Full Version: Human cloning and stem cells
This issue could be discussed from a Medical Science standpoint, or from a political standpoint, or from a moral standpoint. So, I put it in this folder in the hopes that we could debate it in a fashion that encompasses all three. First the article from the Ny Times. From this article (and please read the entire thing, it's fascinating)......
and here is how they did it....
I watched a television report on this story this morning on Good Morning America and it's really quite a fascinating process. They remove the nucleus of an unfertilized egg and replace it with the nucleus of a person's skin cell. Then, they grow that egg until it divides into stem cells. Theoretically from there, scientists could then use these cells which are the basic building blocks for a human being to create new organ cells and such for the specific person from which they were cloned. These cells could be potentially used to treat a variety of afflictions. There is a ton of information out there about stem cell research, feel free to add your links to this thread.
Fascinating science, however there are moral (hence political) aspects to all of this as well. From the White House we get the following statement.....
Thus we have the following questions for debate:
1. Is the South Korean procedure outlined really "Human Cloning" the way you understand the term "Human Cloning"?
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Edited to add a link to another story about this from The Denver Post from the LA Times...
QUOTE
In what scientists say is a stunning leap forward, a team of South Korean researchers has developed a highly efficient recipe for producing human embryos by cloning and then extracting their stem cells.
Writing today in the journal Science, they report that they used their method to produce 11 human stem cells lines that are genetic matches of patients aged 2 to 56.
Previously, the same group, led by Dr. Woo Suk Hwang and Dr. Shin Yong Moon of Seoul National University, produced a single stem cell line from a cloned embryo, but the process was so onerous that scientists said it was not worth trying to repeat it, and some doubted the South Koreans' report was even correct.
Now things have changed.
Writing today in the journal Science, they report that they used their method to produce 11 human stem cells lines that are genetic matches of patients aged 2 to 56.
Previously, the same group, led by Dr. Woo Suk Hwang and Dr. Shin Yong Moon of Seoul National University, produced a single stem cell line from a cloned embryo, but the process was so onerous that scientists said it was not worth trying to repeat it, and some doubted the South Koreans' report was even correct.
Now things have changed.
and here is how they did it....
QUOTE
To produce a clone, scientists slip the genetic material from a patient's cell into an unfertilized egg from another person whose genetic material has been removed. The genes from the patient's cell take over, directing the egg to divide and develop into an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient, rather than the egg donor. About five days later, when the cloned embryo contains about 100 cells, stem cells appear, looking like a ball of cells encased in a sphere.
I watched a television report on this story this morning on Good Morning America and it's really quite a fascinating process. They remove the nucleus of an unfertilized egg and replace it with the nucleus of a person's skin cell. Then, they grow that egg until it divides into stem cells. Theoretically from there, scientists could then use these cells which are the basic building blocks for a human being to create new organ cells and such for the specific person from which they were cloned. These cells could be potentially used to treat a variety of afflictions. There is a ton of information out there about stem cell research, feel free to add your links to this thread.
Fascinating science, however there are moral (hence political) aspects to all of this as well. From the White House we get the following statement.....
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Friday said he would veto legislation that would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and expressed deep concern about human cloning research in South Korea.
"I'm very concerned about cloning," the president said. "I worry about a world in which cloning becomes accepted."
White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said the work in South Korea amounted to human cloning for the sole purpose of scientific research. "The president is opposed to that," Duffy said. "That represents exactly what we're opposed to."
"I'm very concerned about cloning," the president said. "I worry about a world in which cloning becomes accepted."
White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said the work in South Korea amounted to human cloning for the sole purpose of scientific research. "The president is opposed to that," Duffy said. "That represents exactly what we're opposed to."
Thus we have the following questions for debate:
1. Is the South Korean procedure outlined really "Human Cloning" the way you understand the term "Human Cloning"?
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Edited to add a link to another story about this from The Denver Post from the LA Times...
