If a human embryo was cloned, the Conservative reaction would be?
957884
Very thought provoking question! I am suprised that the responses you have received so far have been either negative or incomplete. It does pose a serious problem for conservative minded people. If the creation of a "Frankenstein" embryo by the hands of man is a religious abomination as you postulate, then supporting its existance is an equal abomination. But then comes the right to life issue. So far the responses seem to have been "well, too late to do anything about it". I think those responses are cop outs.\n\nI think that, should God make available to man the technology to perform such acts, then God must want us to be capable of doing it, otherwise he would prevent it.  Interestingly, it calls into question fundamental religious beliefs of whether or not this might be a "test" by God...\n\nI really dont have an off the cuff answer. This has provoked a lot of questions in my mind, and I have to sit back and think about it carefully for awhile. Thanks for the great question.
780969
Question: Where are you going to find an authentic sample of his cells?\n\nNo, it's not ethical, but it would most certainly be done if the scientists thought they had an authentic viable sample. \n\nPeople would kill to get their hands on it. One to protect the sample from being debased by science, another in the belief it will heal or provide immortality, one to see if the clone would have perfect morality and miraculous powers, one to prevent the sample or clone from becoming an object of worship, one to keep Jesus a mystery only attestable to by faith, one to prevent the other from getting it... each would have thier own motivation.
1121552
I am 100% against it. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with all the technology that we have today there is another way than by harvesting embroyos. Whether  America would like to admit that an embryo is a living being or not, the fact still remains that it is. I am confident that God will supply us the knowledge and ability to reproduce stem cells another way.\n\n\nhttp://www.stemcellresearch.org/\n\n\nhttp://www.biblebelievers.com/AllThis.html
28455
Disadvantages: People will deem clones to have no souls and use them in immoral ways.\n\nAdvantages: None.\n\nI can see no benefit to the actual cloning of a human being. The benefit comes from the knowledge gained from cloning. Once we have the ability to clone a human being, we can specialize in cloning just the parts that we need.\n\nImagine a person with lungs and a heart damaged from disease or an accident. Doctors can clone just the heart and lungs from the patient's own DNA and transplant them. No waiting for donors and no organ rejection.\n\nHow about cloning gallons of untainted blood as needed? No more need for donors, storage, or disease testing. Even rare blood types can be cloned as needed.
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!
843153
yeh i'd accept it, and i'd donate my eggs to find the cures if it was legal here. Those who are against stem cell research and cause all the problems to medical scientist trying to find cures, should also give up their right to be saved when the cures are established.
108459
An egg, and a sperm both contain a nucleus which holds half of our DNA (23 chromosomes). All of our other cells contain 46 Chromosomes. In the lab, they harvest an egg from which ever species they are cloning, and they remove the nucleus. They can then take the nucleus of a normal 46 chromosome cell and put it inside the egg- where it's nucleus used to be. The egg then "thinks" it is fertilized and will start to divide, and grow. This embryo is an exact replica of the parent cell. Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction, because sex was not involved in the creation of the new embryo. There are many ethical issues surrounding cloning. Some argue that scientists are "playing God" because they are creating new life. Some say that if a human were to be cloned- it would have no soul because it was not created by God. There are too many ethical issues to type here, but you get the idea. You'll have to decide for yourself where you stand. Hope this helps. good luck in school
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.
571791
It is medically possible at this point in time. A fertilised human egg (that has already made contact with sperm) is frozen while it is still a single cel and hasn't duplicated. Under a microscope scientists insert a needle and remove the cell nucleus that contains the DNA of the merged egg and sperm. They then insert a nucleus from the host person that contians their own DNA. The cell is then allowed to divide and continue growing, at the right time it would be placed within a surrogate mother like test tube babies until a baby is born with the exact DNA of the host person. Barring developments later in gestation such as the mother's diet and condition, the child will be an exact duplicate of the host who's DNA was used, until social factors kick in
1012455
Many people have different views on embryonic stem cell research, however, religion as a whole strongly opposes it, due to the necessity of destroying living embryos which, in essence, is a living being *(and killing them would ultimately be considered murder.)\n*last part is optional
737242
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.
934530
Therapeutic cloning is another term applied somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) in which the nucleus of an ovum is removed and replaced with the nucleus of an adult somatic cell donor, then allowed  to grow and mature as the genetic clone of the donor.  The idea behind is that if the donor should ever need an organ transplant, the organs can be harvested from the clone so that the donor will survive. The controversy is that we'd essentially be creating human life for the sole purpose of killing it in lieu of a medical emergency. Also, the first step of SCNT is the same as embryonic stem cell research and has drawn the opposition of those that oppose ESC research.
