|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 11/27/2001 : 13:28:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And the difference between cloning for procreation and medical purposes is what exactly? We allow infertile couples to use artificial insemination and there was a big hullabaloo about that at first. People fear it because it's new and there have been all kinds of scary things written about it. I don't see any problem with it myself and don't see why there should be legislation against it.
@tomic
I thought, I guess mistakenly, that the people we elect are supposed to be educated. Guess they haven't studied much history, they seem to be 'condemmed to relive it' Sigh!
People were afraid of electrictly too.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2001 : 13:32:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Though this thread is about Bush in particular, let's not forget that his opinion seems to be the majority view of just about every major world government. They're all clamoring to outlaw it.
I don't think that's exactly correct. Didn't England for one, make some compromises? Not all their lawmakers were against it, from what I heard, which is some hope.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2001 : 13:34:39 [Permalink]
|
A couple things to keep in mind:
Though they are sometimes referred to by the same word, the sort of cloning annnounced recently (let's call it "Dolly cloning") is not the same thing as the natural process of twin-making, or the cloning used to reproduce plants. In the latter, a single fertilized cell (or small number of adult cells) of one organism divide and grow into separate individuals. This requires either starting with an undifferentiated cell (twinning) or "despecializing" differentiated tissues (plant cloning). An artificial "twinning" technique was demonstrated for humans some years ago, with little fanfare or controversy.
"Dolly cloning" is different. The nuclear DNA of a fertilized egg is removed prior to the first mitosis, and is replaced with the DNA of an adult. This produces a different genetic makeup than that of the adult DNA donor, as the "Dolly clone" contains only the donor's nuclear DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is that of the egg's donor. (This could, in theory, be the same person, if we're going for a female clone.)
It is problematical for the "pro-life" people because they are committed to a "life begins at conception" model of personhood. Therefore, "Dolly cloning" involves killing a baby (the fertilized egg). Note: I do not subscribe to the above model.  They have no wiggle room, either, because if you decide that a fertilized egg is not a person, where do you draw the line?
I don't think the comparison to in-vitro procedures is accurate either; that was (and is) much more similar to natural conception. Social attitudes may evolve along similar tracks, though.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2001 : 13:37:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Actually, cloning in Nature is not all that uncommon. There are quite a few species of lizard, including some Whiptails in the U.S. (Cmenidopohorus) that are parthenogentic. All individuals of the species are female, laying fertil but unfertilized eggs. Perfectly natural.
Forgive my lack of knowledge about this subject, but isn't the process of creating identical twins natural cloning as well?????
YES. And that's not the only example of something that already IS, being destorted or misunderstood by government and religion.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2001 : 13:48:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think the comparison to in-vitro procedures is accurate either; that was (and is) much more similar to natural conception. Social attitudes may evolve along similar tracks, though.
-- Donnie B.
The main point there was, if I can speak for the poster, that new concepts (no pun intended) are many times viewed as fearful, whatever they are.
ps. sorry if that's not the post you are refering to.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2001 : 15:02:15 [Permalink]
|
You know, I really have no problem with Bush having an aversion (moral difficulty with) to cloning. However, his personal morality should only be the guide by which he measures things - not the rule that he hands down.
Now, if Bush has a problem with this - fine, however, he is the secular leader of this country and should make decisions based on what is best for the country. What is best for the country is not necessarily what HE thinks is best for the country.
I wish he'd learn that one little point - things might get better.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2001 : 15:50:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is problematical for the "pro-life" people because they are committed to a "life begins at conception" model of personhood. Therefore, "Dolly cloning" involves killing a baby (the fertilized egg). Note: I do not subscribe to the above model. They have no wiggle room, either, because if you decide that a fertilized egg is not a person, where do you draw the line?
I don't think this is true. As I understand it, the cloning vehicle is an unfertilized egg. Cloning scientists are able to chemically induce mitosis after insertion of the adult DNA. Essentially, the unfertilized ovum is tricked into behaving as a fertilized ovum.
quote:
I don't think the comparison to in-vitro procedures is accurate either; that was (and is) much more similar to natural conception. Social attitudes may evolve along similar tracks, though.
