We can create babies without men, claim scientists

[Fort Fun Indiana]

“We now understand why clones fail, which can lead to improvements in the process of cloning of animals,” said Lewin. But, he cautioned, “Our discoveries also reinforce the need for a strict ban on human cloning for any purposes.”

Cow Gene Study Shows Why Most Clones Fail

Only a monster would advocate for putting a human through this.

You didnt read a single word of that article, did you? Nope, you didnt. You used a narrowly tailored Google search to find an agreeable headline in hopes of presenting "evidence" for an opinion you had already formed without evidence. That alone is dishonest, but it gets beter. The article talks about pregnancy failures, not defects in adult clones. Which you might have known, had you read a single word of it.

Lets see, I should believe you over scientists who have studied this for over a decade and who state:

“Our discoveries also reinforce the need for a strict ban on human cloning for any purposes.”

Huh? I didnt suggest that we start doing this today.

 

[ChrisL]

I do..find it completely wrong..where in my post did you derive that I thought it was right??

Maybe I misread your post. It seemed like you were defending this . . . thing. They wouldn't be able to use them to harvest their organs anyways. That would be against the law, as they would still be considered people, just people who aren't created through natural means. Test tube babies, while being created differently than most other people, are still considered people too.

I think there is probably a line that science should not cross. Some things are just going to lead to big trouble and once you open that box, you can't put it back. Like the invention of nuclear weapons. The knowledge to do it is there now.

 

[Pop23]

I do..find it completely wrong..where in my post did you derive that I thought it was right??

Maybe I misread your post. It seemed like you were defending this . . . thing. They wouldn't be able to use them to harvest their organs anyways. That would be against the law, as they would still be considered people, just people who aren't created through natural means. Test tube babies, while being created differently than most other people, are still considered people too.

I think there is probably a line that science should not cross. Some things are just going to lead to big trouble and once you open that box, you can't put it back. Like the invention of nuclear weapons. The knowledge to do it is there now.

Consider this. You create a clone, knowing it would be a perfect match for a later transplant.

The implications are incredible. The clone is created simply to supply spare parts.

 

[Chuz Life]

Brave new world...

We can create babies without men, claim scientists | Daily Mail Online

"Fertility specialists have found a way for women to have babies without men.
It involves a cocktail of chemicals acting as an 'artificial sperm' to trick a human egg into forming an embryo.
The stunning discovery has alarmed medical ethics campaigners, who described it as turning nature on its head. Researchers say the groundbreaking technology could be used to help women whose husbands are infertile but who do not want to use donor sperm.
Any babies born from the process would be female and genetically identical to their mother.
Taken to its extreme, it could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role.
The news also creates a legal minefield for UK authorities which govern fertility treatments, because British laws do not cover the creation of an embryo without sperm.
The discovery was made by researchers from the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetics in Los Angeles."

How does this not further prove that a child's life begins at conception?

So..you are willing to state that a child conceived this way is a life..for all legal and religious purposes. That the child conceived in this way has a soul..and should be legally protected? Despite not having a Father at all?

Or..did you just see this as a chance to bang your drum?

It's a child / human being, just any other that is conceived naturally.

As far a SOUL?

Do you have any proof that souls actually exist even in an adult?

 

[ChrisL]

I do..find it completely wrong..where in my post did you derive that I thought it was right??

Maybe I misread your post. It seemed like you were defending this . . . thing. They wouldn't be able to use them to harvest their organs anyways. That would be against the law, as they would still be considered people, just people who aren't created through natural means. Test tube babies, while being created differently than most other people, are still considered people too.

I think there is probably a line that science should not cross. Some things are just going to lead to big trouble and once you open that box, you can't put it back. Like the invention of nuclear weapons. The knowledge to do it is there now.

Consider this. You create a clone, knowing it would be a perfect match for a later transplant.

The implications are incredible. The clone is created simply to supply spare parts.

I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to remove the organs of a person without their explicit consent, no matter how that person was created, but I still don't think it's a good idea to go creating human beings. What is the purpose? Billions of assholes aren't enough?

 

[Pop23]

I do..find it completely wrong..where in my post did you derive that I thought it was right??

Maybe I misread your post. It seemed like you were defending this . . . thing. They wouldn't be able to use them to harvest their organs anyways. That would be against the law, as they would still be considered people, just people who aren't created through natural means. Test tube babies, while being created differently than most other people, are still considered people too.

I think there is probably a line that science should not cross. Some things are just going to lead to big trouble and once you open that box, you can't put it back. Like the invention of nuclear weapons. The knowledge to do it is there now.

