Thoughts on cloning...

[MsMollimizz]

Expedition Unknown is a program on the Travel Channel...on Wednesdays for me.
Last wed. was a re-play (rerun), still good tho !
Host Josh went to Russia going to find Mammoth tusks, some scientists in South Korea
want to clone the Mammoth...? Reasoning...they don't know what made them die out
so they want to clone one to "study"...and I suppose having those huge tusks have nothing
to with it...?
In the clinic in S. Korea Josh got access to the inside, inside operating room where they
did a cesarean on a dog to "birth" a cloned dog. They showed small 3ft x 5ft enclosures
with cloned dogs...they said most of the dogs that were cloned were like the best rescue
dogs; and for the small price of $10,000 you too can clone Fido !
I was glad that they did not find the whole DNA strand...but they haven't quit-weather
related worries created a "pause for the cause" delay.
These are created animals, not the "best" sperm fertilized egg...
1. my problem with this whole thing is this Mammoth isn't going to be free to roam, it will
probably be the only one(how lonely!) just so they think they can answer the questions
about their extinction. An elephant's pregnancy is 20 months, who knows how long the
mammoth's is...? Man probably hunted them so much they were unable to reproduce,
I don't remember what age an elephant's age of maturity is...
What about a soul ? Do they still have one but is it different since it's a clone ?
2. This is an animal who stands 11ft at the shoulders...and they think they'll be able to
control it ? One step is all it would take and they are flat ! I personally don't believe
anyone has the right to clone animals like this...these animals feet aren't going to touch
the dirt and grass. They will more than likely spend their life in a cage, an enclosure or ?
If they ever get the whole gnome and are successful, that's probably the last we will hear.
What are your thoughts on cloning ? Ethical, unethical or a toss-up ?
Gentle Light
MsMollimizz

[SnowCat]

You bring up some important questions. If studying the mammoth ' remains can provide clues to the past and possibly the future, that's a worthwhile endeavor. But cloning it just to say they cloned it is cruel. I think cloning will eventually be the solution for failing organs, spinal cord injuries, and missing limbs. If one's DNA could be saved at birth, and then used to create new healthy body parts for diseased or injured ones, it would open up an entirely new way to practice medicine. It won't be in my present lifetime, but someday...

Snow

[moonraingirl]

This is a great question.
Because of chance of health problems that would cause suffering it would be too risky.

And most important, the amount of experimentation would be unbearable. I can't imagine what kind of horrible and painful tests they would do on the poor creature! Details of animal testing never fail to surprise and show magnificent creativity of "scientists" who do them (((

Even if it would be free to roam in an elephant reservation with enough space, I'm not sure if it could fit into elephant society? Mammoths were probably social creatures and it would suffer alone.

That's why I think it is unethical.

[Hagerman420]

I think if the cloning was done to help an existing human being to continue to live such as organs and limbs and such (not including the brain) that would be okay.

However, where the soul and spirit is concerned I don't like the idea of cloning at all..... we are meant to live and die so we can move on to the next experience...... technically if you clone me you are condemning me to never go on to my next experience because a part of my spirit and soul will be in every clone you make thus making me very miserable...

I want to experience as many experiences as I can lol, can't do that if one clones the body mind and soul.... I will never move on even if my *real body" has already decomposed and become earth

My opinion any ways...

Have a Great Day
Be Happy Stay Happy

[SpiritTalker]

I feel that harvesting body parts is cruel to the forced donor, and unjustifiable. Growing humans for spare parts is a despicable trade. I'd support development of re-growth from seed cells, in which a new part would grow right in place from the users' own body.

Cloning a mastodon seems cruel as well, plus we can't provide it's former habitat. Could it eat modern hay and straw, or today's polluted grasses and plant life? Or breath exhaust fumes?

[Mystie.Graves]

I feel that harvesting body parts is cruel to the forced donor, and unjustifiable. Growing humans for spare parts is a despicable trade. I'd support development of re-growth from seed cells, in which a new part would grow right in place from the users' own body.

Cloning a mastodon seems cruel as well, plus we can't provide it's former habitat. Could it eat modern hay and straw, or today's polluted grasses and plant life? Or breath exhaust fumes?

I'm not sure, but I don't think cloning for organs would be growing a whole human.
They have studies where they using cloning to grow a part by itself. Say someone was in a car crash & their lungs were damaged badly, using cloning to grow a set of lungs without waiting for a person to die just to get lung that would require a lifetime of anti-rejection medication to to keep functional seems like a great option... assuming it worked that way.

