Is Human cloning ethically right?

[Ereria]

no

[Uxupox]

Overpopulation is a problem and I cannot see any benefit that will bring us by cloning humans unless you are gonna harvest their organs but that's just unethical.

[Fesconia]

Yes, it is. If experimenting on and cloning animals like Dolly the sheep is alright, then the same should be true for human cloning. And even if animal cloning is not considered to be ethically right, cloning should be legal in the name of science and progress. If we have the right to alter animals and other life forms then I don't see the dilemma in cloning humans. Cloning as a whole could be said to be ethically wrong though only the cloning of humans being classified as wrong is ethically wrong in itself.

I believe human cloning should be legal without question if is true for animals. The question of cloning being morally unethical can only be regarded if cloning as a whole is being taken and not just human cloning.

[WestRedMaple]

In your posts. You state that discrimination by some people could make having a cloned child potentially unethical. The exact same rationale would apply to any group that some choose to discriminate against.

No, I said some people may consider clones barred from rights because of descrimination and the fact they would think it would be unethical. I did not say that it MAKES it unethical because of what some people may think.

What do you mean no? I quoted you expressing that exact stance.

You're just dodging now.

In what way does Person A discriminating against someone make actions of Person B potentially unethical?

[WestRedMaple]

Forget the religion and morality for the moment, but lets talk about the clones themselves:

How would they react when told that they were artificially created? I can't see that they'd be thrilled, I mean how would a normal person react? plus there is a question of whether the clone would enjoy the same human rights as everyone else, and on top of that our population is large enough as it is without pushing in extra members who might even choose not to cooperate with other humans. In the end the only people using clones would be the rich and powerful ensuring that they would forever leave an imprint of themselves and be, in a way, immortal - thus defeating the purpose of clones which I believe was mainly for medical necessities.
Stephen Hawking has already expressed his displeasure about the growing dependence on AI which may eventually backfire if the AI gains self-awareness.

Click here

I believe the same problem is valid here too.

So no, no cloning until we are sure that we can keep a leash on them without actually treating them as property.

Well, the current people who were artificially created don't seem to have any problem with it.

The only question of whether one person should have the same rights as others is in the mind of bigots. If we aren't going to let them stop people from having mixed-race babies etc, then why let them have any say in cloned babies?

Sure the population is large enough, but we still need a steady stream of new people.

No cloning until you figure out how to "keep a leash on them"?! Why would you want a leash on human beings? Have you figured out any way to leash non-cloned babies?

[Arcanda]

How would someone benefit from cloning ? How would the cloned child would live ? Would they be considered property ?
Even if someone cloned my dead dog I would feel bad.After all, cloning only copies the body and not the mind.

I fail to see why someone would clone a human.

[The Foxes Swamp]

no

[Imperializt Russia]

No I don't think we should clone Humans for scientific research or to fulfill X job.

I'm just imaging a future where Humans would be cloned to harvest their organs...

We can already grow organs in a matter of months.
A cloned human would have to be raised for years before its organs can be useful for harvest.

Cloning entire humans for human parts is enormously wasteful and inefficient.

[Imperializt Russia]

How would someone benefit from cloning ? How would the cloned child would live ? Would they be considered property ?
Even if someone cloned my dead dog I would feel bad.After all, cloning only copies the body and not the mind.

I fail to see why someone would clone a human.

A person's mind could easily form very differently when cloned.
IIRC, one of the issues with the first cloned cat was that the fur pattern of cats is completely random, and thus a lot of copies had to be made to arrive at an approximate colour. Not to mention, animal cloning efforts have been pretty failure-stricken in general.

[Luziyca]

It's all very grey and depends on how clones are treated. If they are stillborn and used to harvest organs, I think I'd find it disturbing but could see the merit in it. However, if a cloned person has been made sentient, they should get all the rights and protection that conventionally conceived people get.

Basically this.

[Wisconsin9]

Yes, it is. If experimenting on and cloning animals like Dolly the sheep is alright, then the same should be true for human cloning. And even if animal cloning is not considered to be ethically right, cloning should be legal in the name of science and progress. If we have the right to alter animals and other life forms then I don't see the dilemma in cloning humans. Cloning as a whole could be said to be ethically wrong though only the cloning of humans being classified as wrong is ethically wrong in itself.

I believe human cloning should be legal without question if is true for animals. The question of cloning being morally unethical can only be regarded if cloning as a whole is being taken and not just human cloning.

The problem with cloning humans for experiments is that the clones will still be humans. You wouldn't be able to perform any experiment that couldn't be performed on just about anyone else, not without running into the ethical safeguards we already apply.

