but but...how else am i gonna achive my lifelong fantasy of buggering myself?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I agree, but btw, it's already available, just illegal everywhere.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know they have the technology to clone animals, and maybe human organs...but are they really able to clone an entire human?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes. It's done by, basically, fertilization in a petri dish. Basically they select the chromosomes and what they want to keep, and what they don't want to keep. Hell, if it were legal, they could give an asian green eyes. But basically, they can 'create' an exact visual clone (the way your hair grows, it's texture, that dry skin that you hate using lotion for etc.) the only difference would be the pattern on the irises and the finger prints, as the patterns are made based on exposure to light etc, and finger prints are pretty much permenant wrinkles.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh wow that's really neat, I didn't know they were able to do that, but do the clones have exact matches for organ's blood, bone marrow, etc? If so, then that is a huge medical advancement and will cause even more reason for debate.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes! On that topic, I did a whole research paper on. It's called Therapeutic cloning. It's incredibly handy and convenient with no draw backs except for the required 100-cell blastocyst that comes from a 3 to 4 day old embryo. That's where the debate lies. Basically, they take your dna and inject it into the stem cells to make identical organs/ bone marrow. You don't need a clone for the organ, they just grow it in a dish/container. 2 weeks to 2 months depending on the size. If it's just a part of it, or the whole thing respectiveley. Other benefits include not needing someone to die for you to get your organ, absolutely zero chance of immunological rejection(number 1 killer of transplant failures), and it's cheaper. You don't have to 'buy' someone elses.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What's the bad part? immoral issues? not natural? that they're killing a potential baby or something?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

right now it's really expensive, because it's not something that's receiving sufficient government funding. Also, there's the whole embryo thing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

embryo? and how much would it cost o.o (just curious)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, therapeutic cloning is still in the research stage, (I do believe) but should it ever be used commercially, the cost would be at least $100,000 for a transplant involving the entire organ. Of course, that's based off of the funding that the research is getting now, which is why people are pushing for more financial support According to http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=107 , they believe that the cost could go down to as little as $10,000 which, though still costly, is a mere 10% of the original estimated cost. Keep in mind though, the $100,000 cost would be for a full organ, and often times, therapeutic cloning would be used for just the damaged tissues, so it wouldn't be as expensive. Anyway, yes, the embryo thing. Therapeutic cloning requires stem cells, and that's where everyone takes up issue, whether or not it's morally okay, etc.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah I agree, I don't think we should be able to "play God" and create new life.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Exactly.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The most used answer, at least around here, to that is that since the life isn't created out of thin air, it's not divine intervention. And besides, we need to draw the line where life is life and where it isn't to have a healthy discussion over the consequences. I mean, every housewife in the world gives a clone of some flower they got to grow good to the neighbour. Btw, do you think that creating new life in the sense of helping people that can't have children get children through ivf is wrong too?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You "play god" and create life when you have a baby..

by Anonymous 12 years ago

How is it immoral? |:

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I just don't think you should be able to "create life", it's like "playing God". Also this world is already overcrowded why do we need to add more people.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You say it's wrong to play god, but what about those of us who don't believe in a god, is there anything that would stop us? It may be immoral in your eyes, but if it were possible to clone people the government would use it to clone the best soldiers then change their DNA, to make them super soldiers. Whats wrong to some can be a god-send to others. But seriously, think of how awesome it would be to have a copy of yourself that you could hang out with, someone you could trust completely and confide in. I'd love to discuss this topic with people, hit me up at SOaDfan159@yahoo.com

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, I don't think much would stop people from cloning, though having an army of super soldiers is exactly like Hitler. People would use this technology in a bad way. And yeah it would be pretty awesome to have someone that is exactly like you, though that is what a best friend is for. And our earth is already overcrowded with the resources dwindling adding more people for the fun of it would not be a wise idea.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

just so you know, you can't guarantee attributes such as physical ability. As cloning requires multiple parent cells. Also, i mean, sure that's nice thinking, but think of what can go wrong. the laws against this aren't based on God (It's illegal in non-religious and religous countries alike) Infact, the decision to not allow cloning of people is made from an economical and politcal standpoint rather than a religious one. More people = more resources, less jobs, and less pay. I understand that environments need to be preserved and whatnot, but keep in mind. These people just want money, money drives everything, and to quote "Only an idiot will prioritize money, but you'll find this world is an idiot's parade"

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, and imagine how the twins, triplets, quadruplets, ect. would feel about it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's not IMMORAL, but I still don't agree with it. If it DOES become legal, we're all screwed. Because they'll be able to clone someone, and kill the one of the 2 thats weaker/dumber/slower/ect. You never know xD It's kinda like Hitler, in a way. With the whole blue eyes blonde hair thing. The government basically has the power to create a whole race, and kill another one off. lol.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I have the same opinion. Not immoral, but still a bad idea.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It is immoral in my opinion, and without going into a tangent I'll just say that whenever humans try to mess with nature, bad things happen.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

(NO!!!): Exactly. Modern medicine can suck it and choke, who needs penicillin or insulin?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ok, I'll admit you got me there.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

(NO!!!): ...We already fucked nature over a loooooooong time ago.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I dont know much about this stuff, but you think when we can get brain implants, couldn't they just clone your entire body but make it fresh and perfectly healthy then implant your brain into it. It sounds kinda long winded but surely its an obvious way to prolong your life (providing a brain transplant would mean you wake up feeling just as you did before the operation in your old body).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

i wanna play god.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

and i wanna play musical chairs, but you don't see me complaining about it :( :( :(

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How is cloning playing God anyway? It's just another way of "giving life". A person giving birth is also giving a life too, are you going to say that they are "play god" too?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Giving birth is God creating a new life, not copying something that God already made. So no, giving birth is a natural process of life while cloning something that already exists is like taking God's creation to form something identical to the original, and this is not natural and so yeah it is like "playing God".

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What about cloning bits of people, like arms for those who've lost theirs? Or hearts, lungs, livers?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

i would make my clone all retarded so i could boss it around and it wouldnt be smart enough to take over. . .

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Technically it wouldn't be cloning right? Not like you'll be the same person with the same memories....you'll just be identical and think the same way.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I want to vote, but it's at +69...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but then, I haven't heard enough about this topic....nevermind.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you guys are idiots. ever heard of identical twins? They have the exact same genetic make up, and are basically clones of one another, that does not make them the same person! Environmental factors and experience also play a role. Also cloning is possible, but it is not like you just press a button and an exact copy of you jumps out. It's basically like having a child, only instead of the child being a mix up of you and your spouses dominant or recessive genes, it would be an exact copy of your genotype. That does not mean it would be the exact same as you as it's phenotype would be different (how your genotype is expressed in your physical appearance as well as in relation to the environment). About the whole embryo controversy, it's BS. An embryo is not a person. It has not had any experiences. It's like saying that by not having sex at every moment of our lives we are stopping a live that could have been lived. About the overpopulation argument, like i said before, cloning is not just pushing a button and having a clone step out. So it would be a more effective way to fight overpopulation would be to stop having so many kids (which cloning would basically be).

by Anonymous 12 years ago