Cloning morally and ethically wrong?
- Thread starter Cuda1447
- Start date
I don't have a problem with it. I don't really see the use for it though. I guess harvesting organs maybe.
Maybe in the future we'll create clone armies, like that terrible Curt Russell movie "Soldier", but aside from that I just don't see the benefits of cloning people.
Maybe in the future we'll create clone armies, like that terrible Curt Russell movie "Soldier", but aside from that I just don't see the benefits of cloning people.
I'd rather talk about sports and things like that, but sure we can talk about cloning.
I think we should have the technology but protect it very very carefully and only use it to save lives.
I think we should have the technology but protect it very very carefully and only use it to save lives.
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
Well I threw together a speech really quick that argues against it. Now I don't neccessarily believe anything I write, Im just looking for ideas to improve it. If you want to point out flaws in my arguments, or help me word certain parts better, or even give me new ideas that would be great.
Keep in mind that I did this really quickly so alot of this doesn't flow very well together, I just wanted to get something on paper.
In 1933 Nazi Germany begin genetic experiments, in hopes of creating the ultimate race. They referred to this race as the Aryan's. These Aryans had blonde hair, blue eyes, and were supposedly superior to all other races in all aspects of life. Now today scientists are on the edge of cloning humans. Scientists may not be as straight forward about their goal, but longterm it is obvious. If we allow cloning research to continue, scientists are going to attempt to do exactly what Germany did so many years ago. It may start out as finding cures for diseases, or eliminating genetic defects. But soon it will progress to removing unwanted genetics, such as low intelligence, or black hair, or brown eyes. We would be continuing hitlers work. That is just one of the many reasons why cloning is morally and ethically wrong.
Another aspect of cloning we need to look at is producing actual "clones" from a human parent. Not just altering genetic code, but producing exact replicas. This may become a reality as well. Perhaps someone will want to clone their dying son, or maybe a great mind will be cloned, perhaps a public figure? In any of these cases the effects could be horrendous. The clones will not act even remotely close to the same as their predecessor because society has a major effect on the personality of a person.
Their may also be psychological harms on cloned human children. One of those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many argue that cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to consider the definition of self. Children have been taught that they are different and unique. If we clone children we take away individuality that is so important to everyone of us.
Another question we need to ask is when exactly is a human considered a human? Is it at birth? Is it 6 months into pregnancy? Or is it at conception? I believe it is at conception. Many may argue that when conception takes place their is just a bunch of cells that exist. But they are wrong. If you are a Christian you no doubt believe that life takes place at conception. According to the Bible, Mary conceived baby Jesus. As soon as that conception took place Jesus was referred to as a human, not a clump of cells. If you do not believe the teachings of the Bible however, just look at this from a logical stand point. The only logical place to consider a human to be a human other than actual birth is conception. We know that it cannot be birth because we consider a baby to be a human before they are born. So we must consider conception to be the beginning of human life. Placing a arbitrary time in which we become human is not plausible because we can not say that human life takes place at the 58th day of pregnancy or the 124th day. There is no significant change from one day to another that signifies actual human life, so we must assume conception is the beginning.
So now lets take a look at the likelihood of cloning success. In the cloning of the sheep Dolly there were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were destroyed. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive. If those were human clones that would be 276 lifes lost due to cloning. That is definetly unethical and unmoral in everyway. We are talking about 276 murders. The one that did survive could have all kinds of psychological damage anyway.
Lets fastforward to the future now. Assuming we are somehow capable of getting over this loss of life, lets look at what could happen if this cloning technology reaches the wrong hands. In may sound like something out of a Sci-Fi book but we could definetly have clone armies on our hands. Even attempts to create the ultimate soldiers, breed to fight. Now I know you don't consider this to be ethical or moral?
What it comes down to is that we are attempting to play God if you will. We are not capable of this, nor will we ever be. This is something we should not be tampering with, if we continue on our current path it will most certainly be the demise of all morals and ethics in every way.
Keep in mind that I did this really quickly so alot of this doesn't flow very well together, I just wanted to get something on paper.