This is really an amazing event. In terms of biotechnology, it may not be the Moon landing (that would be an actual cloned human being walking around) but it's at least Sputnik, and maybe Yuri Gagarin.
1. In the most literal, scientific sense, I think this is human cloning indeed. However, in a less formal sense, I don't think the world will use the term "human cloning" until a cloned baby is born. Make no mistake; that will happen someday, maybe within my lifetime. It will make headlines around the world, and the people who do it will be famous (or infamous) in history books for a very long time. I can remember when news of the first human in vitro fertilization which resulted in a baby hit the world like a shockwave. We've had "test tube babies" since 1978, and the world seems to be more or less comfortable with them.
2. Personally, I do not see a moral problem with this procedure. Here is what happens (from your first article):
In my opinion, an embryo with about 100 cells, although it is certainly living, is not yet at a developmental state where it is worthy of ethical consideration. Of course, this gets us tangled up in the eternal debate about abortion. I can only restate my own opinion. Although the embryo, in the very early stages of development, is certainly alive, and is "human" in the adjectival sense (as any collection of human cells is "human"), it is not yet a "human being" in the ethical sense. Therefore, abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy can be ethically acceptable, but abortion in the very late stages of pregnancy can only be ethically acceptable when there is no other way to save the life of the mother.
3. Based on what I said above, I see no reason to ban it. What should be regulated would be any attempt to allow the embyro to develop to a stage where it could be considered a human being worthy of ethical consideration. (Creation of a cloned baby, for example.) The reason for such regulation would be the fact that experience with other species has shown that cloned animals often have genetic defects, at least at this stage of biotechnology. Here's a typical news story about this from some years ago:
Genetic defects found in cloned animals
I would pretty much agree with this, but I would add the words "until this problem is solved" at the end of the sentence. If the creation of human clones were safe, I would not have an ethical problem with it, although it seems like a foolish waste of resources. Despite all the nightmares depicted in science fiction, a clone would just be a human being. There is no shortage of human beings. The only reason I have seen suggested for creating cloned babies -- infertility which cannot be treated in any other way -- seems insufficient a rationale to me. (I have to admit that I do not share with most other people the desire to biologically reproduce myself, so perhaps I am lacking in empathy for those who cannot produce a child in any other way.) I would not ban such a procedure, but I would advise against it, and would not suggest that public funds (or insurance funds, for that matter), be allowed to pay for it.
4. Funding by the US Government for the very limited form of human cloning of this type would be acceptable, just like any other kind of public health research. Given the current culture of the United States, however, it seems very unlikely to me that this will happen in the near future. Again, from your article:
1. In the most literal, scientific sense, I think this is human cloning indeed. However, in a less formal sense, I don't think the world will use the term "human cloning" until a cloned baby is born. Make no mistake; that will happen someday, maybe within my lifetime. It will make headlines around the world, and the people who do it will be famous (or infamous) in history books for a very long time. I can remember when news of the first human in vitro fertilization which resulted in a baby hit the world like a shockwave. We've had "test tube babies" since 1978, and the world seems to be more or less comfortable with them.
2. Personally, I do not see a moral problem with this procedure. Here is what happens (from your first article):
QUOTE
To produce a clone, scientists slip the genetic material from a patient's cell into an unfertilized egg from another person whose genetic material has been removed. The genes from the patient's cell take over, directing the egg to divide and develop into an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient, rather than the egg donor. About five days later, when the cloned embryo contains about 100 cells, stem cells appear, looking like a ball of cells encased in a sphere.
In my opinion, an embryo with about 100 cells, although it is certainly living, is not yet at a developmental state where it is worthy of ethical consideration. Of course, this gets us tangled up in the eternal debate about abortion. I can only restate my own opinion. Although the embryo, in the very early stages of development, is certainly alive, and is "human" in the adjectival sense (as any collection of human cells is "human"), it is not yet a "human being" in the ethical sense. Therefore, abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy can be ethically acceptable, but abortion in the very late stages of pregnancy can only be ethically acceptable when there is no other way to save the life of the mother.
