• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Cloning

Drifloon Rocks

Drifloon Rocks

Honey, please don't eat the rancid dung.
I want to see what people think about cloning. It is right in some cases?

In my opinion, once we learn how to clone only organs, that would be a medical breakthrough for transplants and should be used. But I don't believe in cloning a human just for it's organs is okay.

I think that cloning animals is okay, but usually not necessary.
 
In my opinion, once we learn how to clone only organs, that would be a medical breakthrough for transplants and should be used. But I don't believe in cloning a human just for it's organs is okay.
Click to expand...

This. I do not want to see The Island become reality.
 
I don't think we should have to clone organs. Call me cold-hearted or whatever, but I think if someone dies in a car crash but still has a usable heart it should be used, family wishes be damned.
I'm all for respecting the dead, just not at the expense of living people.

OT-rant over. I don't quite see the point of cloning humans (twin sisters are cool; twin mothers and daughters less so), but can see the advantages with animals; once you get a cow that gives a ton of milk, just clone it (instead of diluting its genes with some bull) to produce offspring that are guarenteed to give good milk.
 
I don't think we should have to clone organs. Call me cold-hearted or whatever, but I think if someone dies in a car crash but still has a usable heart it should be used, family wishes be damned.
Click to expand...

Well that's just nice. Jews believe they should be buried intact, with all organs. Should we just go against their beliefs?
 
If a relative of mine would die without a heart transplant, and the family wanted to bury the only matching one six feet under, then yes. Yes I would.

On another note, I also think that doctors should be able to override Jehovah’s Witness' wishes about accepting blood donations if it's to save their lives.

My mum told me that when she worked in operating theatre, the hospital had to fight in a court case to supersede a young girl's parent's wishes about her getting a blood donation. She'd have died had they not won.
 
While I agree that if perfectlt usable parts are avaliable, we should use them, but not if it means going against the wishes of the deceased.

Aaaand that's where cloning comes in.
 
Well that's just nice. Jews believe they should be buried intact, with all organs. Should we just go against their beliefs?
Click to expand...
Yes. They're dead, there's no reason why they should supersede the needs of the living.

On another note, I also think that doctors should be able to override Jehovah’s Witness' wishes about accepting blood donations if it's to save their lives.
Click to expand...
This is a bit complicated. Isn't refusing medical treatment, except in cases where doing so constitutes a danger to the public, a perfectly legal right?

Yes, it's cruel to the families, but that's still a very shaky argument.

My mum told me that when she worked in operating theatre, the hospital had to fight in a court case to supersede a young girl's parent's wishes about her getting a blood donation. She'd have died had they not won.
Click to expand...
This is a completely different matter. In this case, the parents have a responsibility to look after their child; letting it die for no good reason is pretty irresponsible.

Cloning animals is completely fine with me, assuming that scientists act with caution. I very much doubt that we'll ever get into a movie situation where a cloned virus kills all humanity or whatever, but that's not to say that there might not be risks to it. Cloning humans is a bit more of an issue. A sentient organ farm is completely out of the question, but a nonsentient lump of flesh (basically, an organ grown in a jar) would be fine as well.
 
This is a bit complicated. Isn't refusing medical treatment, except in cases where doing so constitutes a danger to the public, a perfectly legal right?

Yes, it's cruel to the families, but that's still a very shaky argument.
Click to expand...

A person has the right to choose for themselves, yeah, and although I still think this right should be void if their life is in danger, I see your point. If the decision is being made by proxy, however, I think the doctor should be able to override any objections.
 
opaltiger said:
A person has the right to choose for themselves, yeah, and although I still think this right should be void if their life is in danger, I see your point. If the decision is being made by proxy, however, I think the doctor should be able to override any objections.
Click to expand...
Why ought it to be void if his life is in danger?
 
'Yes! A clone of me! Now neither of us will be virgins!'

I think that organ cloning could be useful if you had to get a particular blood-type or something like that. Some people stay years in waiting lists for organs or have to try several ones because their body rejects them.
It's like
Pimp My Organs
 
I like cloning. The technology is interesting++ and uh it's probably one of the things I'll be working on when I'm older. I'm all for so-called "saviour siblings" because who cares why the child was brought into the world? If it's loved and cared for when it's alive then what's the problem if it saved its elder sibling by giving up a kidney?

Also if we could grow organs and meat and stuff it'd be cool - it'd stop the vegetarians and vegans crying over ... well everything.
 
Harlequin said:
I'm all for so-called "saviour siblings" because who cares why the child was brought into the world? If it's loved and cared for when it's alive then what's the problem if it saved its elder sibling by giving up a kidney?

Also if we could grow organs and meat and stuff it'd be cool - it'd stop the vegetarians and vegans crying over ... well everything.
Click to expand...

Eh, I dunno. I never had much of an opinion on it, but the book My Sister's Keeper, which is about a girl who was born to give blood/bone marrow/whatever donations to her leukemia-inflicted sister who sues her parents for the rights to her own body, made me think about what it'd be like to be born for that purpose. I know I couldn't do it.

Hey, they're making a movie version of it... cool.

I'm all for growing meat artificially, though. Saves the space, energy and resources that are needed to make it traditionally.
 
I guess so, but if you had the choice between two children or no children which would you pick? Would you let your current child die or would you have another child that could donate a vital organ to save the current child? PLUS you'd have two children then and you were probably going to have another one anyway. Or something.

and yeah, meat-growing would be supersweet because there'd be no ethical issues with it at all so even the vegetarians would be pleased.
 
I'm pretty sure artifically grown meat would taste like shit though since a good steak or chicken or whatever is influenced by what it is fed and where it lives while, well, alive. Sure, it'd solve a lot of problems/issues and I'm all for it but if it becomes widespread I'll sorely miss good meat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom