Cloning?

Why are people so against cloning? What are your thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=GqvP1DZQyRU
youtube.com/watch?v=6OF6-gs3hg0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Same reason dumb people are against anything else

Cause it goes against all morality?

Why?

This kind of tech could lead to cloning seperate parts of your bodies for a spare part, like if you lose a limb or need a lung.

If I lost my arm and a doctor came up to me and said "oi mate, gi's a few skin cells and I'll 'ave that arm good as new in a jiffy" I'd say "go on then fella"

Simple shit lads

If you clone yourself, who owns the clone? What rights does it have, and what stake to you does it hold, its creator? Surely it cannot be your equal, however, and neither is it your offspring. It is a butchery ethics, yet nonetheless you have a right to do with your own genetic material as you please; you sign for your blood, but what of the clone's?

It'll be proof their sky daddy isn't the only one who can create beings

Because of the ethical considerations.

For example, what if I cloned my wife, raised her, and fucked her? I could groom her for her entire life to make her the perfect version of my now aged wife.

What could possibly be better than that? And it's not technically incest, since she's my wife. She just happens to be born of my wife...

glorified twins

You have a system in place where people who want a clone goes through checks like adoption and they are legally made the clones parents/carers until they are of legal adult age, then the clone is a legal adult and can do what they want

A clone is still a person just created from someone else DNA like a normal baby, a normal baby is created from DNA so why is it unethical to create a clone from DNA of someone. Just cause it's a clone doesn't mean it won't have a soul or isn't a person and can't have rights

- not owned by anyone because it's still a human being with free will
- still has equal rights because it's a human being with free will

>so why is it unethical to create a clone from DNA of someone
if you want a kid you should fuck for it.

Because then you could tell someone to literally fuck themselves.

the last thing you want is for millenials to reproduce

Then there'd be no money in it and research would never be carried out.
what use could making a clone of a person have that would justify the resources?

i agree, i'm sick and tired of the racism and biggotry i see in my fellow peers
it would be best if we all just didnt honestly

omg so true, im literally shaking at the accurateness

Cloning people would be a niche market but cloning animals and body parts would serve several useful purposes and would surely be funded if it were legal.

>ethical
These are legal matters, and in all regards a clone of a person would have complete human rights.

The more important question is why the fuck would you want a clone?
This world has a population problem as it is, I can understand cloning animals since they provide resources like food and it can potentially prevent extinctions but I can't think of one good reason to clone people.

revive hitler

Edgy.

Except that's not how it works

We can't grow armaroos in a bit of time m8 you still have to give it time to grow unless you wanna use a lil' baby arm clone of your arm

Sure your dick will feel huge innit, but how will you hold your xbox controller?

better than being a full sphere like u buddy

>tee hee hitler jokes xD
Yeah man you're the epitome of badass.

What is the purpose of cloning oneself if the clone is simply to be treated like a child? You could clone for organs, labor, etc. Why is my limb mine, but a clone made of my identical material, with no procreation involved, considered a separate entity and given its own rights?

I think we should stay away from cloning humans but am quite interested in it otherwise. Most looking forward to a woolly mammoth being cloned

Oh, I guarantee that, at some point, someone would clone Hitler (assuming there's any genetic material anywhere) purely to test nature vs nurture.

The funny thing is that I feel that your circumstances and environment have more to do with how you turn out than your genetics

I feel that even if we cloned Hitler if he grew up today he might just be another Chad or a neckbeard without growing up in the circumstances the original grew up in

>assuming there's any genetic material anywhere

I always heard they saved his brain

>but a clone made of my identical material, with no procreation involved, considered a separate entity and given its own rights?
Because it would be self-aware, intelligent, and conscious. It might be made up of your DNA but it's still it's own being.

>If you clone yourself, who owns the clone?
Nobody? It's a human being.
>Surely it cannot be your equal
What the fuck is wrong with you?

A genetic clone is biologically exactly the same as having an identical twin.

So it would be like in Brave New World, where the lower cast are stunted mentally and physically and given their place. Then no one can argue it is still its "own being". Clones would simply be conscious products; or, you could remove the consciousness entirely, and have an organ factory or whatever else.