3. Based on what I said above, I see no reason to ban it. What should be regulated would be any attempt to allow the embyro to develop to a stage where it could be considered a human being worthy of ethical consideration. (Creation of a cloned baby, for example.) The reason for such regulation would be the fact that experience with other species has shown that cloned animals often have genetic defects, at least at this stage of biotechnology. Here's a typical news story about this from some years ago:
Genetic defects found in cloned animals
QUOTE
Scientists have found further evidence that cloned animals tend to harbor genetic defects that will disrupt their development and lead to abnormalities, strengthening the rational that reproductive cloning of humans should be banned.
I would pretty much agree with this, but I would add the words "until this problem is solved" at the end of the sentence. If the creation of human clones were safe, I would not have an ethical problem with it, although it seems like a foolish waste of resources. Despite all the nightmares depicted in science fiction, a clone would just be a human being. There is no shortage of human beings. The only reason I have seen suggested for creating cloned babies -- infertility which cannot be treated in any other way -- seems insufficient a rationale to me. (I have to admit that I do not share with most other people the desire to biologically reproduce myself, so perhaps I am lacking in empathy for those who cannot produce a child in any other way.) I would not ban such a procedure, but I would advise against it, and would not suggest that public funds (or insurance funds, for that matter), be allowed to pay for it.
4. Funding by the US Government for the very limited form of human cloning of this type would be acceptable, just like any other kind of public health research. Given the current culture of the United States, however, it seems very unlikely to me that this will happen in the near future. Again, from your article:
QUOTE
Seven states ban cloning for any reason and 11 have laws that prevent embryonic stem cell research . . .the federal government will not pay for the creation of new stem cell lines.
1. Is the South Korean procedure outlined really "Human Cloning" the way you understand the term "Human Cloning"?
"Cloning" has now become such a huge technology that the term defies precise definition.
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
Moral; it promises to reduce human suffering. I can't see any basis for an objection.
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
Under no circumstances should it be banned.
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Yes. If we don't, then we'll continue to fall even further behind other nations in this important technology.
"Cloning" has now become such a huge technology that the term defies precise definition.
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
Moral; it promises to reduce human suffering. I can't see any basis for an objection.
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
Under no circumstances should it be banned.
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Yes. If we don't, then we'll continue to fall even further behind other nations in this important technology.
Just a bit of an update:
Bush Vows to Veto Stem Cell Legislation
Since the President, over the objections of some in his own party, does not support this kind of research even with embyros that already exist for other reasons, it seems unlikely there would be enough support in Congress to override a veto.
Bush Vows to Veto Stem Cell Legislation
QUOTE
President Bush on Friday condemned stem cell research advances in South Korea and said he worried about living in a world in which human cloning was condoned. He said he would veto any legislation aimed at loosening limits on federal support in the United States.
. . .
That bill would lift Bush's ban on using federal dollars to do research on embryonic stem cell lines developed after August 2001. . . .the legislation would not allow the cloning of embryos or embryo destruction. Instead, it would let government-funded researchers work with stem cells culled from embryos left over from fertility treatments.
. . .
That bill would lift Bush's ban on using federal dollars to do research on embryonic stem cell lines developed after August 2001. . . .the legislation would not allow the cloning of embryos or embryo destruction. Instead, it would let government-funded researchers work with stem cells culled from embryos left over from fertility treatments.
Since the President, over the objections of some in his own party, does not support this kind of research even with embyros that already exist for other reasons, it seems unlikely there would be enough support in Congress to override a veto.
1. Is the South Korean procedure outlined really "Human Cloning" the way you understand the term "Human Cloning"?
Yes, it is a type of cloning. Genetic material is being replicated.
