ghaleon1980 said:
"Ethics" alone is not the reason why human cloning has not been successful. This may be true in industrial, modernized countries such as the US but I can assure you that there are plenty of research teams in other countries that disregard the "ethics" involved and have still been unsuccessful. |
Well it's not like successful cloning has been... successful. I don't recall a cloned animal ever living past a couple years.
Seece said:
Thankfully there are a lot more non prejudice people out there that would be happy with a gay child. |
I wouldn't count on 'non prejudice people'. Man is a group beast. He follows the group. Pure instinct. Sure, we like to be special, but inside the group. Anything that (even remotly) brings us outside it, is seen as not desired > Basic human nature.
Lets be honest, being gay doesn't make you popular. And looking at human nature, its history and the cruel natural world we come from, that isn't going to change soon - if ever.
In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.
ghaleon1980 said:
"Ethics" alone is not the reason why human cloning has not been successful. This may be true in industrial, modernized countries such as the US but I can assure you that there are plenty of research teams in other countries that disregard the "ethics" involved and have still been unsuccessful. |
You're wrong. I work in a state of the art lab manipulating stem cells and have written proposals on manipulation of human stem cells not to mention the countless research papers I have read from leading scientist in the field due to my area of research.
The reason we don't clone humans is exactly what Scoobes said.
Kasz216 is also quite correct. The problem with cloning is that they use somatic nuclear transfer which creates defects in the cloned organism since histone acetylation and methylation of DNA is not completely reversed from the original nuclease. This causes many genetic diseases as the cloned organism grows older. It is the same reason ips cells are inferior to embryonic stem cells. This is a vast oversimplification but I hope you get the idea.
The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers
Even if this is one day possible (and affordable for most couples) if will almost certainly never be legal in most Abrahamic (Jewish,Muslim,Christian) nations. Unless all the Social Conservatives and anti-gay religions have died out or been removed from power.
Im generally a very tolerant person, but for me this is crossing the line of what I can accept and where scientists are 'playing god'
| Mitsurugi said: Even if this is one day possible (and affordable for most couples) if will almost certainly never be legal in most Abrahamic (Jewish,Muslim,Christian) nations. Unless all the Social Conservatives and anti-gay religions have died out or been removed from power. |
Not all social conservatives, just enough that they can no longer block the law. I can see it easily passing in Scandinavia.
As long as my tax dollars don't go towards this then go have a ball. But if my tax goes towards funding this at all I'm protesting.
| Chairman-Mao said: As long as my tax dollars don't go towards this then go have a ball. But if my tax goes towards funding this at all I'm protesting. |
Why? It's amazing and very useful for mankind.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)
sapphi_snake said:
Why? It's amazing and very useful for mankind. |
Not really. I mean, unless you are going to activily gentically alter people for superior genes and take out hereditary diseases and the like...
having two gay people have a biological son isn't actually useful for mankind.
Great for the indvidual parents sure, but it holds no actual benefit for mankind since the genetics of two people are going to be random, and when you consider the losing out on adoption and overpopulation you could argue that on a larger sense it'd be damaging.
It's the same with surogacy for infertile straight couples. Really it'd be great if we could move away from a culture that suggests that you NEED to have a child who has your DNA.
Kasz216 said:
having two gay people have a biological son isn't actually useful for mankind. Great for the indvidual parents sure, but it holds no actual benefit for mankind since the genetics of two people are going to be random, and when you consider the losing out on adoption and overpopulation you could argue that on a larger sense it'd be damaging. It's the same with surogacy for infertile straight couples. Really it'd be great if we could move away from a culture that suggests that you NEED to have a child who has your DNA. |
That's in our blood. We feel closer to a true blood relative. Lots of studies have proven this. Evolution-wise it does make a lot of sense.
In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