[Apparatchikstan]

Like every human contrivance, any ethical issues should be determined on how the clone is used. Like the hammer, the creation in and of itself is not inherently bad, since it can be used either as a weapon, or a constructive tool. The ultimate blame lies with the end user.

[Knockturn Alley]

Forget the religion and morality for the moment, but lets talk about the clones themselves:

How would they react when told that they were artificially created? I can't see that they'd be thrilled, I mean how would a normal person react? plus there is a question of whether the clone would enjoy the same human rights as everyone else, and on top of that our population is large enough as it is without pushing in extra members who might even choose not to cooperate with other humans. In the end the only people using clones would be the rich and powerful ensuring that they would forever leave an imprint of themselves and be, in a way, immortal - thus defeating the purpose of clones which I believe was mainly for medical necessities.
Stephen Hawking has already expressed his displeasure about the growing dependence on AI which may eventually backfire if the AI gains self-awareness.

Click here

I believe the same problem is valid here too.

So no, no cloning until we are sure that we can keep a leash on them without actually treating them as property.

Well, the current people who were artificially created don't seem to have any problem with it.

The only question of whether one person should have the same rights as others is in the mind of bigots. If we aren't going to let them stop people from having mixed-race babies etc, then why let them have any say in cloned babies?

Sure the population is large enough, but we still need a steady stream of new people.

No cloning until you figure out how to "keep a leash on them"?! Why would you want a leash on human beings? Have you figured out any way to leash non-cloned babies?

At the very least it should be strictly monitored by the government, and how would you do that when there are plenty of countries which have very inefficient governments? If it becomes legal in one country, inevitably there will be people who will smuggle them to the underdeveloped ones, and if the cloning technology is easily available for the masses, what would you do if a terrorist group like ISIS manages to get their hands on that? Or perhaps the North Korean government? More people to brainwash! Manufacturing humans will bring a whole new level of complexities which is best left alone right now, at least until we can restore world peace again.

[Imperializt Russia]

Forget the religion and morality for the moment, but lets talk about the clones themselves:

How would they react when told that they were artificially created? I can't see that they'd be thrilled, I mean how would a normal person react? plus there is a question of whether the clone would enjoy the same human rights as everyone else, and on top of that our population is large enough as it is without pushing in extra members who might even choose not to cooperate with other humans. In the end the only people using clones would be the rich and powerful ensuring that they would forever leave an imprint of themselves and be, in a way, immortal - thus defeating the purpose of clones which I believe was mainly for medical necessities.
Stephen Hawking has already expressed his displeasure about the growing dependence on AI which may eventually backfire if the AI gains self-awareness.

Click here

I believe the same problem is valid here too.

So no, no cloning until we are sure that we can keep a leash on them without actually treating them as property.

Well, the current people who were artificially created don't seem to have any problem with it.

Cloning is a fundamentally different issue to IVF.

[WestRedMaple]

Well, the current people who were artificially created don't seem to have any problem with it.

The only question of whether one person should have the same rights as others is in the mind of bigots. If we aren't going to let them stop people from having mixed-race babies etc, then why let them have any say in cloned babies?

Sure the population is large enough, but we still need a steady stream of new people.

No cloning until you figure out how to "keep a leash on them"?! Why would you want a leash on human beings? Have you figured out any way to leash non-cloned babies?

At the very least it should be strictly monitored by the government, and how would you do that when there are plenty of countries which have very inefficient governments? If it becomes legal in one country, inevitably there will be people who will smuggle them to the underdeveloped ones, and if the cloning technology is easily available for the masses, what would you do if a terrorist group like ISIS manages to get their hands on that? Or perhaps the North Korean government? More people to brainwash! Manufacturing humans will bring a whole new level of complexities which is best left alone right now, at least until we can restore world peace again.

If a group gets ahold of such technology....they'll still be stuck with the same number of kids. Cloning doesn't magically create new people.

[WestRedMaple]

Well, the current people who were artificially created don't seem to have any problem with it.

Cloning is a fundamentally different issue to IVF.

Actually, many of the issues being brought up apply to both. Gatorade is fundamentally different than Pepsi, but when the issues brought up are applicable to sugary beverages, there's no denying that there is a major overlap.

The specific issue brought up there is one that applies to both IVF and cloning.

[Imperializt Russia]

They'll still have to wait like fourteen, fifteen years for these clones to gestate, be born, and then teach them in their ways.
Will IS even still be here in a sixth of a century?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

No, I said some people may consider clones barred from rights because of descrimination and the fact they would think it would be unethical. I did not say that it MAKES it unethical because of what some people may think.