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
I don't think morality enters into it at this point. It is only immoral if it is used (or perhaps intended to be used) for immoral purposes. The technology is just what it is. The whole "human life" thing is a red herring. You kill orders-of-magnitude more human cells every time you skin your knee.
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
No. And the genie is out of the bottle anyway. Technology, such as this, is so promising that it will be impossible to ban. All we can hope for (if it is indeed a hope) is regulation. Of course, it would be anti-capitalist to ban this.
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Yes, I think that basic research should be made part of the "commons" as much as possible. Having all this technology locked within corporate vaults makes future scientific inquest that much harder. It also makes it much harder to regulate (assuming that is something we wish to do).
Yes, it is a type of cloning. Genetic material is being replicated.
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
I don't think morality enters into it at this point. It is only immoral if it is used (or perhaps intended to be used) for immoral purposes. The technology is just what it is. The whole "human life" thing is a red herring. You kill orders-of-magnitude more human cells every time you skin your knee.
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
No. And the genie is out of the bottle anyway. Technology, such as this, is so promising that it will be impossible to ban. All we can hope for (if it is indeed a hope) is regulation. Of course, it would be anti-capitalist to ban this.
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Yes, I think that basic research should be made part of the "commons" as much as possible. Having all this technology locked within corporate vaults makes future scientific inquest that much harder. It also makes it much harder to regulate (assuming that is something we wish to do).
QUOTE(Victoria)
In the most literal, scientific sense, I think this is human cloning indeed. However, in a less formal sense, I don't think the world will use the term "human cloning" until a cloned baby is born.
Victoria hit the bull's eye on the purpose for the first question. Nice shot!
1. Is the South Korean procedure outlined really "Human Cloning" the way you understand the term "Human Cloning"?
I agree that this procedure is cloning and I also agree that in involves a human and thus is human cloning. However, I put the quotes around the term "Human Cloning" because to many people, myself included to a certain extent, the term "Human Cloning" implies something entirely different. There is an image evoked of something out of a Frankenstein movie where mad scientists pour stuff in a test tube, zap it with lightning and out crawls a baby that gets put away into a warehouse for spare parts.
Now, I'm sure to some this characterization sounds silly, but trust me, it will be used politically by those absolutely opposed to cloning in the political debate if they are allowed to get away with it.
Victoria shoots!
QUOTE
This is really an amazing event. In terms of biotechnology, it may not be the Moon landing (that would be an actual cloned human being walking around) but it's at least Sputnik, and maybe Yuri Gagarin.
She scores again!
I couldn't agree more, and it's important to get this technology into a broad national debate and now. Why? Let's ask Victoria, she's on a roll.....
QUOTE
Since the President, over the objections of some in his own party, does not support this kind of research even with embyros that already exist for other reasons, it seems unlikely there would be enough support in Congress to override a veto.
3 for 3.
That may be the case right now, but there are some pretty influential figures within the Republican ranks who support this kind of research. Nancy Reagan, of course, at the top of the list, but also people like Senator Hatch as well. I think as people become more informed about what this process truly is all about through a well-reasoned and rational debate about it, you will see a large shift in the attitudes people have, even those on the far right.
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
I think it is moral. The reason I believe this to be so is because there is really no "life" ever created here, certainly not from the spiritual standpoint. These eggs are never fertilized and so they are just like any other cell at this point. There is no "human life" there at all. I think even many people who believe that life begins at the moment of conception would consider this procedure to be moral if it was explained in a rational way to them.
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
I don't think it should be banned, but I do agree that very strict guidelines for it's use need to be established. It is possible that tremendous advances in medical science could come from this, astounding advances. But, like many scientific breakthroughs, it could also be used to cause a great deal of harm as well. I think we need to begin this debate in earnest now to start figuring out how we are going to handle this "genie".