I think cloning a person would be a problem, even if they closed everything down to the very brain cells, which then might have the memories of the original person... then does the close share a soul with the first, or does the clone have a new soul and preexisting memories? Would it be the same for animals?

It could be a great advancement in medical, but it could also be very scary.

It is hard to say, but very interesting.

Frankly, I think the world is better off with only one of me =3

[moonraingirl]

Recently I read that German scientists grew a few human brain cells in mice.

However, there is a rule that when it reaches a certain number the mice had to be killed.

I'm almost sure that somewhere in the world, in a hidden top secret lab, there already are cloned children.

[smogie_michele]

The idea of cloning humans and animals makes me very uneasy.

But to play devil's advocate (and I'm not saying that this would make it "worth" cloning) it would be interesting to see and study these animals up close and in action.

Not that they would actually be "in action."

You get what I'm saying.

[Bychan Wulf]

În my opinion, the human body is made out of anatomical parts and the soul....which means science and magic. It is also proven that there is more than just a few cells summed up, but scientists have no idea how to call it. By cloning, the body can be reproduced, but not the soul.
Even if people were able to clone, it would be dangerous, because that creature that has no soul, also has no conscience or evolved feelings. Our brain has the limbic system that can only process primal feelings like: sadness, happiness, anger and takes care of processing pain and excitement, but not guilt. A creature that can't feel guily, might just act out of instinct, but still have the ability to inflict the harm his species is able to, but refuses. Think about what a human is capable of, when struggling with the guilt.....what would it be capable of without?

About cloning people and animals for scientific purposes, would make it easier for the students to understand and learn. What we can't be sure about though, is if that creature can feel pain. I tend to think it does, because it has nothing to do with the soul, but with the physical body. So, is it ethical to create a person or an animal and the make it suffer? His nerves are still blowing up because of the pain and he still has a brain to think, process and keep memories with.
What I am OK with, is the 3D printing. This way organs can be created, which allows scientist to experience on, but nobody has to suffer.

[moonraingirl]

This question of cloning and soul is interesting. What it reminds me of is that religious people used to doubt if children born "from test tube" would have souls. That's why Catholics refused (maybe still refuse, I'm not sure) to baptize them.
However, now we see that children from artificial fertilisation do have souls, or at least we can't see the difference between them and normal children.
Then what would be the difference between them and cloned children? Is there a reason to think that one has a soul and the other one doesn't, although they are both a result of medical procedure and not natural conception?

Another question is what about people who don't feel guilt, either because of mental illness or as a result of abuse/neglect at the young age? Do they have souls?

[Bychan Wulf]

Those children are still created from the two components that they would be in the usual way. The only difference is that the 2 components are not united in the Fallopian tubes, but in a test tube, and it receives nutrients. Afterwards, it's implanted in the uterus, same as a zygote which originally came from the Fallopian tubes.
So, in my view, there is a soul

About those, the soul is there and it still keeps them from inflicting harm. Like I said, it is all built out of anatomical parts and the soul. One can not function without the other. If the brain is damaged, the soul can not do everything by himself. Still, it is something that happens naturally. Creating something, is not natural and if anything regarding that new person goes wrong, it is the fault of the creator.

[moonraingirl]

i agree that there is a soul, too.

But I also think that there would be a soul in a cloned child. If it was able to feel emotions, if it had normal intelligence and free will, how can we say it would be a soul-less monster? Guilt is learned by culture and education. Same as ethics and cultural norms (although there are clues they can be partly innate)

Of course, behaviour is also affected by genetics. So if that clone had exactly the same DNA as a decent, moral person and if it received normal upbringing in the society, then why would we think it would become a monster?

I also come from the historical experience when people didn't believe that black people or Indians have souls because they were not mentioned in the Bible. That assumption was wrong the same as the assumption that testube children don't have souls. Both were proven wrong. That is why I would be careful about predicting things about clones. Or children with 3 biological parents.

I guess there would be an extremely strong spiritual bond between the original and cloned person. Much stronger than in twins or between giver and receiver of transplanted organs.

[Bychan Wulf]

I might be very influenced by the movies or so, but how I see cloning, is creating a copy that looks the same on the outside and the inside with the original version. I don't really understand how a soul could be "implanted" in that anatomical copy.

Like you said, and if I think better, there could be a possibility that the original and the clone would share a soul...that the soul would be somehow also copied or splitted. Then, I agree that the two would share a very strong bond.

[moonraingirl]

I'm not sure either and I don't exactly understand how cloning is done. It was just a brainstorming. Anyway I hope that only organs are cloned, and not whole people which would be totally unethical.