Curse

MMSDome · Nov 16, 2009, 08:34 PM // 20:34

After reading a poem in my creative writing class today the topic of cloning suddenly became a tid bit interesting. A girl wrote a poem about cloning everything about some guy and it had a very weird stalkeresque feel to it.

Whats my point?

The whole "playing God" aspect doesn't bother me because I believe as humans it is our duty to explore new frontiers and if God really gave a shit about us cloning he would have mentioned it in the bible.

Now that I got the whole religious babble out of it let me argue my real point against cloning.

I believe if we could clone other humans there would be high potential for abuse. To make my point more clear and so you better understand where I am coming from we all need to realize if we cloned a human being we would have another human being. A perfect clone is an exact duplicate of another person. Therefore the clone is HUMAN. I can't stress this point enough and some of you reading this are probably thinking to yourselves "no shit" but you will see where I am going with this.

Back to the poem part now. I see cloning as having the opportunity for people to use clones as their slaves. Humans are very strange creatures and we are capable of doing terrible things so what is to stop someone from seeing what it likes to murder someone? What is to stop someone from continuously raping the clone and just having the clone as their sex slave? If you have your own clone you can send them out to do anything that may be illegal or taboo in society.

I personally believe rape is one of the worst of crimes because the victim may be, for lack of a better phrase, "F'd in the head" for the rest of their life. If people can have their own clone to do with what they please it has the high potential to bring out the worst in humans.

If we make clones they should be treated as equals because they would be just as human as you and me. With that said it almost seems pointless, to me, to even bother making clones because it just brings more people into a world where overpopulation is becoming a concern. From a scientific aspect it is very exciting but past that it seems pointless.

What's you opinion?

Unlucky Slayer · Nov 16, 2009, 08:39 PM // 20:39

Cloning does not bother me as long as its used for the correct means. Medical purposes is the biggest and I believe the only ways cloning should be used. Being able to take a perfectly healthy person and being able to clone their organs to be used in transplants would be amazing. The donor would not have to die or whatever to donate and the person in need would still get the organ they desperately need.

MMSDome · Nov 16, 2009, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Good point, maybe I should have been more specific. I am referring to the cloning of humans as a whole and not specific organs, body parts, etc. I am all for the kind of cloning you mention, slayer.

Rocky Raccoon · Nov 16, 2009, 08:43 PM // 20:43

Why do you think you would own the clone? It is another human being with all the rights that go with it and last time I looked slavery was banned by a constitutional amendment.

MMSDome · Nov 16, 2009, 08:48 PM // 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

Why do you think you would own the clone? It is another human being with all the rights that go with it and last time I looked slavery was banned by a constitutional amendment.

Technicalities.

There are people crooked enough out there to dispute who are what a slave actually is. They could argue that clones are not human.

**cosyfiep** · Nov 16, 2009, 09:20 PM // 21:20

last time they tried to clone me they got a sheep....

I have no problems with cloning body parts especially for medical purposes, though I wish I could clone myself sometimes just to get all my stuff done.

bleh

Shursh · Nov 16, 2009, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Sixth Day
A.I.
Surrogates
Stepford Wives

and on and on...

If Hollywood is any indication of what might happen with this technology in the wrong hands, I'd prefer to just stick with organ cloning.

We weren't meant to live forever.

zwei2stein · Nov 16, 2009, 10:06 PM // 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

I am referring to the cloning of humans as a whole and not specific organs, body parts, etc.

How is this any different from having slave. Which you obtain by, say, buying child. (take trip to 3rd world, you can literally buy newborn child for 100$. Or, for bigger money, even in USA, you can have doctor proclaim some woman to have 'stillbirth' and you walk away with newborn if you have enough cash and know who to talk to).

What then would be difference from clone? You took human being and can abuse it any way you want just like you could do with clone.

Quote:

I see cloning as having the opportunity for people to use clones as their slaves. Humans are very strange creatures and we are capable of doing terrible things so what is to stop someone from seeing what it likes to murder someone? What is to stop someone from continuously raping the clone and just having the clone as their sex slave? If you have your own clone you can send them out to do anything that may be illegal or taboo in society

What is stopping anyone from buying child and seeing what it is to muder one?

Or have as worker slave?

Or have as sexual slave (small bonus points for waiting till it is 18+)?

What prevents you from taking kid, indoctrinating it, giving it a gun and sending it to kill someone?

People did, do and will do theese things to *real* people.

People took children and raised them to be prostitues, to be killers, workers or just to be killed (lets just say that french legion used to have this test to see whether you had guts to kill someone. Russian Specnaz are still being hardened in similar way - thou not on humans.).

What prevents anyone going to russia and *buying* 18 years old plaything for 1000$ that they can do anything to as long as they can suply drugs?

