You disagree with human cloning and in-vitro fertilization, amirite?

IDK much about human cloning, but I have no issue with IVF

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not a lot of Catholics on here...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My best friend was born by IVF.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

IFV? No problem. Human cloning? Completely wrong in my opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Cloning is wrong. IVF... I'm kinda sorta on the border about that. It's nice for people to be able to have children if they really want to, but it can also be very dangerous. I think maybe if you can't have a baby naturally, you aren't supposed to have children and you could adopt.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I was conceived via IVF. This post offends me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

IVF and cloning are not the same thing...or even similar, for that matter.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Nobody said they were the same thing. That's why I used the word "and." They're similar because they both involve reproduction without sexual intercourse.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think they are both okay, as long as they're are willing participants.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Why IVF? That's simply helping a family that wants to have a baby but can't.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because it will increase the income gap.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Some people don't agree with it because some cells are abnormally fertilized and terminated. They see that as killing an embryo, similar to, though not exactly the same, as abortion. Or because they don't believe God is involved in the process. I don't know why the other guy put the income gap.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

cloning dinosaurs. just putting it out there... i don't see how IVF is wrong (it seems good, actually)... cloning sounds cool unless its an evil clone.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

maybe if by cloning you mean trying to make complete copies of people, but if we could clone organs we'd be golden.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ivf...i dunno, because there are so many kids who need to be adopted. but it's not technically immoral. but full human cloning, NO. organ cloning, perfect.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Full human cloning is interesting to think about but I disgree with. IVF on the other hand? Perfectly fine. It would be ideal for people to adopt, but in the end, most people do want one of their own biological children.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

there should be a neutral button? :P

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Thousands of human clones exist right now. They're called identical twins. If you clone somebody they don't just pop out of a machine, it is basically like having a child, who looks exactly like you. Lots of children look almost identical to their parents. Is that wrong?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Identical twins don't have identical DNA. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ok, well then that suggests that even a clone would not have identical DNA. Identical twins come from a single fertilized embryo that has split apart, a clone would come from a different embryo and be injected with DNA. If the twin's genes end up slightly different than it is inevitable that a clones DNA differs. Even if they were an exact match it wouldn't make a difference. I don't see your point.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

On your second point: There are children in orphanages who don't have a real home.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That doesn't make cloning wrong though. If that is what you are saying then that also makes having children the normal way wrong, people should just adopt instead of having children. So, though I agree that people should adopt more orphaned children, the point you put forward doesn't show that cloning is wrong. If cloning were legalized it would be fairly rare as it is, so why should people who'd use cloning or in-vitro fertilization to have a child be any more obligated to adopt than normal people?

by Anonymous 12 years ago