if you wanted to, would you rather wait till death takes you and have someone freeze you and wait for future technology to catch up and be able to revive you, or be cloned while you're still alive in order to live longer? cloning would be able to be done repeatedly, but freezing sounds bizzare...
131593
Hmmmm... I think I would just rather die gracefully like I'm supposed to.  I don't want to out stay my welcome!
510407
As an Islamic rule, if the doctors rule that the person is in a vegetative state or brain dead, the nearest relative can allow the plug to be pulled.\n\nPersonally, I think I'm religious and I wouldn't want anyone to sacrifice their time, house and savings to keep me alive for a few more days, weeks or months.  But then again, that's my personal wish.\n\nMay Allah never put anyone in this situation and help those who are facing it now.  Ameen.
230386
No! That is dying on the outside. After that, your a cold and lifeless shell. \nI just takes a special kind of person to breath life back into the shell.\nThink about it.
87220
Cryonics is currently nothing but a money producing scheme when dealing with humans being put in it; otherwise, cryonics is a catch-all term for any form of statis induced by cooling. You have desperate people unwilling to accept death and cloying for some method by which they will feel to have escaped it. However, only the recently deceased are put into cryogenic stasis currently because it would be assisted suicide otherwise. The marketing campaign for cryogenic businesses should be "Only the dead can escape death."\n\nOn the other hand, this is an interesting field of research and could potentially be meaningful and realistic in years to come. Currently it is not.\n\nAn interesting avenue along a similar vein is the discovery of a "hibernation" gene - a gene sequence believed to control hibernating cycles in many other animals. NASA is seriously looking into hibernation as an approach to human space flight to Mars and other celestial bodies. This of course could also be used in a similar way to cryogenics.
369756
I think that human cloning makes a lot more people than just the Christian Conservatives a bit uncomfortable and nervous.  This moderate Independent securalist thinks it's a very bad idea to clone humans.  I support stem cell research for many reasons, but cloning a human being just for the sake of doing so is irresponsible and some would say, dangerous.  There are still so many problems and unanswered questions involved in cloning that I don't think this will actually happen for a very long time to come (hopefully never).  What is the point of cloning a human being beyond egocentrism?  For extra parts?  \n\nI love science and technology, but it's not hard to see the danger areas we will have to address in the future brought out by progress.  Another example is that science has now developed technology that can tell whether any person is lying about anything.  It sounds good right?  Think further...  What need would we have for a jury system any longer?  How far does that take us into George Orwell territory?  What are the possible abuses this technology could spark?  I think sooner or later, as science continues to advance onto uncomfortable ground, that we as human beings will have to address many human rights issues regarding these advances.  It won't be a conservative or liberal issue, but a human issue that rises above the political line.
673764
wait for the final moment and then jump as high as i could, objective being to launch myself in one piece into outer space, where, depending on the speed of travel, objects in proximity and chances of entering a wormhole, i might land, alive, on an alien life-supporting planet. they would probably just be like what the hell and kill me anyways, and the death might be more painful. so i guess just make up my mind for the rest of my life.
631468
I am so for stem cell research.  Maybe it's because I have Multiple Sclerosis and am tired of all the treatments.  Think about this:  if I go for fertility treatment and they harvest eggs from me and develop embryos that would be implanted in my uterus for in-vitro and it works the first time, shouldn't I be allowed to donate the rest of them that have been frozen?  Or is it better to leave them frozen, or have them discarded?  I mean they're either contributing to finding a cure for serious diseases or they're going in the trash.  \n\nThe majority of people against it cite reasons that it is not right to create a life only to destroy it.  The majority of those people are christians.  To which I say, according to your beliefs, isn't that God's plan for the earth  is?  So, aren't we just emulating God?  UGH!!
575493
Working in the health care field I personally have mixed emotions. On a religious level it's just not natural to do.  However, if it were my children that needed a heart, kidney, etc. I'm certain I would consider medical professionals cloning them as a method of an exact match for replacement organs.
