Cloning, genetic engineering, eugenics

[Barry the Sprout]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this an excuse to narrow the gene pool a bit more?

Always a bad thing historically (just look at the Royal Family in the UK).

I am sorry but in my view everyone has a right to life, whatever happens to them. We should try to keep people alive for as long as they want to be alive. If they are in pain and want to die then I also beleive that that is their choice.

As for the sterilisation thing then I would say it is a little worrying to me personally. Where we will stop? Do we give people no possibility to redeem themselves if it is a character trait? Who is drawing the line between healthy and unhealthy people? Acceptable disorders and those that can't be allowed to survive in the human race.

I am sorry but this raises far too many questions in my mind.

[Dreamer128]

I see it like this, its easy to be against it and shout that we are murdering our own kind. But if they would be infected with some nasty virus only that program could cure they would all be in favor of it. So now we have a situation in wich we must choose between living and thinking humans and a few cells. And if we kill defenceless animals for organs and take them from our own corpses, why not a lifeless bunch of cells? Just my two cents though.

[Barry the Sprout]

I was only really touching on the Eugenics issue, not the genetic engineering of organs Dreamer128. That is such a scientific mindfield that I don't even want to start on it.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


I think sterilization should be employed if they are addicted to something and take it in such amounts that it would damage the unborn child, anything counts, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs.... Or if they were so addicted that it affected their mind, in which case they would be unable to take care of their children properly.

---

If you're going to sterilise all women who smoke/drink enough to damage an unborn child, then you are talking about a LOT of people here. By that token, I would have been sterilised during my early twenties, and so would most of my female friends.

In my earlier years (ie. twenties and early thirties) I had what is euphemistically termed 'a severe drug/alcohol problem'. These days, I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, in fact, I don't even take the drugs that most people accept as a normal part of an everyday life, such as coffee, tea and sugar. What price redemption??

However, I agree that alcoholics and drug users having children can often be extremely problematic. I have seen some of the results, and they are appalling and tragic. However, not always. A very good friend of mine took cocaine throughout the early part of her pregnancy, washed down with copious amounts of alcohol.

Once she found out she was pregnant, she stopped all that, although was not able to completely stop smoking. (She did cut right down however.) She is an excellent mother, except for her propensity to smoke around her child, and in fact, having the child led to her changing her lifestyle and has been the making of her, as she is the first to admit. Again, what price redemption?

I don't know what the answer is.

[Fljotsdale]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zbyszek:
It is serious problem.
Do you believe that eugenics could/should be introduced? Me - yes.
If not, do you believe that everyone has should be held alive, do you think that people should be artificially helped: new born and elders? (Me - no)
If you want to keep new born children alive artificially do you agree for genetic engineering?

Do you know that in each our generation new diseases with genetic background appear? Why? Because children who would die naturally are kept alive. Our genes become weaker and weaker.

Do you believe that 4 or 6 cells is a human beeing? They say they cloned human, but what they have done they got 2 or 3 divisions of cell.

---

I have contradictory viewpoints about these issues.
1. I am deeply, deeply opposed to cloning and creating living human organisms for the sole purpose of repairing other living human organisms. The fact the cloned human organism consists of only a few cells does not alter the fact that it is living and human - were it anything else it would not serve the purpose.
Look at it this way - suppose the cloned person were brought to term and you then took the tissues you needed (kidneys, a liver, arms, bladder, etc) and implanted them into other humans to save those other human lives. Would the sacrifice of that one healthy cloned human baby be ok because it had saved the lives of a number of damaged/defective non-cloned humans? I doubt if anyone would agree it was ok! At this time.

But why is it so different with an early embryo? EVERYTHING that goes to make up the human individual baby is within those few early cells. A new life has been created, just as much as if it had been created in the normal way within a human uterus. What mother would not feel violated if those few cell were ripped from her body and used to mend some other person? It would feel like deliberate murder to her - and naturally so. It is against every human instinct of justice and decency.
IMO, cloning is wrong in itself. But, having made a cloned embryo, USING it to heal others is a total violation of its inherant human rights (never mind what LAW might say!), just as slavery is a violation of human rights. In fact, this use of a clone is actually putting it into a brand new slave category - a creation for use by 'real' humans.

On the other hand, and quite contradictory to that viewpoint, I do not believe the seriously genetically mentally subnormal should be allowed to have children. Nor do I think we should try to keep alive seriously damaged babies who whould die without intervention. Nor do I believe that very elderly sick people should be forced to stay alive by medical intervention when the quality of their lives is nothing short of misery. I certainly don't hwve a desire to remain alive plugged into a machine for as long as they can make me hang on!

Ok, you can hit me now!

[Sir ReGiN]

Oh, don't even get me started on this one [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fljotsdale:


I have contradictory viewpoints about these issues.
1. I am deeply, deeply opposed to cloning and creating living human organisms for the sole purpose of repairing other living human organisms. The fact the cloned human organism consists of only a few cells does not alter the fact that it is living and human - were it anything else it would not serve the purpose.
Look at it this way - suppose the cloned person were brought to term and you then took the tissues you needed (kidneys, a liver, arms, bladder, etc) and implanted them into other humans to save those other human lives. Would the sacrifice of that one healthy cloned human baby be ok because it had saved the lives of a number of damaged/defective non-cloned humans? I doubt if anyone would agree it was ok! At this time.

But why is it so different with an early embryo? EVERYTHING that goes to make up the human individual baby is within those few early cells. A new life has been created, just as much as if it had been created in the normal way within a human uterus. What mother would not feel violated if those few cell were ripped from her body and used to mend some other person? It would feel like deliberate murder to her - and naturally so. It is against every human instinct of justice and decency.
IMO, cloning is wrong in itself. But, having made a cloned embryo, USING it to heal others is a total violation of its inherant human rights (never mind what LAW might say!), just as slavery is a violation of human rights. In fact, this use of a clone is actually putting it into a brand new slave category - a creation for use by 'real' humans.

---

I think you make an interesting point, but I don't think all human cloning comes from human embryo's does it? I could be wrong.

Seems to me, if through research, you could find a way to clone healthy human cells this would be a viable option. Say for instance if I could donate cells, and they could in turn "grow" something useful to help someone else. This to me would be no more offensive than organ donation, and even better because I would live through it [img]smile.gif[/img]

Kind of like the experiment where they grew a human ear on the back of a mouse.(who the heck came up with that idea) I don't recall that being work with embryos.

[andora20]

but I don't think all human cloning comes from human embryo's does it? I could be wrong.

[andora20]

Sorry about the last quote, but unfortunately, yes, when we donate cells at the moment, they have to be allowed to form a human Embryo before we can get anything usefull out of it. A human Embryo contains stem cells which after a time develope into organs like the brain or liver. That is why it is so controversial. Should we be allowed to grow a new life ie Embryo just to harvest it for our own uses? I suppose it depends on when you believe life starts.............

[Istaron]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zbyszek:
It is serious problem.
Do you believe that eugenics could/should be introduced? Me - yes.
If not, do you believe that everyone has should be held alive, do you think that people should be artificially helped: new born and elders? (Me - no)
If you want to keep new born children alive artificially do you agree for genetic engineering?

Do you know that in each our generation new diseases with genetic background appear? Why? Because children who would die naturally are kept alive. Our genes become weaker and weaker.

Do you believe that 4 or 6 cells is a human beeing? They say they cloned human, but what they have done they got 2 or 3 divisions of cell.

---

I say no to all three questions. Ironicly, I've got astma and should have been put out long time ago [img]smile.gif[/img] but stil