Cloning

[adolescentmasturbator]

I think the right decison was made on cloning. The playing god thing is a big reason why it should be illegal but there is a bigger reason it should be.
It is extremely unsafe. 99% of these experiments end in miscarraige and the rest of the 1% has a large majority of defects and abnormalites.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[F Wad]

your a prime example why cloning should be illegal

<IMG SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OAComSigPics/files/canweseeyourstuff%20/bigasscard.jpg">


aka canweseeyourstuff from o&a.com

[adolescentmasturbator]

Hmm another one of me would be great. I could have sex with myself and it wouldn't be gay. It would be just some new form of masturbation.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[CYYYFYYY]

They are already cloning
humans. If you don't believe
that you are ignorant. And
did you ever notice George
Bush Jr. Looks alot like
George Bush Sr.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


David the Franchize
Let them eat Cake!

[HordeKing1]

ADOLESCENTMASTURBATOR -

1. God? Give me a break!
2. The only reason there is a controversy at all is that we are still much more backwards than we like to think. Not so long ago nuts refused to give up their belief that the earth was flat and the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth. They refused to acknowledge the fact of evolution and maintain that a God or Gods created the universe. Silly!
3. Unsafe? Questionable. Even if true, that's only another reason why much greater funding in necessary.
4. Are you aware of how many fetuses are spontaneously aborted (particularly males - the Y chromosome isn't nearly as robust as the X chromosome) w/o the woman even being aware she's pregnant! Most of these miscarriages are because of genetic abnormalities.
5. The potential for good (transplant organs that the body cannot reject for example) far exceeds any potential for harm, which has never ever been demonstrated. The potential is just meant to scare the ignorant.



http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[HordeKing1]

ADOLESCENTMASTURBATOR - In the late words of Issac Asimov. (To the tune of "Give me a Home")

Oh give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With it's Y chomosome changed to X
And then when I'm alone
With my very own clone
We'll both think of nothing but sex.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[barry williams]

The world needs more cute Greg Brady's

<img src="http://www.barrywilliams.com/art/barrys.gif" height=100width=100>
I got more chicks than Scott Baio

[Koala]

I like your poem Hordeking, but does hordequeen want 2 of you?

<OBJECT CLASSID="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" WIDTH="300"
HEIGHT="100" CODEBASE="http://active.macromedia.com/flash5/cabs/
swflash.cab#version=5,0,0,0">
<PARAM NAME="MOVIE" VALUE="http://hometown.aol.com/muldermanx/koala.swf">
<PARAM NAME="PLAY" VALUE="true">
<PARAM NAME="LOOP" VALUE="true">
<PARAM NAME="QUALITY" VALUE="high">

Horde King 1 (7:47:03 PM):
<EMBED SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/muldermanx/koala.swf" WIDTH="300"
HEIGHT="100" PLAY="true"
LOOP="true" QUALITY="high"
PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash">
</EMBED>

</OBJECT>

[iscream22]

Cloning?? Not on humans. Animals that are a dieing species should be cloned though.

Ron and Fez are the best thing comin' today whoooooo!!

[HordeKing1]

KOALA - More of me to love...

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

To react to that HK i say this.

Regardless of the existence of god there is without a doubt that we are dabbling and trying to take nature's place. This is not my main concern and in fact I may be wrong.

But the biggest thing is safety. The technique they want to use is called Nuclear Transfer. This is the technique they used to create Dolly. The failure rate of this technique is extremely high. And even when there is a birth there are many complications. This is why the Dolly scientists are opposed to Human Cloning at this current juncture(This is also the reason for most of my opposition.) We should test it on animals for a very long period until we get this worked out before we go nuts on cloning humans.

Finally you never know what humans will do to abuse this. We could have the rich genetically altering their children to be smarter, stronger, and better looking. We could have the government using this possibly. You never know the possible risks with scientific discovery. Humans tend to abuse such discoveries.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[HordeKing1]

ADOLESCENT MASTURBATOR - What do you find so objectionable about trying to "take nature's place."

Humans have been doing that since we first evolved. We changed the genes of numerous fruits, grains and vegetables. There are actually some foods that are no longer able to fertilize themselves without man's help (corn for example.)

We have changed the evolutionary path and allele frequency of species to numerous to count via the industrial revolution and it's resulting pollution. Need I mention the distruction of rain forests, or building damns and things of this nature that killed off countless species.

Antibiotics have altered the evolutionary course of bacterial organisms, leaving only those w/a mutation allowing them to resist the antibiotic alive. They have also changed natures plan for the humans who were saved by the antibiotics.

Humans have been messing around with nature since we first evolved. That cannot be a concern.

Safety concerns? What exactly are you afraid of? Boogey man clones?

Many techniques for cloning are available and utilized with greater success than Nuclear Transfer Technology. You only mentioned this technique. I assume you understand that this does not involve nuclear energy but rather the nucleous of an egg. It has this name because it involves transfering the genome (genetic code) of a fetilized egg cells nucleus into a denucleated egg cell from another individual, thus renucleating the egg cell with this new genome.

