Is playing God - 'human cloning' not a dangeroues game?
- Thread starter Busy
- Start date
My point is that there are 'techno-types' who in their arrogance and folly crash onward through, ignoring reason, and create a "Frankinstein's Monster".
See, the thing is, how would we know what to look for?
I've never heard the Vit C = Sentience thing, it's just an idea I had.
Maybe the nessesary thing to look for isn't something that occurs the the researcher.
I'm not blaming the researcher.
And don't get me started on-the take on 'souls'-thats devloping.
See, the thing is, how would we know what to look for?
I've never heard the Vit C = Sentience thing, it's just an idea I had.
Maybe the nessesary thing to look for isn't something that occurs the the researcher.
I'm not blaming the researcher.
And don't get me started on-the take on 'souls'-thats devloping.
The following is a fascinating & (to me) a weird view.
How can it be claimed that the one process results in a baby with a soul, while the other process does not?
If the clone does not have a soul while the other baby does have one, would there be some way to tell which was which if you did not know which was the clone?
As an atheist, I do not believe in the existence of souls. If I were a theist and believed in the existence of a souls, I would still consider the above view silly. If souls existed, I would expect god to create one at some point in the development of a baby. Perhps at birth, perhaps before, perhaps after birth. How would a mere person know when (or if) the soul is created? Is this not one of those mysteries known only to god?
Does any religious source state that each and every person has a soul?
Note the following.
- People with fertility problems often have an ovum removed from the potentila mother and sperm is taken from the potential father. The egg is fertilized in a petri dish or a test tube and implanted in the woman's uterus (sometimes in the uterus of a surrogate mother). If all goes well, a baby is born about 9 months later.
- A clone is created by removing the nucleus of an ovum. The nucleus of a cell (not a sperm cell) is put into the ovum, replacing the original nucleus. The resulting ovum is implanted in the uterus of a women and if all goes well a baby is born about 9 months later. This baby will be the clone of the person who donated the cell nuclus put into the empty ovum.
How can it be claimed that the one process results in a baby with a soul, while the other process does not?
If the clone does not have a soul while the other baby does have one, would there be some way to tell which was which if you did not know which was the clone?
As an atheist, I do not believe in the existence of souls. If I were a theist and believed in the existence of a souls, I would still consider the above view silly. If souls existed, I would expect god to create one at some point in the development of a baby. Perhps at birth, perhaps before, perhaps after birth. How would a mere person know when (or if) the soul is created? Is this not one of those mysteries known only to god?
Does any religious source state that each and every person has a soul?
What about choosing characters(hair and skin colour, height,weight,intelligence)
of the person who donates the donar nucleus.
how can atheism expalins the following.
I give u some carbohydrates, protiens, lipids and whatever u need and equipements. can u create a cell and give life to that.
of the person who donates the donar nucleus.
how can atheism expalins the following.
I give u some carbohydrates, protiens, lipids and whatever u need and equipements. can u create a cell and give life to that.
Since atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in supernatural deities why should it be expected to "explain" anything?
Based on what evidence?Norsefire said:
Bulls#*&! A clone is/would be the result of techonlogy, true, but I have to agree with Dinosaur on this.
As someone who has looked into IVF (test tube babies) I am appalled at your callous position, Norsefire. Full clones, as opposed to specific organs, would have intellect, and emotions and souls. If one believes in such things. I do.
On atheism: Atheism is as much a posistion of belief as Theism, i.e. to say "there is no god/ess" is a belief. Just as much as saying "there is a god/ess".
Now, I am a theist; a pan-theist.
But a 'purely rational' position would lead one to agnosticism="God/ess? Don't know."
And Yes, I do admit to being 'not purely rational'. Proudly.
My emotions do in fact play part in my decision making process. "Well, control your emotions." I do. And I respond, "Control your thoughts". And if sometimes my emotions get 'out of control' it was me who let that happen.
