+165

Thinking about what makes something human is one of the more interesting topics in philosophy. Like a clone or genetically altered person would likely be considered a bit sub-human, but someone with a major genetic mutation is considered a full person, amirite?

94%Yeah You Are6%No Way
Avatar_Rokus avatar
Share
6 8
The voters have decided that Avatar_Roku is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

why wouldn't a human clone be considered human? they have human DNA, what else would they be

@ilikefurrywolves4815 why wouldn't a human clone be considered human? they have human DNA, what else would they be

I just think that people would see it as a copy, and not a real person, which could affect how they are viewed.

Avatar_Rokus avatar Avatar_Roku Yeah You Are 0Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1623209

Yes, they would be genetically identical, like twins, but that happens naturally, and I think that the unnatural process of cloning could change the way people think of them. That's just my thought on what people would think, though. Perhaps society would surprise me and be much more open-minded about it.

Avatar_Rokus avatar Avatar_Roku Yeah You Are 0Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1623222

I fully agree with the fact that a clone SHOULD be considered human, I was just speculating on what society might think.

Avatar_Rokus avatar Avatar_Roku Yeah You Are 0Reply

Alright, after reading this over again, I think that clones and genetically altered people likely wouldn't be considered sub-human, but I feel like they would be considered inhuman. Anyway, I do find it to be one of the most interesting philosophical concepts, and the one that I most enjoy thinking about/talking about.

Avatar_Rokus avatar Avatar_Roku Yeah You Are +2Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.