In 1933 Nazi Germany begin genetic experiments, in hopes of creating the ultimate race. They referred to this race as the Aryan's. These Aryans had blonde hair, blue eyes, and were supposedly superior to all other races in all aspects of life. Now today scientists are on the edge of cloning humans. Scientists may not be as straight forward about their goal, but longterm it is obvious. If we allow cloning research to continue, scientists are going to attempt to do exactly what Germany did so many years ago. It may start out as finding cures for diseases, or eliminating genetic defects. But soon it will progress to removing unwanted genetics, such as low intelligence, or black hair, or brown eyes. We would be continuing hitlers work. That is just one of the many reasons why cloning is morally and ethically wrong.
Another aspect of cloning we need to look at is producing actual "clones" from a human parent. Not just altering genetic code, but producing exact replicas. This may become a reality as well. Perhaps someone will want to clone their dying son, or maybe a great mind will be cloned, perhaps a public figure? In any of these cases the effects could be horrendous. The clones will not act even remotely close to the same as their predecessor because society has a major effect on the personality of a person.
Their may also be psychological harms on cloned human children. One of those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many argue that cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to consider the definition of self. Children have been taught that they are different and unique. If we clone children we take away individuality that is so important to everyone of us.
Another question we need to ask is when exactly is a human considered a human? Is it at birth? Is it 6 months into pregnancy? Or is it at conception? I believe it is at conception. Many may argue that when conception takes place their is just a bunch of cells that exist. But they are wrong. If you are a Christian you no doubt believe that life takes place at conception. According to the Bible, Mary conceived baby Jesus. As soon as that conception took place Jesus was referred to as a human, not a clump of cells. If you do not believe the teachings of the Bible however, just look at this from a logical stand point. The only logical place to consider a human to be a human other than actual birth is conception. We know that it cannot be birth because we consider a baby to be a human before they are born. So we must consider conception to be the beginning of human life. Placing a arbitrary time in which we become human is not plausible because we can not say that human life takes place at the 58th day of pregnancy or the 124th day. There is no significant change from one day to another that signifies actual human life, so we must assume conception is the beginning.
So now lets take a look at the likelihood of cloning success. In the cloning of the sheep Dolly there were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were destroyed. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive. If those were human clones that would be 276 lifes lost due to cloning. That is definetly unethical and unmoral in everyway. We are talking about 276 murders. The one that did survive could have all kinds of psychological damage anyway.
Lets fastforward to the future now. Assuming we are somehow capable of getting over this loss of life, lets look at what could happen if this cloning technology reaches the wrong hands. In may sound like something out of a Sci-Fi book but we could definetly have clone armies on our hands. Even attempts to create the ultimate soldiers, breed to fight. Now I know you don't consider this to be ethical or moral?
What it comes down to is that we are attempting to play God if you will. We are not capable of this, nor will we ever be. This is something we should not be tampering with, if we continue on our current path it will most certainly be the demise of all morals and ethics in every way.
Therapeutic cloning --> GOOD
Reproductive cloning --> BAD
That's how I see it. But given the choice between two extremes I would much rather have all cloning allowed than all cloning banned.
Reproductive cloning --> BAD
That's how I see it. But given the choice between two extremes I would much rather have all cloning allowed than all cloning banned.
If America doesn't perfect cloning, China or North Korea or some other country will. Is that really what we want? It will be the nuclear arms race all over again.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Based on the current state of cloning, absolutely wrong. We are no where near ready to create a human. These poor people would most likely be fscked up beyond all reason.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Lol great resoning guysBut since i have to argue that cloning is immoral... what can I use to argue that?
If causing harm to an innocent person is considered immoral, then creating one with a very high chance of serious defects which would cause extreme suffering is by definition immoral.
- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Lol great resoning guys
If causing harm to an innocent person is considered immoral, then creating one with a very high chance of serious defects which would cause extreme suffering is by definition immoral.
I wasn't saying I didnt like your reasoning. But the guy who said we are all fvcked didnt have great reasoning
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I'm going to first offer counter-argumentation and then make suggestions. I'm ignoring the spelling errors since 1) this is a speech, so who cares, and 2) you quickly threw it together.
