PDA

View Full Version : If you kill your own clone


codewarrior
10-10-2005, 09:55 PM
...have you committed murder? Discuss.

I say no. It would be no different than cutting your fingernails. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

MrTrik
10-10-2005, 09:58 PM
If the clone is alive, then ending it's life would be murder.

[censored]
10-10-2005, 09:59 PM
is killing your indentical twin murder? obviously, killing your clone is no different biologicaly.

LBJ
10-10-2005, 10:00 PM
This is a dumb thread. It would be murder. He/She is alive, and you're killing it.

miajag81
10-10-2005, 10:00 PM
What? Of course it's murder. He's a different person, just with the same DNA. How is this even a question?

Sponger15SB
10-10-2005, 10:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[censored] notified


[censored] notified In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]


I win!

Rev. Good Will
10-10-2005, 10:38 PM
reminds me of the age old steven colbert question:

"If you have sex with your own clone, is it gay sex or masturbation?"

touchfaith
10-10-2005, 10:39 PM
Is the clone growing out of the side of your head or something? If not, I'll go with it being a murder/death/kill

mslif
10-10-2005, 10:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
...have you committed murder? Discuss.

I say no. It would be no different than cutting your fingernails. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

A clone is living being. It is murder.

peachy
10-10-2005, 10:41 PM
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

manpower
10-10-2005, 10:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
is killing your indentical twin murder? obviously, killing your clone is no different biologicaly.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is fact, but i doubt enough people know it to make it obvious.

tonypaladino
10-10-2005, 10:42 PM
How about if you kill a moran, is that murder?

mslif
10-10-2005, 10:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to go off on you because scientifically and medically it would be great, but it is just morally wrong.

Claunchy
10-10-2005, 10:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Against my better judgment, I'll bite.

How in the hell is it not murder? Are you under the impression that the clone can't feel or think the exact same as you?

LeatherFace
10-10-2005, 10:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How about if you kill a moran, is that murder?

[/ QUOTE ]
No its community service.

GuyOnTilt
10-10-2005, 10:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if you don't think (for who knows what reasons) that cloned humans would be viable "humans", this seems pretty stupid considering we could just clone organs without the "human" being surrounding them.

GoT

theben
10-10-2005, 10:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
...have you committed murder? Discuss.

I say no. It would be no different than cutting your fingernails. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

but can your fingernails think, feel, respirate, procreate, etc

10-10-2005, 10:59 PM
What if your clone decided you should die? Would he/she be commiting murder? Maybe it would be justifiable homicide?

He/she could always plead temporary insanity. He/she was confused as to who(m) was who(m) and decided that he/she was the original and he/she'd made a mistake and was only setting about rectifying the error.

Or, in the confusion of "who's who," he/she just went postal and whacked you.

PhatTBoll
10-10-2005, 11:03 PM
This thread is useless. The "clone vs. clone" issue was resolved without bloodshed in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

peachy
10-10-2005, 11:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to go off on you because scientifically and medically it would be great, but it is just morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to hold this stances as well...but then i got diagnosed with a terminal liver condition - this changed my whole outlook on the situation. If i was allowed to clone a person or organ from my own DNA/tissues i would see no moral issue with it being used to save my life or the lives of others.

shant
10-10-2005, 11:09 PM
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/822/44661large5jx.jpg

BUT IF IM ME AND YOURE YOU DEN WHO ARE YOU

touchfaith
10-10-2005, 11:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to go off on you because scientifically and medically it would be great, but it is just morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to hold this stances as well...but then i got diagnosed with a terminal liver condition - this changed my whole outlook on the situation. If i was allowed to clone a person or organ from my own DNA/tissues i would see no moral issue with it being used to save my life or the lives of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organ, yes, Human, no...I can't do that.

Claunchy
10-10-2005, 11:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to go off on you because scientifically and medically it would be great, but it is just morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to hold this stances as well...but then i got diagnosed with a terminal liver condition - this changed my whole outlook on the situation. If i was allowed to clone a person or organ from my own DNA/tissues i would see no moral issue with it being used to save my life or the lives of others.

