Replies

Kewl. Never heard of that. However, how can we apply that to cloning? My assertion is that if one is cloned, their clone will originate from a single cell, as do we all. It will simply be shared with another, as with identical twins. Physically, I don't see anything other than a belated identical twin from a clone. Therefore, why ban it?

Again, it is the in vitro process that I would initially take issue with. The methodology isn't perfect and I don't embrace experimentation with individual human lives in vitro or in utero because of the 'discards' factor. Therapeutic cloning is a gross cannibalistic exploitation of human lives. If perfected (with no wastage), a belated twin would not be inherently wrong. The process whereby a tech conceives an individual in vitro, then removes the chromosomal ball (or 46 expressed chromosomes) before first cell division and inserts the chromosomes from an adult source is inherently wrong.

My issue with cloning is that it's irresponsible. There simply have not been enough studies done on animal clones to determine if cloning affects the immune system or the body's cells in order to try it on humans.

I guess what I'm saying is, spiritual/religious issues aside, is that we don't know what the consequences are for the clone or the rest of humanity on a purely medical level, and I would hate to see some hapless people suffer because of some scientists'(like Clonaid scientists) zeal.

Plus, the courts have not ruled conclusively on things like frozen fertilized embryos following a divorce. What happens if someone can eventually clone you with a DNA sample such as a strand of hair? What rights would you have as the "original?" What if someone decides it would be sort of cool to clone great leaders... or great tyrants? Or even a celebrity? What makes you special as Cindy Crawford if there are ten Cindy Crawford lookalikes?

If someone clones you without your consent, who are the clone's parents? Your parents?

Too many medical and legal issues have not been clarified.