Clones are not issue here. World is. Have you heard about that german man that kept his daugter as sexual slave, shut down in cellar?

Cloning will not change this. Chances are, it will still be easier and cheaper to get playhuman some other way.

AtomicMew · Nov 16, 2009, 11:06 PM // 23:06

Quote:

What is to stop someone from continuously raping the clone and just having the clone as their sex slave?

That's REALLY hot. I can think of a few sex slave clones I would like to have. I would have a whole harem full of them.

Quote:

Or have as sexual slave (small bonus points for waiting till it is 18+)?

Nah. But bonus points for correctly labeling it as an IT.

Clones are not human. They are not conceived naturally and therefore don't have the same inalienable rights that humans conceived naturally have. Btw, dont even start with artificial insemination and in vitro, because that is not the same thing. It is still human, and thus deserving of rights.

Clones are simply tools that are made for use, like a hammer or screwdriver... or like cloned insulin that is produced to help PEOPLE. The distinction is obvious; rationally, it is not moral to treat a hammer as a human being. In other words, as Kant argued, moral autonomy is central to humanity. The deduction is that objective experience is actively constituted or constructed by the functioning of the human mind.

That is not to say it is impossible to feel emotion for an object. I won't give examples, because I'm sure everyone can think of one. However, that type of relationship is not supported by society. It necessarily holds no legal or moral bearing. Since clones are unnatural, they are not afforded the same status by society. A relationship with a clone therefore holds the same bearing as a relationship with Laura Croft; that is to say, it is not real.

Even from the perspective of moral relativism, any claim that clones have value needs to be closely evaluated. Let's assume that society were to grant clones, an non-human object, the same status as people. First of all, creating a clone would require massively more amounts of resources than creating a novel human individual. That will probably be true for the indefinite future, and so for clones to have a place in society, they would require to have some value-addition placed on their copied genetics. This could be, for example the clones genetic pre-disposition for beauty (I won't give any examples, since everyone has their own sexual tastes). Of course, once the clone reaches a certain age, it no longer becomes beautiful and desired, and therefore it would no longer make sense to keep the clone as functional, as that would require resources. To do so would be value-detracting, and would make no sense to create a clone with value-detracting parameters. Thus, a clone would be a short-"lived" "person" even if they were deemed acceptable by society. There are other possible uses for clones, such as cloning really strong humans for work in dangerous and labor intensive jobs. Of course, these "humans" would be short lived as well, as it would simply be more efficient to drive them as much as possible, similar to how slaves were driven in the past. Of course, the analogy is not isomorphic, as people enslaved by other people are still PEOPLE and deserving of natural rights.

MMSDome · Nov 16, 2009, 11:28 PM // 23:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

How is this any different from having slave. Which you obtain by, say, buying child. (take trip to 3rd world, you can literally buy newborn child for 100$. Or, for bigger money, even in USA, you can have doctor proclaim some woman to have 'stillbirth' and you walk away with newborn if you have enough cash and know who to talk to).

What then would be difference from clone? You took human being and can abuse it any way you want just like you could do with clone.

What is stopping anyone from buying child and seeing what it is to muder one?

Or have as worker slave?

Or have as sexual slave (small bonus points for waiting till it is 18+)?

What prevents you from taking kid, indoctrinating it, giving it a gun and sending it to kill someone?

People did, do and will do theese things to *real* people.

People took children and raised them to be prostitues, to be killers, workers or just to be killed (lets just say that french legion used to have this test to see whether you had guts to kill someone. Russian Specnaz are still being hardened in similar way - thou not on humans.).

What prevents anyone going to russia and *buying* 18 years old plaything for 1000$ that they can do anything to as long as they can suply drugs?

Clones are not issue here. World is. Have you heard about that german man that kept his daugter as sexual slave, shut down in cellar?

Cloning will not change this. Chances are, it will still be easier and cheaper to get playhuman some other way.

Because you aren't cloning an entire human being, just the parts.

zwei2stein · Nov 16, 2009, 11:49 PM // 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

Because you aren't cloning an entire human being, just the parts.

Um, aint point of thread what cloning of full human being means?

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

...

You are pretty screwed in head, you know, right?

BTW:

Quote:

Of course, the analogy is not isomorphic, as people enslaved by other people are still PEOPLE and deserving of natural rights.

Err, now. You see, anything non-european was supposed to be soulless and hence just speaking animal with no rights.

Analogy is perfect, Clone will be full human with everything any other human has. I am sure he/she/it (it as child) would really appreciate your personal in face explanation how they have no rights.

Lihinel · Nov 16, 2009, 11:50 PM // 23:50

Please come forward with any argument that can not be applied (and did or does in fact not already happen) to humans born through current methods.

