Human Cloning

by **Tunizcha** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:41 pm

I need some sources.

Let me explain. My debate class is currently on the topic of human cloning, and I have sided with the pro- side. Our teacher has instructed us to find at least 1 article concerning this topic that helps your side. I cannot currently do this, since my Google is kaput.

So what I need the good folks at NSG to do is to find me some pro- (or even a neutral position) human cloning sites/articles, and link me. Much thanks.

by **Conserative Morality** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:41 pm

Wikipedia?

"Skallvia" · by **Maurepas** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:41 pm

IIRC, this is against the rules, Im afraid,

EDIT: Also, in before lock, :lol:

by **Rhodmhire** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:43 pm

I think this might be against the NS rules, but I don't know if it's only for graded homework or not. And I'm not sure if this is to be graded, but then again, I fail at NS rules.

"Skallvia" · by **Maurepas** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:43 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:Wikipedia?

Its a good source to find sources, but most schools dislike it as a source per se, IIRC...

I did a speech in Public Speaking on why it should be as legitimate as anythinge else, which, ironically, i didnt cite Wikipedia in, :lol2:

by **Rhodmhire** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:45 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote:Wikipedia?

Its a good source to find sources, but most schools dislike it as a source per se, IIRC...

I did a speech in Public Speaking on why it should be as legitimate as anythinge else, which, ironically, i didnt cite Wikipedia in,

Absolutely, so long as you're not idiotic enough to not compare with some other cited sources on the topic at hand.

Sadly, a lot of school kids, who don't want to read a book or scroll through another site, probably are.

by **Tunizcha** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:45 pm

Maurepas wrote:IIRC, this is against the rules, Im afraid,

EDIT: Also, in before lock,

Aww. Darn.

by **Buffett and Colbert** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:45 pm

Sorry, I'm too busy prepping for tomorrow and the next day's MUN conference.

My debate is better than YOURS! *points and laughs*

by **KaIashnikov** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:46 pm

No clones in the Marines!

by **Tunizcha** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:47 pm

Anyone get a link in before the lock?

by **Conserative Morality** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:47 pm

Maurepas wrote:Its a good source to find sources, but most schools dislike it as a source per se, IIRC...

I did a speech in Public Speaking on why it should be as legitimate as anythinge else, which, ironically, i didnt cite Wikipedia in,

It's actually been proven to be more reliable than several other "reputable" sites. I'll see if I can find the study.

by **Rhodmhire** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:49 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:Sorry, I'm too busy prepping for tomorrow and the next day's MUN conference.

My debate is better than YOURS! *points and laughs*

I guess it's debatable how mean that was.

*comedic drums*

by **Buffett and Colbert** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:51 pm

Rhodmhire wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Sorry, I'm too busy prepping for tomorrow and the next day's MUN conference.

My debate is better than YOURS! *points and laughs*

I guess it's debatable how mean that was.

*comedic drums*

I think you're just speaking for yourself.

by **Rhodmhire** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:53 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Rhodmhire wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Sorry, I'm too busy prepping for tomorrow and the next day's MUN conference.

My debate is better than YOURS! *points and laughs*

I guess it's debatable how mean that was.

*comedic drums*

I think you're just speaking for yourself.

No 'lol?'

Well, I tried.

"Skallvia" · by **Maurepas** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:53 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:
Maurepas wrote:Its a good source to find sources, but most schools dislike it as a source per se, IIRC...

I did a speech in Public Speaking on why it should be as legitimate as anythinge else, which, ironically, i didnt cite Wikipedia in,

It's actually been proven to be more reliable than several other "reputable" sites. I'll see if I can find the study.

IIRC, the BBC found it to be something like 90% as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica...That was the study I used in the speech...

Really though, I dont think they would have noticed if I had made everything up on the spot...a little later I gave another speech on how plastic bottles were filling landfills and were a problem, and my solution was to introduce Ethanol to gas stations...noone even noticed the two were not related, and afterward the Professor even asked if I was willing to speak at an Environmentalist convention, :lol2:

(I politely said "maybe" and laughed it off)

by **Buffett and Colbert** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:55 pm

Rhodmhire wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Rhodmhire wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Sorry, I'm too busy prepping for tomorrow and the next day's MUN conference.

My debate is better than YOURS! *points and laughs*

I guess it's debatable how mean that was.

*comedic drums*

I think you're just speaking for yourself.

No 'lol?'

Well, I tried.

The "lol" was implied.

by **Rhodmhire** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:56 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote:
Maurepas wrote:Its a good source to find sources, but most schools dislike it as a source per se, IIRC...

I did a speech in Public Speaking on why it should be as legitimate as anythinge else, which, ironically, i didnt cite Wikipedia in,

It's actually been proven to be more reliable than several other "reputable" sites. I'll see if I can find the study.

IIRC, the BBC found it to be something like 90% as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica...That was the study I used in the speech...

Really though, I dont think they would have noticed if I had made everything up on the spot...a little later I gave another speech on how plastic bottles were filling landfills and were a problem, and my solution was to introduce Ethanol to gas stations...noone even noticed the two were not related, and afterward the Professor even asked if I was willing to speak at an Environmentalist convention,

(I politely said "maybe" and laughed it off)

I guess the Professor also didn't realize what a horrible idea it would be to even consider utilization of ethanol as any form of an energy resource besides a last resort one.

If you ever see the Professor again, tell him I nod in his general direction.

by **Conserative Morality** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:56 pm

Maurepas wrote:IIRC, the BBC found it to be something like 90% as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica...That was the study I used in the speech...

Found it

by **Rhodmhire** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:58 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
The "lol" was implied.

Hm, I suppose.

But it's debatable.

*comedic drums*

Did I complete the circle?

by **Buffett and Colbert** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:58 pm

Rhodmhire wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
The "lol" was implied.

Hm, I suppose.

But it's debatable.

*comedic drums*

Did I complete the circle?

To that... I have no response. :lol2:

by **Rhodmhire** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:05 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Rhodmhire wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
The "lol" was implied.

Hm, I suppose.

But it's debatable.

*comedic drums*

Did I complete the circle?

To that... I have no response.

Oh, you.

by **Dempublicents1** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:47 pm

Are we talking therapeutic cloning or reproductive cloning? Or does it matter?

by **Cameroi** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:52 pm

human cloning is illogical. by that i don't mean that i won't eventually be completely possible, but there really is no point beyond proving that it can be done once it is.

of course it would be nice to be able to genetically REdesign one's physical appearance, one once is old enough to be rational and responsible about doing so.

the problem with cloning is the same as with a.i.
that is to say that there's no shortage of us already as it is.

by **Reblle** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:57 pm

Go cloning and Evolution. Go with cloning.

by **Gauntleted Fist** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:59 pm

Cameroi wrote:human cloning is illogical. by that i don't mean that i won't eventually be completely possible, but there really is no point beyond proving that it can be done once it is.

of course it would be nice to be able to genetically REdesign one's physical appearance, one once is old enough to be rational and responsible about doing so.

the problem with cloning is the same as with a.i.
that is to say that there's no shortage of us already as it is.

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but couldn't cloning human organs and the like allow for a better study of disease, viruses, etc. that could give us a greater chance of curing them?

Not cloning a full human, just reproducing organs from samples to experiment with. I don't see how it could possibly hurt anyone if cloned tissue dies.

Human Cloning

Human Cloning

Who is online