If a human embryo is cloned, what is the social conservative response?
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.
151012
i believe a clone would be a person in all aspects that you and i are a person.  they hold the same genetic code, function with the same life processes, etc etc. therefore, in my opinion, an embryonic clone should be treated as an embryonic original. it doesn't matter how they were created, they were still created.
256905
Actually the answer for cloning is also no. If we were to clone a human the baby would not grow in a lab. The embryo would still be implanted in to a women just like baby's being born via in vitro fertilization.
103356
Hi there, \n\nYou are absolutely right. It is likely that Human Cloning will be accepted in the future. Just think of it...Wouldn't it be wonderful to clone persons like Einstein, Socrates, and other great people who have influenced this world? \n\nBut I think there must be restrictions on whom to clone. If not, the population of this world will rise rapidly. Also, it will give rise to unnecessary chaos and disorder regarding who is who. \n\nAnd I also think the technology should be known to a limited number of scientists, because there is a likely chance of illegal cloning (as in the movie 'The Sixth Day')\nIf every person gets to know the technology, he can take the creation into his own hands, and so all the unethical things are likely to happen. \n\nSo, on the whole, Human Cloning isn't a bad idea, provided there are 'proper' laws made and 'implemented', and people think rationally.\n\nrule wid style n luv@vinny\n\nEdit: Well, I do agree with you that a lot depends on the society and the brought-up of the person, but I was just trying to bring out a point there. I needed an example thats it. I completely agree with you.
941509
Cloning has given us the technology to take a nucleus out of one cell and place it in another cell.  It is now possible, for example, to take the nucleus out of a defective sperm (one that will not swim) and place it in a sperm that does, or to take a nucleus out of a defective egg (one that does not allow the sperm to penetrate) and place it in a good egg.  Then you could allow fertilization to happen in vitro and the resulting zygote would not be a clone of either parent; it would have half the DNA from mom and half from dad just like any normal baby.  \nMany times when they talk about human cloning they are not just talking about cloning a human organism; they are talking about cloning human cells.
1155507
This question DOES have an answer. The answer is that since souls do not exist, no soul would be entering another's body. When, yes WHEN, a human is cloned (unfortunately someone WILL do it), the clone will have the same genes. They will look alike and theirs traits that are determined by genetics and not environment will likely be the same as well. However, they will still be two different human beings. Both are still alive and the clone will be a baby. You won't feel any different. Why would you? There are many ethical implications involved with cloning. It would be sort of like identical twins (who share same DNA and fingerprints etc) but the result would be very odd indeed especially if the two talked to one another. How alike would they be?
421475
Because of the way a cloned human being would have to be made they would not be identical. To create a clone they inseminate an egg with the DNA of the person they wish to clone until it begins to devide and grow. Then the embryo is implanted into a woman's womb. There would be some gentic difference due to the influence of the egg and womb that the child developed in.
209132
Some people claim they have already done it (but they were French cultists and there was no reliable evidence). It can theoretically be done but there are a lot of unknowns. Dolly the sheep aged very rapidly because the dna of her chromosomes was already old when she was created. Ethically, there are lots of potential problems. For example, rich people might try to achieve some kind of immortality by cloning themselves but this is problematic if that person is a male because only the nucleus of the cell will be used ... the rest of the egg will have to come from a woman and the clone will not be identical to the donor.
79394
To answer this properly, we would really have to define what is meant by cloning. To clone something is just to make a copy, and genes are cloned safely all the time. I think you mean making an individual who is a genetic copy of another individual.\n\nThis certainly hasn't been done often, and is in no way safe. Dolly the sheep died young and had problems, and I don't think it's completely understood yet why. There was a dog cloned in Korea, but now that researcher has been fired for publishing fraudulent data, even though they've checked out the dog and he does seem to be an actually clone. It still casts some doubt.\n\nThe idea of cloning humans is completely unethical at this point, because it is unsafe. At the current state of technology, you couldn't clone a human without producing probably hundreds of babies with birth defects in the process.\n\nHow long until it is safe? There's really no way to tell. If people were determined to do this (not sure why, there are much easier ways to have children), being able to do it safely will depend on discoveries that haven't been made yet, so there's really no way to predict. Could be 50 years, could be ten years if something really amazing happens in the meanwhile.
1039013
First off, men (and women) have been arounf a lot longer than 6000 years. The 6000 years figure is one the fundamentalists use, ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary. There was no cloning involved. The whole Adam and Eve story is a poem, like most of the bible, certainly not meant to be taken literally. \n\nThere has never been a cloned human baby. The S. Koreans claimed to have done it but they were "stretching" the truth somewhat.
874028
I havent really decided If I'm a republican or a democrat...so I guess that makes me neutral right now. But  you said 'morals' and when I vote, I vote morally, and My morals usually tend to lead me to vote more republican than anything else. I am okay with stem cell research, but NOT okay with embryonic stem cell research. I dont think its okay to grow babies just to kill them. So obviously I'm also against abortion (which is usually my main issue when I vote). Feminists like to say its not okay for anyone to decide what we do with our bodies...but I say its not okay for us to decide that its okay to murder unborn children because we dont want to be bothered with them and we didnt take the proper precautions to ensure we wouldnt become pregnant in the first place. I am against the death penalty without some SERIOUS evidence. ie- That person has to have DNA all over the crime scene, be on video, confess to doing it, etc. If you're *almost* sure that the person is guilty, but not completely sure, that's not good enough. Innocent people have been put to death for crimes that people were sure they commited at the time.....and are now sure that they didnt commit them. Im against guns and owning guns. 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' is a bunch of BS. "people with guns, kill people." Ive heard people say that if guns were illegal then only criminals would have them. If that were the case then we'd be able to prosicute them for owning the gun, instead of having to wait til they did something with it. As far as the war goes...I dont know how I feel about that. Im kind of for it, kind of against it. Alot of good things came from it, but also alot of innocent people died because of it.  As far as the gay marriage thing goes...I'm suppose to be against it based on my religion and beliefs..But once again I'm not sure how i feel about that either. I have nothing against gay people, I live my life, they live theirs. So..theres a general idea of my morals for you. Im a moral republican (for the most part).
