Medical advances save lives, but does technology go to far? (cloning)?
456461
We should always struggle at the frontiers of science.  Our knowledge expands as we make mistakes.  Complacency and fear of trying new things leads to things like the Dark Ages.  Saving an individual life is up to the wishes of the individual.  Finding ways to save lives is for the benefit of all.
390860
Unethical. This is just the start to trying to develop "perfect" human beings free from defects. What makes us human is all of our imperfections. Cloners are saying people with handicaps and some that are born with defects are no good.
928801
In identical twins one is is a natural clone of the other.  If science ever really created an artificial clone, it would have the same right to life as anyone else.  But I do not expect a responsible scientist to do that.  What they're up to is creating stem cells for use in curing a variety of diseases.  Those who oppose this are phonies about their respect for life.
533869
If you are talking about cloning an entire human then I think you will find the majority will say "No". However, if when you ask this question you also mean partial cloning as in cloning of organs and such, I think the answer is most definitely "Yes". The reason being is that if we could clone particular organs, think of how many lives we could save. Now this is a touchy subject, but I think if anything we should be cloning or saving we should be all for stem cell research. Stem cell research is the one thing that truly gives cancer patients, and patients with serious diseases a chance to live. The cells are new fresh cells in the human body, often found in the placenta. Essentially these cells have no chemical "ID" tag. This tag is what viruses and cancer can usually spot and use advantageously to kill the human body. When a cell has no ID tag, the disease has a difficult time latching on and killing those cells. So I believe that we should be all for stem cell research and any kind of cloning relating to this. Personally I think we should go as far as cloning organs, however again, this is a touchy subject. So the answer ultimately being no to full human cloning, and yes to cloning for healing humans who are diseased and dying. Everyone deserves a second chance at life. People will disagree to that statement until they are the ones with the disease.
176786
You are asking a very important question, may I acknowledge firstly. Secondly, no one can answer this question with absolute neutrality, since there are several ethical implications regarding gene therapy. What is written is solely my viewpoint, as someone who is in science.\n\nGene therapy is a very innovative, very powerful means to identifying and curing long known chronic illnesses such as cancer. It involves alterations at the molecular level, and this is where the ethical implications come. Whether God should be the one responsible for these changes, evolution or scientists is another question. But the truth is, it can work and probably proves the ultimate therapeutic method. It   is still being worked on and of course there have not been any human clinical trials (as far as I know). But as long as the proper precautions are taken, which I believe will of course be the case since cutting edge research is what is involved, I see it to be the future scientific tool to curing several diseases and do not at all see any bad sides to it. This is without considering the occupational hazards, which every field, medicine, for example has. Whether the hazards are on a different level from that of other fields and what this can implicate is also another question. But you did not as that! Hmmm...
551087
That bunch of cells could instrumental in saving millions of lives,stem cell research.\nWhat about my right to live?.The best medicine should be available to every body, but perhaps procedures/treatments that arise from stem cell research could be optional.\ni.e.'Miss smith you have cancer we can cure it, but the treatment comes from stem cell research.Would you like the treatment or would you prefer to die painfully?,and would you like frys with that?.
341599
Like most advances in technology, it is a double-edged sword, meaning it can be both good and bad. \n\nOn the good side, genetic engineering promises to enhance the quality of life and to extend it to greater lengths.  Cures to most diseases may be solved through genetic engineering.\n\nOn the bad side, it allows for incredibly destuctive tools to be levied against others.  More lethal viruses could be produced, custom tailored to affect only specific people or specific parts of the body.  \n\nThis is just a mere glimpse into the possibility of what genetic engineering has to offer.
281261
I think a great deal more needs to be done in animal cloning before humans get involved. Besides the ethical issues, there are real physiological difficulties that seem to erupt in cloned organisms. It seems that having two sets of genetic material really is important.
948218
Yes because of advances in medicine and medical research we can now keep someone's heart beating and lungs functioning long after their brain has turned to a blob of grey jelly. ain't science grand!
198538
Well, there is no where in the Bible that says, "Thou shalt not clone!"  I think that people are more concerned about where the stem cells are coming from than the actual cloning.  I don't think that we can actually clone a whole human being, because of the soul factor.  We are tho only thing that God made with a soul.  As for the cloning of human organs for transplant, I'm all for it if they can get the stem cells from a source other than aborted babies.  The sad thing is, abortion is a fact of life.  I hate it and feel it is murder.  BUT, now don't all yell at me and call me a hypocrite at once, IF these poor babies are going to be murdered anyway, cuz even when it was illegal people did it anyway, then why not make their lives count for something?  Wait for it...Wait...Just one more minute...Nope, I didn't get struck by lightening.  Whew, that was close.\n\nIf I were to be murdered, God forbid, I would want my organs and tissues to be transplanted to help save the life of someone else.  Should these babies be any different?
726979
I assume you mean cloning for the growth of an entire human being, not cloning for parts; i.e, heart, lungs, eyes, etc.\n\nWell, you know years ago people freaked out about so-called "test tube babies," saying it went against nature, god, and all sort of things.  People said it would be the end of male/female relationships.  They said it would make MEN obsolete.  They said many, many stupid things.  Here we are and in vitro fertilization is a common and valuable procedure for couples experiencing infertility problems.  \n\nI work in women's health.  I truly believe "Human Cloning" will simply be another choice for couples with infertility problems.  How nice would it be for a couple to be able to clone one of themselves in a situation where either the female has no eggs or the male has no sperm.  In these situations a couple can only have a child that is PARTLY a stranger's DNA.  That sometimes leaves one of the parents feeling left out.  Also, the conceived child has NO INFORMATION pertaining to the donor DNA.  \n\nI think it would be great.  It may also reduce the number of multiple gestations so common with in vitro, which has many, many complications.\n\nI also have to address another issue:  A cloned baby would be EXACTLY like a TWIN of the person being cloned.  Genetically, it is no different.  Nothing freaky about that.
630141
Many people disagree; some on religious grounds (against God's will), some on ethical/moral (somehow cloning is unnatural).  given that clones have same DNA they would have same immune system and thus be vulnerable to diseases that others might resist because of variations.
927213
You make a good point. It is not at all obvious that a technical medical training guarantees a solidly thought out ethical stance on any issue. This seems especially true when the scientists and doctors involved have a vested interest in this research going forward (billions in federal grant money, and much more in biomedical patents). \n\nI read recently that there is an ethically less problematic process called ANT that can make stem cells without killing developing human beings. (see link) \n\nThese claims have been raised by other answers:\nCLAIM 1. Sections 5, 6, 6a protect against unethical practices.\nMY RESPONSE: If you were poor and I offered you $50,000 for your liver, would you "voluntarily" give it to me? Section 17 authorizes the following to be paid to a "voluntary donor:" "consideration (money) paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law." In other words, women will be paid for their eggs by a feltility clinic. These eggs will then be sold to researchers. This is the issue that feminists and many African American leaders have with Amendment 2. See link 2 below. \n\nCLAIM 2: this amendment bans cloning or attempted cloning, so what's the problem? \nMY RESPONSE: the amendment defines "cloning" in Section 6.2 as "to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being." \nThis means that you can clone all that you want, as long as you don't let the clone grow up. It enshrines in the constitution the requirement that these embryos be killed. Also, a group of 300 lawyers has pointed out that this doesn't necessarily mean that you can't implant the embryo for some other purpose than the creation of a human fetus. For an expert analysis of this issue, see link 3. \n\nFor these reasons, I am not comfortable "taking Mr. Danforth's word for it" that Amendment 2 is good for Missouri.
954161
I'll ignore the religious aspects--you can find Scripture to support or condemn pretty much anything.\n\nI think some of the ethical problems people have with cloning are:  We might accidentally create people with the lab equivalent of severe birth defects, who would suffer because of our imperfect skill.  People might be cloned as replacements for dead people or as organ factories for sick ones, and not be allowed to live their own lives.  Some people worry about clones being used in identity theft as well.
767308
It could open up reproductive possibilities for sterile couples. It could help reduce instances of genetic diseases such as Down's Syndrome or sickle cell anemia. Switching tracks a little, cloning individual organs (not whole humans) could help improve transplant stock, not only by creating more organs for transplant, but also by cutting down on instances of organ rejection. \n\nRemember, though: no one is talking about actually cloning humans these days. Those genetic experts who are involved in cloning projects are either concerned with animals, organs, or single-cell organisms. Hope this helps put the question into a little bit of perspective!
1042798
The current understanding of the biology of aging and disease is still quite limited, to the point that we probably won't see any major breakthroughs in the next century. There have been some studies in model organisms (such as the nematode and the fruit fly) that suggest that there are genes that regulate aging. However, this is not well understood in these organisms, and very poorly understood in humans. There are human cell lines (cells that grow in growth medium) that are "immortalized," that is, they continue dividing apparently forever, but these are a far cry from an organism put together like you or I. These cells often come from cancerous tumors and have extremely disrupted genotypes, such that basically all they can do is grow and divide. \n\nNot only do we understand little about the aging process itself, but any hopes of human genetic engineering depend on the ability to change a person's genetic complement. This, of course, is remarkably difficult in adults, who have countless cells that would have to be changed. Some "gene therapy" techniques have been tried in humans, including viral vector-based gene delivery systems. These show some promise, but there haven't been any major breakthroughs. An alternative is to try to engineer an organism from the very beginning; that is, to manipulate a zygote. However, this is widely considered to be unethical, at least in the case of humans.\n\nMy opinion is that through genetic technology, we will make better and more effective cures and preventative therapies, which will have the potential of increasing the length and quality of our life. Overcoming death is a completely different story (and a very interesting question for philosophy and religion!).
874074
B, that's it. The idea is to stall for time until a cure is found. \n\nOh, and it can still be transferred. Be careful kids.