Cloning.... Your Thoughts

[Coupe Devil]

England to Allow Embryo Cloning
Former Superman actor Christopher Reeve has welcomed the UK's decision to allow continued research on cloned human embryos.

Britain's scientists were given permission on Wednesday to pioneer the cloning of human embryos for research, and set up the world's first embryo cell bank.

A House of Lords committee ruled that embryo cloning -- which federally funded academics in the United States are not allowed to carry out -- should be allowed to proceed under strict conditions.

The 49-year-old paralysed Reeve hopes to see a cure developed by removing DNA from a human embryo and infusing it into the spine of a paralysed victim to develop into healthy new nerve cells.

Reeve, who was paralysed from the neck down in a 1995 riding accident, applauded the UK decision, saying: "While politically complicated, the medical, moral and scientific case for this decision is overwhelming.

EXTRA INFORMATION
In-Depth: The stem cell debate



QUICKVOTE
Should scientists be allowed to clone human embryos?


Yes, unconditionally
Yes, but only for medical purposes
No

"Therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research may represent the best hope for the hundreds of millions worldwide who suffer from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, ALS amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, spinal cord injury, and many other diseases and disorders."

Committee chairman Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, said the cells taken from early embryos could be crucial for research into finding a cure for debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

"We conclude that for this to be fully realised, no avenue of research should be blocked off at this stage," Harries told a news conference.

Last year, Britain became the first country explicitly to allow the creation of embryos as a source of stem cells -- the primitive master cells which turn into other cell types and could be used to find cures to a wide range of diseases.

The regulations were held up by a court ruling in November.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's government rushed through revised legislation and an appeal court upheld the new laws last month, but research was effectively put on hold until the announcement by the Lords' committee.

"Stem cells offer enormous potential for therapies in the future, for long-term therapies for many serious common diseases," committee member Professor Chris Higgins said.

The British Medical Association said it strongly supported the verdict. "This research offers real hope to the millions of patients with conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes," it said in a statement.

The committee said that one condition for granting a research licence to clone human embryos should be that any "cell line" generated from it be deposited in a stem cell bank.

Before any licence was granted, health authorities should also ensure that there were no suitable existing cell lines in the bank.

"We are pleased that the Lords have recommended the establishment of a stem cell bank as a matter of urgency. Such a bank will allow researchers to explore this enormous potential in a controlled environment," said Professor Sir George Radda, chief executive of the Medical Research Council.

Critics of human embryo cloning say it represents the first step on a slippery slope to reproductive cloning -- a charge the committee strongly denied.

www.cnn.com

What are your thoughts on this. Personally I am for it for medical research, and absolulely not for cloning of humaa beings. The thought of me walking beside myself on the sidewalk is a little scary, but if it can help out otherwise medically i'm for it.

BRad

[Ty'97Cobra]

For medical purposes - YES. You never know if you might need a new kidney, lung, liver, heart, etc.

But like you said, it could get out of control. So strict regulations should be imposed.

[Mr 5 0]

No. I'm against it.

'Only for medical reasons' sounds so good; so reasonable and, well, scientific and compassionate but I'm against it for moral reasons as well as the fact that this will quickly go to human cloning in overseas labs, even if illegal in the U.S.

I can't do anything about that but as critics predict, the 'medical only' prohibition will fall soon enough, as this is the nature of science. Watch.

The anti-stem-cell-harvesting argument is valid if the human embryos are the result of abortions, as this legitimizes abortion for 'medical' research and makes latent, living, forming human beings mere vehicles to harvest 'parts' from. Allowing Christoper Reeve to walk again is commendable but not at the price of killing a human being in the womb to accomplish it.

Yes, I would feel the same if it was me or a member of my family who might benefit from stem-cell harvesting...we've discussed it at length.
My position on this procedure is based on a pro-life view and is not relative to suit unexpected situations, even my own.

That's my personal opinion but other's may differ, of course. I'm not the President or a Supreme Court Justice so my opinion may not matter much but it was solicited - so there it is.

[1969Mach1]

I agree with what Mr 5 0 is saying.

I can see it getting out of hand, could it fall in to the wrong hands. We're almost like, making ourselves super humans. Atlhough it's a tragic thing when someone is paralised or someone is going to die, but I believe we all die for a reason. But if this will keep us all alive for so much longer, it could lead to over-population. I can only see something bad coming out of this.

Although it seems like a great thing, keeping people alive but I don't think it is morally right.

That is just my .02.

§am.

[7000rpmisheaven]

I like the idea for one reason. Most people think that cloning human beings is wrong. I don't understand why we should let people die waiting for an organ donor when we could do something about it. Imagine that it was you or someone you love. I am all for it.

Plus if you do need an organ, why get used when you could get OEM.

[Coupe Devil]

After reading these posts above I'm starting to see the other side of the spectrum.

I am still in favor but under strict conditions and only in the case of a NON_ABORTION fetus could these cells be extracted. I'm PRO-life and very proud of it. This may be my own conflicting views, but I am in support of cloning CELLS ONLY to help accident victims, and people that suffer from severe or rare disease. When you start playing god, your gonna get in trouble.

Thank you Mr 5 0; you've expresed your true feelings and not let anything hold you from that. I commend you.

