What's wrong with reproductive cloning?

It's widely acknowledged in European politics that reproductive cloning is bad, but theraputic cloning is A-Ok. However, I've don't see what is wrong (in principle) with reproductive cloning? What's the big deal?Obviously there would be a problem if we did it know, since reproductive cloning in animals has been plagued by all sorts of serious developmental problems that it would clearly be unethical to inflict on humans. But if we didn't have these problems, what would be wrong with it?

Nothing, we are letting politics dictate to the teaching of medicine without updating our biological knowledge base. I dont think we know the difference between a cell, flesh,and (a)life. Some WANT TO PERceive them as ONE CONCEPTION. That would not even be a sin it would be the "evil" Kant spoke of FROM the transcendtal position as THE Condition. It continues the older than 70s idea that cells ARE NOT BAGS of Chemicals that never made it THROUGH US TWO party system. It is all a party of 5 etc instead. There is the notion of "developmental period" but Dakwins plans to roll back any blueprint with a recipie of algorthims even if some brain figures out multiple level thought without a single transitiveness no matter the relation of growth to development. It's a lot easier to apply evolutionary theory than the make it "palatable" no matter the fluidity.

Obviously because it would be the first step on the slippery slope to everyone having cloned slaves of themselves which they could abuse in satanistic, incestuous and possibly onanistic ways. Not to mention all the headless clones in the basement for organ harvesting.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

However, I've don't see what is wrong (in principle) with reproductive cloning? What's the big deal?

---

In principle it is fine. However, communism, in principle, is a great idea as well and look how that turned out.Personally, I look at human reproductive cloning as going against part of what makes us human. Part of the human experience is having children, children that may look like the father, the mother, an uncle, etc. Cloning takes the surprise and the development of a new identity for each person. I think this is one area where cloning should continue with non-human species to perfect the practice. In this way, the option is there but whether or not we use it is left to public opinion or personal choice.

quote:

---

...incestuous...
  —Wounded King

---

I've always wondered about that. Is it incest if you have sex with yourself?Back to reproductive cloning, perhaps some people are afraid to apply that to human is because of all the serious problems that reserchers have run into with animal experimentations. Sometimes, people's imaginations are limited to what they can see in other subjects. What if instead of seeing the potential for reproductive cloning when it is perfected people are seeing it as the kind of cloning with all sorts of problems that you can think of?

From a long term point of view reproductive cloning has one serious drawback in that it reduces diversity. One real advantage to the relatively sloppy sexual reproduction system we use today is that variance gets introduced constantly. This means that there are fewer things that can effect 100% of the population.Cloning simply reduces the variability and diversity while increasing the risk based on commonality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I've always wondered about that. Is it incest if you have sex with yourself?

---

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you replace the Y-chromosome with an X, then technically she's not your clone anymore. A lot of her genetic material may be based on yours, but she is a different being now. In other words, this would be classified as the classical meaning of incest.Let me rephrase my question. If you are a guy and you are gay, would it be incest if you clone yourself and then have sex with our clone? In fact, is there anything morally wrong with it?

Not just any X, your own X. ... well, I almost hate to do this, because it's going to feel so damn good when I do, but let me turn a classic, pernicious creationist argument around on you.If all we've done is duplicate a chromosome for Mrs. Me in order to change her plumbing, then doesn't she have the same genome as I, because we haven't added any new genetic information? In fact, isn't she just like me only a bit worse, because we've actually eliminated some genetic information?To actually address the argument (now that I've looked at the thread), I think it takes more than genes to make a person a person. Your clone is only your identical twin. And the cultural prohibition against incest is only a function of its genetic effects.If gay brothers wanna go for it, or gay sisters, I don't have a problem with it. Hell, we see implications of lesbian incest every time we watch beer commericals on TV. I don't think anybody cares about non-fertile incest.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-18-2004 04:08 PM

quote:

---

If you replace the Y-chromosome with an X, then technically she's not your clone anymore. A lot of her genetic material may be based on yours, but she is a different being now. In other words, this would be classified as the classical meaning of incest.

---

No, you would not be clones. The male would have additional genetic (y-chromo) material not available to the female offspring. However, this would require manipulation that is not currently available. This would require the extraction of the y-chromosome and replacement of an x-chromosome from another cell. Right now, only mature, unadulterated nuclei are inserted into de-nucleated eggs.Due to meitoic recombination, a child would not be a clone and would probab be woefully handicapped due to detrimental homozygous recessive genes. That, and it just gives me the willy's. You should be renamed "BadIntetions".

quote:

---

Cloning simply reduces the variability and diversity while increasing the risk based on commonality.

