mutt pet from the pound or Humane society.

Thanks for pointing THAT out! I've got a cousin who breeds Giant boxers, I wanted one, she won't EVEN discuss it with me, what do I do if I want a dog? Go to the pound and "adopt" one.

Lo

 

[Purple Haze]

Mutts are better dogs, period.

They're smarter, they have a better disposition, and very few of those traits associated with the overbred "purebreeds" that humans so desire.

Clone your dog? You might want to get a life of your own first.

 

[Black_Bird]

I'm not against the use of cloning technology to prolong lives and better the quality of life of people everywhere...

But animals? I agree with the sentiment above - there are far too many dogs and cats that are put to sleep every year. Don't Clone - ADOPT!

 

[kiwiwolf]

The New Zealand Kennel Club is currently worried about the shrinking gene pool for purebreed animals here. Very few are used for breeding and as a result bitches are often mated with thier own offspring... Hillbilly pooches?

 

[patient1]

When I first heard about this, the what was reported, not the why.

I wondered why anyone would go to the expense & bother to clone a cat when they spontaneously generate already.Now I know.

I can see potential to cloning, particularly to use for research purposes. It would eliminate a major variable.

I can also see the benefit to preserving endangered species, maybe even recovering a couple of extinct ones.

 

[Ishmael]

Yep, I agree, butttttttttttttt

Thank you.

In my eyes, it is even sad that people spend hundreds of dollars on pure breeds, but end up dealing with shitloads of degenerative genetic disorders and diseases, when they could have a happy, grateful and healthy (ususally) mutt pet from the pound or Humane society.

The reasons for the genetic disorders are indiscrimate breeding practices. The "I got a dog, you got a dog, let's put them together and make some money." syndrome. It's unique to the US. Foriegn breeders and owners are far more responsible. Responsibility, or lack thereof, is the reason for all the 'mutts' too.

In response to JazzMan's comment. Knowledge once learned, will be practiced. By the ethical and the un-ethical. The ethical scientist must pratice the art to counter the un-ethical scientist. No amount of legislation will stop this from occuring.

Ishmael

 

[bluntforcemama]

Cloning, though it may have medical advantages, is an ethical dilemna. By bringing life that is a copy into the world, are we allowing it any sort of individuality? If we were to clone a human, what would it's reaction be to the truth of its existence and birth facts? Should we use it as guinea pigs to determine the effects of nature vs. nurture? Does it have the same rights that its cell donor has? Can it vote? Breed? Be discriminated against? Sold into slavery? Is it property of the lab, or the donor? Will its achievements be awarded to the donor or to itself?

 

[Problem Child]

from the article:
The work was funded by Arizona millionaire John Sperling, who has given Texas A&M about $3.7 million to develop technology to clone his beloved dog, a border collie-Siberian husky mutt named Missy. Although several pregnancies have been achieved, no Missy clones have survived to term. Parallel work on cats went faster, Westhusin said, in part because cat eggs grow and mature in culture dishes better than dog eggs do.

Fucking moron. $3.7 mil to reproduce his stupid dog. I will say a prayer tonight that if the do clone the bitch she will quickly run out in front of a garbage truck and get squished. The only thing better would be for him to stick a shotgun in his mouth from the anguish. And then the only thing better would be for him to will all his millions to one of his children and hope they actually do something beneficial for society with the money.

 

[JazzManJim]

Cloning, though it may have medical advantages, is an ethical dilemna. By bringing life that is a copy into the world, are we allowing it any sort of individuality? If we were to clone a human, what would it's reaction be to the truth of its existence and birth facts? Should we use it as guinea pigs to determine the effects of nature vs. nurture? Does it have the same rights that its cell donor has? Can it vote? Breed? Be discriminated against? Sold into slavery? Is it property of the lab, or the donor? Will its achievements be awarded to the donor or to itself?

Great questions, Myst!

Okay...we have to make a differentiation here. There's the practice of "twinning", which is what we've done with Dolly and with the little kitten. We take genetic material from a "parent" and grow a physically identical being which grows and ages pretty much as normal.

Cloning is more extensive, and currently well beyond our scientific means. In cloning, you produce an exact copy of an individual - including the condition of the mind. Memories, thoughts, and personality are identical and begin to diverge only at the moment of creation.

"Twins" would grow up with their own unique mental states and would be, in every sense of the words as we understand it, autonomous and independent human beings. Clones present a much more thorny problem, in that they could be more fairly presented as "Xerox copies" of an individual, and the property of the donor. But we do have some time to consider that morass. Twins present a much more clear-cut legal case.

What the largest argument is, at present, is the potential state of "twinned" fetuses, whose cells and developing organs could be used to replace defective organs in their donors. As with other debates, this comes down the the question of "at what point are these twins considered human beings". I"m not so sure we will be able to sort that out to the satisfaction of everyone, just as we've not done it in the debate about abortion. Most of the same ethical and moral dilemmas exist in both of them.

The most immediate benefit twinning allows is the growth of specific organs, and not an entire human being. That, thus far, is free of ethical debates, but requires a much more deft scientific touch to produce and, so far, has not worked to the point where it could be used reliably. Not yet, anyhow.

The more immediate debate, IMO, concentrates on the latter condition. You could easily conjecture a society where those who are able to purchase such grown organs would be able to improve themselves, extend their lifespan to great lenghts, and build themselves into fitter, more efficient physical specimens. There'd be a gulf between the "haves" and the "have nots" that only money could close. Do we allow such a thing to occur? We can see how it could happen and it's within our means right now to halt this - at least on a common and wide-spread basis (because there's no way you could stop it entirely). What right do we have, though, to stop someone from spending their money as they see fit, on a purpose that harms no one and benefits the individual?

Further on the down the road, as our ability to manipulate the human genome grows, you can see a road where people will be able to have "made to order" children who could be made with fewer imperfections and even enhanced abilities, compared to "natural" children. Again, money would dictate who would get what and a gulf would resume. But, if the government takes control of the technology, it's plausible to see a future where the government rations who gets what, or uses the technology to their own ends (in perhaps a "clone" arms race?). Or maybe, down that same road, the government finds a way to fairly allow everyone to use this technology and finds that the "clones" are fitter and better specimens, and dictates that this will be the only means of human reproduction (also incidentally solving the overpopulation problems. It's excellent birth-rate control).

The briar patches grow thornier and thornier and none of the scenarios I mentioned are unreasonable. In fact, most of them have been tried with the technology of the day, to some extent or another. I'm concerned that we as a soceity relly aren't debating these issues...discussing them so that when they do arise, we'll have a plan of action, or at least we'll know where the sides are drawn so we have some notion where we might end up.

This thread is a good start. Thanks Myst.

 

[Ishmael]

Debate

Jazzman and Myst

You are absolutely right about the lack of serious debate about all of the scenarios that you have broached, and others that you haven't yet.

60 years ago, Issac Assimov foresaw cloning as an inevitability. He, and many other serious science fiction writers debated the issue at length for many years. Exploring the use, misuse, and ethics regarding human cloning. (Including the ownership vs free citizen issues.) And the animal experiments are just a precursor to the real deal.

Human cloning.

Seems we have to be hit between the eyes with something before we really pay attention.

Ishmael

 

[Mensa]

Can you xerox my prize bull?

Cloning is here to stay. You'd better get used to it. As it's perfected, people will come to regard it as just another reproductive method and accept it as such.