It is certainly true, that imprecisely defined statements may cause hysteria and
polariasation between uninformed people. I know there are different kinds of
application concerning human cloning. However this technique still works with
living "organisms" (cells as primitive life-forms) and this is an important
point. We, humans, are very sentimental and religious when we talk about our
life, or our being. Theoretically every cell of our body could be used to clone
another human being. When we clone someone (it doesn't matter how) we play God.
We create what we want, we decide what should come out: skin, special drugs or
an entire person and so on...
When we do it with animals, noboy cares because in our religion (western world)
animals don't have a spirit. One philosopher said one day: "animals are just
living automats". Aren't we not the same?
Janu
"Colin A. B. Davidson" schrieb:
> "Janu" <janubas at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A8128E2.DD5D9891 at yahoo.com...> > Cloning full human beings. Well, I personally would not like to have a
> copy
> > of myself.
>> In which case I suggest that you re-post with a question regarding human
> reproductive cloning, specifically not cloning of human embyos for medical
> research or the cloning of human genes into bacteria or yeast for study (for
> example). It is the use of such ambiguous statements that leads to such
> polarisation as we see in this field at present.
--
Janu
Editor-in-Chief
http://welcome.to/scientific_cage
