I approve human cloning

[UNCjigga]

Ever want to murder someone, but that whole thing about life imprisonment (or possible death penalty) and going to hell actually works as a deterrent in your case?

Well what if we could clone someone, and accelerate the growth of that clone, just for the sole purpose of giving YOU the pleasure of killing the clone? Beating it to a bloody pulp? Would it be morally wrong to do so? I would argue that clones don't have souls, so I don't see the religious argument against it. But a growth-accelerated clone wouldn't have fully developed mental faculties either--so it might be like beating up a retarded kid or a baby. That would be a little messed up.

 

[FoBoT]

um, yeah
a cloned human is still a human, and that would be murder too

 

[newb111]

Wow...

 

[paulxcook]

It's weird that you put this much thought into this.

 

[SunnyD]

P&N is over there... -->

 

[lyssword]

Dude.. you have some issues... reefer madness?

 

[BurnItDwn]

I would say that it violates the golden rule.

That said, I have no problem with human cloning.

 

[Lamont Burns]

Maybe virtual reality will fit the bill someday for your twisted desires.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I would say that it violates the golden rule.

That said, I have no problem with human cloning.

He who has the gold makes the rules??? If you could afford to clone people arbitrarily, you obviously have the gold!

 

[Ricochet]

I would definitely approve the cloning of supermodels for my..eh..personal use.

 

[zig3695]

i have no problem with body cloning, but figure out a way to clone people without heads. how would you feel if someone came up to you and said "your whole likfe is just a design, nobody knows where they came from except you. feel free to fit in with our society"

 

[Auric]

What about when you discover that you're the clone and slated to be murdered! You've entered The Retarded Zone. Duh-dah duh-dah duh-dah duh-dah!

 

[bonkers325]

maybe you should just settle for real dolls...

 

[Noobtastic]

No.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Ever want to murder someone, but that whole thing about life imprisonment (or possible death penalty) and going to hell actually works as a deterrent in your case?

Well what if we could clone someone, and accelerate the growth of that clone, just for the sole purpose of giving YOU the pleasure of killing the clone? Beating it to a bloody pulp? Would it be morally wrong to do so? I would argue that clones don't have souls, so I don't see the religious argument against it. But a growth-accelerated clone wouldn't have fully developed mental faculties either--so it might be like beating up a retarded kid or a baby. That would be a little messed up.

The law isn't based on one having a soul.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Auric
What about when you discover that you're the clone and slated to be murdered! You've entered The Retarded Zone. Duh-dah duh-dah duh-dah duh-dah!

or the island...

 

[Jeff7]

I would argue that "souls" in the eternal or supernatural fashion, don't exist at all.
So there.


Coming soon, the newest Disney theme park:
The Most Dangerous Game: Rebirth!

 

[DangerAardvark]

They did this in The Island starring Scarlet Johanssen and some guy. Think of it, we could all have our own Scarlet Johanssens.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I'd rather kill the motherfucker I'm murderously angry with and let the clone live.

 

[EGGO]

I wonder if it'd be ok since christians claim they don't have a soul. Now it's just an animal, right?

*zips up flamesuit*

 

[her209]

The money is not in cloning. Its in transplanting brains into foreign bodies.

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: ricochet
I would definitely approve the cloning of supermodels for my..eh..personal use.

Win.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I would say that it violates the golden rule.

That said, I have no problem with human cloning.

He who has the gold makes the rules??? If you could afford to clone people arbitrarily, you obviously have the gold!

I would say that killing violates the golden rule.
You know, the "golden rule," Treat others the way you want to be treated.

I would not like somebody to kill me, so therefore, I do not approve of the killing of somebody else.

As far as making a clone of somebody, if someone wants to make a clone, then that's fine with me, as long as they treat the clone the same as they would treat an infant that happens to not be a clone. Also, as long as they are not murderous vampires or zombies.

I am against vampires or zombies having possession of infant human clones.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I'd rather kill the motherfucker I'm murderously angry with and let the clone live.

That was my thought on reading the OP. Odds are, the clone hasn't committed whatever offense that has brought your ire...so why not kill the offender and let the clone live in his stead? That way, you get to kill the one who pissed you off, but the clone takes his place so technically, he hasn't disappeared...oooh...the possibilities are endless....

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Ever want to murder someone, but that whole thing about life imprisonment (or possible death penalty) and going to hell actually works as a deterrent in your case?

Well what if we could clone someone, and accelerate the growth of that clone, just for the sole purpose of giving YOU the pleasure of killing the clone? Beating it to a bloody pulp? Would it be morally wrong to do so? I would argue that clones don't have souls, so I don't see the religious argument against it. But a growth-accelerated clone wouldn't have fully developed mental faculties either--so it might be like beating up a retarded kid or a baby. That would be a little messed up.

i have no urge to kill, so no.