3468
A human clone, if succesful, is just a twin of the original person (but younger).  That's seems morally legitimate.  But today the success rate would be very low; some of the failures would be horrible birth defects.  So it would be unethical to attempt cloning a human today.  Eventually, if it could be done reliably, it would be ethical (but getting there from here seems awfully difficult).
449831
Cloning a human, as any other mammals, is a quick process (often not succesful though). If all necessary equipment, DNA and egg donors are ready, it can be cloned in one day and be born 9 months later. Please do not confuse the act of cloning (i.e., the procedure itself, which includes replacing DNA of an egg with donor DNA) with the time it takes for the clone to develop in uterus, to be born and grow up (as for any normal human being, it would take years to reach maturity).\nReal cost of one cloning procedure I'd say could be a little bit higher than what people pay now for in vitro fertilization. The fact is, however, that current technology cannot ensure hastle-free and error-free cloning, therefore nobody would do it on humans (unless illegaly, but that would cost millions I'd suspect). It requires further research and science advancement, which is costly (we are talking billions here).
124759
The process that you are refering to is called parthenogenesis.  Evolutionarily it is a bad idea.  It produces clones of the mother.  Cloning is bad because you produce genetically identical offspring and if a disease comes or the environment changes, you do not have survive as a population.  If it kills one, it kills all.  All sexually reproducing animals have the advantage of unique offspring with differing abilities/disabilities.\nTo answer your question:  yes, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.  Scientists can already remove the incomplete nucleus (haploid) of an egg and replace it with a complete nucleus (diploid).  Quite possibly, a woman could give birth to her own clone.  Scientists could also possibly find a way for two women to use their own haploid nuclei to produce and diploid egg.  Yay for the lesbian lovers.  Bad for the christian conservatives.  I'm not saying I agree with this all, just relaying the facts.
823360
Well....cloning is just making out a genetically identical individual from an individual. To begin cloning is of two types..natural and artificial...Natural is the one which happens in nature by mitosis in eukaryotes and binary fission in prokaryotes...you can give tonnes and tonnes of examples for this(anything identical to another thing is a clone of tht 'another' thing........i can even say that DNA replication is cloninf of the original DNA molecule....thus cloning can be a broad term but here i m jus tellin you about cloning of organisms or cells). Artificial cloning methods are the ones which humans use for various reasons(wich are not ethical) Artificial cloning would include tissue culture, embryo cloning, tranferring a diploid nucleus to an egg cell to get an identical organism(as in case of Dolly the sheep), etc., and etc.,  so you can devide cloning into many types....................................
1007632
Freezing is a very traumatic procedure for an embryo and not all embryos survive. It is normal for one or more of the cells in the embryo to die as a result of the freezing and thawing procedure. However, provided that the majority of the cells in an embryo survive, the embryo still has a chance to establish a pregnancy. \n\nEmbryos can be frozen at different times after fertilization. Most typically, embryos are frozen 1, 3 or 5 days after the sperm and egg were put together. Freezing is a stressful process for an embryo, and only embryos that are growing well in the laboratory will tolerate the freezing procedure. \n\nStep 1. Before an embryo can be frozen, all the water that it contains must be removed. Since water expands in size as it turns to ice, water inside the embryo would burst (kill) the embryo if we simply placed it in the freezer. To prevent the embryo from shriveling as the water is extracted, we replace the water with antifreeze. Antifreeze is a solution that does not expand in size when it freezes. The embryo is cooled to room temperature as the water is replaced with antifreeze. \n\nStep 2. When most of the water has been removed the embryo is inserted into a carefully labeled vial, or more typically a small straw, and placed in the cooling chamber of a controlled rate freezer. \n\nStep 3. The embryo is then cooled very slowly at -0.30C per minute. Slow cooling like this allows the embryologist to have precise control over the freezing process, to maximize water extraction from the embryo and to prevent formation of large ice shards that could pierce the embryo. \n\nStep 4. The cooled straw is placed into carefully labeled metal canes and lowered into the tank with other frozen embryos. The entire process takes several hours and the embryo(s) are stored frozen at –1960C in liquid nitrogen. Liquid nitrogen is a safe and effective coolant, which is easy to work with in the laboratory. \n\nNo one knows what the maximum storage period might be. Procedures for human embryo freezing were developed in 1984 and only went into widespread use in the late 1980's. This means that the longest time a human embryo has been stored is 12-15 years, and typically, patients that have left embryos in storage for this long are not coming back for them. Some patients have come back after 10-12 years and the embryos have been thawed successfully. Beyond this time frame, we don't know how long an embryo will remain viable. \n\nThawing the embryos is simply a reversal of the freezing procedure.