699943
Opposition to stem cell research is almost entirely ethical/moral.  There are two major concerns, both of which turn on the sanctity of life and the slippery slope argument.\n\nThe first is that if any gains are realized from this research, that scientists will begin to farm human beings a la "The Matrix".  The basic fear is that even though scientists currently intend only to use cells from embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway, they will begin to create babies for the sole purpose of harvesting their stem cells.  In essence, it's a more sinister form of abortion.\n\nSecondly, many of those people who oppose cloning are against stem cell research because the methodology of conducting stem cell research is that of small-scale cloning.  More specifically, legislation legalizing stem cell research may be written such that full-on cloning would also be legal, although this is a somewhat tenuous argument.\n\nIf you want to know any more, I would suggest you look at most any Right-to-Life website.  They will likely have talking points to better explain these and other arguments.\n\nBest of luck with your speech.  Arguing against your own beliefs can often refine your own debate skills and understanding of your real position.
959456
It depends on your defination of Human cloning.\n\nStrictly speaking, embryonic stem cell research can be classified as human cloning, as it involves the cloning of a human embryo. However, the embryo is only grown so that is has 8 cells (you can't even see that without a microscope!!) at which point growth is stopped, and the stem cells are harvested.\n\nCloning an embryo and allowing it to grow into a full human being is in no way whatsoever legal in the US, or anywhere else in the world!\n\nStem cell research is immensely important to medicine, as it can potentially cure a whole range on diseases. In America, one group of researchers are near the point of creating a CURE for diabetes!! Once completed, stem cells which produce insulin can be transplanted into patients, so they will never have to inject insuling again! In the UK, a group of researchers has manged to grow liver tissue from stem cells. Although only small at the moment (the tissue is about the size of a 1p/1c coin) it will be a very useful research tool for testing and developing better drugs with less side-affects. In the future, scientists believe they will be able to grow whole replacement organs, grown to match the genetics of the patient, so there is no risk of rejection!\n\nAmerica, being the richest country in the world, with some of best research facilities, is a key player in world medicine. However, the current ban on federal funding of stem cell research in the US is slowing down the progress of the research immensely. Scientists around the world are hoping that when the Bush Administration leaves office, this ban will be lifted, so that more funding will be availble for research, and development of treatments which help patients will come a lot sooner!
110014
1)Cloning isn’t very successful. Currently scientists have to attempt to produce hundreds of clones just to get one success. The rest of the clones either resulting a spontaneous abortion or else are deformed deformed and die or are euthanased shortly after birth. Obviously we can’t ethically apply such a technique to human babies, even if we could find women willing to carry children with a high probability of miscarriage or being born deformed.\n\n2)It’s a worthless exercise. Genetics is only a small part of  what makes someone intelligent. Environmental effects such as diet, childhood stimulation, education and upbringing are far more important.  Even if we could clone Einstein we almost certainly wouldn’t end up with anyone of any great ability.\n\n3)It’s ethically and legally impossible. Einstein gave consent for organ harvesting, he never gave consent to being cloned. You simply can’t do this legally, which means it could only possibly be achieved by a Mad Doctor, possibly using a lightning rod. Possibly working a a castle on a high peak in Transylvania. Necessarily with an assistant named Igor.\n\n4)It’s physically impossible, at least with modern technology. Cloning requires live cells. Al has been dead for some time. Even if technology reaches appoint where we can clone animals form dead cells we still won’t be able to use remains that have been pickled in formaldehyde like Al because formaldehyde destroys DNA. Maybe in another 50 years or so we will have the technology tot allow use to reconstitute shattered DNA, but not today.
412881
We are already close to being able to cloning people.  I don't think it is already done because it would be a huge victory to who ever that did it.  I don't think there is any difference between cloned human and natural human.  I read that due to chromosome markers cloned subject have a problem of premature aging.  Other than that the animal that is clone seem normal enough.  I don't think we really need cloning since most human attribute come from our experience and our free will.  Having the right gene just isn't enough.  Also since there are too many people already there is really no reason to clone people.  Now if we did have a nuclear exchange or a virus breakout where the population become threatened, than we may have cloning.  I don't know, it is too complicated a subject right now.
1003518
First question. If you mean sexual interciurse then of course, IVF (AI) etc\nBut as this is biology then ill assume you mean syngamy between gamets. \nIn which case the option is cloning which is not established as viable in humans yet (Korean research is under fraud investigation so its validity unclear at present) but is not permitted in most countries anyway.\n\nAs to the second question:- NO\nAsides one alleged and unlikely case (the virgin birth of mary yielding jesus christ which if it was true (unlikely) was a dead end as it was a male), parthenogensis (asexual reproduction) has never been reported in humans. Morever it is very unlikely to be viable or to occur due to imprinting etc.
146134
lol no\n\nit's still sexually made in terms of combining sperm from a man and egg from a woman. it produces identicle looking baby but will have completely different mind\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky&q=wiki+cloning