In some form or another, we are all trying to create "the ultimate race." The essence of technology is to take humanity, a small subset of biological life on earth, and cause its continual progression on all levels. Individuals are egoistic in that they try to better their own existences through education, employment, technology, wealth, spirituality, social, and other means. You stated that "soon [genetic technology] will progress to removing unwanted genetics," but this is precisely what we attempt to do with every other facet of existence. We try to remove everything unwanted. From frying worms out of our sausages so that our clients won't get trichinosis to providing antibacterial soap to prescribing antibiotics to finding a cure for cancer to developing conventional weapons, everything we do as humans is seek to better our own collective existence through two primary means: 1) removing the "unwanted", and 2) developing more of that which we "want." Cloning is no different, but does this make it immoral? No, in fact, it fits precisely into society's current involvement in practically every other research and every other project currently underway. Now I'm not going to suggest that Hitler's means were immoral. His goal centered on creating a "superhuman" race. This goal is not immoral, but nearly *all* of his means that he used were. Cloning, like other technologies we have today including the media, the Internet, and needles, can be used for both good and evil, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. I'm suggesting that we give our ethically proven medical system a fighting chance.
Nearly every argument made here could also be made against everyday normal sexual reproduction. For even in normal reproduction, the effects "could be horrendous." Look at your own example of Hitler. He wasn't cloned. Not only that, but you make a point that seems to contradict the crux of your argument, and that will be my argument against this entire section. "The clones will not act even remotely close to the same as their predecessor because society has a major effect on the personality of a person." Which means that even if we do clone a Hitler, we're not necessarily going to wind up with another monster. In fact, we have a lot of variables that shape the development of an individual. You concede this point in saying that society has a major effect on personal development. Then you state a number of psychological harms, including the loss of identity, uniqueness, and individuality. But I ask, how do we know? My genetic material is pretty darn close to the material of my parents. Granted, I'm not a clone. But I feel that more important than the physical traits I've received from my parents is the *events* that have shaped my everyday existence. What has happened to me is a lot more significant in my development than what I look like or what my DNA looks like. Now it's true that cloning will further shape the similarity between the predecessor and the clone, but does this imply a loss of individuality? I say no. I know a number of identical twins. They have extremely different personalities even though they look the same to me. There is clearly not an ethical issue at stake here.
This argument will fly with George Bush, so I'll give you that much credit. And I'm a Christian, so I can appreciate that too, but unless you're making this argument in front of a Bible class at a private school, I would consider seriously revamping this. That said, here's my counter, and if you're a girl, don't cry, I'm not attacking you, just your argumentation:
First, you're taking support from a document constructed 2,000 years ago to try to show when we should consider someone a human. What else was the Bible going to call Jesus? A clump of cells? They didn't have the scientific development to know what a cell was. All they knew was that there was a little person inside. It's clear that you hold the same view, but now that we have intricate details regarding the development of a fetus (which also wasn't a valid term in the Biblical era), we have to reconsider the question of when a person is a person. You say that the only logical standpoint is to consider life beginning at conception. But I ask you this: what difference is there between a human and an animal? What provides humans a "leg up" on other life? In short, what makes a human a human? If I provided you with the cellular clump that has formed the day after conception, you probably would *not* be able to identify it as human life. Sure, performing enough tests, you could check out the DNA and hope you decide it's a human and not a chimpanzee, which would probably be hard for you to do since you don't analyze much DNA. But there comes a definite point in a fetus's development when a fetus resembles a baby, and an individual might logically argue that human life starts then. Or perhaps when the brain develops, since before that, it doesn't have the potential to reason, and some would argue that reasoning skills distinguish a human. Your real argument, I think, is that what makes a human a human is the presence of a human soul, and your argument is that a human is given a soul at the point of conception. This is a rather metaphysical observation that we really can't study using scientific technology. And since you can't -- or, at least, haven't -- provided enough evidence even for the *existence* of a soul, the point is moot. So far, by the way, this has very little or nothing to do with cloning.
