Duh James, yet there is a common principle here - both result in a created human life.
Duh, no, Godzilla. You fail to recognise the difference. Cloning involves one gamete and one body cell (somatic cell) whereas normal fertilization involves two gametes. Read, Godzilla, read!
Again - the analogy of the twin is still applicable since they come from the same single cell(s) that then split.
Not if intermediary genetic modification is performed. Then, the "clone" doesn't share the same genetics. I bring this about because this is within the realms of possibility - already done with bacteria spliced with human genes to produce human insulin.
A sperm and egg are joined in a test tube creating a new human - new life, new soul. I see nothing different here. There is no intervention, just an established process James.
Ah, no again, Godzilla. Producing a clone does not involve the fusion of a sperm and egg. Just a somatic (body) cell and a single gamete (sex cell).
I do this to point out the hypocrisy of your strawman because you structure it with the intent to fail.
The isolated tribal is not a strawman. The individual is real, living and breathing, existing even today.
Here's one aiming an arrow at you, Godzilla:
Yet I've already pointed out that there would be no inconsistencies for this clone to have a soul and spirit any more than for a twin to have a soul and spirit too.
See above, Godzilla. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the clone is a product of an unfertilised gamete and a somatic cell, both of which are components you agree you have no ethical issues in performing research with. A twin (identical) is formed when the blastocyst cleaves into two. Although the genetics are similar, they needn't necessarily be so for the clone, which is where the contradiction I point out, arises. Clones are not the same as twins, Godzilla. They usually don't even have comparably similar life-spans. Clones tend to die faster.
Aren't you just talking theoretically anyway, since reproductive human cloning has NOT ever been done?
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning
Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. It does not usually refer to monozygotic multiple births nor the reproduction of human cells or tissue. The ethics of cloning is an extremely controversial issue. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.
There are two commonly discussed types of human cloning: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves cloning cells from an adult for use in medicine and is an active area of research. Reproductive cloning would involve making cloned humans. Such reproductive cloning has not been performed and is illegal in many countries.
A third type of cloning called replacement cloning is a theoretical possibility, and would be a combination of therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Replacement cloning would entail the replacement of an extensively damaged, failed, or failing body through cloning followed by whole or partial brain transplant.
Duh, no, Godzilla. You fail to recognise the difference. Cloning involves one gamete and one body cell (somatic cell) whereas normal fertilization involves two gametes. Read, Godzilla, read! I do, but you don't understand the methodology do you. Specify which animal has ever been created from a somatic cell and a male gamete? The female gamete is uniquely designed to become the zygote - it is the sperm that penetrates INTO the egg, james, not the other way around. (@.@)
BTW james, reproductive cloning generally uses "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) to create animals that are genetically identical. This process entails the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult cell (somatic cell) to an EGG that has no nucleus.
Not if intermediary genetic modification is performed. Then, the "clone" doesn't share the same genetics.
And then the clone isn't a 'clone', but genetically modified. Gene splicing is not the same as cloning james - and I'm sure you know the difference.
Ah, no again, Godzilla. Producing a clone does not involve the fusion of a sperm and egg. Just a somatic (body) cell and a single gamete (sex cell).
The point I am making is that the fertilization that occurs in a test tube in most aspects is still 'at the whim' of people james - it is adding an artificial layer and location into the mix. In cloning you are taking an existing nucleus/dna and inserting into a female gamete (there are two kinds of gametes james - or did you sleep through that part of sex ed?) - bypassing the natural fusion of the male and female chromosomes and the creation of a genetically unique individual.
The isolated tribal is not a strawman. The individual is real, living and breathing, existing even today.
Well, I see that you are now using the singular form of the word. VERY good james, we are making progress. And yes the individual is real, living and breathing. But then why should you care? You believe there is no God, so no skin off your nose.
The inconsistency arises from the fact that the clone is a product of an unfertilised gamete and a somatic cell, both of which are components you agree you have no ethical issues in performing research with.
Wrong again james, really let me speak for my self and don't try to put words in my mouth. YOUR question was whether it was ethical to perform research on them separately. You said specifically -
I will ask you this, would conducting research on unfertilised eggs and unfertilised sperm, separately, be unethical?
Researching the unfertilized egg (waiting for fertilization) and the sperm (that does the fertilizing) SEPARATELY tells me just that. Cloning is not researching them SEPARATELY james. I don't believe cloning to be ethical.
Clones are not the same as twins, Godzilla. They usually don't even have comparably similar life-spans. Clones tend to die faster.
I used twins as a parallel situation james. A SCNT-clone would be an identical twin because the nucleus as a whole is transfered into the egg. Life span issues are another reason cloning is unethical - for the pain and suffering inflicted.