first cloned human beings
- Started
- Last post
- 53 Responses
- Mimio0
Fact:
A Embryo isn't a Fetus, it's just a complete genetic blend of both parent chromosome sets.
- abizzyman0
progress is fine... I'm all for it. On a personal note (and not many will agree with this... but it's how I feel), I have faith in certain things that eaze my mind of the need for research that requires the death of a 'would be' human.
- abizzyman0
Fact: An Embryo can BECOME NOTHING ELSE BUT A HUMAN... and will unless there are circumstances effecting the NATURAL process of things.
- ribit0
Please check your facts...
- In the process described an embryo has been artificially created using only a donor cell sample (no eggs or sperm involved, and no new, unique entity/DNA involved).
- This artifically created embryo will naturally NOT come to be a human being unless someone finds a way to grow it (perhaps a surrogate mother).
I'm not advocating this process, just pointing out the facts, which are sort of crucial to any discusson on this...
- ribit0
small correction...
egg cells with the nucleus removed (replaced with cumulus cells) were used in this process.
- kpl0
"can become" is not "is"
as for natural... natural gave us a two-headed baby the other day... Keeping things natural and leaving that baby with a 2nd head would have meant a slow death for that baby...which would be unethical.
anyway, you're opening a BIG can of worms here by having such a rigid stance on this...
- abizzyman0
excuse me...
will become
...and can't become anything else...
... think if that was you (the embyo)... and someone decided to abort you.. or research on you while in that state...
... no more you.
- kpl0
Well, gee, what if my parents decided they never wanted kids and highly disliked sex?
... no more me.
but you're not gonna tell me that's wrong, are you?
- Meeklo0
First human clonned??
Are you F#$ng Kidding me?
That was a long time ago..
Here is the live proof!
- abizzyman0
that's well before the fact...
i'm talking about AFTER conception... whether it be in a test tube or inside of mom.
what's done is done.
- kpl0
ok so it's about the line to draw. why at conception? Why not at the point of birth? Why not at the point when the fetus could survive outside the womb?
and this is where I stop, cos you're debating abortion now, not cloning.
and really, you're going to have to go beyond self-evident phrases before I can take this seriously.
- chach0
wow, i can finally share some of my work with you guys. here you go: http://www.geocities.com/jessebg…
all about IVF
be sure to check the Orion link, it says alot about the ethics of cloning.
- abstrakt0
for the love of god, his name is Suk Hwang
- ribit0
Remember the 'conception' here didnt involve egg and sperm, just 'de-nucleused' egg and cumulus cells from one donor.
(i.e. no new unique entity with it's own unique DNA.. the embryo only has the donors DNA)
- Bluejam0
Nice links there Chach, especially that Orion magazine one.
All i can say is...
The End is Extremely Fucking Nigh.
- Mimio0
Back to reality, If it's possible to clone embryos and extract stem cells from them. theoretically one embryo could save millions of lives. It just escapes me that fundamentalist religious types are resisting this research in the US.
- abizzyman0
i draw my line based on a my religious beliefs (of which I'm trying to leave out here).
But if I were to draw a 'line' on where life begins --- it's conception - when the egg and the sperm have united and the creation process begins... whether dad put it in mom... or Hwang got busy with the turkey baster... life IS there -- and destoying it is unacceptable - whether it be through abortion or in this case - research.
... they both kill what's already in existance - i don't care how it got that way - it's now LIFE.
And this is one of those situations where i don't think it's up to ANY man or woman to decide that one 'life' is worth destroying for the good of others... if someone's going to die to save someone else - it should be there decision to do so -- not mine or yours.
humans shouldn't screw around the genetic process - we didn't design it - and it's not our to toy with. -- and it's definetly not ours to experiment or ultimately destroy (even if we had good intentions)
... there's a bit of religion in that last statement... but it's how I feel.
- ribit0
But there was no sperm involved here.... Seems there are several different discussions going on in this thread.
- gabriel_pc0
" i draw my line based on a my religious beliefs (of which I'm trying to leave out here). "
Doesn't that statement cancel itself out?
- abizzyman0
like I said much earlier on - i need to better educate myself on what is really being 'experimented' on.