Here's where the previous line of argumentation comes into play. First, we haven't had a clear establishment of a criterion as to what makes something moral. Now, as many are interested in pointing out on ATOT, if destroying a potential for human life is a murder, we have mass genocide committed every time somebody masterbates. (And, as we recently found out, we have the added crime of killing kittens.) Now while failure isn't anything to brag about when we're dealing with human life, it's bound to happen. Medical technology evolved from an era where physicians were bleeding patients to try to cure diseases because they thought that the disease was in the blood. Look how far it's come. Now we're trying to do numerous things, including cure AIDS and cancer as well as numerous other biological disorders and conditions. Should we just stop because we have the potential to destroy life along the way in an attempt to get it right? You point out the issue with Dolly... this is precisely the reason why we conduct a lot of experiments on animals (such as lab rats and guinea pigs) before we even attempt it on humans. We want to minimize the risk to human life. But even if we had as many failures as we did with Dolly, none of these embryos would be any the wiser. With a life span of a few short seconds to even a few hours to several days, these embryos in the initial failures would never reach the point in their development where they would even know that they were murdered. Now this doesn't necessarily justify it, but to provide a metaphor of the case you're making, perhaps we should consider it manslaughter when a woman makes some poor health decisions because she doesn't know she's pregnant and then miscarries. Has an ethical crime been committed when a woman, because of carelessness or whatever, misscarries? Or how about when medical processes take life in an attempt to better it? Should we necessarily prosecute all these cases? I say no. Don't sue the doctor for making an honest attempt to do his job and failing.
Ok, so now we're assuming that we've reached the point to where the chance for success in cloning is good enough that we're not going to cause rampant loss of -- as I've stated, precognitive, for the most part -- life. Now you're raising a hypothetical situation in which a clone army is raised. Let me assume, for example, that I concede your point, and that we as a government will do everything we can to halt this cloning. In fact, let's look at your Biblical examples, since you've admitted to being somewhat knowledgable about Biblical things. You remember when a deliverer was promised... a messiah? And Herod got all freaked out and went around killing all babies 2 and under and wiping out pregnancies? Now what was the crime -- to bring the Messiah, or to kill the babies? If it was to bring the Messiah, then God committed the ethical error, because by bringing the Messiah he provoked Herod to mass slaughter... and even broadcasted that He was doing so in order that Herod might act on it. Many innocents were killed. A similar thing happened when Moses entered the scene several millenia earlier. The Pharoah at the time went on baby-killing crusade when midwives were told to kill Hebrew children. Both Moses and Jesus were fortunate enough to escape this travesty, but many babies were killed nonetheless. Is this a problem with God's policies, or is it merely a government trying to forego the inevitable? I'd agree with you that both Herod and Pharoah acted immorally and unethically, if that is indeed your position. If it's not, my job is a million times easier. So I'm suggesting that we don't act like a Herod or a Pharoah. Just because there's a potential that our offspring -- to include clones -- will rise against us, we should not allow this potential to preclude us from allowing them to fulfill their potential for good. Using your argument, would it be more ethical to allow abortion -- or, I guess I should use infanticide as well -- in all cases where it's statistically probably for pregnancies which will result in gang children or druggies? No. For as you stated at the beginning, society has an extremely significant part to play in the development of the individual. But society's not the only factor... individual choice is also just as significant. And clones, as well as natural-born humans, have the right to this individual free will.
How about weather control? If it doesn't rain, can we irrigate our crops? Thanks to technology, yes, we can irrigate our crops. Unethical? No, but it can be twisted into something immoral. Playing God? Depends on your perspective.
If "God" sends a plague of locusts to cover our crops, can we use insecticide to rid ourselves of the plague? Thanks to technology and cropdusters, yes we can. Unethical? No, but it can be twisted into something immoral. Playing God? Depends on your perspective.
Can we use cloning technology to further humanity, to give couples the option to have their baby look the way they want without genetic defect, to provide people with more reproductive control, to make our own future generation the way we see as "fit" to be successful in the never-ending "survival of the fittest"? We probably can soon. Unethical? No, but it can be twisted into something immoral. Playing God? Depends on your perspective.
Suggestions: You've got a fairly good start. I'd avoid cliches like "playing God" and try to figure out a way to present the destructive ends of incorporating the cloning technology. Figure out a good way to respond to the points I've made, if you can respond to them soundly and in a way that fits with your presentation, you can probably do fine in your speech.