Hollywood and book autors are often incapable of understanding what they try to write about. Most of what films label as "cloning" would be better described as copying. As in what you would get by "scaning" a given individual on a subcellular level and recreating it in a 3D printing like fashion. Those are two differnt things that would require vastly different technologies.

On a legal ground, I fail to see the difference between a clone and a say a identical twin.

On a sidenote, we should really move on and extend the whole human rights thing to any kind of intelligence. Otherwise we might be in deep shit if we exclude enhanced "human" entities (or maybe AGIs) and the surpressed decide turn the tables.
This is no Movie, if the real live equivalent of the Terminators or the Borg would come around our humanity or federation equivalents would be squished in no time.
But hey, killing all the protagonists within the first 5 minutes wouldn't make for a good movie, right?

Btw, that kind of scenario (of more efficient tool user killing lesser) already happend, our ancestors exterminated the other members of the genus homo. The niche for intelligent, tool using species appears to be a rather narrow one.

Eskimoz · Nov 17, 2009, 01:13 AM // 01:13

My opinion is that cloning is stupid.

Why?

Because it's just so unnecessary.

Quote:

our ancestors exterminated the other members of the genus homo. The niche for intelligent, tool using species appears to be a rather narrow one

You might be surprised to learn that our ancestors and neanderthals lived together for a VERY long time.

Apparently they were best buddies.

joshuarodger · Nov 17, 2009, 01:25 AM // 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

argument about clones not being human.

is a clone's child a human?

Eskimoz · Nov 17, 2009, 01:51 AM // 01:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshuarodger

is a clone's child a human?

Put aside the obvious fact that a "Clone" is a Human.

A Clone's child would be a "Cluman" or some other witty combination of the two words.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Nov 17, 2009, 03:13 AM // 03:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihinel

Btw, that kind of scenario (of more efficient tool user killing lesser) already happend, our ancestors exterminated the other members of the genus homo. The niche for intelligent, tool using species appears to be a rather narrow one.

Don't qoute me as this is just something mentioned in my Bio class but the Neanderthals or "other genus homo" where actually physically and (judging from skull size) mentally superior to us sapiens. They just choose to live in an ice age while we chilled in Asia.

I would say clones are human, but by the time clones are fully in the eye of the public (I would say there is some lab somewhere thats managed alot more then we have, and does not have ethics to worry about, not being a skeptic, just being reasonable.) idk how they would be looked on. I don't see the benefit of cloning a full person anyway.

Eskimoz · Nov 17, 2009, 03:18 AM // 03:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerwyn Nasilan

Don't qoute me as this is just something mentioned in my Bio class but the Neanderthals or "other genus homo" where actually physically and (judging from skull size) mentally superior to us sapiens. They just choose to live in an ice age while we chilled in Asia

Not to be an ass...but 3 things.

Those guys hung out in Asia too.

surprisingly we're still in an ice age. Imagine what a "warm" age would be like.

I quoted you, ha ha.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Nov 17, 2009, 03:32 AM // 03:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimoz

Not to be an ass...but 3 things.

Those guys hung out in Asia too.

surprisingly we're still in an ice age. Imagine what a "warm" age would be like.

I quoted you, ha ha.

Yeah wasn't sure on its validity, just throwing it in.

Lihinel · Nov 17, 2009, 03:45 AM // 03:45

@Eskimoz:Apparently not as good buddies as man & dog. (Though yeah, those are about 10^4 separated at least for working relationship, first breads might fit in the right time)

But as it stands we live and they are gone, all of them and we have been doing a rather good job at getting rid of a lot of other primates too.

I'll grant you that we are not sure about the actuall reason that caused their extinction, but seeing how we shared the same niche and therefore depended at least on a subset of the same ressources makes it hard to wash our hands in innocence.
(Heck, we even raid & kill our own neighbouring tribes when time are though or it seems like a good opportunity.)

"You might be surprised to learn that our ancestors and toasters lived together for a VERY long time." Wasn't that one a lines in the new Battlestar Galactica Series?

Anakita Snakecharm · Nov 17, 2009, 03:49 AM // 03:49

From a scientific standpoint, a "clone" is simply another individual genetically identical to the donor. The clone is no more an extension of the original than an identical twin would be. They are fully separate organisms with the same genetic code.

Although a clone is produced by artificial means (as, it has been pointed out, is the case for many assisted reproductive options, to varying degrees,) there is no reason intrinsic to the nature of the clone that would indicate he/she should have anything less than full status as a person under law-- any more than person status would be only granted to the older of a pair of identical twins, or denied to people conceived via IVF.

I think that with any new technology where development has outpaced ethical discussions and government regulation, abuse is possible, and probably likely. That includes cloning. But looking at the science and the medicine, there is no inherent reason that a clone can or should be denied rights.