http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7194161.stm
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Any advance is a good advance. If the results are positive, we know they're on the right track and will keep going. If they're negative, we know (or can hope) they'll learn from it and not repeat that particular process.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. If they need adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, what's the difference? Just figure out how to cure these dreadful diseases. It amazes me that there's a 'morality' issue when talking about destroying clumps of cells after they've been used in research, but there's barely a nod toward all the animals caged and tortured for the same reason.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. If they need adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, what's the difference? Just figure out how to cure these dreadful diseases. It amazes me that there's a 'morality' issue when talking about destroying clumps of cells after they've been used in research, but there's barely a nod toward all the animals caged and tortured for the same reason.
I'm all for cloning parts of the human body if indeed it means that people who have sustained major injuries or have some sort of disability or other can lead a better more fulfilling life.
But NOOOOOOO.I'm against cloning humans PERIOD.
Who do these scientists guys think they are.
Playing God? It wont be long before they start cloning someone like Hitler or some other tyrant.
God,can you imagine if they tried to clone some of the idiots in this forum.
Frightening isnt it!!?
But NOOOOOOO.I'm against cloning humans PERIOD.
Who do these scientists guys think they are.
Playing God? It wont be long before they start cloning someone like Hitler or some other tyrant.
God,can you imagine if they tried to clone some of the idiots in this forum.
Frightening isnt it!!?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm all for cloning parts of the human body if indeed it means that people who have sustained major injuries or have some sort of disability or other can lead a better more fulfilling life.
But NOOOOOOO.I'm against cloning humans PERIOD.
Who do these scientists guys think they are.
Playing God? It wont be long before they start cloning someone like Hitler or some other tyrant.
God,can you imagine if they tried to clone some of the idiots in this forum.
Frightening isnt it!!? [/QUOTE]
i agree with you 200%
its one thing to clone parts for someone to live a better life, but to create a life yourself...in ANY form (besides the obvious conception)...its just wrong. ethically!!!
personally, i wouldnt think it were a person, knowing where it came from.
but in 30 years that will be an ethical issue.
But NOOOOOOO.I'm against cloning humans PERIOD.
Who do these scientists guys think they are.
Playing God? It wont be long before they start cloning someone like Hitler or some other tyrant.
God,can you imagine if they tried to clone some of the idiots in this forum.
Frightening isnt it!!? [/QUOTE]
i agree with you 200%
its one thing to clone parts for someone to live a better life, but to create a life yourself...in ANY form (besides the obvious conception)...its just wrong. ethically!!!
personally, i wouldnt think it were a person, knowing where it came from.
but in 30 years that will be an ethical issue.
I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but why exactly do you not agree with human cloning? Both of you weren't very specific. I'm personally undecided on the matter, but I'm interested in why you feel this way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]to create a life yourself...in ANY form (besides the obvious conception)...its just wrong. ethically!!![/QUOTE]
I just can't wait to hear the objective evidence as to why it is okay to create life through conception, but it is ethically incorrect to do so through other means. Anyone care to explain?
I just can't wait to hear the objective evidence as to why it is okay to create life through conception, but it is ethically incorrect to do so through other means. Anyone care to explain?
It's unethical for stupid people to have children, but it still happens.
Honestly; fuck human rights. It's about time we started treating our own kind the way we treat animals. Or we show the animals the respect we give to human test subjects.
Either or, I actually don't care; I just want a bit of consistency.
Seriously, I don't care if they clone people. Out of sight, out of mind. Let them do what they have to, I reckon.
Honestly; fuck human rights. It's about time we started treating our own kind the way we treat animals. Or we show the animals the respect we give to human test subjects.
Either or, I actually don't care; I just want a bit of consistency.
Seriously, I don't care if they clone people. Out of sight, out of mind. Let them do what they have to, I reckon.
Im realy against clowning too, it shoul t be forbidden they think they can do everything but thats not so I hate people plaining god.
-edit-
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]to create a life yourself...in ANY form (besides the obvious conception)...its just wrong. ethically!!![/QUOTE]
I just can't wait to hear the objective evidence as to why it is okay to create life through conception, but it is ethically incorrect to do so through other means. Anyone care to explain?[/QUOTE]
as i figured someone would point this out. i could go on about how i think people should just do what china did and limit each family to 3 kids at the max...and yes you can tell me all the stuff on that.