Agreed.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2001 : 21:34:13 [Permalink]
|
Please forgive me, but I'm gonna go way off topic here.
Is this cloning procedure not yet another confermation of the Theory of Evolution? Perhaps a first, faltering step toward understanding the origin of life?
If anyone has any thoughts on this, they'd probably best to start a new thread.
Intersting, no?
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 05:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, (which is usual), but aren't stem cells on thier own incapable of developing into a viable living organism? Given this premise, plus the possiblity of using stem cells to possibly find new ways of treating so many terrible diseases, where the hell is the problem? Even if these little guys can help us learn how to build exact copies of ourselves, wouldn't that be great--If a part wears out, just get a new one? Maybe Heinlein was on to something.
As far as our executive is concerned, if the pharmaceutical and medical companies like stem cells, and give G.W. enough money to run for a second term, I'll bet he'd dump the religous right in a second. Well, at least push the research through real quiet like, so that the information doesn't get past the pulpit. It's all about money in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 14:41:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
It is problematical for the "pro-life" people because they are committed to a "life begins at conception" model of personhood. Therefore, "Dolly cloning" involves killing a baby (the fertilized egg). Note: I do not subscribe to the above model. They have no wiggle room, either, because if you decide that a fertilized egg is not a person, where do you draw the line?
I don't think this is true. As I understand it, the cloning vehicle is an unfertilized egg. Cloning scientists are able to chemically induce mitosis after insertion of the adult DNA. Essentially, the unfertilized ovum is tricked into behaving as a fertilized ovum.
I won't argue the point, though I have not heard of the technique you've described. If you're right, it makes the issue a lot cloudier -- I don't see much reason for the opposition, unless it's a purely anti-"tampering-with-nature", 50's-bad-science-fiction-movie kind of irrationality.
Which is, pardon the pun, conceivable.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 14:47:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Please forgive me, but I'm gonna go way off topic here.
Is this cloning procedure not yet another confermation of the Theory of Evolution? Perhaps a first, faltering step toward understanding the origin of life?
I'm afraid I don't see the connection. Sure, cloning validates some of the basic concepts of microbiology, such as the idea that it's DNA that controls the development and overall form of an organism -- but that isn't in dispute, as far as I know.
I can't see how cloning says anything about either the fact or mechanism of evolution. It would work even if all species had been "created" rather than "evolved". Can you elaborate on how you think it provides evidence of evolution?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2001 : 21:55:21 [Permalink]
|
This isn't the link I was looking for, but I think has a fair summary of the cloning procedure: http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/11/27/kahn/index.html
All indications are that the clone vehicle is an unfertilized egg. Most of the DNA comes from the adult DNA donor, but apparently some (mitochondrial perhaps) is from the egg donor.
I find it ironic that one of the organizations, Clonaid I think, that actually wants to bring a cloned embryo to term, is a group of total religious wackos, the Raelians(sp?). They aren't a traditional religion in any sense, but I just think it's funny that the folks who want to do exactly what the fundamentalist Protestants fear so much is not made up of the 'godless heathens' that fundies are so quick to singularly associate with this research.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 01:06:48 [Permalink]
|
I can't see how cloning says anything about either the fact or mechanism of evolution. It would work even if all species had been "created" rather than "evolved". Can you elaborate on how you think it provides evidence of evolution?
-- Donnie B
.........................
Not much to elaborate on, really. Just a stray thought.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2001 : 10:15:22 [Permalink]
|
PhD:
Very timely... last night, our favorite fundie Jerry Falwell appeared on "Politically Incorrect". I couldn't take more than a couple minutes of it, but guess what they were talking about.
You got it... cloning. And Falwell was making exactly the same argument that I made above: that creating a clone involved killing an embryo.
One of the other panel members (a black woman who I think is a congressman) said exactly what you did - that the cloning did not involve an embryo, just an egg cell that was induced to divide (she said "electrically and chemically") after the DNA insertion. She couldn't dredge up the term "unfertilized" but it was clear that's what she meant.
Falwell, of course, failed to grasp the concept and continued to insist that it was an "embryo". I reached for the remote... 
Thanks for the information.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
