<p>What do you think? Should this be legal or not?</p>
<p>I have two concerns:
- Will the human clones have genetic issues due to being a clone?
- Will the human clones be treated as humans as if they were the result or a traditional conception or will they be treated like property?</p>
<p>Some food for thought. All “cloned” animals came out of their surrogate mother’s womb. Depending on what the “clone” has been exposed to in the womb, it might differ from the copied animal (or person):</p>
<p>[Rainbow</a> & Cc](<a href=“http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Cloned_Cat.html]Rainbow”>Rainbow & Cc)</p>
<p>(Awww^^)</p>
<p>You cannot enter the same river twice. I do not expect my clone to be a copy of me, because no one can replicate the environment I was raised in. It will have my genes, but it will not have the big scar on the right knee and she might hate organic chemistry. Nurture vs nature. A recent publication in Science suggests that “nurture” plays the key role in development of MS (and I expect we’l be hearing more about it):</p>
<p>[MS</a> study suggests key role of environmental factor in the disease | e! Science News](<a href=“http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/04/28/ms.study.suggests.key.role.environmental.factor.disease]MS”>MS study suggests key role of environmental factor in the disease | (e) Science News)</p>
<p>And to answer the OP - why would anyone want or need to clone their entire organism? A bunch of liver cells cloned *in vitro *to replace my failing organ would be just fine with me. 
That’s where the research should be directed, IMO.</p>
<p>Aren’t identical twins nature’s clones?</p>
<p>Definitely an interesting question that is going to cause quite a bit of controversy once someone actually comes out and tries it. My thing is that, if/when this is ever done, the clone is still a human being, a person - an individual in every sense of the word, and therefore must have the same rights/responsibilities that any non-cloned person has. </p>
<p>I can’t think of a good argument against this. To jump onto what fendrock said, if someone wants to make the argument that in the case of two humans with an identical genetic code, one should be treated as somehow innately inferior to the other, or even as “non-human”, then that would apply also to identical twins. The next argument would then be that the artificial means by which a clone comes into existence is valid grounds for different treatment (which obviously wouldn’t apply to identical twins). But then where is the difference between cloning and IVF and other fertilization methods? It’s essentially the same process. Instead of inserting the haploid nucleus of the sperm into the egg, you’re removing the nucleus of the egg and inserting a diploid nucleus. Not a huge leap in technology.</p>
<p>Cloning entire human beings for the purpose of harvesting organs is right out, morally. Stem cell advances and cloning/growing just the needed organs offer a morally acceptable alternative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Twins are produced by either the splitting of a gamete during the conceptualization stage of the accidental release of two ova (egg cells) during the ovulation cycle. Clones would be as if someone had implanted the parent’s DNA into an egg cell and stimulated it into developing an artificially generated foetus. Apples and oranges, I’m afraid.</p>
<p>My concerns about cloning is that the clones won’t live as long or as healthily as real human beings. I refer of course to the noted case of Dolly the Sheep, which lived in ill health for much of its shortened life. We have a duty to not deliberately inflict genetic defects on human beings.</p>
<p>Yes, identical twins are genetically the equivalent of clones. More similar than may be expected by cloning, because they went through a very similar in utero environment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A gamete doesn’t split, it is the haploid cell (sperm or unfertilized egg). The fertilized egg splits (or the cell mass within the first few days). </p>
<p>And I don’t know the use of the phrase “conceptualization stage”.</p>
<p>“Cloning entire human beings for the purpose of harvesting organs is right out, morally.”</p>
<p>Hey … I clone it, I own it. Gimme the liver and kidneys. After that, what remains is the government’s problem.</p>
<p>IMHO moral issues are the LEAST of the problems cloning humans will present. That said, letting an otherwise healthy eight-year-old die for lack of a cloned kidney seems inappropriate.</p>
<p>Why? What would be a valid, moral reason to clone a human being?</p>
<p>For mere curiosity?</p>
<p>I am uncomfortable with the equation of “moral” with “legal.” That’s the sort of thing that makes people think that it is acceptable to legislate who can use birth control, which adults can marry, and so on.</p>
<p>That issue aside, human cloning is a thorny question. I instinctively react negatively to it, but I can’t say that my instinctive reaction is founded in deep thought.</p>
<p>Some of the ethical issues and possible consequences of widespread human cloning have been explored by science fiction authors…C.J. Cherryh, for example. Other authors have addressed the possibility of people producing a clone for spare parts, even transplanting their brain into the younger body, thereby killing the cloned individual, and achieving a kind of immortality without old age. (That one is clearly unethical to me! )</p>
<p>Thank you, Consolation. I think it’s abhorrent to do this for reproductive purposes, but I do not want the government to stop people.</p>
<p>“Why? What would be a valid, moral reason to clone a human being? For mere curiosity?”</p>
<p>If I’m a criminal, having a few “spares” around to provide alibis and the like would be very helpful. “I was donating blood in Cleveland at the time. You can check the DNA!” Moral no … but morality isn’t a big issue with criminals, sociopaths, politicians(?), Wall Street types, etcetera.</p>
<p>I cannot fathom good PRACTICAL reasons to clone entire human beings … for me that trumps any moral argument for doing it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And exactly by what right can you force the clone child to give up his or her kidney to the “parent” child?</p>
<p>I think it’s a completely overrated non-issue. Just like ‘test tube babies’ were awhile back.</p>
<p>Many of the issues are answered by looking at identical twins. </p>
<p>One case- of Dolly- doesn’t tell us anything about the genetic or health implications of cloning. So many possible reasons put forth as to why she died young.</p>
<p>^^ Sorry Bedouin … my post wasn’t clear. What I was trying to say is that I might support cloning of individual organs (depending on context). I do not support cloning of entire human beings with the intent of slaughtering them for their parts.</p>
<p>I do agree with starbright that as a practical matter, this is an overrated non-issue.</p>