>Everyone who disagrees with me is dumb

thanks for all the you's x
just insert him in similar circumstances then. take away his crayons

Going off the posts in this thread, that seems to be the case, yeah.

No one has free will tho, so therefore it would be treated like property. It's literally identical to you just without the same knowledge of prior experiences.

>No one has free will tho

wat

>A genetic clone is biologically exactly the same as having an identical twin.
The difference being, cloning could in theory be mechanized and industrialized for purposed not pertaining to procreation. Yes, a pet is alive and has certain rights under law, and animal abuse is morally wrong. But in that same regard, a slab of loin you buy at the butchers no longer has any rights, despite it once being just as alive as a pet dog. The clone could in theory be a mere slab of meat.

>The clone could in theory be a mere slab of meat.
If you create it without higher brain functions, sure. There's nothing wrong with that, but it should have been specified in the post if that's what was meant.
If you don't deign to remove consciousness from it, it's by all moral right its own person and has the same rights as you or I.

imo people shouldn't tamper with humanity. Too many things could go wrong. If they have a proper conscious i guess it's fine as long as people can't control them like with the whole synth epidemic in fallout 4.

imo people shouldn't tamper with nature. Electricity was meant to be exchanged between clouds and the ground in large bursts and never under other circumstances

that's pretty fucked up and user right here hits it on the head. that being said, I think the most reasonable purposes for complete human cloning are "why not?" and extreme narcissism.

that's some original bait you got there

It'd be weird asking myself to donate my organs to me, what if I didn't like me?

Your choices are based on your prior experiences & random chance. Is that free will?

>If you clone yourself, who owns the clone? What rights does it have
LOL

if you're born as a pair of monozygotic twins, who owns the brother that exited last out of the womb?

whatever your answer, the same would apply to the clone after it exits a womb.

if you want to discuss artificial wombs, thats another field entirelly not necessarily used in conjunction with cloning.

>raised her
>And it's not technically incest,
its plain incest

>since she's my wife.
no shes not


what do you think a clone is mothercucker?

hint, its not a teleporter duplicate of enterprise's first officer william riker

>its plain incest

She's not my daughter, she's my wife.

>no shes not

She's genetically identical. She's my wife.

>hint, its not a teleporter duplicate of enterprise's first officer william riker

Well, when the police come to arrest me, I'll just ask them to prove her identity. They'll do a DNA test and determine that she's my wife.

>its plain incest
How would a clone of his wife be incest? It wouldn't be genetically related to him at all.

sorry anons, but your precious fuher raised in todays germany would usher in a revolution of SJW

is sex with an adopted daughter still incest?

>She's genetically identical. She's my wife.
HAHAH
are your wife's twin sister your wife too?


>ask them to prove her identity.
theyll do a fingerprint and dental record check and see that its your registered daughter, or an unregistered child to be send to protective services, or an adult alien to be deported

>is sex with an adopted daughter still incest?
No?

Incest means it's with a relative. No matter how long you care for someone they won't magically become your relative. They either are or aren't.

We're technically eating 'cloned' food all the time through grafting fruits and vegetables

:^)

>owns the clone
>it
>Implying (you) are not human

no but if you've managed to adopt a girl its certainly adultery
but everyone has their unique circumstances

...

Fuck off moralfags. There's no such thing as "morality". It doesn't objectively exist. It's made up by society to help serve societies needs and mostly benefit people. Even then, a human who's not developed in a society but rather in a lab is nothing more than a sheep, it's as moral to "absolutely own" it as much as it is actual sheep. If you honestly think it's immoral to kill animals then you're special kind of retard. Thousands of years ago that was the only way for people to survive and survival is more important than abstract limitations of "morality" or "honor".
A clone wouldn't retain memory, idiot. Reviving Hitler wouldn't do anything more than buying a life size Hitler doll. He'd just have blank memories and probably wouldn't even be against jews.

*tips*

>0 arguments

>racism
>bad
>>>/leftypol/

Well if you don't think it's going to happen then why do you care?

Did you just say your butcher sells dog meat?

mfw the ones who don't like cloning because muh moral high ground are the same ones who say humans not born through sexual means are "it" and ask who would own them and say they can't be equal to humans born through sexual means

>Why are people so against cloning? What are your thoughts?
I'm not, because would end a lot of issues. For example shady organ business.
Of course is wrong and and are right.