118782
I wouldn't want to live forever. I would just want to live life to it's fullest, doing everything I can. Because otherwise, it'd be boring. You wouldn't have the joy of taking risks, or if everything was perfect, there would be nothing to spend time on to improve. It'd be pointless because if you lived forever, you would be able to do everything, not get those feelings of when you have to choose one thing. I don't know, I just think it'd be better to be on "a restricted time frame"
138244
depends on what you consider a long time.  there are reports of Near Death Experiences of those who had been dead for hours and then were revived automatically, and they did revive by their soul returning to the body.  Now months or years down the road, not likely, but I wouldn't say impossible.
33150
You might want to actually consider taking a CHEMISTRY class before you talk like that.  There will never be an Elixir of life, people will continue to die, the best we can do is expand lifespan by treating disease and illness.
412714
Whether a person chooses to take their life prematurely or not, is their decision.  As a nurse for 35 years, I have seen many people die a slow painful death, so I can understand the desire to end ones suffering.  I couldn't  do it though, because I would feel there must be a reason for me to stay on this earth a little longer.  To shorten my life,  I would become  accountable to a higher power.  The one who gave me life in the first place and really is the only one who has the right to take mine away.
479448
You have asked some huge questions.  In my opinion, I believe that copying DNA is something we do in research everyday.  Some of that DNA is human.  That principle is the basis for mass produced human insulin.  However that does not make it a good idea to mass-produce new humans from copied DNA even if it were possible.  (currently it is not possible).  As for culturing cells for transplants, I think maybe you are referring to creating viable replacement organs for transplant from tissue culture.  This is a remarkable notion and one that should be strived for.  Again, right now that is only so much science fiction but strides are being made in that direction.  There is the production of artificial blood and replacement skin for burn victims that is happening right now.  There are scientists that are working to create a functional bladder from tissue culture to replace bladders damaged by disease or injury.\nLastly, there will always be faith that needs to be addressed.  Peoples' personally held beliefs dictate how they should behave.  I don't think religion should dictate the direction that science goes but faith and morals certainly have a direct impact on how some scientists proceed in their work.
373850
1. Yes, I would. It would be nice to know I could help someone to live a better life.\n2. "ordinary means", to me, refer to routine, usual, natural procedures (such as dying of natural causes); "extraordinary means" refer to procedures that are not customary (unusual, unnatural, such as euthanasia);\n3. This is a tough question because it involves legal and religious issues. To me, euthanasia is somewhat similar to the death penalty in the sense that someone has (or will have) the legal right to end someone else's life. When I think of both issues, from a detached standpoint, it seems OK for a doctor to end a terminal patient´s life and for the State to "kill" a criminal by lethal injection. That's because I am not the one who will be responsible for those "death sentences". However, if a relative of mine were in a vegetative state and I would have to pull the plug (so to speak), seriously, I doubt I would do it. It´s a matter of principles. Long story short, even if it were "legal", deep down, it would still be "illegal". \n4. cf. no. 3.\n5. If I had to choose between the two, I would definitely prefer "active euthanasia". It breaks my heart when I think of Mary Schiavo. The way she was treated, to me, was inhumane.
316510
The only way we could be brought back to life per say is if something happens and our heart stops. Once our brain is dead we are dead for good. We cannot come back to life. There is no such thing as dying and coming back. Technically once your soul leaves you are no longer a viable human being. And once your soul is gone it doesn't come back no matter what you do.
302130
I could personally benefit from a brand new pancreas identical to mine. I am a type 1 diabetic (my pancreas was attacked by my immune system). like anything else, therapeutic cloning in and of itself is not wrong. it could be used to treat/cure a variety of diseases. Things to think about: in Diabetics, whose to say the new pancreas will not be destroyed again? Trauma cases would be great. You lose your spleen to a car accident, and it gets replaced by an identical, disease free spleen. I am somewhat hesitant to say that I 100% fully agree with therapeutic cloning, but I'm not sure I can put my finger on why. I'd have to say about 75%-25% in favor.
458542
No one would own your clone but your clone. When cloned, the new person is an actual person who cannot be owned anymore than you can be owned. To do so would be slavery.