Is cloning ethical?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2018
- “Is cloning ethical?"
Dr. Kenneth Magnuson answers in Honest Answers | Episode 69
Watch more episodes of Honest Answers here:
• Why did God command th...
To find out the answer to next week's question, don't forget to SUBSCRIBE:
ruclips.net/user/SouthernSemi...
Ask any questions about theology, ministry, or life; and have them answered honestly by Southern Seminary professors.
Submit your questions by:
Email: honestanswers@sbts.edu
Twitter: @askHonestAns
or post them in the comments below
To learn more about studying with a Southern Seminary Professor, go to www.sbts.edu
this video really helped me in my science assignment on cloning. thanks soooooo much
C’est
doing that too? 😂
Yeah I'm not really passionate about cloning and other genetic engineering stuff, I'm just watching this video in order to increase my grades in school. Life sucks. When I was a kid I though science is cool and amazing, but school made it boring.
To me It's more of a mixture of fear and reverence. Like atomic Fission and fusion, it holds great potential to benefit humanity and even our environment. The downside is you can't stop others from abusing the technology.
In my opinion cloning a specific part of the human body, like an organ or something like that would be a very useful and important opportunity for humanity, but cloning a human beeing itself isn't something accepable, because sooner or later someone would try to abuse it and its simply disrespectful towards any existing human, aswell as any human that would get cloned, because everyone is individual and can't be copied.
Mandarin is
At first, I want to thank Dr. Kenneth Magnuson that you share your knowledge with the world. Before I saw your statement in this video, I was very open towards cloning because I just saw positive aspects of cloning. It was admirable how you differentiated way of reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning for people which aren’t experts in this controversial topic. It is not comprehensible that research cloning is allowed in the USA although many human embryos must be destroyed in clinical trials through harvesting stem cells. Like Dr. Magnuson told us is the problem that we don’t risk ourselves with this awful procedure. It also shocked me that we take the risk for deformed animals and humans. The psychological strain for the cloned humans was not clear for me, because with this technique you treat the child instrumentally and rob their dignity. The aspect of re-engineering of humanity convinced me because I am religious, and I believe that god made us like he wanted.
I Really enjoyed your video! Thank you and go on like that.
Thank you for this very convincing video. You mentioned great arguments, some of them were new to me. For example I did not know that when they do research cloning they have to destroy the embryo.
You also made a great argument when you pointed out how many risks there are and that we can't be willing to take these risks for we won't be the ones who suffer from that, we would be risking something for someone else.
I absolutely agree with all of your arguments. You also explained this complicated topic in an understandable and even enjoyable way.
Again, thanks for this great video!
Okay if cloning is unethical because an embryo must be created to be destroyed and reproductive cloning means no consent, then why do we see warfare differently, or inadequate access to clean water? Isn't it the same?
Beautifully explained!
America seems very religious that God still is mentioned in science.
A lot of scientists are Christians in America.
Im not from America, neither am I a christian but god has never been proved NOT to exist. There are alot of phenomena happening in the world which have no explanation,
Ya
I think for a Christian, one of the most ethical dilemmas with human cloning, besides the prospects mentioned in this video, is would the clone have a soul? The Bible establishes that animals don't have souls as they can't choose right from wrong, but a human can and does have a soul. Once a human clone is made, do they have a soul and if so, is it a copy soul of the donor? It causes more issues for Christian beliefs than not and should just be stayed away from.
Thanks for the video, it was very helpful in my essay about cloning :)
I am curious, to what conclusions did you come?
I have to admit it is a blow to my faith that something like this is even possible
i think cloning human flesh only becomes unethical when the entire organism/individual is completely cloned, because now it blurs the distinction of individuality between persons, who's who (which soul gets to be the that person's identity), who gets to be main person and who gets to be the slave.
i think cloning human flesh is still within perfectly-safe limits if the tech is used to clone only specific portions like the heart or the liver or to replace a damaged kidney, or to lease better life to amputees by cloning an arm or a leg, or just about any missing body part like an injured eye. not only is it NOT unethical, the (supposedly-controversial) tech is being used to further enrich human lives. now that is incapable of pecuniary estimation (to those unfamiliar with legalese, it means you can't put a price on human freedom and convenience, its not a quantity, its a quality).
it stays ethical if moral issues are never touched.