Brad

[silver_pilate]

Having had just about every biological science class there is out there, including embryology and developmental biology, I've just about seen it all. Scientests have been cloning amphibians since the 50's. The only difference is that they used embryonic cells from the young blastula. At this stage, one could seperate the cells, say seperating the cells at the 16-cell blastomere stage, and each cell would procede to form an identical organism in a process called "twinning." The hoopla over recent cloning is that they figured out how to clone an organism from an adult cell's nucleus. Remember, all cells form from the union of two single haploid cells forming one diploid cell during fertilization. Every cell in our bodies came from that one cell. Somewhere along the line of specialization during development, the "stem cell" ability turns off, so to speak. The big deal was figuring out how to transfer adult DNA from a somatic cell into an embryonic cell with it's nucleus removed, thus creating an animal with DNA from only one parent. As far as whole human cloning, it's likely already been done. Several years back a book came out describing the cloning of a human being. It was taken as fiction, however, the technology described and said to have been used in the book was to the letter perfect. It takes an insider to have access to that type of information.

I'm especially against whole human cloning. There is a deffinate advantage to haveing sexual reproduction (aside from the obvious ). It stirs up the gene pool....creates diversity....allows for adaptation. Turkeys can reproduce asexually through a process called parthenogenesis in which the females create a viable offspring without male fertilization. This allows the population to be sustained in the abscence of males, however, all the offspring and identical and all are female. Eventually, without genetic diversity, the gene pool will become stagnant and the population will decline.

I'm also against partial cloning with the use of human embryonic stem cells. I, also, am a pro-life supporter. I don't think the aborting of fetuses is morally justified, and I don't believe that the creation of life by fertilizing an egg and then ending that life by creating stem cell lines for research is morally justified. I think it would be great to figure out how to grow a new organ for one that you've lost. I think it would be great to figure out how to cure paralysis. Yeah, it would be great, but jumping off a cliff would be a great rush until you hit the ground. In the same manner, cloning would be a great rush, but the moral implications, not to mention the possible scientific atrocities that could crop up far outweigh the benefits, in my opinion.

I'm not against the use of all stem cells, however. One method that I think should receive a great deal more research is the use of umbilical cord blood stem cells. Stem cells are found in the umbilical cord blood of new-born fetuses. This blood is typically discarded unless otherwise stipulated. The use of non-relative umbilical cord blood has been documented in successfully curing sickle cell anemia. The cells in umbilical cord blood have the ability to form into any type of blood cell. Doctors used radiation to destroy the boys own blood cells before infusing the umbilical cord blood. This blood then proceeded to form an entirely new blood system (including white blood cells, red blood cells, lymphocytes, etc.). That's some pretty exciting stuff, and no children were killed in the process.

--nathan

[srv1]

its human nature for us to live and then die. lets not mess with it, but maybe we should?! maybe it can save a life or better yet a childs life! thats all fine and dandy, but we wont stop there, and that is where i think the problem may lie.

[Mercury]

I was going to post my thoughts, then I read Mr 5.0's. He stole my thoughts...again..Dangit.

First thing that popped into my mind when I started reading this thread was the 60's song. "In the Year 2525" Scary thing is, life seems to be going that way, quicker than the song writer figured.

[Crazy Horse GT]

IMO cloning is against nature., What - let's make another Hitler, bin Laden or any other person who was a monster, it is wrong, just wrong

[95mustanggt]

Well, my comments on this are a little different, and you'll understand why.

I've been an insulin dependant diabetic for the last 13 years. Every day for the past 13 years, (that's 4813 days). I've had to take 2 needles everyday for all those days (that's 9626 needles!)

On top of those 9626 needles, I've had numerous blood work done, and had to test my blood sugar by pricking my fingers and drawing blood. I have to avoid eating sugar, watch my diet like a hawk. I can't skip meals, I can't stay out really late at night and sleep in (have to get up and take that needle then eat breakfast!).

And even though I've gone through all that, I still have to look forward to blindness, amputations, heart attacks, stroke, comas, kidney disease and even more needles.

Cloning brings promise of a cure for diabetes. It brings with it the hope that I will not have to take more needles or face the many complications. And I'm not alone, thousands (actually hundreds of thousands) of people are diabetic. Men, women, people from all walks of life, but the worst is the children. I was there, I know, it is hard. No Child deserves to go through diabetes.

So howwever evil you may think cloning is, it is a hope to cure my disease, remove the weight from my shoulders.

I support cloning in every way, for MEDICAL RESEARCH.

Most of you won't understand, but that's ok, you don't have this disease, or it's complications.

[Mr 5 0]

95mustanggt:

I understand your feelings on this issue and no one denies you the right to have a contrary opinion. You have good reason to want to see stem-cell research continue full-bore but as was pointed out in other messages, this is not a win-win situation.

If a fetus is going to be artificially produced to be killed and 'harvested' for cells to regrow human organs or whatever else they can do with the cells, that is morally wrong and your painful and dreary experience with your diabetes, while having any reasonable person's sympathy, does not constitute a valid justification for cloning from fetus stem-cells although anyone can see why you would disagree.

Nathan mentioned the possibility of using umbilical cord blood stem cells and this is promising and holds no moral baggage. I hope it succeeds, but the cloning of humans - the original point - is still wrong for a myriad of reasons.