---

Being in Idaho, many of us are aware of this problem given that potatoes are clones. A disease could wipe out an entire crop in large areas in one season.Anyway, if we were able to create the "perfect" genome and advance our health care then this wouldn't be a problem from a medical standpoint. Also, modifications could be inserted as needed per generation much like we do with GM foods now. There are hurdles, no doubt, but lack of diversity could be overcome with technology.

quote:

---

crashfrog wrote:

​

... well, I almost hate to do this, because it's going to feel so damn good when I do, but let me turn a classic, pernicious creationist argument around on you.

​

If all we've done is duplicate a chromosome for Mrs. Me in order to change her plumbing, then doesn't she have the same genome as I, because we haven't added any new genetic information? In fact, isn't she just like me only a bit worse, because we've actually eliminated some genetic information?

---

Hehehe. Good one. I would have to say that you are a very sick individual to want to make a female version of yourself for the sole purpose of making her your spouse. That actually rhymes.I agree with you that your clone can be viewed as your twin brother. In that sense, it would be considered incest.This message has been edited by GoodIntentions, 10-18-2004 07:07 PM

Oh, come one, even if we did have it cloning would never replace the traditional "shagging" approach to baby making.

I dont think that is quite "it" either. Gould's argument anti-Dawkins relies on dichotmizing where I tried yesterday on EVC to point into database theory that Dakwins simply rolled back as if your "all sorts of problems you can think of" approach. It is difficult to locate where in tissue the "recursion" that any dichotomy OUTLINES actually WOULD be if we knew all and could have the leisure to investigate any new problem etc. This is still not it because the incidence that might come along with such a criticism does not match the independence called for in the probability that it should be correct. I ought to have been a bit less liberal in my expansion with Jack, as I actually AGREE with Wounded King and his NEW PROPOSED TOPIC confirms perhaps I was reaching a bit to see what just Jack had to say. So while I find it completely compatible that lightning induced DNA transfer fits with what I have said on cell death in variaous places here the strech to metaphysics that any old DUPLICATION would result in (via dichotomzing that Gould wanted to hold out on Dawkins on) IS THIS YEAR becoming politicized in US. It used to be just a matter for departments of biology to say expunge ZOO8 from the roster as happened to JAD in Vermont and my Granddad warned me of @SUNYFREDONIA, and I experienced first hand with Will Provine telling me point blank that SCIENCE WAS OUT TO SOLVE ITS LAST FRONTIER, control of the will dynamically..... I had tried to say what is wrong with today's position but as to insestuousness, this is somewhat what IS happening with the finanaical backing of reductionist molecular biology to SOLVE DISEASES. Yes some things will likely be resolved but the amount of money going to it should be diverted in part to the small crew team here that is rather displaying what is more likely to happen in the next 100yrs as a generation of older biologists pass on their genes.So no, I dont think they are seeing all of jackcat but they may be. I know I have a stray in my back yard but for the mammal of me I cant tell the difference between a marmot and a squirell for that dog of a matter. Part of the FAILURE is to TEACH PASTEURS 'grand asymmetry'. Gould thought Poe plagerism doesn't go the other science way around. It does but US law got into my bedroom and I lost my partner. That was not inscest, only a spider. Perhaps you might stop looking like an 8 legger to me. But that is your choice to show us a pic.

yep because white calcium is not white sperm environment.In the early 90s I was working on a project at Cornell to solve what might be called a cloning issue. The scientists were absolutely NOT thinking about a very important point, that the egg has to be PHYSICALLY removed from the ovary for the whole thing to work.Now Regan had suggested using a skin cell under what ICR recently reviewed and I was just in time reminded on Janent’s (SCNT). —app_—‘
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
An even more disturbing procedure to acquire embryonic stem cells approved by the California ballot measure is somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).14 In this procedure a nucleus is removed from a donated ovum (human egg) and a nucleus with a full set of chromosomes from a donor somatic cell (any cell of the body except sex cells) is implanted into the enucleated ovum. The developing cells from the genetically engineered individual are grown on media and extracted as described above for embryonic stem cells. The recipient of the stem cells could also be the donor of the somatic cell nucleus, making the stem cells genetically identical to the recipient and less likely to cause an immune response. Treatments using non-self embryonic stem cells would elicit an immune response by the recipient and promote the complication of using immune-suppressing drugs and tissue rejection. Unfortunately, harvesting these cells from the engineered embryo, results in the death of a sibling. This should be the very reason for using the recipients own adult stem cells, not stem cells created through SCNT.The failure to notice the more egregious nature of this error than the one I witnessed in the time of TV’s 90210 is that an error IN SPACE rather than TIME is being made. I know this not because I am thinking of some general notion of space but because by being reminded today of this past I began again to think of calcium, not life, that exists in the nuclear membrane.I think today that this is the same physical act. I may be wrong in this space but not in this time.