that's because i'm very interested in cloning female human flesh over a robot love doll (think of unmilitarized terminators) which features i'm thinking of building from literal scratch, from hair color to facial features to body measurements (the core personality is addressed by the robot's ai in its positronic brain, its discussion in cloning is out of place), so in effect it perfectly-falls within the limits of what's ethical, because of a few reasons:
1. that robot is a piece of property, its not a whole person being used for anything, specifically its way worse to use a prostitute or a mistress than to date an unmilitarized terminator (for lack of a better summarizing term for your regular civilian);
2. because only the hair and the skin and the skeletal muscles of a human female were grown from scratch, no real person was duplicated (no brain duplicated, no personality duplicated), so no harm done. it is highly-improbable to genetically-customize an individual's features (especially if i'm thinking of combining irish red hair with japanese-ukranian facial features) only to discover later such a real person actually exists.
that was a wonderful explanation.
I disagree, respectfully, on a few points. One cannot conclusively argue that a bundle of cells is a human being and that destroying an embryo is equivolent to murder. It comes down to God’s definition of what a human being is. A human corpse has more cells, nerves, and had more thoughts and pain than an embryo does, but when a human dies, the human being is the soul that presided within, not the body. God made us in his image, but I would argue “image” if taken literally, means that you are essentially assigning physicality to God, which he transcends, and that those born disfigured were not made in his image. I personally believe a human being is defined as a soul, or their spiritual nature, and not their physicality. Which brings me to my next disagreement. I do not believe altering ones genetics is equivalent to creation or “playing God” as some might say. Some people in ancient times believed practicing medicine was blasphemy, or that creating fire or electricity was playing God, but these are merely tools within the easy use of humans, and I would compare that to genetic technology. Altering a gene is not tantamount to true creation. God is not limited by genetics or tools, and humans can not create matter, nor souls. It is arrogance to believe you are playing God, true, but in actuality, humans cannot attain the same level of creation, therefore I don’t believe that altering humans cosmetically or medically is altering a human being, aka the soul. On that note, an identical physical copy of a human does not recreate that person spiritually. I do believe you are correct about the ethics of cloning someone for organ transplant, but again, cloning isn’t quite creation, and the mere existance of that new person would theoretically be actually created through God’s plan. So I believe cloning in itself isn’t unethical in this case, but the subsequent murder would be. Either way, I don’t believe eugenics or clone transplant are ever likely to happen regularly, given the controversy and the costly nature of it all, and I believe tissue and organ growth technology will surpass the need for whole clone organ transplant. The bible does not specifically address all these situations, how can they, given that this was unpredictable back then, and God does not lie or deceive, so I think it would be addressed more clearly were it an issue, rather than open to interpretation. Again, it all depends on God’s exact interpretation of a human, and I find it arrogant/blasphemous to fully claim one side or the other.
I think an embryo is a human being. just because an embryo does not have more cells, nerves thoughts... doesn't mean its lifeless. a baby has way less thoughts, cells... and so on than a grown up but they are human beings. A virus, regardless of it's size and number of cells is still considered a virus, so why can't humans be considered humans at cell level?
May I ask what your source is?
There is no god.
👁👄👁 Me when people say they want to save animals that are going extinct but are against cloning.
Yes let's just move on with living our lifes ruthless and then just clone some animals to eliminate the problems.
Bjarne Vollmer I don’t know if you are for or against what I said...thanks?
i don't think cloning is the solution. animals going extinct is because of human activities that result to climate change and global warming, and even illegal hunting which is also why animals are going extinct. personally, the solution for this problem is for us, humans as rational beings, to be responsible of our actions to not harm the animals. i mean the concept of cloning gives us the idea that it's okay for us to do what we want even if it's against the life of animals just because cloning can be done. :)
@@bjarnevollmer8178 Let's!
Evil doctors, nurses and scientists have been cloning for many many years
Since when have we all become ethical?
Since you clicked on this christian channel
Take a shot every time he says "human being"
Liver failed***
One of the purposes of embryonic stem cell research is also to learn how to culture those stem cells so that you don’t have the limitations of having to harvest from multiple embryos. Adults have stem cells but not nearly as many, and it’s difficult to harvest in both cases. So it would be nice if you can “produce them in a test tube” as opposed to going through more drastic and inefficient methods of harvest. A similar example is there a specific kidney cell that can be found in embryos that is very useful for creating proteins and has been culturable and now we have a near unlimited supply from culturing without using embryos. One use of the protein was to synthesize artificial flavoring found in Pepsi, which led to the mass misunderstanding and urban legend that Pepsi is made using “baby kidneys.” As you can see there’s much misinformation and misunderstanding. But alas, most people didn’t know that that culturing was also being studied and fell for the propaganda and it sadly lost funding during the GW Bush administration.
Are we duplicating form or consciousness? I don't think it's possible to duplicate consciousness.
I'm an atheist but I appreciate the arguments. They were very thoughtful.
20 years after we saw a sheep cloned, u would think the majority of these questions wouldve already been answered by now thru ongoing trials.. but u know.. here we are 20 years later, stagnate on the issue
I agree :)
We did not see a sheep get cloned. That was a myth
I am Muslim and a bioengineer, according to what we believe I agree 100% with what you said
They will clone bodies for the antichrist. Satan in flesh and blood but when Jesus Christ returns in the sky with the clouds He will destroy it
They clone us without our permission
Great video
a lot of evil agendas are done in the name of "greater good."
What happens if we make a clone out of cancer cell?
"There aren't any ethical barriers to cloning except the ones I came up with and intend to impose on everybody"
Stop being so insensitive, the things he says are legit, using a person just for the benefit of others is robbing of his basic human rights
@@omfgitsart would be fucked up but it would be cool to see clones
ai,supercompution and singularity cloning is =?
Nothing is wrong just because it is. Both types of cloning can be used in many ways.
every life has a value, a dignity. we cant kill them for our sake as being done to animals. poor 267 attempts of Dolly.
letus consider you are one component,your whole life is equation and then cloning plus and minus is not crusse but welding plus and minus is crusse but ×÷=? about you?
Nice
I enjoyed watching your video and hearing your arguments. I didn't know that reproductive cloning and research cloning are almost the same process and it shocked me that the embryos used for research cloning have to be destroyed. However I still think that research cloning shouldn't be forbidden because it can save the life of many people with serious sicknesses. But I understand that some people have a different opinion because I think this debate is similar to the recent debate about abortion and it depends on the view on unborn life each person has. I agree with you that reproductive cloning disrupts the order of family relationships. I think an identical twin of for example the father is not a good solution for an infertile couple, there are other ways like adoption. Finally I have to say your arguments about God are not convincing to me because I'm not religious but I understand that for religious people this is an important point to consider.
Thank you for your interesting video!
to be unique is a blessing. Imagine yourself in the shoe of that cloned thing what would you feel when you realize you are nothing more but one the copies of the original easily to be replaced anytime.
Reproductive clones aren't "nothing more but one the copies of the original" at all. They have to grow up from childhood and have their own learned experiences and they can't just be easily replaced. To say that a clone can be easily replaced is like saying to grieving parents "So what if your kid died? Just have another!" But you can't just replace kids.
Identical twins are practically the same as cloning.
Yes.
See cloning could be a good thing for saving all endangered species protection aof nature and if it was used responsibly could clone organs obviously just the specification of organ but I also think there is an argument to save a person who lost there life unnaturally could be brought back I think in a very conditional circumstances plus if for instance still born baby could be cloned giving the baby a healthy loving life so specific circumstances not just let's go to the clone shop and buy 10 that would be stupid and reckless and obviously what people would be concerned about
E
@@joshuatoadsaccount9170 thank you for making me smile,. did you read the comment tho
@@geecko__ I did read it and it helped with my project
@@joshuatoadsaccount9170 same
There using clones and it’s not right. There’s so many cures for almost every disease and they just don’t want to heal people because they want to make money out of the sick
Bones DNA genetic wise cloning possible!?
It is just a matter of time until these changes take place, if humans can, they will, whether or not they hurt themselves or others. We really are not that bright, we just think we are.
Truer words have never been said
Naturally, humans will take everything too far, that’s human nature. But the potential of something like and it’s advances now and for the future may be more beneficial than we may imagine.
Nandito ako kasi nag r-research ako. For knowledge and for grades. Shuta beh. Nanglalandi na sana ako ngayon.
😄
Is that what HEK293 is in the vaccine?
what
I feel like there was some bias because after all, he is religious. I am just curious as to what an atheist would say is all. Hopefully, there would be a way to get an organ from yourself without making an actual copy of the whole being.
i dunno why this is even a question
Hi
Joel 2
I really enjoyed your video because you gave your insight in this topic in such a calm and understanding manner, that I instantly agreed to most of your arguments without having anything to say against them. At first I even thought you were some scientist who just wants to state some facts and then end the interview by saying that there is no real answer whether cloning is ethical or not.