i personally think things like IVF and cloning (creating life thru science vs nature, maybe i shouldve worded it like that) are ethically wrong, simply because the world is overpopulated as it is. there are too many children homeless, and unwanted who will most likely go unadopted. meanwhile you have mothers who choose IVF over helping a CHILD by taking him/her into a home with the best intentions and love (not saying that always happens, but that should go without saying) i just see it as selfish. they dont think about the future of those 6 babies theyre having at a time (half the time they have a pair of twins or a child before, who will be neglected of proper care because the parents will be too focused on the multipple births, WHICH when natural, one baby is hard enough....and mind you that means theyre somehow NOT infertile if they have children before having these multiples). and majority of the time, those multiple births are premature, so that means hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in medical help, (which most likely they will have to deal with for life) and their future college funds (most likely unaffordable) and to be able to spend some quality time properly with each child would just be near impossible.
as for these natural births that are due to irresponsibility of the parents not using contraceptives, and such, it has been pointed out. im looking at it ethically. why does the world need scientifically made children when theres already so much irresponsibility with the population made naturally anyway?
as of now im too tired to explain how i really feel, and generally i always have alot of ammo to back me up on my opinions but ill leave with this:
what does this have to do with cloning? if they start with what they have now, with the issue of IVF itll continue to cause a population imbalance. it will be an ethical issue in the future. its just not needed. unless therse 500 people left on earth and they were all smart and peaceful and talented, and shit rainbows or something, its not needed.
i know im missing more points but ill think of them tomorrow.
I just can't wait to hear the objective evidence as to why it is okay to create life through conception, but it is ethically incorrect to do so through other means. Anyone care to explain?[/QUOTE]
as i figured someone would point this out. i could go on about how i think people should just do what china did and limit each family to 3 kids at the max...and yes you can tell me all the stuff on that.
i personally think things like IVF and cloning (creating life thru science vs nature, maybe i shouldve worded it like that) are ethically wrong, simply because the world is overpopulated as it is. there are too many children homeless, and unwanted who will most likely go unadopted. meanwhile you have mothers who choose IVF over helping a CHILD by taking him/her into a home with the best intentions and love (not saying that always happens, but that should go without saying) i just see it as selfish. they dont think about the future of those 6 babies theyre having at a time (half the time they have a pair of twins or a child before, who will be neglected of proper care because the parents will be too focused on the multipple births, WHICH when natural, one baby is hard enough....and mind you that means theyre somehow NOT infertile if they have children before having these multiples). and majority of the time, those multiple births are premature, so that means hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in medical help, (which most likely they will have to deal with for life) and their future college funds (most likely unaffordable) and to be able to spend some quality time properly with each child would just be near impossible.
as for these natural births that are due to irresponsibility of the parents not using contraceptives, and such, it has been pointed out. im looking at it ethically. why does the world need scientifically made children when theres already so much irresponsibility with the population made naturally anyway?
as of now im too tired to explain how i really feel, and generally i always have alot of ammo to back me up on my opinions but ill leave with this:
what does this have to do with cloning? if they start with what they have now, with the issue of IVF itll continue to cause a population imbalance. it will be an ethical issue in the future. its just not needed. unless therse 500 people left on earth and they were all smart and peaceful and talented, and shit rainbows or something, its not needed.
i know im missing more points but ill think of them tomorrow.
For decades, we're going to be dealing with the mentality of detractors who see this as "playing God" (a phrase which should always be under scrutiny in the first place), as we see in this very topic. Whoever wants a decent reply out of these people probably isn't going to get one, because most of them aren't able to defend their beliefs rationally. They simply believe that life is created by a higher being, and refuse to accept that it can and will be humanly created - which challenges the very view that the higher being creates life at all in the first place.
Or - who's to say the higher being isn't guiding the scientific/chemical process?
Either way, beliefs are one thing and naturally they can have their positives, but using them irrationally to interfere with the direction of science? Not so good. The argument from ignorance (i.e. you can't prove that my beliefs are wrong, so stop your sciencing) will still be able to fly for a while, but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete.
Or - who's to say the higher being isn't guiding the scientific/chemical process?
Either way, beliefs are one thing and naturally they can have their positives, but using them irrationally to interfere with the direction of science? Not so good. The argument from ignorance (i.e. you can't prove that my beliefs are wrong, so stop your sciencing) will still be able to fly for a while, but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete.
[/QUOTE]
i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things.
[/QUOTE]
i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete.
[/QUOTE]
i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things.[/QUOTE]
I call that a euphemism. :)
[/QUOTE]
i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things.[/QUOTE]
I call that a euphemism. :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sparrow wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] but with the way science is going, it is going to render most of this religious thought to be obsolete.
[/QUOTE]
i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things.[/QUOTE]
I call that a euphemism. :)
[/QUOTE]
;P
[/QUOTE]
i wouldnt say obsolete, just seen differently. a different understanding of things.[/QUOTE]
I call that a euphemism. :)
[/QUOTE]
;P
So, if I am correct, Sparrow, you are simply against population growth itself - the methods of such growth being irrelevant? It did not seem like this was the original message you were conveying, in that you made the point to exclude conception from your ethics basket of wrongdoing.