Consider this. You create a clone, knowing it would be a perfect match for a later transplant.

The implications are incredible. The clone is created simply to supply spare parts.

I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to remove the organs of a person without their explicit consent, no matter how that person was created, but I still don't think it's a good idea to go creating human beings. What is the purpose? Billions of assholes aren't enough?

A clone is an exact duplicate. How does one judge consent when you are basically wanting a part from yourself?

 

[ChrisL]

I do..find it completely wrong..where in my post did you derive that I thought it was right??

Maybe I misread your post. It seemed like you were defending this . . . thing. They wouldn't be able to use them to harvest their organs anyways. That would be against the law, as they would still be considered people, just people who aren't created through natural means. Test tube babies, while being created differently than most other people, are still considered people too.

I think there is probably a line that science should not cross. Some things are just going to lead to big trouble and once you open that box, you can't put it back. Like the invention of nuclear weapons. The knowledge to do it is there now.

Consider this. You create a clone, knowing it would be a perfect match for a later transplant.

The implications are incredible. The clone is created simply to supply spare parts.

I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to remove the organs of a person without their explicit consent, no matter how that person was created, but I still don't think it's a good idea to go creating human beings. What is the purpose? Billions of assholes aren't enough?

A clone is an exact duplicate. How does one judge consent when you are basically wanting a part from yourself?

It is not an "exact" duplicate. The clone would have it's own brain and form it's own opinions through it's own life experiences.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Brave new world...

We can create babies without men, claim scientists | Daily Mail Online

"Fertility specialists have found a way for women to have babies without men.
It involves a cocktail of chemicals acting as an 'artificial sperm' to trick a human egg into forming an embryo.
The stunning discovery has alarmed medical ethics campaigners, who described it as turning nature on its head. Researchers say the groundbreaking technology could be used to help women whose husbands are infertile but who do not want to use donor sperm.
Any babies born from the process would be female and genetically identical to their mother.
Taken to its extreme, it could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role.
The news also creates a legal minefield for UK authorities which govern fertility treatments, because British laws do not cover the creation of an embryo without sperm.
The discovery was made by researchers from the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetics in Los Angeles."

How does this not further prove that a child's life begins at conception?

So..you are willing to state that a child conceived this way is a life..for all legal and religious purposes. That the child conceived in this way has a soul..and should be legally protected? Despite not having a Father at all?

Or..did you just see this as a chance to bang your drum?

It's a child / human being, just any other that is conceived naturally.

As far a SOUL?

Do you have any proof that souls actually exist even in an adult?

LoL..not my Dept.--was just asking.

 

[ChrisL]

It would be more like an identical twin actually.

 

[Pop23]

I do..find it completely wrong..where in my post did you derive that I thought it was right??

Maybe I misread your post. It seemed like you were defending this . . . thing. They wouldn't be able to use them to harvest their organs anyways. That would be against the law, as they would still be considered people, just people who aren't created through natural means. Test tube babies, while being created differently than most other people, are still considered people too.

I think there is probably a line that science should not cross. Some things are just going to lead to big trouble and once you open that box, you can't put it back. Like the invention of nuclear weapons. The knowledge to do it is there now.

Consider this. You create a clone, knowing it would be a perfect match for a later transplant.

The implications are incredible. The clone is created simply to supply spare parts.

I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to remove the organs of a person without their explicit consent, no matter how that person was created, but I still don't think it's a good idea to go creating human beings. What is the purpose? Billions of assholes aren't enough?

A clone is an exact duplicate. How does one judge consent when you are basically wanting a part from yourself?

It is not an "exact" duplicate. The clone would have it's own brain and form it's own opinions through it's own life experiences.

And we know that how?

I’m not willing to experiment on human beings to find out

 

[ChrisL]

Maybe I misread your post. It seemed like you were defending this . . . thing. They wouldn't be able to use them to harvest their organs anyways. That would be against the law, as they would still be considered people, just people who aren't created through natural means. Test tube babies, while being created differently than most other people, are still considered people too.

I think there is probably a line that science should not cross. Some things are just going to lead to big trouble and once you open that box, you can't put it back. Like the invention of nuclear weapons. The knowledge to do it is there now.

Consider this. You create a clone, knowing it would be a perfect match for a later transplant.

The implications are incredible. The clone is created simply to supply spare parts.

I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to remove the organs of a person without their explicit consent, no matter how that person was created, but I still don't think it's a good idea to go creating human beings. What is the purpose? Billions of assholes aren't enough?

A clone is an exact duplicate. How does one judge consent when you are basically wanting a part from yourself?