In some form or another, we are all trying to create "the ultimate race." The essence of technology is to take humanity, a small subset of biological life on earth, and cause its continual progression on all levels. Individuals are egoistic in that they try to better their own existences through education, employment, technology, wealth, spirituality, social, and other means. You stated that "soon [genetic technology] will progress to removing unwanted genetics," but this is precisely what we attempt to do with every other facet of existence. We try to remove everything unwanted. From frying worms out of our sausages so that our clients won't get trichinosis to providing antibacterial soap to prescribing antibiotics to finding a cure for cancer to developing conventional weapons, everything we do as humans is seek to better our own collective existence through two primary means: 1) removing the "unwanted", and 2) developing more of that which we "want." Cloning is no different, but does this make it immoral? No, in fact, it fits precisely into society's current involvement in practically every other research and every other project currently underway. Now I'm not going to suggest that Hitler's means were immoral. His goal centered on creating a "superhuman" race. This goal is not immoral, but nearly *all* of his means that he used were. Cloning, like other technologies we have today including the media, the Internet, and needles, can be used for both good and evil, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. I'm suggesting that we give our ethically proven medical system a fighting chance.
Nearly every argument made here could also be made against everyday normal sexual reproduction. For even in normal reproduction, the effects "could be horrendous." Look at your own example of Hitler. He wasn't cloned. Not only that, but you make a point that seems to contradict the crux of your argument, and that will be my argument against this entire section. "The clones will not act even remotely close to the same as their predecessor because society has a major effect on the personality of a person." Which means that even if we do clone a Hitler, we're not necessarily going to wind up with another monster. In fact, we have a lot of variables that shape the development of an individual. You concede this point in saying that society has a major effect on personal development. Then you state a number of psychological harms, including the loss of identity, uniqueness, and individuality. But I ask, how do we know? My genetic material is pretty darn close to the material of my parents. Granted, I'm not a clone. But I feel that more important than the physical traits I've received from my parents is the *events* that have shaped my everyday existence. What has happened to me is a lot more significant in my development than what I look like or what my DNA looks like. Now it's true that cloning will further shape the similarity between the predecessor and the clone, but does this imply a loss of individuality? I say no. I know a number of identical twins. They have extremely different personalities even though they look the same to me. There is clearly not an ethical issue at stake here.
This argument will fly with George Bush, so I'll give you that much credit. And I'm a Christian, so I can appreciate that too, but unless you're making this argument in front of a Bible class at a private school, I would consider seriously revamping this. That said, here's my counter, and if you're a girl, don't cry, I'm not attacking you, just your argumentation:
First, you're taking support from a document constructed 2,000 years ago to try to show when we should consider someone a human. What else was the Bible going to call Jesus? A clump of cells? They didn't have the scientific development to know what a cell was. All they knew was that there was a little person inside. It's clear that you hold the same view, but now that we have intricate details regarding the development of a fetus (which also wasn't a valid term in the Biblical era), we have to reconsider the question of when a person is a person. You say that the only logical standpoint is to consider life beginning at conception. But I ask you this: what difference is there between a human and an animal? What provides humans a "leg up" on other life? In short, what makes a human a human? If I provided you with the cellular clump that has formed the day after conception, you probably would *not* be able to identify it as human life. Sure, performing enough tests, you could check out the DNA and hope you decide it's a human and not a chimpanzee, which would probably be hard for you to do since you don't analyze much DNA. But there comes a definite point in a fetus's development when a fetus resembles a baby, and an individual might logically argue that human life starts then. Or perhaps when the brain develops, since before that, it doesn't have the potential to reason, and some would argue that reasoning skills distinguish a human. Your real argument, I think, is that what makes a human a human is the presence of a human soul, and your argument is that a human is given a soul at the point of conception. This is a rather metaphysical observation that we really can't study using scientific technology. And since you can't -- or, at least, haven't -- provided enough evidence even for the *existence* of a soul, the point is moot. So far, by the way, this has very little or nothing to do with cloning.
