Cloning - Page 6

"All we know is we are dick birth, and clones are not. Clones are creations of man. No matter how similar they are to us, we made them."

And what are 'in vitro' births, if not man made? In my opinion, we are indeed replicating a 'natural birth' (read as 'dick birth'), and make no distinction between the two. Yes, they both utilize 'natural' materials, but neither would result from natural means or methods. Again, I do not support the idea of complete human clones, but merely because the world is not morally or socially ready for such a world altering event in my opinion.
-----------------------------------
'...was founded on religion... then explain the pledge of allegiance. Or the engraving of "In God We Trust" on American currency.

'In God We Trust', first added to some coinage by the Coinage Act of 1863, and replaced our original motto of 'E Pluribus Unum' and was inscribed on all cash and coins in the 1950's. '...under God' added to our pledge in the 1950's. Both instigated by special interest groups. As to this nation being created on religion, please refer to 'Articles of Confederation', 'The Federalist Papers', and the 'Tripoli Treaty', as well as a veritable mountain of documents left by the creators and supporters of the Constitution. You can refer to two other threads for this discussion.
----------------------------------
'...religion has already been imposed...fight it all you want. its already being "forced"'

We are fighting it, and winning! And I can tell you I will be among those celebrating in the streets when the Christian dictatorship of this country is finally and officially over, and America returned to it's secular government roots, as placed by our Founding Fathers. But again, that discussion should be carried over to one of the other two threads...
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=36542-u-frmid=17
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=37570-u-frmid=23

"..but it is true."
No its not. It's as if if you met me one day then I would be "forcing my existence on you".

Thank you Pagan! I can understand people opposing cloning for practical reasons, but I cannot comprehend restrictions on cloning for spiritual reasons.

..i was arguing that religion stands in the way of cloning.

i am not a religious person. I was presenting alternate arguments that might have occured. These are all practical reasons to not clone.

Its true, that some of the information i chose to use wasnt valid. I retract that "the country was founded on religion". Instead, i use the pledge and the Coin Act of .123u393 as evidence supporting the influence that religion has on our nation.

but the point im making is that its wrong(cloning). Your reason in opposing "that its wrong" is that it may be good. I showed you that religion is a problem, and could be a reason that cloning wouldnt be permitted. You stated, that you would topple this unjust theocracy...or w/e..

As soon as you said that. It was no longer a debate...just a battle of wits.

Personally, i think its wrong. Like many others here..i feel we're nowhere near ready to take on something like cloning.

OK, I'm just confused by your argument now.

Because this nation has religious fanatics who oppose cloning, you believe we shouldn't clone?

This nation had racist cunts in the South, nonetheless federal intervention to enforce Civil Rights was just.

Your right. Just laws are a good thing. But allowing clones to live among us, as us..is creating an equal setting, where not everything is equal. ( as in the present, everyone is derived from the whooooohm*)

Physical logic and reasoning are not the core of all Just laws. We wont have to create a law for clones if we dont clone. Just laws are based on morality with the best interests of others. As long as those interests (to a certain extent) dont infringe on others, then we'll be ok. But cloning crosses too many moral boundries, and religion will be used as an argument against it..almost all religion.

So my argument, is its immoral. Therefore i believe it would be wrong to clone. Considering that there is a God, and considering there might not be a God...our government should still keep in mind our best interests. And since, we have SOOOO many opinions on what our best interests are, we cant simply say "Clone"-or no "Clone". and because theres no guarentee it will better mankind, there appears to be no moral or reasonable reason as to why we should.

Unfortunately, we cannot really know for certain, unless we actually clone entire human beings. We tend to be an empirical lot, and as a race need sometimes to 'stick our hands into the fire' when we have been told already that it is hot.

Besides, morality itself is subjective, particularly when based on religious beliefs. But that debate should perhaps go into it's own thread.

This post short enough for you ekimup? :friendly smile and wink:

ha..
indeed it is. Making a very concise point.

Covering just as much ground with less effort, leaving more to direct toward another point.

I've been over this... if you oppose me cloning people on religious grounds, rather than practical grounds which I can understand, then that's simply theocracy.

The kind of stuff they have in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

..the practical reason would be morality.

because laws are passed to protect and support our best interests.

..and because theres no guarentee it will better mankind, there appears to be no moral or reasonable reason as to why we should, risk creating a life pressumably as important as our own, and risk its end by possible deprivation of society or other included factors.

I think religion has a core in the morallity of our nation...and it does.

Although religion will not be a core reason to "the ban" of cloning, it is a majority who believes (religion). And since minorities are intending to spawn human life via alternate means of production, this is not in our best interest. The high risks, the level of uncertainty. I should've been more "choice" with what i said initially. Forgive me for pushing my religion on you and stating there was a God and blah blah...


But cloning is not in the best interest of this country. And maybe religion is a core reason as to why its not in our own interest. But if we felt it would effect us in a positive way, and had practical reasons as to how it would better our nation...then maybe it wouldnt be such a grey area.

If the Bible said "kill all faggets" would it be OK to do it?

Of course not. Seperation of CHURCH and STATE. Plain and simple. If you believe in theocracy, then your values are simply completely irreconcilable with mine, but you should get along well with a certain Ayatollah Komeini.

..what are you talking about. The bible doesnt say "kill all faggots"..

quit being ridiculous. Its a good thing biblical law is not utilized in our government.


Church and state. Nice. plain and simple yes. And thats how it should be, thats how it is. So whats your complaint?


If its religion itself, than your just as guilty as I am in imposing your beliefs. Do you fear religious take-over? Because if you do, you should know that our government is neither swayed or decided by christianty(or any religion for that matter). We do a fine job in excluding religion as a basis for politics and government.

Christians will not "take-over". Just as homosexuals, pagans, atheists, muslims, blacks, whites, and any other number diverse peoples. ..will not be in control based on their singular beliefs alone.

We wouldn'f follow the bible if it said to kill all faggots because it would never say that. If it said that then we would know that the bible is not true. The bible has legitimacy b/c it is based on moral issues which people believe and have a good moral feeling about. You do not get a good moral feeling when you are told to kill all faggots, and I doubt that the bible would ever say the word faggots.
What is the point of cloning whole people other than man's desire to play God? I understand cloning body parts, but why a whole person? What good does that do for society?

'Christians will not "take-over".'

Abit off topic, but Rushdoony, Robertson, and others of the American Taliban want to do so, have tried to so, and are attempting to do so even as we speak. It is a good thing such Fundamental Christians make up so small a portion of the Xian community.

If they came into power, I wonder what other researches would be abolished and laid aside? Stem cell research would certainly be outlawed I think, especially the cloning of those cells.

for the sake of david(19yrs old) debbie(40 somethin) and keith(50 somethin) all friends of mine one of which i grew up with (david duh lol) cloning is a very good thing david found out he had cancer senior year and if he ever needed a transplant then a clone part would come in handy the same with debbie and keith but who's to say that cloned part won't also develope cancer being as the part its cloned from did and goin out of the way just to make a point that whole human cloning would be a bad thing like hello identity theft would be so much easier and what if ur clone in a situation that u needed a transplant and it was ur last hope denyed u a kidney i don't think its good at all for man to play god and create another person esp an exact replica of gods' creature i support it as far as medical research for cancers and things like that but no further