[/ QUOTE ]
It'd be cheaper just to kill one of your relatives and use their organs.

peachy
10-10-2005, 11:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if you don't think (for who knows what reasons) that cloned humans would be viable "humans", this seems pretty stupid considering we could just clone organs without the "human" being surrounding them.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

i group this type of cloning in with organ cloning b/c its all cloning and most groups are totally against all kinds no matter what its use, even stem cells. I wrote my thesis on stem cells so im real familiar with the area, but that doesnt change that i would oppose full clones being created and thier various organs harvested...it might seem cold to most of u....but i have endless reasons that are too numerous to type here tonight

imported_anacardo
10-10-2005, 11:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to go off on you because scientifically and medically it would be great, but it is just morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to hold this stances as well...but then i got diagnosed with a terminal liver condition - this changed my whole outlook on the situation. If i was allowed to clone a person or organ from my own DNA/tissues i would see no moral issue with it being used to save my life or the lives of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll save the argument and just say clone the liver. Hell, clone a whole person, missing his head. Nobody dies, everybody wins.

peachy
10-10-2005, 11:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im all for making clones and killing them for organs...and im not even kiddin...its not murder - and yes now everyones gonna go off on me and what a moron i am...lets go...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to go off on you because scientifically and medically it would be great, but it is just morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i used to hold this stances as well...but then i got diagnosed with a terminal liver condition - this changed my whole outlook on the situation. If i was allowed to clone a person or organ from my own DNA/tissues i would see no moral issue with it being used to save my life or the lives of others.

[/ QUOTE ]
It'd be cheaper just to kill one of your relatives and use their organs.

[/ QUOTE ]

well thats technically murder /images/graemlins/laugh.gif wont argue definitions right now...have too much to do

lennytheduck
10-10-2005, 11:55 PM
killing your twin and killing your clone is not the same thing biologically or in any other manner. you are both morons [ QUOTE ]
This is fact, but i doubt enough people know it to make it obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

10-11-2005, 12:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]

...i used to hold this stances as well...but then i got diagnosed with a terminal liver condition...


[/ QUOTE ]

Peachy, I'm so sorry to read this. I can see how, in your shoes, I'd think the same way.
God bless, and g/l

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

disjunction
10-11-2005, 12:21 AM
Quick, kill us both, while there's still time!

10-11-2005, 12:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
killing your twin and killing your clone is not the same thing biologically or in any other manner. you are both morons

[/ QUOTE ]

how is it not? two individual people, same DNA...

10-11-2005, 12:34 AM
This question isnt really a debate in itself, its really just some quibling over the language we use to describe certain things.

lennytheduck
10-11-2005, 12:38 AM
identical twins do not have the same DNA, nor would you and your clone. present in all organisms is a certain amount of genetic drift that causes some to be different than others. Genes also change throughout the course of your lifetime. Hence the differences, non-environmental, that can be seen in "identical twins." In addition, cloning as we know it today would not produce someone who looked exactly like you, in fact it is far more likely that they would be decidedly different in many ways than it is they would be very much like you in the those same ways.

10-11-2005, 12:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
identical twins do not have the same DNA, nor would you and your clone. present in all organisms is a certain amount of genetic drift that causes some to be different than others. Genes also change throughout the course of your lifetime. Hence the differences, non-environmental, that can be seen in "identical twins." In addition, cloning as we know it today would not produce someone who looked exactly like you, in fact it is far more likely that they would be decidedly different in many ways than it is they would be very much like you in the those same ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Serious question because you seem to know more than most about cloning. Since we've not openly done human cloning (to the best of my knowledge), why do you say the clone would not be an identical twin? Is it the, "as we know it today," part of your statement? I'm very interested in the whole subject, for a variety of reasons. TY

lennytheduck
10-11-2005, 01:35 AM
Something that people don't realize is that cloning has been going on in laboratories for a lot longer than when Dolly first came on the scene courtesy of Wilmut and Co. The large difference is that it was done with bacteria and other microorganisms, nothing on a scale so large as a sheep.

What came along with Dolly, and the reason it was such a significant breakthrough, is of course that sheep are fairly large mammals and if you can do it in one of them, you could almost certainly do it in a human too right? But the researchers responsible for Dolly took years and years to do it with a whole bunch of tries (for some reason the number 40 comes to mind but I can't recall for sure).

A "clone" is an exact (almost) genetic replica, meaning that is has the same chromosomes, genes, codons, nitrogenous base sequence, etc. Genes code for proteins, which are really responsible for everything that happens in the body in one way or another. Each gene codes for a protein which has its own specific structure, which in turn is directly related to its structure. For example, people with Cystic Fibrosis have a genetic mutation which does not allow them to produce a functional protein that is responsible for transporting chloride ions across plasma membranes. Cl- ions are very important in the movement of water going across the membrane, and without them water and other solutes tend to stay within the cell when they should be transported out. Without the water, mucus cannot be washed away and instead builds up, which is why people with CF have problems have such large pulmonary problems.

So lets you had CF and you were cloned. Now your clone has to go through a whole life cycle (infancy, toddler, child, pre-adolescent, teenager, young adult, adult) before he will be anything even like you. He will have "inherited" the same alleles for the gene that codes for CF function as you. But he may have CF much worse than you. He may die at the age of 5 from it. He may never have serious problems and be able to exist on some simple meds alone. His symptoms may also be very similar to your own.

