L
Later_Gator
Guest
I think cloning is all right if we offer the clones as human sacrifices to appease Santa Claus.
Cloning
- Thread starter Willchill
- Start date
please correct any misbiology
Adult stem cells can be found in tissue (tissue-forming), and bone marrow (blood-forming)
Fetal stem cells are taken from a fetus (controversy!) but are also tissue-forming, so obviously not preferred
Cord Blood stem cells are what parq was referring to. They form blood cells, making them not the easiest option either
Embryonic Stem Cells are the controversial one. With enough coaxing, theoretically they can form any of the cell types found in the body. Debates consist primarily of whether or not the embryo is considered alive or not. (Science: The brain has not developed, thus the blob of cells cannot possibly be sentient. Religion: The embryo was an entity as soon as it was conceived, thus making harvesting embryos murderous.). Embryonic stems cells also harbor the risk of forming tumours.
iPS stem cells are a more plausible future concept. Essentially, someone discovered how to program cells so that they can take any old Adult cell and make it blank like an embryonic stem cell, and then go from there. Manipulating the cells can have adverse effects, however. (cancer.). One scenario is that if viruses are used to manipulate the cells, then it can trigger some cancer-causing genes.
piPSC stem cells bypass dangerous genetic manipulation through treatment of adult cells with certain proteins. Immune deficiency can still allow teratoma tumors to form, however.
Essentially, the mentioned types of stem cells that you confirmed as ethical aren't the ones that seem hopeful for growth of stuff. Admittedly, it does look a bit strange when the more prosperous options (iPS, piPSC cause cancer. Lots of research is being done into those ones though. Still pretty sure stem cells will beat cancer to organ manufacturing.
did this up from some research and some background knowledge, so it's probably not fantastic, but if you're interested it's fairly easy to find stuff since it's causing a lot of commotion
Lest we forget the first part is opinionated; however, I've not looked into GMO's at all sadly though they seem to be a hot button issue on these forums, so I can't speak to that. I do have to wonder though if the idea of "chemicals" is what frightens people of them, which would make sense as they have really long names and the most commonly recognized form of chemicals is a 'chemical hazard', but isn't true in the slightest.
Lots of people had a similar issue with in-vitro fertilisation, which is basically when scientists take an ovum and sperm cell from a female and male. The scientists then fertilise the ovum in a Petri dish (there are a few different methods to this) then inject it into the female after some development. People argued that it wasn't natural, that it wasn't God's will and babies formed using this method would be abnormal. In reality, the babies are fine and IVF allows people with dodgy reproductive systems to reproduce.
I can't tell who's trolling who on this thread.
Can someone please answer my question I posted before: If we cloned for the bodyparts, the clones would have no consciousness whatsoever, right? Like they'd be basically meat robots? I'm so totally unscientific as to understand any of the stuff Jivvi or anyone else has posted lol, I need some #ScienceForDummies right now.
Can someone please answer my question I posted before: If we cloned for the bodyparts, the clones would have no consciousness whatsoever, right? Like they'd be basically meat robots? I'm so totally unscientific as to understand any of the stuff Jivvi or anyone else has posted lol, I need some #ScienceForDummies right now.
Alright so I've tidied up the thread a tad, as it looks like people are trying to have a discussion over the topic among the useless trolling and arguments that are being had.
parquette everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but trying to shove it down other people's throats is only going to make people angry at you.
_ChoasLego_ just because you think something someone said is wrong doesn't mean you should go around insulting them.
Other people posting useless nonsense: you know who you are, cut that shit out or I'll start handing out infractions.
EDIT: oh and apparently this is my 1000th post.
parquette everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but trying to shove it down other people's throats is only going to make people angry at you.
_ChoasLego_ just because you think something someone said is wrong doesn't mean you should go around insulting them.
Other people posting useless nonsense: you know who you are, cut that shit out or I'll start handing out infractions.
EDIT: oh and apparently this is my 1000th post.
Ok, we should establish what cloning actually is
(As I go along, feel free to correct any misinformation that I say)
So, cloning is the process of creating an exact genetic replica of a cell, tissue, or organism. Three main types of cloning to remember:
Gene cloning: the process of copying genes and segment(s) of DNA
Reproductive cloning: which creates copies of whole animals
Therapeutic cloning: Creating healthy tissue/organs from embryonic stem cells.