You talk of the failure rate of this technique. It took 277 attempts to clone Dolly. Now it's done routinely and with much greater success. We're eagerly awaiting the birth of clones of some endangered species in November.

But that's irrelevant. Assume it take 500 tries to get a success. So what? What are your "safety concerns."

I fear that many people are reacting to cloning by sprouting party and religious lines based on technophobia, misguided ideas of what "god wants" (I have yet to see any bible where this was discussed) and lack of understanding of the techniques and issues involved.

TOM, of course you are entitled to your opinion and this is an area we might have to agree to disagree. I will think more about your opinions as I hope you'll do mine.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

Before we have screwed around with mother nature now we want to replace it. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it but we should take a long look at this because nature has bitten us in the ass before.

Also shouldn't we focus on animals first and perfect it on them before we go onto humans? Human cloning may not be morally wrong in its essence but you lead to physical side effects that are very possible.

I know about Nuclear Transfer and how it's not the only procedure but many scientist including the Italian one(name escapes me) have been saying they want to use this technique for humans. Now the implications of having miscarraige after miscarraige are terrible. A miscarraige is a terrible thing to have and the possibility is high at this stage. Even when the birth is a success there may be defects or side effects. Although I am not sure about this I have heard about Dolly having problems.

But that's irrelevant. Assume it take 500 tries to get a success. So what? What are your "safety concerns."

I don't think we should waste 500 fetuses for experimentation purposes. Let them work on monkeys and perfect it on them before they go onto humans. We can't go headfirst into a endeavour like this. Scientific advancement is pushed without giving it a second look about possible safety implications. One example of this is the spraying of DDT to fight off Malaria. They looked at this as a great scientific victory and ended up causing much damage.

You make valid points about this argument but I feel we should be careful not because of replacing nature but because of all the health problems that could arise.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[girl germs]

i am against cloning. i don't think it's safe. most attempts to clone animals have resulted in failure and some animals that are actually cloned end up with some sort of genetic problem or abnormality.

if couples that can't give birth on their own see cloning as a way to conceive...i suggest ADOPTION.

what are you gonna do if your baby is born with some kind of abnormality? throw it away? keep trying until you have a perfect baby? give it up for adoption thus making the number of unwanted children greater?

what sucks is that now that cloning is banned in the us, scientist are testing this overseas...and who knows if they will actually report any failures, mistakes, errors, etc...in their studies.



<p align="center"><font face="verdana"><b>"i am a male model, not a male prostitute"</b></font></p>

[HordeKing1]

GIRLGERMS - Adoption is a viable (no pun intended) alternative for childless couples, but the pull to have your own child is very strong in many people.

Techniques used in cloning have already led to increased options for couples with fertility problems, such as the misnamed "embryonic cloning" which isn't cloning at all.

Inclusion of MtDNA (mitochondrial DNA which is passed only along the X chromosome) can also allow an egg to be fertilized from one parent that is not genetically identical to the mother.

No matter how a child is conceived, most people at high risk for genetic abnormalities have the fetus scanned early in the pregnancy to detect problems. Those that are detected are usually aborted. Mind you, this is at a very early stage in pregnancy (or in fertility clinics before implantation). Most really serious genetic abnormalities are spontaneously aborted early in the pregnacy, no matter how the fertilization occured. (Most of these spontaneous abortions tend to be males, as the X chromosome is more robust than the Y chromosome).

Babies born with any abnormality are either cared for by the parents or put up for adoption. The vast majority are never born through act of "god" or "nature" (depending on your inclination) or by human intervention.

GIRLGERMS assertion that scientific research will continue wherever it is not prohibited is correct but it doesn't go far enough. Research continues in the US b/c the scientific pottential of cloning are simply too great to ignore. Progress cannot be stopped. You cannot put the genie back into the bottle.

Kudos for reminding childless couples about the adoption option. However it is one option of many.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

Abortion is a very tough decison for a woman to make. What if the woman feels wrong about having an abortion(which is in her limits it is her choice), she would be put in a terrible position. Having abortion after abortion because of possible defects should not be a choice. Let them have a high success rate in monkeys rather than going to humans which has high risks.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[HordeKing1]

How would you feel if every cloning attempt resulted in a viable fetus?

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

I wouldn't have a problem if cloning resulted in a viable fetus and a healthy child. But research must be made heavily before we can go willy nilly into this.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[HordeKing1]

ADOLESCENTMASTURBATOR - Given this, it's clear that you are not against cloning, you are against abortion.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[Pootertoot]

And the best way to aid research is to ban it.

Where's my torch and pitchfork? I've got a mob to organize!

<img src="http://members.aol.com/muldermanx/images/tardpower2.gif">
<center><A HREF=ftp://64.81.192.118>Click Here To Access The Ronfez.net Music Project Server</A></center>

[adolescentmasturbator]

How am I aganist abortions? I am an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[HordeKing1]

ADOLESCENTMASTURBATOR - You talk of cloning as, "unsafe...b/c of the danger of miscarriage." You state that the "implications of having miscarriage after miscarriage are terrible." (Have you ever had a miscarriage?) You further state, "I don't think we should waste 500 fetuses for experimentation purposes." Finally you aver that you "wouldn't have a problem if cloning resulted in a viable fetus and a healthy child."

This unequivocally demonstrates that your concern is for a "fetus," not a woman's right to choose whether or not to undergo what is essentially a new fertility technique. Just as women have a right to choose to have an abortion, they have the right to choose to attempt to conceive and carry the child to term. But you'd deny them this chance b/c of concerns for the fetus.

As I noted previously, the overwhelming majorities of "defects" are determined well before implantation of the zygote occurs. Thus the number of miscarriages you mention is grossly overstated. Even if it were not, and miscarriages occurred mid pregnancy, so what? If a woman wishes to undergo this procedure for the chance of having a child, it's her decision to make. And this is the case whether the miscarriage is spontaneous or as a result of a fertility procedure, which by the way often result in miscarriage. By your reasoning since miscarriage is so dreadful, no one should be given an opportunity to utilize fertility technology.

Your concern is for a bunch of cells or at best a fetus, not for the woman (or man for that matter) who desires a child. This is the exact stance taken by the anti-abortionists - value the fetus, (a potential life) over the mother (a life in being.)


http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

First of all my mother had two miscarraiges. And I can tell you it isn't a very easy thing. There are terrible emotional(though we shouldn't legislate emotions) and severe physical problems that could arise from this.

Let's say that a miscarraige won't happen in certain cases but the doctors want to have an abortion for possible genetic flaws. Then let's say the woman refuses. A child will grow up genetically flawed because of experimentation. There will obviously be cases like this.

What if a miscarraige happens late in the pregnancy. This will obviously raise health issues for the mother.

Abortions should not be used by scientists as say oh well we fucked up again let's hope we get right next time.

An infant born into a world with genetic defects is a high possibility.

Also on a side note not relating to this exactly but I was just curious if you clones an exact copy of yourself then your clone child wouldn't be able to breed thru normal processes either. Am I correct?

Finally I also think genetic engineering is a terrifying prospect. Imagine having the rich improve upon their children giving them more chances than the poor who haven't. If we want to have genetic engineering it should be given to everyone via the government and be found to be completely safe. Yes I know I got a bit off base.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[HordeKing1]

ADOLESCENTMASTURBATOR - Many people have gone through miscarriages, my wife and I included. The minor physical risks to the woman, inherrent in MOST miscarriages are no greater or less if the pregnancy was the result of "normal" or "assisted" fertitility attempts.

Most miscarriages resulting from genetic anomolies occur very early in pregnancy, often before the woman even knows she's pregnant. That's why genetic change through mutation is so rare.

A woman who refuses to have an abortion b/c of anomolies in the genetic structure of the fetus, cannot be treated differently dependant upon how the pregnancy resulted.

The risks of a child actually being born w/genetic anomolies are not "very high" as you believe, but are actually quite low.

You write "Abortions should not be used by scientists as say oh well we fucked up again let's hope we get right next time." How is that different from the mother saying that she "fucked up" by getting pregnant, and chooses to abort. This demonstrates you anti-abortion stance.

Finally, a world where parents can ensure that their children are free from birth defects, heart conditions, diabetes, depression and have high intellegence and strength. What parent could possibly not want that? Why do you assume that this would be a bad thing used only by the rich? It's a phenomenal thing and there is no indication other than your fear that the gene therapy would be unavailabe to all.

Finally, in resopnse to your side question, an exact clone of a person would of course, not be sterile, and would be able to reproduce in the "normal fashion." That is of course, unless the person from which he is cloned is sterile. I imagine, even then, that the defective gene could be eventually corrected (which would then make it not an exact genetic duplicate and thus not a clone :) )

I'm enjoying this thread intensely. Keep the thoughts coming people.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

A woman who refuses to have an abortion b/c of anomolies in the genetic structure of the fetus, cannot be treated differently dependant upon how the pregnancy resulted.

This is my point exactly she shouldn't be forced to have an abortion but at the same time you are bringing a child into the world with abnormalities and defects.
The point about abortion is it is a deeply personal issue for a woman and should not be used by scientists as part of experimentation. This differs from stem cells since those would already be thrown away. Here scientists give a woman a tough choice. Wouldn't it be easier for scientists to research this so she wouldn't have to make it. This is a complicated procedure that must be delicately deal with.

It's a phenomenal thing and there is no indication other than your fear that the gene therapy would be unavailabe to all.

Because it obviously will. Biotech companies would be able to charge whatever they want. I suggest if it were to happen that government gives it to all the people free of charge. Of course in America that's considered Socialism and won't happen.

Also my sources have shown me high failure rates in cloning could you possibly show me evidence that points otherwise. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe i'm right.

I will get a sig pic...eventually