Human Cloning
For preview only. Try to get it on Amazon.com #ad.
5.80
Ratings: 5.80/10 from 15
users.
Panayiotis Zavos is a controversial fertility doctor. He said to The Independent that he had already cloned human embryos and transferred 11 of them into the wombs of four women who had been prepared to give birth to cloned babies.
Since cloning embryos into the human womb is a criminal offense in most countries, Dr. Panayiotis Zavos is said to have worked at a secret laboratory in the Middle East where there is no cloning ban.
Dr. Zavos also revealed that he has produced cloned embryos of three dead people, including a 10-year-old child called Cady, who died in a car crash. He did so after being asked by grieving relatives if he could create biological clones of their loved ones.
SO, cloning is playing god and neing bad whereas fertility treatments (or cancer cures for that matter) are not??
Clones, reincarnations. A clone most likely is the rebirth of the same "DNA". I don't believe it could be a reincarnation. I want to stay tuned in to find out... The thing about that is that seeing a deformed human being is just horrible. Cloning shouldn't be done if we can't do it right. But, then again, normally born humans can also be born deformed- I'm not talking about the mother drinking or smoking anything that can give the baby problems. Well, I hope that I will get to know what a soul is if that's possible sometime- and I'm not saying that a soul can't be your conscious right now. I just want to know if it could be something more.
Love it, scary, but nice to know.
white people <3
grow up jordan scotcher!
put it in my mouth!
that fills me with joy! ;)=
common peasants!
A cloned human baby that possess the "memories" of a now deceased eighty year old. SCRIPT!
"Consciousness is hardware."
Goo-Goo Mr Magoo
az, well said...
It seems to me that so far for the most part no one here understands the Body is just that,a body. Not the soul or consciousness etc. The body is simply how one can be here for a while. Lizards regrow their tails. Stem cells show real promise of regeneration of body parts and internal organs. Lose an arm and then say, please don't make me another one. How silly. With cloning some original imprinted body patterns may survive. Unless the "same" consciousness returns to the clone it will have to learn "how" to be here.
P
Once the idea was put forth we must consider it was already done. And as with everything, once this gets done with success it will become accepted by the mass. We may not be sheeps but we act like it, following a pull and push towards knowing more and more about every subject possible. One day cloning a human may not be that despicable afterall but what if this leads to cloning a machine with human capability. And is that not already the goal?
While some try to understand and control the physical world others are working hard to understand the reality that surrounds us and the origin of life itself or even the possible non-existence of it. Cosmology and biology are not such distant cousins of phylosophy.
az
i LOVE men ! <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
^ jordan was that you? ;)
@Robert Allen
there are extremes on the matter, which people argue about.
i happen to think experiments on small clusters of cells is a non-issue.
however, at some point in experimentation with human tissues - especially when we are dealing with whole organisms capable of becoming individuals - very legitimate ethical issues will, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other, arise.
anyone who envisions the arena of human cloning as an ethics-free zone, i would put at the other extreme.
the main problem comes because the places to draw bright lines are difficult to discern and, more practically, upon which to gain a broad consensus.
it wouldnt be that hard to talk ourselves - given enough time, and technology, and social drive - into doing some pretty nasty stuff to another class of human being - 'the experimentals'.
Most governments banned human cloning for many reasons. 99.9% of all scientist disagree on human cloning research. It wasn't a toss of a coin that decided that for them. When a 50 year old person gets cloned the clone at a cellular level is also 50 yrs old. DNA is coded with a "death gene" (for lack of a better term) so if a 50 yrs old clone themselves, then their clone would live about 50 years less. I wonder if Dr Zavos would care to refute that.
the aliens already use cloning but they genetically altered our DNA to allow us to live on this planetary sphere. We will someday be able to sucessfully clone DNA, with no errors, but until that day it will be totally underground and top secret like the whole UFO cases, and probaly used for a dumb government experiment like trying to create a "super weapon" like Duncan O'Finioan to try and bring more chaos to this world. Until they do these experiments in the public eye, its not going to be an issue.