It is not an "exact" duplicate. The clone would have it's own brain and form it's own opinions through it's own life experiences.

And we know that how?

I’m not willing to experiment on human beings to find out

We know that because they would have their own brains.

 

[ChrisL]

You can be the total opposite (personality wise) of a person you are very genetically close to, like a sister, a brother or a parent.

 

[Pop23]

Consider this. You create a clone, knowing it would be a perfect match for a later transplant.

The implications are incredible. The clone is created simply to supply spare parts.

I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to remove the organs of a person without their explicit consent, no matter how that person was created, but I still don't think it's a good idea to go creating human beings. What is the purpose? Billions of assholes aren't enough?

A clone is an exact duplicate. How does one judge consent when you are basically wanting a part from yourself?

It is not an "exact" duplicate. The clone would have it's own brain and form it's own opinions through it's own life experiences.

And we know that how?

I’m not willing to experiment on human beings to find out

We know that because they would have their own brains.

No we don’t know how a cloned brain works.

 

[Pop23]

You can be the total opposite (personality wise) of a person you are very genetically close to, like a sister, a brother or a parent.

Which is nothing close to an exact duplicate.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to remove the organs of a person without their explicit consent, no matter how that person was created, but I still don't think it's a good idea to go creating human beings. What is the purpose? Billions of assholes aren't enough?

A clone is an exact duplicate. How does one judge consent when you are basically wanting a part from yourself?

It is not an "exact" duplicate. The clone would have it's own brain and form it's own opinions through it's own life experiences.

And we know that how?

I’m not willing to experiment on human beings to find out

We know that because they would have their own brains.

No we don’t know how a cloned brain works.

They can't clone a human brain yet. They can only "clone" the reproductive parts, such as the eggs and sperm. It is basically going to be kind of on the same idea as creating an identical twin, all that complicated gene stuff. However, the brain is still going to be affected differently by life. The brain is very complicated.

 

[Pop23]

A clone is an exact duplicate. How does one judge consent when you are basically wanting a part from yourself?

It is not an "exact" duplicate. The clone would have it's own brain and form it's own opinions through it's own life experiences.

And we know that how?

I’m not willing to experiment on human beings to find out

We know that because they would have their own brains.

No we don’t know how a cloned brain works.

They can't clone a human brain yet. They can only "clone" the reproductive parts, such as the eggs and sperm. It is basically going to be kind of on the same idea as creating an identical twin, all that complicated gene stuff. However, the brain is still going to be affected differently by life. The brain is very complicated.

And if your raised for the purpose of a spare kidney?

Do we remove the clone from the host to insure they are not raised to be inclined?

 

[ChrisL]

It is not an "exact" duplicate. The clone would have it's own brain and form it's own opinions through it's own life experiences.

And we know that how?

I’m not willing to experiment on human beings to find out

We know that because they would have their own brains.

No we don’t know how a cloned brain works.

They can't clone a human brain yet. They can only "clone" the reproductive parts, such as the eggs and sperm. It is basically going to be kind of on the same idea as creating an identical twin, all that complicated gene stuff. However, the brain is still going to be affected differently by life. The brain is very complicated.

And if your raised for the purpose of a spare kidney?

Do we remove the clone from the host to insure they are not raised to be inclined?

Did I not make it clear that I was against that and cloning people at all? Just because I can understand that the brain cannot be cloned doesn't mean that I'm pro cloning! Lol!

 

[Pop23]

And we know that how?

I’m not willing to experiment on human beings to find out

We know that because they would have their own brains.

No we don’t know how a cloned brain works.

They can't clone a human brain yet. They can only "clone" the reproductive parts, such as the eggs and sperm. It is basically going to be kind of on the same idea as creating an identical twin, all that complicated gene stuff. However, the brain is still going to be affected differently by life. The brain is very complicated.

And if your raised for the purpose of a spare kidney?

Do we remove the clone from the host to insure they are not raised to be inclined?

Did I not make it clear that I was against that and cloning people at all? Just because I can understand that the brain cannot be cloned doesn't mean that I'm pro cloning! Lol!

Understand completely, just going with the flow

 

[GHook93]

“Any babies born from the process would be female and genetically identical to their mother.”

Interesting and scary. It basically produces a clone!

It could also solve some problems in China of too males to each female.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[DOTR]

Am I reading this right?

October 2001?

Brave Old World?

Lol. Bingo. I don’t care if liberals fall for this but please, normal people stop and think. For fifty years these sick shits have been swearing they were *this* close to eliminating men.