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
I think it should, to a limited extent, kind of the way that it funds other medical research. Once the government gets involved in something like this, it first creates standards and guidelines that become the accepted norm for private companies to use when they do their own research. I think that's a good thing.
Edited to add:
What my fear is in all of this is that the debate could evolve into what's happened I believe with the abortion debate where the extremes from each end have manged to take it over. I alluded to this in the Roe V. Wade thread here sometime back. Once the extremes on each side of an issue are able to define the debate, there is very little chance for compromise and a rational solution. I would hate to see that happen with this issue, it's far too important.
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
Absolutely not. Although, if Bush has his way, that may end up happening in the U. S. Bush has expressed concern about South Korea's scientific advances. Fortunately, Bush has no jurisdiction outside the U. S. and hopefully the "bully pulpit" does not extend beyond our borders, either. Of, course, I suppose the Bush administration could always invade S. Korea to retard the advancement of science.
Absolutely not. Although, if Bush has his way, that may end up happening in the U. S. Bush has expressed concern about South Korea's scientific advances. Fortunately, Bush has no jurisdiction outside the U. S. and hopefully the "bully pulpit" does not extend beyond our borders, either. Of, course, I suppose the Bush administration could always invade S. Korea to retard the advancement of science.
Is the South Korean procedure outlined really "Human Cloning" the way you understand the term "Human Cloning"?
Yes, though I'm not sure if the South Korean team accomplished the same thing through other means by reading the NYT piece, here:
Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
It is for me from a religious aspect. This procedure has made me feel even more comfortable with emergency contraception.
If anything, pro-lifers don't have a 50%/50% DNA argument.
Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
Breakthroughs in its nascent stage doesn't warrant a ban. Even if nightmare scenarios like hanging clones from meat racks ready for organ transplants become real (and I doubt they ever will), such possibilities would result through the natural proliferation of technology in the hands of rogue egomaniacs/institutions and not accepted by society on the whole.
Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Depends on who you ask. My own reservation deals with telomeres, the "tips of chromosomes which prevent genetic threads fraying every time a cell divides." In cloned animals many have been born old, their chromosomes having fewer "twists." (Not sure what the scientific term is.) Whether through chance or design, cloned cows have more twists in their chromosome, meaning their cells can divide more often and they'll live longer. Can a telomere problem exist in young stem cells on the 5th day, or can they develop later in a petri dish after labs determine how to nudge stem cells into growing muscle/bone/brain tissue? I guess that's the next step. How do we grow stem cells into liver cells and make sure the life expectancy of the liver cells matches up with or exceeds the patient's biological years.
Those against embryonic research point out to rejection and present-day success stories like the operation of 7 year-old girl in Germany who had a stem cell removed from her buttocks and implanted in her skull to grow bone. (Am I evil for wondering if they'll call her Butthead?)
Moreover:
The success of adult stem cell research aside, this does make us wonder why the pro-life position is okay with harvesting stem cells found in the human body, but not when encased in a blastocyst.
Research in adult stem cells do have limits.
I believe South Korea has put a crimp in the adult stem cell argument by possibly making embryonic stem cells more cost efficient and easier to harvest provided women are willing to undergo the fertility drug therapy.
Yes, though I'm not sure if the South Korean team accomplished the same thing through other means by reading the NYT piece, here:
QUOTE
Previously, the same group, led by Dr. Woo Suk Hwang and Dr. Shin Yong Moon of Seoul National University, produced a single stem cell line from a cloned embryo, but the process was so onerous that scientists said it was not worth trying to repeat it, and some doubted the South Koreans' report was even correct.
Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
It is for me from a religious aspect. This procedure has made me feel even more comfortable with emergency contraception.
If anything, pro-lifers don't have a 50%/50% DNA argument.
Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
Breakthroughs in its nascent stage doesn't warrant a ban. Even if nightmare scenarios like hanging clones from meat racks ready for organ transplants become real (and I doubt they ever will), such possibilities would result through the natural proliferation of technology in the hands of rogue egomaniacs/institutions and not accepted by society on the whole.
Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Depends on who you ask. My own reservation deals with telomeres, the "tips of chromosomes which prevent genetic threads fraying every time a cell divides." In cloned animals many have been born old, their chromosomes having fewer "twists." (Not sure what the scientific term is.) Whether through chance or design, cloned cows have more twists in their chromosome, meaning their cells can divide more often and they'll live longer. Can a telomere problem exist in young stem cells on the 5th day, or can they develop later in a petri dish after labs determine how to nudge stem cells into growing muscle/bone/brain tissue? I guess that's the next step. How do we grow stem cells into liver cells and make sure the life expectancy of the liver cells matches up with or exceeds the patient's biological years.
Those against embryonic research point out to rejection and present-day success stories like the operation of 7 year-old girl in Germany who had a stem cell removed from her buttocks and implanted in her skull to grow bone. (Am I evil for wondering if they'll call her Butthead?)
Moreover:
QUOTE
Adult stem cells have already successfully treated over one hundred diseases and conditions, while embryonic stem cell research hasn't yet generated any treatments. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have thus argued that embryonic stem cell funding restrictions in the US are not significantly impeding the advancement of stem cell research, and that even without the ethical concerns regarding embryonic stem cells, public health funds should focus on extending adult stem cell research successes until embryonic stem cell research is concretely proven to be a viable field through privately funded research on animal embryonic stem cells.
The success of adult stem cell research aside, this does make us wonder why the pro-life position is okay with harvesting stem cells found in the human body, but not when encased in a blastocyst.
Research in adult stem cells do have limits.
QUOTE
One of the first obstacles that must be overcome is the difficulty in identifying stem cells from adult tissues, which contain numerous mixtures of various cells. The process of identifying and growing the right kind of stem cell, usually a very rare cell in the adult tissue, involves painstaking research.
Second, once stem cells are identified and isolated, the right conditions must be developed to cause these cells to differentiate into the specialized cells. This too will require a great deal of experimentation.
In general, embryonic and fetal stem cells are believed to be more versatile than adult stem cells. However, scientists are still working on developing proper conditions to differentiate embryonic stem cells into specialized cells. As embryonic stem cells grow very fast, scientists must be very careful in fully differentiating them into specialized cells. Otherwise, any remaining embryonic stem cells can grow uncontrolled and form tumors.
- International Society for Stem Cell Research FAQ #4
Second, once stem cells are identified and isolated, the right conditions must be developed to cause these cells to differentiate into the specialized cells. This too will require a great deal of experimentation.
In general, embryonic and fetal stem cells are believed to be more versatile than adult stem cells. However, scientists are still working on developing proper conditions to differentiate embryonic stem cells into specialized cells. As embryonic stem cells grow very fast, scientists must be very careful in fully differentiating them into specialized cells. Otherwise, any remaining embryonic stem cells can grow uncontrolled and form tumors.
- International Society for Stem Cell Research FAQ #4
I believe South Korea has put a crimp in the adult stem cell argument by possibly making embryonic stem cells more cost efficient and easier to harvest provided women are willing to undergo the fertility drug therapy.
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
I guess I'm the lone wolf on this issue. I view the destruction of human life for research purposes to be immoral. I also don't understand why embryonic stem cells are even necessary. From the limited research I've done on this issue, adult stem cells have shown greater promise and seem to be accomplishing the same thing embryonic stem cells are hoped to do. Please read this article from Griffith University in Australia about their research in adult stem cells and the benefits over embryonic stem cells. For example, adult stem cells can be harvested from the nose, a relatively simple and inexpensive procedure compared to the expensive and difficult process of embryonic stem cells described by Aquilla.
