Home > Science Group > Discussion Board

We wouldn't be able to make 'perfect' members of society through cloning, but we might be able to remove some of the anger and violent tendencies that plague our world. We might be able to dramatically reduce depression and improve IQ. Wouldn't it be great if we could raise the average emotianal intelligence of society? I would dearly love to see a more emotionally healthy world and if cloning can contribute to that then I see no reason to refuse to consider it. I think it would be a very ethical thing to make the human race more civilised. But it will take centuries to spread the technology completely. And it is not without risk, which is why we need to do more research.

These things are worth investigating. Done properly, they need not be unethical.

This seems to be only a question of morality.  Cloning has many pros, but it also has some cons.  Some people see cloning as an act against their religion, so in many areas it has been made illegal. Then again, what happened to the separation of church and state?   Cloning does create some genetic problems, but if the clones are being used as food or other useful things, then it can be quite beneficial.  The choice is really up to the individual.

In reply to #7:   I completely agree here.  If cloning is absolutely necessary to save a life, and it is the last possible solution, then it should be considered.  Otherwise, I don't see the need-and feel it is unethical and just strange to clone a full being. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to. 

Eduction makes a thief better thief. So we can not stop education.On the other hand we need study properly the consequences and control the negative side.

Nobody wishes to fight with his own clone. But when the clone is coming  of use to fight with our own ills and defects why not use it positively.

A new knowledge should never be aborted .

1) Inproving IQ and EQ, etc

then won't it be a perfect example of inequality in society as only the rich are able to afford to clone (or rather in this case not exactly clone but to alter genes, design babies) children designed for success... Rich gets richer poor gets poorer, a widening income gap and possibly a segegation of society with with more superior designer babies vs the imperfect creation of nature.

2) Who are able to decide who to clone?

With the same technology, we can clone a newton or a Hitler...(depending on who uses it) Indeed, environment takes a huge part, but do we dare to take the risk, for curiousity?

3) Potential lives cost

In the 277 attempts to create Dolly the Sheep, 276 of the sheep died before adulthood, at the embroyo stage, as a ewe... What would become of humans? To create and kill(?) deformed babies and embroyos...

...not every zygote gets to be President.  Sorry.  Cloning and abortion raise the same moral objections.  So the same answer rebuttal applies: If you don't like it, don't have it.  I wonder how many of those, who have scruples about cloning, when faced with the immediate choice of living or dying, would refuse the man made organ.