Gene cloning and reproductive cloning occur on a daily basis. Asexual reproducing organisms such as bacteria and hydras replicate their genetic information and go through mitosis to create identical (albeit, some mutated individuals can arise from errors in replication) offspring. Cloning is also a vital process of human bodies. Cells that must be constantly replaced, such as epidermal cells, are cloned constantly to ensure that we have a defense against foreign organisms. Reproductive cloning involving humans, has somewhat occurred in the form of natural clones, or better known as identical twins, as they have almost identical DNA resulting from a split in a zygote. However, there are no "perfect" clones of humans, but they will inevitably arise in the future. Reproductive cloning involving other animals, such as frogs, cats, and rats, have occurred already.
Therapeutic cloning is more of an issue nowadays. This diagram shows one of the major concerns of therapeutic cloning, which is harvesting and then killing the embryo for its stem cells.
Should we kill the embryo for its stem cells and utilize the stem cells to create replacement organs or allow the embryo to live and have a future? Moralists would obviously say let the embryo live, but what if one were in a situation in which one or more of a loved one's organs were failing, and they were too low on the organ donation lists? Are ethics more important than one‘s life?
(I'll continue this tomorrow, but here are my sources for now)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cloning.html
http://media.longnow.org/files/2/REVIVE/Cloning of an Endangered Species.pdf
http://www.mccl.org/reproductive-vs-therapeutic-cloning.html
(As I go along, feel free to correct any misinformation that I say)
So, cloning is the process of creating an exact genetic replica of a cell, tissue, or organism. Three main types of cloning to remember:
Gene cloning: the process of copying genes and segment(s) of DNA
Reproductive cloning: which creates copies of whole animals
Therapeutic cloning: Creating healthy tissue/organs from embryonic stem cells.
Gene cloning and reproductive cloning occur on a daily basis. Asexual reproducing organisms such as bacteria and hydras replicate their genetic information and go through mitosis to create identical (albeit, some mutated individuals can arise from errors in replication) offspring. Cloning is also a vital process of human bodies. Cells that must be constantly replaced, such as epidermal cells, are cloned constantly to ensure that we have a defense against foreign organisms. Reproductive cloning involving humans, has somewhat occurred in the form of natural clones, or better known as identical twins, as they have almost identical DNA resulting from a split in a zygote. However, there are no "perfect" clones of humans, but they will inevitably arise in the future. Reproductive cloning involving other animals, such as frogs, cats, and rats, have occurred already.
Therapeutic cloning is more of an issue nowadays. This diagram shows one of the major concerns of therapeutic cloning, which is harvesting and then killing the embryo for its stem cells.
Should we kill the embryo for its stem cells and utilize the stem cells to create replacement organs or allow the embryo to live and have a future? Moralists would obviously say let the embryo live, but what if one were in a situation in which one or more of a loved one's organs were failing, and they were too low on the organ donation lists? Are ethics more important than one‘s life?
(I'll continue this tomorrow, but here are my sources for now)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cloning.html
http://media.longnow.org/files/2/REVIVE/Cloning of an Endangered Species.pdf
http://www.mccl.org/reproductive-vs-therapeutic-cloning.html
L
Later_Gator
Guest
You've just introduced an entirely different and very controversial topic with those baited questions. Let's stick to solely discussing cloning and not delve into the morality of utilizing stem cells from embryos.
No, not make a person out of cloned bodyparts, I meant like...bodypart farming. Someone mentioned earlier that cloning would be beneficial for people when organ donors were low. And the whole issue I had with the cloning was that the clones, if they became self-aware/sensitive/emotional/whatever, would suffer if we were using them in a way that'd cause them pain or death. If we somehow manage to 'grow' them in a way where they're basically robots with human body parts, they wouldn't...? Idk. I'm too unscientific for this discussion urgh!
theo, i responded but someone deleted my post
no, that's dumb, they don't grow an entire person and take out the organs.
the organs would be made individually.
no, that's dumb, they don't grow an entire person and take out the organs.
the organs would be made individually.
I'm confused too 'cos I was like why are people bringing up the whole topic of treating them as subhuman if they're not actually beings to begin with...?
Yeah I think this thread needed a proper definition of what cloning was in the OP otherwise people get confused (like me).
Also JtTorso has a point, the only response I saw to me was one of those trollmeme thingies, lol.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011700324.html?hpid=topnews
5 successful human embryos cloned. Not developed too far because ethics and stuff.
Sheep have been successfully cloned as well.
Sheep and humans are similar in reproduction, so I'd imagine human cloning could be inferred possible from this.
I'm sure if there weren't problems with ethics and law, human cloning research would have advanced much further already.
No one having made a successful full clone yet disproves cloning just as much as no one having landed on Mars disprove our ability to land someone on Mars.
It's a matter of limitations.
thanks for the article. going by the bottom paragraph on page one, the "moral debate" over whether or not it should be done is largely a religious issue, akin to lgb discrimination.
would human clones be discriminated against?