I want to clone ugly girls and sell them facial surgery.
OMG
Well to say that science and math is our only salvation, is a limited statement. Yes science, math, and the technological progress that stemmed out of our development into understanding the interactions of the universe will probably in the long term have a positive impact. Although if you look around the world, the current way of how we use science, it clearly show irresponsibility, waste, pollution and poisoning of many system, just so that you can text on that kewl new iPhone, drive that ecofast new car, watch that new colorful HDTV, play on that new joystick, on your personal PS3, while doing that in your wood, steel, concrete house. After a time ofcourse, you will get tired of those products and acquire "new" ones again, only to discard and forget the previous. Have you ever wondered how all that is made? What processes and chemicals are used? If you look at any industry you will find there is pollution and waste, some on a critical level (people and animals are poisoned). It's responsibility and awareness that bring about real change, whether with science, or sport, or whatever. A good example of irresponsible science is the invention of the atomic bomb for example. Now nations are afraid that some crazy guy might actually use it, again. So create unimaginable things please do, in harmony with yourself and others!
I approve it, 100%. If I had the money, I would totally fund it.
The biggest tragedy is that Dr. Zavos, a highly-respected and eminently qualified specialist in reproduction, has to emigrate to other countries (the Near East) to practice his profession due to the myopia of Americans (i.e., legislators) who oppose certain forms of valid scientific investigation, such as cloning and stem cell research, merely on the basis of their religious and what seems to pass for their ethical beliefs.
In other words, those engaged in certain forms of valid scientific research face criminalization--shades of Galileo and Copernicus.
The way this country has treated Dr. Zavos and others of his rank epitomizes the extent to which hebetudinous and ill-informed Americans will go to protect their beloved nescience.
In addition, there is nothing which sets homo sapiens apart from other creatures except perhaps their brain (read power to think, create).
In short, the boetian dogmas which have insinuated their way into certain of our laws have no place in science.
Science is a massive subject with much diversity. To hold an opposing opinion on an ethical issue relating to one specific aspect of science is fine, but some seem to consider that aspect representative of the whole of science, when it is not.
Sometimes an aspect of science may tread on ethically questionable ground. Be ethically opposed to an aspect by all means, but there's no need to take the huge logical leap required to therefore be against all science because of it.
Furthermore, to do so is at the expense of all the wonderful achievements that science has contributed to, the understanding it has given us, and benefits we should all appreciate, such as all the lives saved by advancements in medical science.
Facepalm @ Saladin.
It amazes me that people who post these anti-science statements seem more than happy to utilise the benefits of scientific advancement, such as the computer used to communicate that poor analogy. The analogy is poor because for any way you can try to compare science to the blind men with the elephant, it will differ in many more.
Science doesn't have every answer, and it doesn't claim to, but your statement that...
"Throughout all the years our understanding of the human body is still at the beginning"
...is to ignore all the clear, and well documented, progress made, and any biology textbook will quite clearly demonstrate that progress has been made, and therefore that we are not "still at the beginning".
@some girl
The proposed motivation of trying to disprove god's existence (which is unfalsifiable anyway) seems to be one present by virtue of you trying to impose it. Although specific motivations may vary, the overall aims are ones which are beneficial to our species, such as advancement in our knowledge and understanding.
Of course sometimes scientific discovery/advancement creates contradiction with traditional religious ideologies, such as the origin of life, but that's just a result of outdated religious assumptions contradicting evidence based observations of the natural world.
The reasoning you employ to suggest we were created by a god simply does not follow, as it assumes creation over evolution, something which runs contrary to all credible evidence.
Scientists have been trying to prove the nonexistence of God by cloning human beings. Well, they will only prove that a racional and intelligent mind is needed in order to create another human being (it doesn't mean I am trying to compare scientists to God). This means we were also created by an intelligent mind, which we can call God.