Scientists clone human embryos

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Personally, that's because I think it will hinder the clones in becoming full-fledged individuals. And these people are likely to suffer from it.

What about identical twins? What about clones not raised by their adult counterpart?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes, wonderful reductionist logic.

By the same logic, I should be able to kill you and harvest your organs to save the lives of many other sick people.

No. But you can ask me for a cell so that it turns into an organ.

[Ben Kenobi]

Biology lecture?

Wonderfully paternalistic. You'd make a good doctor.

The picture below is a blastocyst, which is what you get when the fertilized egg has divided for a few days.

Sperm and egg cease to exist at conception. The real biologist would use the term 'zygote'.

The cells of the "inner cell mass" are those that would eventually develop into a human,

Already, the cells are human, because they have human DNA. Very sloppy terminology.

These cells have the potential to differentiate into any cell type in the body.

Which has not been observed or verified, merely postulated.

You can do the same with your own skin cells, to make other cells of different types. This way, you do not need to kill another person for medical research.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. But you can ask me for a cell so that it turns into an organ.

Why not? All you are is a sack of cells with incredible medical potential.

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What about identical twins? What about clones not raised by their adult counterpart?

Identical twins are different from clones, because their counterpart is not in position of authority, nor is he installed in life. A twin will rarely be designated as "X's twin" (unless the other twin has a very strong personality), while a clone has a good chance of being thought as "X's child" or "X's clone" all the time.

If clones are supposed not to be raised by their adult counterparts, then the problem doesn't arise, except if said clone feels badly about being an imitation, a conform copy of somebody else.

[Fake Boris]

Ben, I was teasing you. Still, get away with your religious BS, you won't convince me that a bunch of cells are a human being.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well OK, but seeing as I'm 12 years into watching my Mother's slow decline with Parkinson's Disease you'll probably understand why I don't share that opinion. I'm just sorry that it's probably too late for her.

Would you kill someone to help your mother, Laz?

[Ben Kenobi]

Still, get away with your religious BS, you won't convince me that a bunch of cells are a human being.

Answer my question. Why should we not remove your organs because by reductionist logic, all you are is a sack of cells? We can save many people's lives by doing so.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Identical twins are different from clones, because their counterpart is not in position of authority, nor is he installed in life. A twin will rarely be designated as "X's twin" (unless the other twin has a very strong personality), while a clone has a good chance of being thought as "X's child" or "X's clone" all the time.

If clones are supposed not to be raised by their adult counterparts, then the problem doesn't arise, except if said clone feels badly about being an imitation, a conform copy of somebody else.

I doubt so, Spiffor. When cloning becomes usual, people will get used to it- especially when they see that clones can turn into wholly different beings. Do you really think a 7-years old will fall into depression, because he knows he'll look just like his father when he's 40?

Besides, how is that knowing you're a clone would be so different from being told that you look just like your father? And how can that be so bad that it's worse than being born with AIDS, trisomy, a genetic disease, or simply from an alcoholic mother?

IMO that's a false problem. The real deal will be when we can clone a human mind.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Answer my question. Why should we not remove your organs because by reductionist logic, all you are is a sack of cells? We can save many people's lives by doing so.

Simple. A foetus becomes human when it's born. Before, it's part of the woman's body.

I know, someday we'll probably be able to grow embryos artificially from the ground up, and that'll bring many more problems. By this time, human life will probably have lost its 'sacred' status. I guess making sure the cells don't suffer will be the last thing we can do.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I doubt so, Spiffor. When cloning becomes usual, people will get used to it- especially when they see that clones can turn into wholly different beings. Do you really think a 7-years old will fall into depression, because he knows he'll look just like his father when he's 40?

No, but I think the knowledge that he is exactly the same as his father can mess his personal development dramatically. Especially at puberty, as his body changes to looks very similar to his father's, only younger.

Besides, how is that knowing you're a clone would be so different from being told that you look just like your father?

Maybe because this time, it will be true?

And how can that be so bad that it's worse than being born with AIDS, trisomy, a genetic disease, or simply from an alcoholic mother?

I oppose cloning, that doesn't mean I oppose some extent of manipulation on embryos. I'm concerned about individuals, not about some "sanctity of life" or something.
And I wholly support manipulating zygotes / embryos to get rid of diseases.

IMO that's a false problem. The real deal will be when we can clone a human mind.

The body has a huge influence on the development of the human mind. Besides, it seems behaviour is partially affected by genes, so a clone would have his personality hardcoded a little bit.

[Ben Kenobi]

A foetus becomes human when it's born. Before, it's part of the woman's body.

What women are these embryos a part of? If we concieve them in a petri dish?

I guess making sure the cells don't suffer will be the last thing we can do.

That fails to address the point. What you are admitting here is that we should kill you and harvest your organs. I'll be sure to remember that for my ill grandmother, should I ever meet you.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What women are these embryos a part of? If we concieve them in a petri dish?

I'm perfectly aware of this problem, and that's why I tried to mention it in the first place. I suspect we'll go through a huge scientific debate, and decide for a point in development where the brain of the foetus definitely shows signs of humanity. As long as there are no nerves, however, the cells can't even suffer.

Following YOUR logic, actually, life should not have the right to exist, because it can only feed from other life forms.

[Ben Kenobi]

I suspect we'll go through a huge scientific debate, and decide for a point in development where the brain of the foetus definitely shows signs of humanity. As long as there are no nerves, however, the cells can't even suffer.

That's a better argument. What point in development should we draw the line?

the cells can't even suffer.

What if you are under an anaesthetic? Should I be able to kill you because you will not suffer?

life should not have the right to exist, because it can only feed from other life forms.

No. Human rights only apply to members of our own species.

[Spiffor]

Since an exact clone is not a new human being, concieved by a spermatozoid and an egg, and since a clone is merely a bunch of organs grown from an already existing person, I'm sure Ben will see nothing wrong in killing cloned human beings for the sake of harvesting them. After all, they are as unimportant as any of your skin cells.

An embryo, on the other hand, ahs an obsolute right to live. You should never dare using it for your own ends, you miserable murderer