Here's a (controled
) thought, What if, in making a designer baby some protein or such is changed in such a way that a immune system weakness is created that is not readily apparant? Or, not manifest untill combined with another one?Look, theism aside, evolution, and natural selection have been at work for a loooong time, working on the planet/universe. We're just monkeys with a little smarts.
Back in the early '90's there was a CD, by I believe/think a Hip-Hop artist, "Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the universe". At least that was the poster for the CD.
I now have proof.
Go Jordan, Go!
Bulls#*&! A clone is/would be the result of techonlogy, true, but I have to agree with Dinosaur on this.
As someone who has looked into IVF (test tube babies) I am appalled at your callous position, Norsefire. Full clones, as opposed to specific organs, would have intellect, and emotions and souls. If one believes in such things. I do.
On atheism: Atheism is as much a posistion of belief as Theism, i.e. to say "there is no god/ess" is a belief. Just as much as saying "there is a god/ess".
Now, I am a theist; a pan-theist.
But a 'purely rational' position would lead one to agnosticism="God/ess? Don't know."
And Yes, I do admit to being 'not purely rational'. Proudly.
My emotions do in fact play part in my decision making process. "Well, control your emotions." I do. And I respond, "Control your thoughts". And if sometimes my emotions get 'out of control' it was me who let that happen.
Here's a (controled
Look, theism aside, evolution, and natural selection have been at work for a loooong time, working on the planet/universe. We're just monkeys with a little smarts.
Back in the early '90's there was a CD, by I believe/think a Hip-Hop artist, "Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the universe". At least that was the poster for the CD.
I now have proof.
Go Jordan, Go!
haha ok. Let's say your name is Brian. There are a lot of brians, but there is only ONE OF YOU. You are unique, you are an individual. A clone of you is YOUR PROPERTY , they're not unique, they arent anything but slaves and objects.
The instant 'brian' starts to have separate experences he will be his own person with his own separate identity. And we have NO idea (as far as I know.:shrug: ) what will happen with the cloned brain. Will there be any different responses to the enviroment? One could say "identical brain, identical response". Ah, but Nature has her ways...
What is it with you and wanting a slave?
Simon Green has this series of books, "Owen Deathstalker",
where one of the sub-plots is the revolt of the slave clones; Freedom will out!
What is it with you and wanting a slave?
Simon Green has this series of books, "Owen Deathstalker",
where one of the sub-plots is the revolt of the slave clones; Freedom will out!
What about identical twins? A clone is basically just an identical twin that's born later. Would you propose that one identical twin should be the property of another?
You seem to be under the impression that "atheism" means "the belief that people can create cells from raw chemicals". That's not what atheism means - atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god.
That's scarey, especially in this day and age of freezing embryos. Freeze one embryo for body parts of the first twin you give birth too.
True but 'Brian' does not have an identity, he is a created piece of equipment for our true Human needs
I dont want a slave. I was just suggesting a use for this new technology
twins dont count, they are people they are born I'm talking about CREATED clones
Clones are also born.
You have not explained what it is about clone that you think makes them "objects." It can't be the fact that the clone has some else's DNA, because identical twins also have someone else's DNA. It can't be that they are created in a lab, because an in vitro baby is created in a lab. So what is it, exactly?
Atheism: "...the theory or belief that God does not exist".
From Greek atheos, a - 'without' and theos -'god'
[Apple-Dictionary 1.0.1]
Agnostic: "...a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
Greek...from a- 'without' and gnostos- 'known'
[ibid]
Italics original.
Can you dig it?
Again, the very instant he has his own experences he will.
Norsefire..."he is a created piece of equipment..."
Flesh and blood, baby, flesh and blood!
Go Jordan, go!
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
I don't like cloning.
That said, I cannot see any reason to come up with a new way to make people. We are doing rather too well at the old fashioned way of making people.
Twins are different, they are at the same time and are two different people.
If you go through life, then decide to make a clone of yourself, that's different. That clone is your property to do whatever you want with it. Regardless if it has its own expereience, its still just a piece of technology, to serve mankind
But the clone of 'brian' is the true Brian's property