do think it is ethical!
kala bharath
fayyaz
by the way about which cloning u r asking for
--
fayyaz
MSc hons biochemistry
BSc hons biochemistry
Institue of biochemistry and biotechnolgy
university of the punjab
lahore , pakistan
+923004474407
+923036433239
Meiotico
always in immune system, in arthrospores from fungi or in the
formation of tissues. Life is using us like a mechanism for cloning and
transfering genes horizontally...
William Knight
don't think it is always sufficient. Speaking only for myself, I would
use additional guidelines for considering the ethics of cloning. Such
guidelines would rely on principles of fairness like the old 'golden
rule': 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you' (Jesus).
The tricky part is deciding what is meant by 'others'. Normally, we
mean 'other human beings', but of course there is already controversy
about this point in the debate over abortion.
In deciding when and how it is ethical to clone a human or part of a
human, I think it is also important to answer this same question. When
do we say a living thing is a human like us, and therefore deserves to
be treated like other humans? I would say that an unborn baby of 6 or 7
months is a feeling, thinking being that has a right to life very close
to that of a baby that has been born. I would also say that a newly
fertilized embryo of just a few cells is very different from a baby
near birth and does not have an equivalent ethical claim to life.
So, in general, I would say that cloning might be ethical as long as it
does not unfairly affect the life of a being that I would consider to
be a human being. This is a pretty general rule, and one would have to
define it much more carefully when applying it to specific situations.
For example, therapeutic cloning using embryonic stem cells might be
ethical if only component 'parts' were produced. But if you used
cloning to create a full-developed human being, I don't think it would
be ethical to use that human being for 'parts'.
Then there is the separate question, is it ethical to clone yourself,
not for parts, but for reproduction? I'm not sure what the answer is to
this question. If we apply a principle of fairness, such as the golden
rule, I would ask myself, would I mind if I was born as a clone of
someone else? I suppose that would depend on who that person was, how
they treated me, and what the rest of the world was like that I was
being born into. Right now, I suspect that it would be better to not be
a clone, but to be a combination of two people, a mother and a father.
But for me, that is more like a personal opinion, and I don't think I
would assert it as a general ethical principle that is true for all
places and times.
phoenix
teach the clon, then the real person will be sad because the clon is
like a copy and so u arent going o be only 1 person but u are going to
be a copy or a real one but u dont know!
that's difficult to understand but u can understand if u read this
carefully.
María Rodriguez
moment that fecundation exist there is a new human life and you have
to treat it in the same way you do with other human beings. I don't
think the argument that says that a few days old embryo cannot feel is
enough to say that it is not human, because this way we would also say
that one that is in coma is not a person or a seven year old child
that has altered perception functions is not a person. It does not say
that it is, but when we have a fecundized embryo is capable of
performing a human life, and for me, that justify the term human
being.
It is my opinion, and I understand the controversy, but from this
point of view I can't say that cloning is ethical.
JonB
fuzzy, so to speak. All the genes are there at fecundation for a fully
operable human being that has just not fully developed. Each one of
these (in theory, unless medical complications natually occur) has a
chance to become their own being, completely different from any other
genetic structure. This is a natural freedom that I do not think is
worth giving up.
Kumaran
Why do you guys think cloning is unethical. Though cloning consequently
will produce a weaker society(physically) but I don't think there
should be any other reason than this so that cloning should no be used.
So even a cloned child would not resemble a parent because the
environment also plays a important role in shaping the mind of an
individual. So get into the primitive forms of life you see only
cloning(Binary fission is just equivalent of cloning for example). All
forms of asexual reproductions are equivalent to cloning. When you find
it in nature why should you not used medically. What are laws and
ethics those are just manmade for the benefit of men(to help the
society) to maintain this society. I too agree that if cloning gets a
big spurt there would be no marriages no love no society but for other
reasons I don't think cloning is unethical. I also have a question for
you guys, You talk a lot of ethics. Are ethics only for men? Are the
other living forms like cows and buffaloes denied to it? How do you
justify the cloning of cows to produce milk with human insulin and
other products? How do justify cloning of pigs to produce grafts for
men? How do allow a women get concieved with a sperm from another man
other than her husband? Is it right that the child born so is never
revealed her biological father and is falsely told someone else as
his/her father? Is it right? Is it the ethics? Tell me guys Please.