Aren't you just creating another individual who happens to have the same genes as you?

>Surely it would not be your equal?
The fuck? You'd be equally worthless.

yes, unless in some distopian scenarios, /thread

>wanting to engineer your own death when your doppelclone comes to kill you

Mothers of twins and triplets are already guilty of human cloning.

>There's no such thing as "morality". It doesn't objectively exist. It's made up by society
>>it doesn't exist
>>it's made up by society
The Japanese language doesn't objectively exist, it's made up by the Japanese society to allow communication. If we wanted to, we could replace it with English right now.

This is how you sound. It's true of course, we could replace Japanese with English, but there is no way that's going to happen because it requires massive change in the entire society. Just like cloning

cloning food can be great for the world
m.youtube.com/watch?v=GqvP1DZQyRU

>racism is a revolutionary act
You might want to readjust the Sup Forums stick shoved far up your ass.

telomeres

>it goes against all morality
>proceeds to list out bunch of issues which can be resolved in fully ethical way

>If I lost my arm and a doctor came up to me and said "oi mate, gi's a few skin cells and I'll 'ave that arm good as new in a jiffy" I'd say "go on then fella"
Why is everyone scouse in this scenario?

I think cloning people is a bad idea because
a) You can't (shouldn't) eat them.
b) human clones are orphans. They're going to live at the expense of the state, or the person who donated the DNA. If the latter's not willing to raise them, you've created suffering in the world.
c) People can make babies normally.
Making organs and limbs is fine, but a whole person seems like a pointless pursuit.

Cloning animals is fine, because they can be eaten. I'm also sure raising an animal in a vat is a lot more efficient than letting them run around and waste energy living. It'd make meat a lot more efficient to produce, desu.

Cause god/soulless/etc

The emancipation proclamation would apply to this. Owning a human is against universal human law.

Why must ethics and morals hold back science?

>but a whole person seems like a pointless pursuit.
You're wrong: youtube.com/watch?v=6OF6-gs3hg0

Also:
>muh eating stuff

>cloning
That's piracy and piracy is theft, right.

First worlders are living a good enough (for them) life, thus they are even more risk aversive than normal people.

Sup Forums's retardation has just reached new levels with this thread.

Well if I were to die any way young, I'd want it to be that way. You have to admit it's badass.

Cultural relativist AND not opposed to killing animals? No wonder the Democratic party won't exist through 2020.

These are all very easy questions to answer, only moralfags think it's hard.

>who owns the clone?
I do.

>What rights does it have
It's a Human, so it has normal Human rights.

>and what stake to you does it hold, its creator?
Same stake a non-clone holds to it's parents.

>Surely it cannot be your equal, however, and neither is it your offspring
It is your clone. Simple.


Just fuck off.

/thread

>they turn hitler into a SJW who destroys the white race

>Make cloning taboo so no one does it
>Meanwhile, the (((elites))) at the top do it all the time in secrecy, giving them an obvious advantage
Same thing with pedophilia. except I think we should hunt pedos down

>being killed by yourself is badass
>being killed by your neet, hikki, depression-ridden self is badass
>replaces you only to live the same neet, hikki, depression-ridden life

>changes are bad
This is how retarded you sound. We should just go back living in caves and fucking 12 year-olds.

We make human cloning true so we could eat people.

How many fedoras do you have, you filthy atheist edgelord?

This

Piracy is bad.

Fuck off fairytale-believing cocksucker.

>being a moralfag
What's wrong with fucking 12 year olds if they consent?

Cloning is nothing more than the birth of humans through asexual means. This isn't some fucking dark voodoo. Saying "we shouldn't play god" is diagnosably retarded because if cloning is playing god, so is procreation in general.

I'm not an expert, but cloning is probably not the best way to reproduce because reuses the same genes over and over. In regular, sexual reproduction, you have genes coming from many sources throughout many generations. But with cloning, it's basically like letting brothers and sisters make babies

Well yeah. I'm not saying we should begin reproducing through cloning. I'm just saying that it's still nothing more than reproduction (albeit unsustainable, as you said)

Nothing, but they didn't consent back then and that's the difference.