But I didn’t think that you would give such a clear answer to the question without having any doubts.
I even liked how you gave us some arguments about the usefulness of cloning. For example when you said that we could use it to enhance the human body by disabling genetic diseases. I also loved how you said that this whole topic of cloning gives an huge impact on human behavior.
Humans love the idea of cloning another human but only after they gain some kind of reward from it. For example when we talk about humans getting cloned to provide transplantable organs to save ones child or life.
At the end I just wanted to thank you for your constructive argumentation as to why cloning is unethical.
Its not ethical because it can be used to cover up murders
I am curious to know how I might be wrong but as of my current knowledge you cannot make a clone that acts the same so people would catch on when the clone is basically a clean save file
I wouldn't make a clone of my self, I would clone what I need e.g a heart nothing else just cells turning to an organs
That's a good idea, in other words it's called therapeutic cloning where you grow stem cells :)
As cool and interesting as cloning sounds, I don’t think that it should be done except on rare occasions where it might be necessary. At the time of me writing this, the medical tech isn’t advanced enough, so there’s a lot of risk. And the implications of why someone would want to clone aren’t very humane. And I guess I do understand why you wouldn’t want to clone for religious purposes
Why is people so scared, why the feelings, why the cowardice?
Because cloning is very complicated and it is very easy to get into a situation :)
Antichrist
The clones are sometimes used for war, rape and slavery
Life’s ability to endure is my god. The 10,000 natural kinds are life’s way of keeping life living. Realize we exist now to exist as something else in the future. I will use evolutions gift to me to serve the process which made me exist. If we cannot in this moment comprehend the complexities of life should we not use what we know to push intelligent life towards greater intelligence? We could do it through genetics and through computing. The universe is dead and in need of life. Shall I answer its call and spread it throughout?
Are identical twins unethical?
Can’t be compared
Not the same
Evil doctors, nurses and scientists take tissues from people without them knowing and put them inside animal uteruses sometimes
I've always seen cloning as an attack on God's sovereign creation methods. The Tower of Babel is a scriptural example of that, I opine. May our Lord bless you, Dr. Magnusson!
Jacob Carpenter I see your point, but if God is in control and everything is part of His plan, surely the tower of Babel was part of God's plan & was necessary and surely this cloning stuff is part of His plan. Definitely not saying whether we should agree with it or not like we can definitely say there's a lot of things we shouldn't do that are being done on our end (referring to our free will and the choices we have to make every day) even though it's all still part of God's plan. Just think that saying "cloning is an attack on God's sovereign creation methods" is sort of an attack on God's sovereignty, albeit it indirect! God will ultimately use all the bad things of this life for His perfect plan, even though we do have a responsibility to say no to evil on our end!
though itd be ethically wrong, i think raising a human clone would be a fascinating experiment because it could answer questions like are we born with personality or is it developed
When he started to talk abt god 👁👄👁
Eve is of my body/rib.
Does your wife/daughter have ethic/soul? No.
@@kingjeremysircornwell7847 Man, are you trolling??
@@theoneunslept2093 my home has been dirty blanketed/dog bomb, in looking for the person responsible, so I can kill them, for disrespecting me.
Jeremy Cornwell sorry, I'm confused. Are you referring to me disrespecting you, or...???
@@theoneunslept2093 get the dog out of my home, slaver!
1st, according to bible is cloned human a human, does it have a soul? Why would god have it a soul? no answers here.. just more questions.
If God gave it a soul, it would be for it to be Alive. Please note: God may have to shield this human as stigma on it's origins can screw it up.
If God wants the clone to be Christian but humanity pulls it away due to them believing they can't be Christian, it can make a child think crazy things.
Nature goes on forever for everyone and everything to return as everyone and everything an infinite number of times through evolutionary processes. 🌌
Don't believe evolution. There are many scientists of every religious background and secular background who have questioned evolution and The Big Bang.
Why is this even a question that must be asked out loud? Doesn't like 99% of the non-psychopathic population know that it's not ethical? NOT ETHICAL. And here.
Humans need to know when enough is enough and just let it be. People say we dont need the Bible but that's what made America the gem that is it or the diamond in the rough. We stray too far like children and God will bring us back to what matters.
He's not even close to saying all the types of clones. Do you want these things to take your jobs ect.
To cwiara czy nie zdrowa ?
