![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyJust been thinking about cloning, and the objections to it. Thoughts, really, not much more...
Religious objections to cloning seem to me to be fairly pointless; we aren’t playing God, as theology claims that the thing God cares about is the soul, not the body, and as we aren’t recreating souls, then nothing has been done against any Holy law.
Nobody is claiming that cloned kids are any more than identical duplicates; as are identical twins, and nobody frets about whether they have souls. Basically, if God wants them to have a soul, then they will, and if he doesn't then there's not much we can do about it.
The human moral objections are more of a grey area, but still less pressing. There’s evidence that clones suffer degenerative disorders for no readily explained reason, and so deliberately creating a child that’s likely susceptible to such things is probably morally wrong – certainly it’s higher on the ‘wrong’ list than deliberately aborting a normally conceived child that is susceptible. In addition, cloned kids, especially at this stage, are likely to grow up completely fucked in the head. Growing up knowing that you’re completely different – and also all the other kids at school will be merciless (kids are like that) to someone different – will lead to cloned kids growing up into yet more emotional Michael Jacksons. It’s morally wrong for parents to deliberately inflict that on their kids as well.
On a social basis, I can’t see a problem. Cloning is expensive and unreliable at best, and as such it will remain the preserve of religious whackos, gullible rich folks who have been convinced that it will bring back little Billy who was hit by a tram in an identical format, and radical feminists who can’t handle the thought of a man being involved in the reproductive process at all. Hardly a large demographic sample, and I don’t see the good old fashioned way of making kids being outdated anytime soon.
Religious objections to cloning seem to me to be fairly pointless; we aren’t playing God, as theology claims that the thing God cares about is the soul, not the body, and as we aren’t recreating souls, then nothing has been done against any Holy law.
Nobody is claiming that cloned kids are any more than identical duplicates; as are identical twins, and nobody frets about whether they have souls. Basically, if God wants them to have a soul, then they will, and if he doesn't then there's not much we can do about it.
The human moral objections are more of a grey area, but still less pressing. There’s evidence that clones suffer degenerative disorders for no readily explained reason, and so deliberately creating a child that’s likely susceptible to such things is probably morally wrong – certainly it’s higher on the ‘wrong’ list than deliberately aborting a normally conceived child that is susceptible. In addition, cloned kids, especially at this stage, are likely to grow up completely fucked in the head. Growing up knowing that you’re completely different – and also all the other kids at school will be merciless (kids are like that) to someone different – will lead to cloned kids growing up into yet more emotional Michael Jacksons. It’s morally wrong for parents to deliberately inflict that on their kids as well.
On a social basis, I can’t see a problem. Cloning is expensive and unreliable at best, and as such it will remain the preserve of religious whackos, gullible rich folks who have been convinced that it will bring back little Billy who was hit by a tram in an identical format, and radical feminists who can’t handle the thought of a man being involved in the reproductive process at all. Hardly a large demographic sample, and I don’t see the good old fashioned way of making kids being outdated anytime soon.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2003-01-09 06:59 am (UTC)If this is the case, then how come DNA just doesn't break down? After all the genome has been about for a long time - does the combination during sexual reproduction result in the DNA returning (effectively) to step 1?
I'm ignorant of such matters, y'see.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-09 07:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-09 07:13 am (UTC)Are you about tonight? Need to chat re: camstuff.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-09 07:18 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-01-09 07:26 am (UTC)Has it changed since last i sued it?
Re:
Date: 2003-01-09 07:50 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-01-09 07:55 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-01-09 08:00 am (UTC)Kinda...
Re:
Date: 2003-01-09 08:18 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-01-09 08:24 am (UTC)Basically, when you go through sexual cell division to form your gametes (egg and sperm for the lay reader) your telomeres reset and stuff, yeah return to step one during sexual reproduction.
Also fertilisation of the egg relies on a sorta survival of the fittest principle, this should weed out the crapper sperm from the decent ones, as if they are crap genetically this is likely to show up in the sperm as a less fit sperm.
As you age the motility and fitness of your sperm degrades as your cells accrue defects (partly due to incorrect cell divisions, but also due to environmental factors, random mutations etc)
Thus increasing the chances that one of the less than top grade sperm will fertilise the egg.
I'm unsure on the female side of things I think that all egg cells are laid down fairly early on and they just get released gradually (if so less likely to gain cell division defects, but can still gain random mutations etc.) but to be frank I'm unsure on that as its been a while since I've needed to know it.
Hence you can get more potential DNA screw ups the older you get, I'm sure there are other factors that come into it but what they are god knows, cos I don't I gave up on animals at degree level as plants are so much easier.
Re:
Date: 2003-01-09 08:30 am (UTC)