Embyonic stem cell research

[tracydani3]

But the fact that life is brought is hard to imagine....i mean i would believe that its not just as simple as assembling the bodily parts together......if so you could chop parts of each human and stick em together with super glue but...it is impossible. Also the clone would not be concious and it would lack the ability to think. I think no sorry i know that if cloning is possible then bringing back the dead would mean the same. You could take the cells of the dying person and bring him back. But no tis all impossible.

Ahh.. I understand what you are saying now.

I don't believe the idea is to clone a bunch of body parts and put them together into one person. If that was the case, I would tend to agree with you.

As far as I understand it, there are 2 possibilities.

1- Clone an entire person all in one shot from the cells of one person.

2- Clone parts of a person to graft back on to them or another person or to grow materials in a person to fix parts that are wrecked.

I suppose another idea is to clone a whole persons body and put the original persons brain into it, but I think that will be a ways away

[gamer4eva]

Cells need to grow right and you have to believe that cells cannot just be created out of nothing. The whole basis of cloning comes from cell division which is the bodys natural way of reproducing cells. Same thing with bacteria...they need time to grow and divide. Which precisely leads to the point that all the cells cannot be cloned in one shot because of the fact that the cells cannot replictate at a fast enough rate to create tissues....organs....or organisms. Unless there is another method which i never heard of. Its probably possible to clone a certain area for example the skin which is a collective amount of the same cells but you see creating a human from cell to cell is dammn difficult. You have to think how many cells there are in the body. Which then leads to the conclusion IMPOSSIBLE.
I need to look up on the biology books. Also they did manage to clone sheep but what they did was use the embryo of dolly the sheep and insert her cell (dont know which one) and it grew and it was genetically identical to dolly.
This is a clone but not the same as how human cloning can be achieved.

[vidcc]

That's because you don't think of the unborn as being human beings. Some people do. What you would then be discussing is human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Medical science made great leaps forward by the research of nazi scientists, researching on human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

I don't regard a clump of cells sitting in a petri dish as a human being.I view a clump of cells in a petri dish differently from a baby growing inside a womb. The point is that those clumps of cells will not live. They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain and will never be implanted into a womb. The "adoption scheme" is admirable but doesn't even scratch the surface of excess embryos and I think it more "immoral" to just discard them than use those cells to save life.
Now you could ban IVF treatment because it discards all these "human beings" but think of the humans alive today that would not be without it.
All the Bush veto did was stop public money funding research. It did not ban private money funding it. Using the "immoral" card is odd because if it's "murder" to fund it publically it is murder to fund it privately.

However that looks like a moot point now as they can get the cells without destroying the embryo....so what I am wondering is what is the ethical objection now?

[Mr JP Fugley]

That's because you don't think of the unborn as being human beings. Some people do. What you would then be discussing is human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Medical science made great leaps forward by the research of nazi scientists, researching on human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

I don't regard a clump of cells sitting in a petri dish as a human being.I view a clump of cells in a petri dish differently from a baby growing inside a womb. The point is that those clumps of cells will not live. They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain and will never be implanted into a womb. The "adoption scheme" is admirable but doesn't even scratch the surface of excess embryos and I think it more "immoral" to just discard them than use those cells to save life.
Now you could ban IVF treatment because it discards all these "human beings" but think of the humans alive today that would not be without it.
All the Bush veto did was stop public money funding research. It did not ban private money funding it. Using the "immoral" card is odd because if it's "murder" to fund it publically it is murder to fund it privately.

However that looks like a moot point now as they can get the cells without destroying the embryo....so what I am wondering is what is the ethical objection now?

I take it from "They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain" that these are the things which, in your mind, define what a human being is.

[Mr JP Fugley]

The difficulty is that we all have pretty much different views on where to draw the line regarding the issue of what counts as a human being and what doesn't.

Pro life campaigners and those of religious persuation regard the very moment that a sperm penetrates an egg as being the beginning a a human life. At the opposite end of the scale The Abortion Act allows abortion up to 24 weeks, and up to and even during birth where the unborn child is thought to be disabled. Most of us are caught on the scale somewhere between these two reference points and as usual the religion, science and politics are the main players whilst the opinion of the man/woman on the street holds little sway.

I hear what you are saying and take your point, however for me it is a matter of logic, not of religion. If one takes the position that a clump of cells in a petri dish is not a human being (obviously I disagree with that), then it must become one at some point. Is that point at the moment of birth, patently not, the baby is no different than it was an hour previously. Other than it is outside of it's mother's womb.

So the logical position must be that it becomes a human being some time before birth. So what event causes a human being to come into existence. When is the human being there.

I can answer what my opinion is, at the moment of conception. I can think of no logical reason to think it is any other moment, so I must conclude it is then. I would be happy to hear, from those who disagree, when they think it happens.

[limesqueezer]

It all depends on politics if they unban the law, like it was never stopped for real. Probably some rich folks already have reserved in advance some future extra organs like they bought pieces of land on mars. Science, faith and politics have to decide now, final world goes to politics. Politics influenced by church, what is normal and after bible. Nobody religious wants to clone jesus, but they already have an answer for that. They say jesus isn't a simply a matter of genetics. http://www.snopes.com/religion/clone.htm
Religion was always against science, the world would be flat and the heads of wizards(scientists) and witches would roll if it was after em all the time.
U know on how many pages u can read: Embryo is not human life.
Some comments on human embryo clone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1676559.stm
At end nobody can stop science.

[tracydani3]

Also they did manage to clone sheep but what they did was use the embryo of dolly the sheep and insert her cell (dont know which one) and it grew and it was genetically identical to dolly.

That's pretty much what I was refering to as far as human cloning was concerned. If they can do it with a sheep, they can do it with a human.

The other method you are refering to would be a bit more difficult But I wouldn't say beyond possibility.

[gamer4eva]

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales.
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex....if cloning was as simple as it was with dolly heck i would have 30 of me working and earning me money.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales.
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex.

I take it you are joking in all of this.

[Barbarossa]

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales.
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex....if cloning was as simple as it was with dolly heck i would have 30 of me working and earning me money.

I would classify you as ever-so-slightly simpler than Dolly the sheep, if that's OK