Is the new stem cell initiative "human cloning"?

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-09-27 11:57am

There is a stem cell debate going on in my state (not sure if it is nation wide or not) that has to do with a stem cell procedure. Some say it is "human cloning", others say it isn't.

Does anyone have any foresight or information on this?

The state is Missouri, by the way.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-09-27 12:31pm

Cloning an organ is hardly what they think it is. If it saves a life, then I'd be all for it. Cloning a whole human is likely what the kneejerkers are thinking. Because then you can use the "What if they clone Hitler?!" argument.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-27 12:36pm

Because then you can use the "What if they clone Hitler?!" argument.

So... what if you clone Hitler? Really, that's perhaps the most retarded argument I heard. How is he going to become any sort of threat in reality? Just... how?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-09-27 12:37pm

Stas Bush wrote: So... what if you clone Hitler? Really, that's perhaps the most retarded argument I heard. How is he going to become any sort of threat in reality? Just... how?

Try explaining how stupid it is to Joe Bloggs on the street. Have fun ramming your head against that proverbial brick wall.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-27 12:45pm

Have fun ramming your head against that proverbial brick wall.

On topic, isn't stem cell research in the U.S. effectively banned anyway by the efforts of Bush and his cronies? Or have I lost some information?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-09-27 01:14pm

Even if they're proposing cloning embryos (not that it's ever been done) to get at the stem cells, what's wrong with that?

Cincinnatus · Post by **Cincinnatus** » 2006-09-27 02:05pm

Stas Bush wrote:
Have fun ramming your head against that proverbial brick wall.

On topic, isn't stem cell research in the U.S. effectively banned anyway by the efforts of Bush and his cronies? Or have I lost some information?

No, it just can't receive federal money.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-09-27 06:10pm

Cincinnatus wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:
Have fun ramming your head against that proverbial brick wall.

On topic, isn't stem cell research in the U.S. effectively banned anyway by the efforts of Bush and his cronies? Or have I lost some information?
No, it just can't receive federal money.

...or any equipment/assistance provided by federal money.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-27 06:20pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Cloning a whole human is likely what the kneejerkers are thinking. Because then you can use the "What if they clone Hitler?!" argument.

Not that I oppose cloning but what would be the purpose of cloning an entire person? Who would that help?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-09-27 06:24pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Cloning a whole human is likely what the kneejerkers are thinking. Because then you can use the "What if they clone Hitler?!" argument.
Not that I oppose cloning but what would be the purpose of cloning an entire person? Who would that help?

Someone who cannot conceive naturally, perhaps?
Cloning *part* of a person for purposes of transplants would be very useful, but it might just be that a full clone (with the brain perhaps intentionally prevented from developing) would be easier to do.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-27 06:26pm

Molyneux wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Cloning a whole human is likely what the kneejerkers are thinking. Because then you can use the "What if they clone Hitler?!" argument.
Not that I oppose cloning but what would be the purpose of cloning an entire person? Who would that help?
Someone who cannot conceive naturally, perhaps?

There are much easier ways of artificial impregnation than cloning.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-09-27 06:46pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Molyneux wrote:
Darth Servo wrote: Not that I oppose cloning but what would be the purpose of cloning an entire person? Who would that help?
Someone who cannot conceive naturally, perhaps?
There are much easier ways of artificial impregnation than cloning.

Even if there's been a total loss of reproductive capability?

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-27 09:09pm

The most recent so-called "breakthrough" in embryonic stem cell production involves prying loose a cell (or two) from a small ball of cells that are a result of conception. You let the main mass go on to form a baby, and scurry away to culture/extract stem cells from the teeny fragment you pried off.

Since that cell (or two) is capable of growing, in the proper environment, into a full human being it actually IS cloning... but its defenders say it's OK because the singular person lives, and the fragment is never allowed to become a person.

Except when cell-balls split like that naturally we get identical twins (or triplets).

Technically, it really is cloning... but because it happens so early people apparently find quibble-room.

Yoda · Post by **Yoda** » 2006-09-27 09:32pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Cloning a whole human is likely what the kneejerkers are thinking. Because then you can use the "What if they clone Hitler?!" argument.
Not that I oppose cloning but what would be the purpose of cloning an entire person? Who would that help?

A clone army would be nice, not as significant if one dies considering there could be millions of them.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-27 09:34pm

Yoda wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Cloning a whole human is likely what the kneejerkers are thinking. Because then you can use the "What if they clone Hitler?!" argument.
Not that I oppose cloning but what would be the purpose of cloning an entire person? Who would that help?
A clone army would be nice, not as significant if one dies considering there could be millions of them.

Clones are niether more than less than identical twins, and twins are unique individuals even if genetically identical.

How do you defend the death of unique human beings as "not as signficant"?

Yoda · Post by **Yoda** » 2006-09-27 09:42pm

Broomstick wrote:
Yoda wrote:
Darth Servo wrote: Not that I oppose cloning but what would be the purpose of cloning an entire person? Who would that help?
A clone army would be nice, not as significant if one dies considering there could be millions of them.
Clones are niether more than less than identical twins, and twins are unique individuals even if genetically identical.

How do you defend the death of unique human beings as "not as signficant"?

I'm just speaking from the genetic sense. The death of a clone would have a less significant impact on the gene pool.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-28 12:09pm

Molyneux wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:There are much easier ways of artificial impregnation than cloning.
Even if there's been a total loss of reproductive capability?

Yep. Its called "surrogate mothers". And cloning won't eliminate the need for them. Even growing a clone still requires a womb or similar environment capable of sustaining the embryo during that 9-months.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2006-09-28 12:19pm

Yoda wrote:[I'm just speaking from the genetic sense. The death of a clone would have a less significant impact on the gene pool.

But the destruction/failure to reproduce of genes is irrelevant in the moral sense, and happens all the time anyway; evolution in action. Morally what matters is the mind, and a clone is just as self aware and intelligent as anyone else. We know this because twins are clones; try shooting someone's twin and telling him/her that the twin was expendable.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-09-28 06:43pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Molyneux wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:There are much easier ways of artificial impregnation than cloning.
Even if there's been a total loss of reproductive capability?
Yep. Its called "surrogate mothers". And cloning won't eliminate the need for them. Even growing a clone still requires a womb or similar environment capable of sustaining the embryo during that 9-months.

I'm talking about offspring genetically related to the patient, here. If someone loses their gonads in some accident, there's really no way to get them a kid short of cloning, as far as I know.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-29 12:53pm

Molyneux wrote:I'm talking about offspring genetically related to the patient, here. If someone loses their gonads in some accident, there's really no way to get them a kid short of cloning, as far as I know.

Most such people I know are more than content to just adopt.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-29 07:49pm

Or just decide that, since there's no people shortage, they don't really need to reproduce/raise children after all.