What do you mean no? I quoted you expressing that exact stance.

You're just dodging now.

In what way does Person A discriminating against someone make actions of Person B potentially unethical?

To be honest I don't know what in the hell you're getting at, or what the hell you're going on about. You asked why a clone potentially would not be granted rights as they are human, yes? My response was essentially this:

Humans were not granted rights based on color in the past, yes? And humans now are not granted certain rights based on sexual orientation, yes? Thus, I stated that potentially the same could happen with clones in the future, say because some people may not consider them true humans.

So how the hell you got "I think interracial children are unethical because some people are discriminatory" is honestly beyond me.

[WestRedMaple]

What do you mean no? I quoted you expressing that exact stance.

You're just dodging now.

In what way does Person A discriminating against someone make actions of Person B potentially unethical?

To be honest I don't know what in the hell you're getting at, or what the hell you're going on about. You asked why a clone potentially would not be granted rights as they are human, yes? My response was essentially this:

Humans were not granted rights based on color in the past, yes? And humans now are not granted certain rights based on sexual orientation, yes? Thus, I stated that potentially the same could happen with clones in the future, say because some people may not consider them true humans.

So how the hell you got "I think interracial children are unethical because some people are discriminatory" is honestly beyond me.

No, you said that other people discriminating would make this possibly unethical.

By all means, feel free to explain how you think what an entirely different person chooses to do magically makes someone's action either ethical or unethical.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

To be honest I don't know what in the hell you're getting at, or what the hell you're going on about. You asked why a clone potentially would not be granted rights as they are human, yes? My response was essentially this:

Humans were not granted rights based on color in the past, yes? And humans now are not granted certain rights based on sexual orientation, yes? Thus, I stated that potentially the same could happen with clones in the future, say because some people may not consider them true humans.

So how the hell you got "I think interracial children are unethical because some people are discriminatory" is honestly beyond me.

No, you said that other people discriminating would make this possibly unethical.

By all means, feel free to explain how you think what an entirely different person chooses to do magically makes someone's action either ethical or unethical.

No, I didn't. That is clearly how you interpreted it however. I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp. This is honestly exasperating, and absurd.

[WestRedMaple]

No, you said that other people discriminating would make this possibly unethical.

By all means, feel free to explain how you think what an entirely different person chooses to do magically makes someone's action either ethical or unethical.

No, I didn't. That is clearly how you interpreted it however. I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp. This is honestly exasperating, and absurd.

Yes, you did. I quoted you doing it.

Why do you think the actions of Person A somehow transform the actions of Person B into something possibly unethical?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

No, I didn't. That is clearly how you interpreted it however. I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp. This is honestly exasperating, and absurd.

Yes, you did. I quoted you doing it.

Why do you think the actions of Person A somehow transform the actions of Person B into something possibly unethical?

I don't fucking say I think that. I was responding to your post of you asking why clones potentially wouldn't have rights, and I said the same reason people of color used to not have rights and why people of certain orientation don't have certain rights now. Descrimination.

If you still cannot wrap your head around this simple concept and continue to misinterpret or misunderstand, I honestly don't know how else I can make it any clearer for you.

[WestRedMaple]

Yes, you did. I quoted you doing it.

Why do you think the actions of Person A somehow transform the actions of Person B into something possibly unethical?

I don't fucking say I think that. I was responding to your post of you asking why clones potentially wouldn't have rights, and I said the same reason people of color used to not have rights and why people of certain orientation don't have certain rights now. Descrimination.

If you still cannot wrap your head around this simple concept and continue to misinterpret or misunderstand, I honestly don't know how else I can make it any clearer for you.

You did say it. That was your basis for why cloning would be possibly unethical.

Why are you unwilling to explain yourself when asked about your position?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I don't fucking say I think that. I was responding to your post of you asking why clones potentially wouldn't have rights, and I said the same reason people of color used to not have rights and why people of certain orientation don't have certain rights now. Descrimination.

If you still cannot wrap your head around this simple concept and continue to misinterpret or misunderstand, I honestly don't know how else I can make it any clearer for you.

You did say it. That was your basis for why cloning would be possibly unethical.

Why are you unwilling to explain yourself when asked about your position?

No. That is not my basis at all.

My opinion is that organ cloning is fine, full human cloning is unnecessary and creates unnecessary issues. Not that cloning in general is unethical, and certainly not for the reason of "people say it's bad". So, again, clearly you misunderstand, and no where did I say "it's unethical because some people think it is" or whatever such nonsense you keep rambling on about.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

I'd go so far as to say cloning should replace sexual reproduction entirely.