Remember last election when John Edwards was talking about people getting out of their wheelchairs if embryonic stem cell research was funded by government? I couldn't help but think that this was already happening with adult stem cells! Doctors in Portugal have helped paraplegics walk again with the use of adult stem cells. Here is the article from WebMD. Granted there is still a lot of work to be done, but it demonstrates the great potential of adult stem cells.
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Given my arguments above, it's unnecessary.
I guess I'm the lone wolf on this issue. I view the destruction of human life for research purposes to be immoral. I also don't understand why embryonic stem cells are even necessary. From the limited research I've done on this issue, adult stem cells have shown greater promise and seem to be accomplishing the same thing embryonic stem cells are hoped to do. Please read this article from Griffith University in Australia about their research in adult stem cells and the benefits over embryonic stem cells. For example, adult stem cells can be harvested from the nose, a relatively simple and inexpensive procedure compared to the expensive and difficult process of embryonic stem cells described by Aquilla.
Remember last election when John Edwards was talking about people getting out of their wheelchairs if embryonic stem cell research was funded by government? I couldn't help but think that this was already happening with adult stem cells! Doctors in Portugal have helped paraplegics walk again with the use of adult stem cells. Here is the article from WebMD. Granted there is still a lot of work to be done, but it demonstrates the great potential of adult stem cells.
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Given my arguments above, it's unnecessary.
QUOTE
I view the destruction of human life for research purposes to be immoral.
The purpose of this project is to save a patient's life. The fertilized egg's purpose is to save the life of the person it was fertilized for.
The egg would remain unfertilized and serve no use most likely if it were unused for this purpose, it would be reabsorbed into a female's body. I view it as that egg is serving more of a purpose saving a life than it would ever do by being broken down by a female's body.
How can preservation of life be immoral? The egg used would have no life under any other circumstances, it is best to be used for something worthwhile, and if saving lives is not a good use for unfertilized or unused eggs I cannot think of any good reason for them.
Moving on...
QUOTE
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
Heck I'd personally fund the research! We need to level the playing field between the life-span's of men and women.
Women fight for equality, well it's time men help them reach true equality by using available technologies to make sure we all live close to the same age. 
1. Is the South Korean procedure outlined really "Human Cloning" the way you understand the term "Human Cloning"?
A different process, but still human cloning. If the embryo is genetically identical to the patient, it is a clone.
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
I would not consider the procedure immoral, per se. It depends on what the procedure is used to ultimately do. If, in the end, it is to create a complete cloned human being, then yes I would consider that immoral. If it is used to generate tissue in order to help the patient, then no.
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
The procedure? No. Some of the uses for the procedure, yes.
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
I think the US Government should clearly define what the use for this procedure should be and then it should most certainly fund it.
A different process, but still human cloning. If the embryo is genetically identical to the patient, it is a clone.
2. Is this procedure moral? Why or why not?
I would not consider the procedure immoral, per se. It depends on what the procedure is used to ultimately do. If, in the end, it is to create a complete cloned human being, then yes I would consider that immoral. If it is used to generate tissue in order to help the patient, then no.
3. Should this procedure and those like it be banned?
The procedure? No. Some of the uses for the procedure, yes.
4. Should the US Government help to fund such research?
I think the US Government should clearly define what the use for this procedure should be and then it should most certainly fund it.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ May 31 2005, 03:03 PM)
How can preservation of life be immoral?
Justification for the elimination of certain groups of humans often requires the belief that the targeted group is 'not human'. The Nazis did this and justified their experimentation on the Jews in the name of preserving life.
Granted the suffering of a blastocyst in involuntary experimentation is not equivalent to that of a mature human being. But the principle against involuntary human experimentation should apply in some degree to all humans. Otherwise, we cheapen human life. And a society that devalues human life is a short lived one. If government promotes embryonic research it also promotes the cheapening of human life.
My opinion is to avoid the ethical and moral problems with human embryonic research and focus on adult stem cell research which is probably a decade ahead of embryonic research and is already doing many of the things hoped for with embryonic stem cells.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.