Here's where the previous line of argumentation comes into play. First, we haven't had a clear establishment of a criterion as to what makes something moral. Now, as many are interested in pointing out on ATOT, if destroying a potential for human life is a murder, we have mass genocide committed every time somebody masterbates. (And, as we recently found out, we have the added crime of killing kittens.) Now while failure isn't anything to brag about when we're dealing with human life, it's bound to happen. Medical technology evolved from an era where physicians were bleeding patients to try to cure diseases because they thought that the disease was in the blood. Look how far it's come. Now we're trying to do numerous things, including cure AIDS and cancer as well as numerous other biological disorders and conditions. Should we just stop because we have the potential to destroy life along the way in an attempt to get it right? You point out the issue with Dolly... this is precisely the reason why we conduct a lot of experiments on animals (such as lab rats and guinea pigs) before we even attempt it on humans. We want to minimize the risk to human life. But even if we had as many failures as we did with Dolly, none of these embryos would be any the wiser. With a life span of a few short seconds to even a few hours to several days, these embryos in the initial failures would never reach the point in their development where they would even know that they were murdered. Now this doesn't necessarily justify it, but to provide a metaphor of the case you're making, perhaps we should consider it manslaughter when a woman makes some poor health decisions because she doesn't know she's pregnant and then miscarries. Has an ethical crime been committed when a woman, because of carelessness or whatever, misscarries? Or how about when medical processes take life in an attempt to better it? Should we necessarily prosecute all these cases? I say no. Don't sue the doctor for making an honest attempt to do his job and failing.
Ok, so now we're assuming that we've reached the point to where the chance for success in cloning is good enough that we're not going to cause rampant loss of -- as I've stated, precognitive, for the most part -- life. Now you're raising a hypothetical situation in which a clone army is raised. Let me assume, for example, that I concede your point, and that we as a government will do everything we can to halt this cloning. In fact, let's look at your Biblical examples, since you've admitted to being somewhat knowledgable about Biblical things. You remember when a deliverer was promised... a messiah? And Herod got all freaked out and went around killing all babies 2 and under and wiping out pregnancies? Now what was the crime -- to bring the Messiah, or to kill the babies? If it was to bring the Messiah, then God committed the ethical error, because by bringing the Messiah he provoked Herod to mass slaughter... and even broadcasted that He was doing so in order that Herod might act on it. Many innocents were killed. A similar thing happened when Moses entered the scene several millenia earlier. The Pharoah at the time went on baby-killing crusade when midwives were told to kill Hebrew children. Both Moses and Jesus were fortunate enough to escape this travesty, but many babies were killed nonetheless. Is this a problem with God's policies, or is it merely a government trying to forego the inevitable? I'd agree with you that both Herod and Pharoah acted immorally and unethically, if that is indeed your position. If it's not, my job is a million times easier. So I'm suggesting that we don't act like a Herod or a Pharoah. Just because there's a potential that our offspring -- to include clones -- will rise against us, we should not allow this potential to preclude us from allowing them to fulfill their potential for good. Using your argument, would it be more ethical to allow abortion -- or, I guess I should use infanticide as well -- in all cases where it's statistically probably for pregnancies which will result in gang children or druggies? No. For as you stated at the beginning, society has an extremely significant part to play in the development of the individual. But society's not the only factor... individual choice is also just as significant. And clones, as well as natural-born humans, have the right to this individual free will.
How about weather control? If it doesn't rain, can we irrigate our crops? Thanks to technology, yes, we can irrigate our crops. Unethical? No, but it can be twisted into something immoral. Playing God? Depends on your perspective.
If "God" sends a plague of locusts to cover our crops, can we use insecticide to rid ourselves of the plague? Thanks to technology and cropdusters, yes we can. Unethical? No, but it can be twisted into something immoral. Playing God? Depends on your perspective.
Can we use cloning technology to further humanity, to give couples the option to have their baby look the way they want without genetic defect, to provide people with more reproductive control, to make our own future generation the way we see as "fit" to be successful in the never-ending "survival of the fittest"? We probably can soon. Unethical? No, but it can be twisted into something immoral. Playing God? Depends on your perspective.
Suggestions: You've got a fairly good start. I'd avoid cliches like "playing God" and try to figure out a way to present the destructive ends of incorporating the cloning technology. Figure out a good way to respond to the points I've made, if you can respond to them soundly and in a way that fits with your presentation, you can probably do fine in your speech.
ColdFusion718
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2000
- 3,496
- 9
- 81
cloning seems like it could be useful should it ever be perfected. I mean, what if we found a cow immune to mad cow disease...we could clone a big set of breeding stock and spread the immunity. How about a bigger and better watermelon?
As far as being opposed to it, I'm not, but I imagine you could argue that no one is perfect, so the flip side of cloning is that you'd be doubling or tripling the imperfections.
As far as being opposed to it, I'm not, but I imagine you could argue that no one is perfect, so the flip side of cloning is that you'd be doubling or tripling the imperfections.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter