The joys of Reproductive Cloning!
Today someone told me that if you were cloned, this clone would go so far as to think, act, talk, walk the same as you. If you were a good fighter, they would be too. If you were an excellent therapist, they would be just as excellent.
I thought about it, and although my knowledge on cloning is very limitted, I find that statement kind of foolish.
Yes, they would have the same DNA structure, but the same MIND structure?
This unnamed fellow also stated that all our thoughts and emotions, reasonings and morality, are induced by certain chemical set-ups in our brain. So in saying this does he mean we aren’t even our own person? We’re a big chemical floating around with some notion of independance and self-control?
Well, in answer to this theory, I present my argument.
Life experiances go hand-in-hand with the type of disposition you aquire, and person you become with age. Life experiances BUILD your character, form your opinions, induce different levels of morality.
Would not this clone have to have the exact same life, environment, atmosphere you grew up in to make them an exact replica of you?
For example, say a boy was cloned as soon as it were possible. The original boy goes along with his parents while Clone gets adopted off to a sketchy family. As they progress through life, Clone is beaten excessively and made to feel lowly while Boy is treated with the love and respect families usually present to their children (Here I’m not saying all families are perfect, have two parents, or that all sketchy families beat the children.)
Most likely Clone would have a low self-esteem and have a feeling of inequality and nonacceptance, and may have anger issues who knows.
Now, in saying these two would be the same person after all of this is totally ridiculous. If they were both beaten, the clone wouldn’t think twice about the justice in it, but the boy would wonder if this was fair and question the purpose.
What if they simply ‘grew’ clones as organ, tissue, or blood doners treating them as mere vessels. The question is, would they be PEOPLE. Does HUMAN= PERSON?? Can you be either or? Does ‘person’ require ‘humanity’ and vice-versa?
The definitions of “people” are numerous. Here are a few.
1. Persons indeffinetly or collectively; persons in general
2. Persons, whether men women or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group
3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings
So, according to the dictionary to be a person you are a human. In being human, you have the rights entitled to every human-being, and since a clone would be neither animal nor plant, insect or bacterium etc, they’ve gotta be human. This brings up another argument, that I’m sure will become heated among animal-rights activists. If we outlaw the cloning of humans, is it a double standard to clone animals? You may think no, because it doesnt hurt the animal to be cloned and so on, but the baby created was most likely created for experimental purposes which might include killing and examining it or using its organs for transplanting in humans as they hope to be able to do with pigs unhindered in the future.
I think its a cool idea to research stem-cells for the sake of curing disease, but dont agree with cloning animals for transplants incase of some type of newly introduced mutated disease, or human cloning since all reasons presented seem selfish or unethical. Is thinking one okay and the other not hypocritical? I’m not sure, but with my lack of knowledge on the subject for now it seems perfectly fine.
First of all: whoever told you that your clone would have the same feelings and emotions as you is mistaken. You are right, Rachel, that emotions and attitudes are the result of life experience, and not of genetic coding. Your genes may give you certain pre-dispositions towards certain kinds of emotions, but nothing more. Genes are a blueprint for your body structure, which does include your brain…. but as soon as you become subject to your own set of circumstances, your mind begins it’s own journey, and thus wires itself differently than your clone’s.
Second of all: the matter of stem-cells and animals cloning comes down to a personal philosophy, of course. Personally, I think stem cells are no more “human” than skin cells or blood cells. When you scratch your arm, you kill millions of cells, so I don’t see a problem with treating cells as non-sentient for the purposes of medical treatment. As for animal cloning, something about it throws me off. It seems too ‘unnatural.’ But then again, most high-density feedlots are already so inhumane and unnatural, it hardly seems important whether or not their genes are tampered with or not. I really don’t know enough about this topic either to form any meaningful opinions on it though.
Anyways, the point is that your friend is wrong.
Have you watched “The Island”? If not, you should. Nevermind Scarlet’s bad acting, though.
As for the whole, cloning organs and whatnot for transplants, even that’s a bit…abnormal. I mean, the earth’s population is ever-increasing, and less people are dying because people are aspiring for longevity. But if we try to keep more and more people alive, less people would be killed naturally and our population would grow even more! Some things happen naturally, and I’m sure if I or someone that was close to me was put in a situation where they needed a transplant, etc., I would want my friend to be saved! But there are things like diseases and such that regulate the earth’s population…
Just a thought. Please don’t think me cold.
I hear what you’re saying Kels, and I agree. Disease is an important part of Earth’s life cycle. But at the same time, if you had a loved one who could be saved by stem cell research, then you would almost surely support it. Furthermore, it’s hard to have an opinion on this without making serious conjectures about mankind’s role in the world, our future and humanity’s prerogative with regards to playing with nature.
The only thing to consider is this: genetics is clearly a tool for altering nature, and that is troublesome, but haven’t we been altering nature ever since the industrial revolution – arguably even before? Complicated questions to answer.