How are they getting my eggs
i honestly love this series. as a Christian who has a science degree, I really appreciate videos like these!
It's illegal to clone. I can't be CLONED FYI
I will clone you. I am in your walls.
I can definitely agree with you, Dr. Kenneth Magnuson, when it comes to cloning solely for the purpose of someone else’s happiness, because if we cross that line we‘ve forgotten the worth and the beauty of a living being, no matter if it is an animal or a human being. Yet I can’t see your point in saying that only god can reengineer us. This brings up a whole new debate about whether a “god“ actually exists and is in my opinion misplaced in this discussion. In fact, who says we even are a creation of god? The Bible really isn’t a reliable source for telling us about our origin. However, despite your religious arguments I totally agree that cloning is an unethical way of saving, or better, upgrading our species. Especially research cloning, which uses human embryos for experiments, sounds completely absurd and cruel due to the fact that they’re destroying these human embryos on unimaginable high quotes. It seems like these people forgot about one of our most important values: the human dignity.
Anyways, I hope you keep on spreading your message.
I don't care i want to be cloned
@Okana2up That's like asking a baby if it wants to be born
" “it” is just a copy of someone else and not their owns self , no mother/ or father, imagine the feeling of being labeled all sorts of things because you are the first and not completely understood , this and many more"
then society should change
@Okana2up Wouldn’t it be true that the clone’s parents are the original’s parents, though? So long as the original parents are alive and fully intend to raise the clone, would it be wrong to suggest that the process is equal to out-of-sync (in terms of age) to identical twins?
Humans need to know when enough is enough.
Same here likewise it’s been theorized and potential medical breakthrough!
Mhi
My concern is would a clone have a soul? If not, should we even consider it a a human to begin with? I do not know what the implication of having thousands of souless humans would be. The only word I can think of is Evil.
I had identical twins in my family. My understanding is that identical twins have nearly the same DNA, but my twin siblings were very different people. If human cloning became real, I believe 100% these individuals would have souls. The way I see it, DNA isn't who we are, but it defines the shell that holds who we are. God makes souls and we do not. My siblings had nearly the same DNA and were very much individuals that God made uniquely. That said, in my opinion this practice is absolutely unethical and might be considered evil since you're stripping the cloned individual of having true parents, not to mention, you're likely cursing them with health defects due to the cloning process. That all does sound evil, when you say it out loud, but the worst part about it all is you're playing God by deciding things about a person that only God should be able to decide through the natural ways of reproduction (Im not a scientist or doctor, but my 2¢).
@@markwitmer5498 Your 2c is well thought out and well stated. But, I remain uncertain. I do believe kids born from artificiak fertleization have souls as we are not replacing the natural process, only assisting. But cloning is a completely different process. One which would not happen in nature. Yes, as with natural reproduction we are taking two people and creating a third, but it is unnatural. In the process of reproduction when does God step in and add the soul? Just because something looks human, acts human and smells human, is it human or something dirrerent? It is warm and fuzzy to assume the resulting creature has a soul but is it true and how will we ever prove it one way or another? The Bible speaks of God knowing us when we are in the womb, but does he know us when we are in the test tube? I will have to do a Bible study on this.
@@aspiringbillionaire332 I feel like you hit on a fantastic question: "when does God step in and add the soul?" I suppose this could be asked with regards to natural or unnatural means of reproduction. It connects directly to the question "what makes us human?" The conversation about what defines humanity for me has never been about material, but about the immaterial aspects of us. So many folks are conversing about artificial intelligence these days assuming it will one day be like a sci-fi film, but I honestly do not think folks have really thought it through. Many high profile people, like Elon musk, believe AI will happen, but I think we so easily take for granted what makes humans so unique. The false assumption is that consciousness could be explained as part of a materialistic worldview. Science observes it, but only asserts that it is part of a material process because it cant conclude anything else...what else can a materialist conclude? Certainly not God. I work in software by trade and no amount of neural-like connections will cause a machine to one day decide something on it's own based on some type of morality (a morality conjured from where, I might add?). Machines don't really make decisions, but do what they're programmed to do. You can put all sorts of information and data into a system, but machines don't "understand" anything. They don't love, think, or genuinely converse. They are only machines. All this to say, if a cloned human being has consciousness, God is the only explanation for this, in my opinion. That is what I'd look for as proof of God's hand in making a soul. If that being can love and understand love, God is the only explanation. (I'm definitely conflating the terms "consciousness" and "soul", but I think they are directly related and/or equated. God knows the details, but that's more or less where my headspace is at.)
@@markwitmer5498 I have always been of the opinion that God gives a soul at conception. In the cloning process there is no actual conception.I can't say love or any other emotion is an indication of having a soul as many aminals exhibit emotions (dogs, cats, horses, birds, wolves, most every animal) and have no soul. Likewise, the ability to reason is also not an indication. Nor is compassion. The ability to create is also not an indication. Bees create hives and honeycombs. Ants creat hills and tunnels. I am familiar with very basic programming. I agree that software can not do anything it is not programmed to do. But, can it be programmed to learn and create? There is the story reported in the press of two facebook AI programs creating a language and communicating with each other to the shock of the programmers. Might just be a urban legend, but who knows? I do know software has become so sophicated it now can mimic humans and acquire knoweldge from its immediate environment. It can find and recognize an object in a room, but only because it was programmed to do so. If computers can eventually be programmed to truly mimic the ability of humans or even other animals to create and show emotions, I do not know. But, I believe we are close. But, even with all of the science we can not answer the question, when does God give us our souls?
@@aspiringbillionaire332 Great conversation, btw. Thanks for engaging. Im with you on life happening at conception. Life, in any way, as far as I’m concerned is a miracle: From a single celled organism to a human. The simplest life form on earth is more complex than anything a human has created. Seeing some type of love exhibited in animals only convinces me more of God’s involvement in life in general, not less. Animals may not have a soul like humans, but they definitely have something of God in some portion. Proverbs 12:10 seems to indicate that the righteous have regard for animals. If animals were just complex machines, we wouldn’t have any regard. What’s interesting is that when you look at nature you see the miraculous even at the simplest forms of life, but as you trace upwards in the higherarchy, you see more and more of, for lack of a better description, the image of God…and the jump from animal to human is massive. I tend to believe this is intentional. Life is not generic or ordinary and I’d argue it’s value increases the more we see God’s image in a living creature. Though we may feel sad in part when wee see a dead deer on the side of the road, no one puts up gravestones for them, if you know what I mean. There is definitely differences in the higherarchy, but God's hand is still on all of it.
I’ve always thought that love, by definition, requires free will. I think free will is a miracle and I can’t see its cause from anything other than God. With regards to AI, the key word is “mimic”, in my opinion. Is love actually love if free will doesn’t precede it? Is having very complex computers with complex algorithms doing complex things the definition of being alive and self-aware? Is there free will here? When will an original thought be made? Materialism would say it’s a matter of time before AI happens, but until one can walk me through the programming of morality, love, emotions, free will etc., I’ll have to disagree because I believe its those qualities that are part of the Divine image. Quantifying these things isn’t possible because, while the affect of these things can manifest in the material, their origin is immaterial (I of course can't prove this). At best, we can create something that can mimic the things of God, and granted, with increased computing power, the ability to mimic will most certainly improve, but creating something to show emotions is really not the same as being an emotional being that is self-aware. Wouldn’t you agree?
Ultimately, it seems like the basis of your doubt seems to be that you believe a cloned human could be able to exhibit all of the things that I’d say are evidence of the soul, but not actually have a soul. My doubt lies in being able to witness true immaterial/spiritual/soul qualities (like love and morality) originating from material processes without God’s hand in it. The thing is for me, I hold that these qualities as extraordinary already, and their only explanation (in my opinion) is God, even if they were to come from a result of cloning. That’s more or less my reasoning behind my position. I’d like to think it’s not a position that is optimistic for the sake of optimism, but derived from a thought process. I hear what you’re saying, though. Also, I hope it goes without saying that I find the idea of reproductive cloning terribly evil. I just wanted to reiterate that.
Somatic cell nuclear transfer technically isn't cloning -- the mitochondrial DNA is that of the egg into which the nucleus was inserted, meaning unless the egg came from the mother of the original being to be cloned, the beings are not identical. Irrelevant in large part, I know, but I thought it should be mentioned.
Now, as for the non-ethicality of both forms of cloning, I can see your side given that a fertilized human embryo is, alone, a human being. I don't agree with that premise, because I think that the human brain -- a fully formed and functioning human brain -- is the connection to the soul. Thus, there is no destruction of a human being. We create things that fall under your description of "created merely to be destroyed" all the time -- look at napkins, toilet paper, robot fights, plastic cups, etc. Of course, my disconnect to your side is in the development of the brain, which is prevented in research cloning.
For reproductive cloning, my previous explanation of mitochondrial DNA means that a part of the mother is still given to the clone, given that the egg used is from the surrogate mother that carries the egg. Thus, again, a part of the mother (the surrogate) and a part of the father (the donor) are both brought together to produce the one flesh (the child.)
As to questions of consent, did any of us ask to be brought into the world? Did we choose our future bodies and life paths? I see no difference in the question of consent given to a child made through reproductive cloning versus one made in a standard pregnancy. Neither had choice in being born.
Finally, the possibility of re-engineering the human race is a dangerous one. I have no argument for that, as given such a technology there are those among the human race who would abuse it for terrible things opposed to God's plan.
To sum up, I approve of cloning for research and reproductive purposes, though limited to protect civilization from an upper class of runaway intelligence. After all, the gifts of technology are nothing if not shared evenly, to everyone's benefit.
Dr Magnuson isnt a doctor then
@@Astra-1 These days, I consider Minecraft profile pictures to be an indication of excellent taste and personal achievement.
🙄
A better question would be why is it that offspring produced by two naturally born humans are considered ok but when it is produced artificially it is not. Mucus produced by a cold, allergy or downright mixing of biomucus and germs/viruses is still mucus.
If you articifially develop a kid by placing an egg in an artificial womb and have it fertilized there after subjecting it to the same conditions and chemicals in the same way real wombs do you get a kid just like the old way. The concept of a soul or playing god in this manner is irrelevant. What good is the soul if we all start as a bunch of pricks anyway. I was a shy, sociopathic, and overreactive kid in my years and with Western approach to rearing you'ld abandon me in my third year for it. I was a pain as I grew up because I was intelligent yet insensitive, emotionally incompetent, inconsiderate and overall gangster alpha type most of the time ( also constantly rebellious and aggressive). Yet the more I reached my twenties I was better and composed in a sense( with a twist). You have no Idea of the measures my parents did to discipline me, and I'm grateful for it.
If a cloned kid starts like me, nobody had the slightest right to judge clones, we make violent psychopaths naturally sometimes!!! What gives if we end up with a weirdo, what if the donor was also a weirdo!!!
@Han Solo People with multiple defects such as down syndrome to color blind are born all the time. Though the reasons for these are due to faulty genes and bad timing( it happens less frequently).
What I meant does not mean the total creation of a human from scratch rather just by creating a human without the whole process of coitus, instead to cut corners. If we are to produce a human by splicing DNA from multiple animals but follows the template of human DNA, you just created a new species.
How can someone who intends to continue his line call another species his own when it is more distant to his own genes.
Considering that, remember the phrase: "Like father like son". If a kid is just as rambunctious, intelligent, handsome or put it rightly a near carbon copy of a single parent( like the father) then it is sired by that person. The same principle is present in domestication where you breed out the unnecessary for docile breeds. If a kid has only the appearance of one parent and neither of the other (except the mother in this case, her giving birth is proof enough) or their relatives and predecessors then there serves the question of infidelity.
The creature created would be little to no different from the father or mother if she is the donor and provided that the correct conditions and situations are present in an artificial womb/ cloning vat then, the concept of a defect would only serve as a reminder for faulty processes and defective equipment/sample. If creating a human would not be possible by emitating the same processes and conditions as the natural way then scientifically, the process of gestation is not proven and humans are not created as we expected since it is not repeatable.
Do not forget that dogs and even sheep were already cloned and though the process back then we're primitive.
@Han Solo O really? And what of the multiple juvenile delinquents around the world who ends up in prison early and gets out when old or middle aged? Are they living a normal life?
Just because someone looks like you, is born in the same timeline like you and named like you doesn't mean that you won't live a normal life. It's like comparing it to a kid with autism, would those two even live normal lives?
Another point is in terms of human history, we've cut corners more often everywhere! The poultry we eat are basically chicks compared to free ranged chickens, pigs are filled with more fat than is naturally possible and GMO's we've been making them even before Gregor Mendel noticed bees and plants.
The topic itself is more of a moral issue than an ethical one if you meant by feeling. Ethics are nothing but decorum, they care more with logic or just simple appeasement rather than feelings. Morals is the implementation of personal principles and ideals, ethics is not universal but is ordinal and is similar in all forms possible.
The underlying reason why people consider it not moral but ethical is due to the effect it could incur to the tradition social structure. If man or woman can produce without a mate then families would be obsolete!
However, such presumptions are obsolete since if you consider the relationship between modernization and social development. The more modernized you get, the less likely the population to reproduce. Even on a micro level, it can be noticed that since males marry down and females marry up the more women in white collar jobs means it's less likely that couples could form for a blue collar job male majority. If you managed to confess to a senior as a male even just for once then congrats! You're apparently the weirdo.
A cloned/ artificial human cannot be another species if it's genes are totally similar to a single species. It can only be categorized as another species if we consider genetically modifying it to the point where it can no longer be a Homo sapiens sapiens.
And for consideration, whenever a foreign body enters a system something must stir. It would be natural for these new generation to fight for their rights and perhaps even equality despite being way too similar to normal humans.
But considering the human population at the moment, if you've heard talks about the population reaching 8-9billion in the next ten years, then expect a decline of more than those billion due to decline of marriage and birth rates. The more modern and urbanized we get, the less likely we are to form couples due to hookup culture and other things that arise due to urbanization.
If we consider the risks of a falling birthrate, then for the sake of stability it's better to stop walking and do something new.
@Han Solo Morals are generated by your feelings, they are your gut sense. Ethics are generated through logic. Both are never universal but seeks similar goals and are inherently different in orientation and perception from person to person.
At least that's what I learnt before Corona virus struck my country and forced quarantines, I had a social science subject that deals with this in my college.
No
God isn’t an answer. God is a question.
Fifty stem cells aren’t a human tho
If people actually found a way to clone humans. That's literally Man-Made humans. That's messed up. Also, cloned humans would not have souls. They'd be soulless humans, now that's creepy. There's so many creepy things that would be true if a human had no soul.
Your wrong they do have a soul and this is why it's unethical.
Reproductive cloning is just injecting an egg cell with the genome of a genetic parent. It's just a younger identical twin.
The process is slightly more clinical than traditional reproduction but it's not any more "man-made" than sexual intercourse already is.
I am speechless; I agree with all of your logical points. I hope they stop cloning for the sake of the world.
The biggest question to me is- would a cloned person have a soul? What if being conceived with a soul was the only thing that caused us to have empathy, love, compassion, respect for our fellow man? Are we prepared to live in a world with a human being that does not possess a soul?
Well, you see, I think so.
they have no soul,they have only spirit and body.
No it's NOT ethical.
Ok...🙄too much science and not enough scriptures
Agreed. Much of this really comes down to what God defines as a human being. Personally I think it’s the soul, not the body. And altering genes is vastly different than true creation. I personally don’t think this is a question that can be conclusively answered without knowing God’s definition and whether a bundle of cells qualifies.
to lear arustle
So being human gives you a soul , and making decisions good or evil gives you a path of heaven or hell , dont you deside weather or not you believe or not , teaching is a means of psychological manipulation in there for altering free will ! THIS IS A Persons personal beliefs in the individual who believed in their main purposes for cloning should be considered Free will to explore the world and his or herself to determine whether or not it is righteous, God knew that we would Develop these things or make it easier to populate for reason , when a person is made for the will of the creator then he or she should not be allowed to destroy this creation but the choice of God to let this creature or clon live , I'm sure with the help of God cloning would be a means of living with imperfect life styles that allow gods creation Develop a means for survival as far as exposure to the elements and traveling the universe, God created the earth and the heavens and man kind with free will and conciousness, we learn that life with out learning will be a life with out free will or conciousness and this is not where he intended for us to stay , if we can adapt to the earth and the extreme conditions and live life with out exploration, we can't appoint only what the bible teaches us , everything is not in the bible because man wrote the bible in his comprehension of what God said and wrote every word in their understandings of the brain they were born with and to many this means we have evolved and the comprehension and knowledge man knew back in the biblical world where far less then we have came to understand. everything scientific has been radically wrong by worshipers across the world and we can see why , the facts behind the bible are mostly true but unfinished, and that's just believing
Ethics?
You mean setbacks
😂
I'm sure Hit1er would fully concur with you.
God is not Christian, so what you’re saying doesn’t apply to reality
He's gay, so this doesn't apply to reality.
With all the problems that need addressing in the world, THIS is what time and money is spent on.
It's *disgusting* and just goes to show where people's priorities are.
WHAT THE FUCK.
Cloning is humans trying to be God. It's an obvious NO of any kind. The way they work, if you do it for a legit reason, then they will always take it further & further.