Within the genome exist genes known as transposons, or in layman's terms, "jumping genes." They bounce around throughout the genome, often copying themselves in random positions or sometimes moving to completely new spots. Also, the protein responsible for DNA replication, RNA Polymerase III, makes an error every 10*8 nitrogenous base, in many cases causing a point mutation that will change an amino acid, the monomeric unit of proteins. A single AA change can cause a protein to function differently, or even to lose function completely. Sickle cell anemia is one example of this, where a Valine AA residue is found in normal hemoglobin while a Glutamine AA residue replaces it in those who have the sickle trait (though, mind you, hemoglobin is inherited and is absurdly unlikely to change during your lifetime, but its the idea that counts).

All of this said, when your liver finally kicks it at the age of 68 and X number of scotches on the rocks, even if you have been cloned there is no assurance that your clone will be able to give you a transplant. There is also a very slim chance that your clone will have worked successfully on teh first try, not to mention the surrogate mother that would have to birth it. I don't know what goes on in the dark recesses of the world, but even when I search the depths of my imagination, it is hard for me to fathom that a human has been successfully cloned. There are just too many variables working against its happening. That said, we are very much a product of our environment, and even if it was successful, the chance of the clone being like its original is miniscule at best.

codewarrior
10-11-2005, 06:10 AM
Twins are not clones.

WackityWhiz
10-11-2005, 06:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'll go with it being a murder/death/kill

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome

codewarrior
10-11-2005, 06:15 AM
Good point. So, might not clones killing each other off be Darwinian?

diebitter
10-11-2005, 06:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Good point. So, might not clones killing each other off be Darwinian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Destroying anything with which you share a significant proportion of active DNA has enourmous evolutionary pressures against it (how long would a gene last if there was some +ve desire to kill your children, for example?) - I qualify that so that where there are exceptions to this, they ultimately lead to more of your dna getting to the next generation, not less (hence mothers may kill runts, so the rest have better survival changes).

But this circumstances described here is so weird and out of the natural order, thinking in terms of evolution is inappropriate anyway.

codewarrior
10-11-2005, 07:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But this circumstances described here is so weird and out of the natural order, thinking in terms of evolution is inappropriate anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the next step in human evolution is controlling it ourselves. Of course, this begs the question of the definition of evolution, or if we will reach a point where "natural" evolution ceases to be.

I agree this is all very weird, which makes it interesting. Topics like this can make you question the more mundane, and think about simpler things in new ways.

diebitter
10-11-2005, 07:36 AM
I agree.

One aside that isn't central, but may be of interest to those casual browers that don't know the ins and outs of evolutionary theory is that - in fact - species do self-select in the subset of evolutionary theory called 'sexual selection'. Including humans.

For example, some traits do not exist for the survival of the species, but for the survival of the gene. If females find something attractive about a male that isn't specific to survival (strength is a benefit for survival for example, but bright tail feathers may be the opposite!), then they'll breed anyway, and that thing will propogate. And here's the rub - that thing becomes itself a evolutionary pressure, for by being attractive, it helps itself pass to the next generation - and so on and on.

This is all an aside to the main thread, I'd emphasise. But may give a hint of what 'self-evolution' brings.

Personally, I find that sort of thing sinister (nazis etc), as it will emphasise the control and reduction of the gene pool to 'desirable' traits, whilst I believe the future of humankind must be in the widest possible genetic diversity.

Bataglin
10-11-2005, 08:09 AM
How would you feel if someone arrested you tomorrow, telling you that you were a clone, and that the original needed some - or all - of your vital organs?

diebitter
10-11-2005, 08:10 AM
I'd have the tears of a clone.

I'll get my coat.

diebitter
10-11-2005, 11:29 AM
jeez, did this lame joke kill this thread dead?

I feel bad now /images/graemlins/frown.gif

peachy
10-11-2005, 11:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How would you feel if someone arrested you tomorrow, telling you that you were a clone, and that the original needed some - or all - of your vital organs?

[/ QUOTE ]

uumm u went a lil over board here eh?

#1 - clones wouldnt be allowed to just roam around in society...please
#2 - they would be "used" fairly early for organ use
#3 - make an arguement that has some sort or validity or is realistic
#4 - if i was CREATED for that purpose, i wouldnt like it but im sure id get over it...at least when im dead

its nothing more than a lab animal that we are using....its just more benifical to us

GuyOnTilt
10-11-2005, 11:21 PM
Would you feel alright if people procreated with the sole intention of using the offspring only for organ harvest after development?

GoT