Opinions on the Ethics of Human Cloning

[Hoek]

Placeboes are quite definitely experimentations on unwitting humans. There have even been placebo surgeries. It is as much a psychological as it is medical experimentation. I mention this because Adam made a blanket statement that all human experimentation is unethical, and I was merely refuting it.

I do not dispute that different people have different sets of values and morals. You still make no sense in saying that the basis of your opposition to cloning is not based on your values and morals. What you call "your ethics" is most certainly the basis of your argument, as my "ethics" is the basis of my argument. I'm not seeking. The way Webster defined ethics does not allow it to be considered "relative" or even possessive, it is just a study of what is right or wrong. Philosophy as a study is not possessive either. People have different philosophIES, but the academic study of philosophy can now be possessive. I was trying to debate semantics here, not the issue at hand. I am only pointing out logical and semantic problems with what you are saying, not saying that there are universal morals or points of view. I am "dragging" you into an argument over the semantics and logic you use because it clouds the true argument about whether cloning is right or wrong.

Of course my argument is based on my morals and values; we are debating whether or not cloning is ethical. If you are going to debate the morality of something, then morals are going to be the basis of your argument. There certainly are plenty types of debates that don't involve moral arguments, but not ethical debates.

Now I hope you understand that I was making two different debates with you: one is an ethical debate on whether cloing is right or wrong, and one is a semantic/logical argument on how you formed your arguments.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Hoek
Placeboes are quite definitely experimentations on unwitting humans. There have even been placebo surgeries. It is as much a psychological as it is medical experimentation. I mention this because Adam made a blanket statement that all human experimentation is unethical, and I was merely refuting it.

Hoek you didn't refute my argument that medical experiments of unwitting humans are unethical. You used placeboes as an example but didn't show that they were ethical. Besides as Osweld stated placeboes are used in controlled experiments with the patients consent. I have no problem with this. But if consent isn't given then it IS unethical.

[Sandman]

Some thoughts on this issue:

Identical twins are clones. And they're not treated differently because of it.

Regarding the high chance of birth defects, what about women who smoke or drink during the pregnancy? Suppose woman X goes to the doctors and says "Doctor, I want to have a cloned baby" and the doctor says "No, because there is a high chance of birth defects". To this woman X replies, "You didn't complain when women Y wanted artificial insemination, and she drinks like a fish."

Since there is a small amount of genetic material outside the nucleus, unless a mother uses one of her own eggs, the clone will not be an exact replica.

[Hoek]

No, I don't disagree with you completely. I WAS refuting your statement that experimenting on humans is unethical. You have now amended that statement to be that experimenting on unwitting humans is unethical. I agree for the most part, but the whole point of a placebo (and placeboes are necessary to understand the effectiveness of medical treatment) is that the people are unwitting. Not everyone who is given a placebo (particularly in the case of placebo surgeries) is part of a controlled experiment. Is it unethical? Well, it may be less ethical than using consent, but using consent also reduces the effectiveness of the study. I am opposed to almost all other forms of unwitting or unconsenting experimentation, however. We mainly disagree on what is a human. You consider 16 cells as worthy of the same rights as any fully developed human, and I do not. I also, to a much smaller extent, disagree that unwitting or unconsenting is unethical. If you include psychological experimentation such as what is frequently done on young children-consent is not and need not be required in every case. Medical experimentation and psychological experimentation should be viewed differently.

[General Ludd]

No, the people recieving placeboes know perfectly well that they are participating in an experiment - they just aren't told whether they are geting a placebo or the real thing.

[ranskaldan]

top

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Originally posted by Osweld


I do believe this poll is asking for peoples opinion, and that is exactly what he gave.

Certainly, but shouldn't opinions reflect facts?

No reason to jump up his butt about it.

There was no reason to interpret my post as butt-jumping. What I meant was:
"I don't think it should be done"

and
"I don't think it's ethical"

mean exactly the same thing, as far as I can tell. So, the statement "Ethics aside, I don't think it should be done" was puzzling to me.

Ethics and morals are relative to the individual, the fact that there are people who find this unethical and people who find it ethical prove this fact.

How?
Is everything people disagree on relative to the individual?
There are many people who believe God exists and many who believe he doesn't exist. Does that mean the existence of God is relative to the individual? If God struck me with a lightning bolt, would the existence of that lightning bolt be relative to the individual? Would my being dead or alive be relative to the individual?
Now, if you could give me a real proof...

[Xeones]

"Nazi's practiced horrible experiments in the name of science" .... therefore ALL science is Bad! right? oh please

i think its gonna do a lot of good when they master it. though there will of course be some creepy results before they get the hang of it. i think most people against it dont understand that they dont plan to start farming people... they plan to fix *your* body through research. (well ... except for that mad scientist in a distant island castle)

i hope i can be reborn in a couple hundred years (by natural means preferably) to see what they come up with.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Xeones
"Nazi's practiced horrible experiments in the name of science" .... therefore ALL science is Bad! right? oh please

i think its gonna do a lot of good when they master it. though there will of course be some creepy results before they get the hang of it. i think most people against it dont understand that they dont plan to start farming people... they plan to fix *your* body through research. (well ... except for that mad scientist in a distant island castle)

i hope i can be reborn in a couple hundred years (by natural means preferably) to see what they come up with.

Ah yes the practice of putting words into someone else's mouth. Notice how your quote of my words ends. It doesn't end in "ALL science is bad", it doesn't even end in "science is bad". That was not the conclusion that I was stating. Rather that humans can be bad. I'm sure you recognized this but wanted to use my quote to further your ends... shame on you! ( )

Oh and welcome to apolyoton.

I'm not against them wanting to "fix" bodies.. I'm against the reasearch that can, and is being done to do so.

[Dimorier Maximus]

I'm sure Attack of the Clones will settle this discussion once and for all. We'll all see how evil clones can be and no one will want to make any clones ever again.

[ranskaldan]

top again

[MORON]

What would a man be defined as when we mastered this....