What do u think of HUMAN CLONING and 'playing God' ??

Question

the argument

that we are “playing God” when we CLONE A HUMAN seems very weak.

Why? Simply because nature,

disease, and the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., are forces that tend to destroy us,

so every time

we take a vitamin or any medication, or see a doctor or have any medical procedure of any kind

performed, or perhaps even stay inside a building, we’re not “letting nature take its course.”

If we’re not playing God by starting people’s hearts back up, inserting pacemakers, and

administering the death penalty in Arizona (and I’ve heard no such claim in a credible argument

thus far), then I presume that it is a weak argument to argue this point in reference to cloning.

what do u tink? give me ideas if u are solely against it

Answer 1

bad idea to mess around with nature

Answer 2

I am not against it..Cloning is proving to help people as well as animals...After all, God wants us to be creative...!

Answer 3

I am not too hot on all the biological reasons against it, but i know there are many, such as decreasing variation and greater risk of disease too cloned humans. Therefore, on such grounds i am against it.

On the topic of playing god, i agree with you, i mean obviously there has to be a line drawn, i mean taking a vitamin tablet is in someways the same as eating healthier food, so this is obviously still letting nature take its course, i am not sure where the line should be drawn though.

I think the main argument in this issue is not on the issue of cloning, it is never going to happen, i do not think anyone is for it, the main issue is on screening for diseases before born, and also selecting certain embryos because they are more favorable and i do not think there is a right or wrong answer, i am personally against it totally on grounds of looks, s*x, etc. but on grounds to stop a known hereditary disease is totally different!

This topic needs to be handled with great care though, there is a danger it could turn into a slippery slope

Answer 4

i do get the jist of your question, but don't you see the danger in cloning, what would the clone be used for if it was to harvest body parts etc then it would be a sin against humanity you must see this ? man does not play god by preforming medical assistance on a person, but to create life just for and individuals survival must be wrong wouldn't the clone have rights also ? this is far too complex-ed for me but  to create life is one thing but to create life for the selfishness of organ harvesting cannot be right

Answer 5

The idea of “playing god” in such a case does not seem too feasible to me either. This argument is mainly used by strict religious groups, yet as you say medical treatments are fully backed, not to mention the use of the death penalty in some countries. A heart transplant replaces an organ which is not functioning normally, so what is to stop one from replacing all the organs (ie using cloning)? It is the fact that if this argument is used for cloning, yet not used for the same principle in another field of medicine that invalidates it. I don’t think the argument is feasible. It would be, in my opinion, if there is one person or committee deciding who should be cloned and so on, having the ability to do it however is not playing god.

The only field in which the argument stands its ground is genetics, as picking particular “good” traits to improve future generations. But modifying the whole of the human race is not all a good prospect. Designing a baby in my opinion is immoral, and this is exactly what cloning allows, if used as such. Not to mention significantly reducing genetic variation in the human gene pool and thus vastly increases the chance of one mutation spreading and endangering the very future generations “we” attempted to perfect.

Using such techniques in medicine, for re-growing particular tissue for example, is mainly stem cell research. Manipulating and cloning stem cells to allow for a “store” is more feasible, so that if one day something happens to you, they can aid full recovery. This in my opinion is not quite cloning a human, as a stem cell is not regarded as a living human.

I am against cloning, for many reasons. No procedure to date provides full and problem-free cloning. There are horrific mutations occurring in most of the procedures when cloning animals, imagine your perfect designer baby being a victim of incorrect cloning procedure...

As a matter of fact, dolly the sheep took 277 attempts to clone properly. This gives a probability of 0.4% that a clone is successful, and yet it was not fully successful as dolly the sheep died prematurely. Given that procedures improve, should we even be thinking about cloning until there is a 100% successful method, I think not. Even then, can we have children clones knowing that there is a significant risk that they may die young? If one is cloned successfully, how would they feel knowing that they are not unique, that they are a clone?

If one is cloned using genes from a young person for example, will these genes not continue to develop? Will they not “grow” to give the young newborn traits and possibly looks of a grown person? It is impossible to tell, and is a major problem faced with cloning.

Cloning also costs vast sums of money, and provides too many problems to be worth the money in my opinion, money that could be spent on populations lacking basic healthcare, where they could go a lot further. I back stem cell research but not human cloning; this is all of my opinion of course!

Answer 6

God gave us all the intellect to be able to do these things, even to the point where, we can easily destroy ourselves.

Answer 7

What this nation needs is 10,000 Rosie O'donnel clones.

Answer 8

You need to differentiate between cloning a whole human and cloning organs.  Cloning a whole human unless it's done with fetal cells automatically makes the resulting baby as old as the person the cells were taken from.  So you have a 1-year-old with the cell age of a 45 year old.  That is what they learned from the Dollie the sheep episode.  Cloning organs is fine, since they would still be the same age of the person they were cloned for but without whatever structural defect caused the original one to fail.  

I personally don't believe in God, so I have no trouble playing a fictional character.  But there are results that are not acceptable to me, like 40-year-old infants.

Answer 9

i think its a good thing. imagine one day when you lose a limb in an accident and they just clone a new part.

those people who are against "playing god" are the first to have a cry when they get injured and run off to the hospital for treatment.

technically they should all live in the wilderness and run around naked.

Answer 10

Scared to death yet, anxiosly excited!