Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing, human being or clone tissue from that individual. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.



Cloned for therapeutic purposes ex: to donate bone marrow to a sibling with leukemia (Like what has written in a book called "My Sister's Keeper" by Jodi Picoult)
Replacement cloning means the generation of a clone of a previously living person
Persistence cloning means the production of a cloned body for the purpose of obviating aging (still considered science fiction)

SOURCE / Further info


Are you excited about it or fear about it? Will you want to clone your loved one or even yourself....?
This is not talking about just the certain part of the human organ or animals but the whole human being...

ARE WE READY FOR IT?

What the cons and pros on it? If it is successful....
Somehow we can live eternally by the power of science and etc.

ADDED: We get resurrect back when we die like what happen to frankenstein ...

Discussion can start now as i try add in more info, or anyone can help to contribute more resources in this thread. Thanks.

P/S: Strictly no religious talk involved here. I just want to know how common human response in this bio technology. Thanks



This post has been edited by wacko_joy: Jun 22 2009, 05:29 PM

Hi there!
Intruguing topic indeed! Human Cloning? Act of playing God?!

Let's start off with cloning, shall we? I'm not talking about Hybrid Cloning but Reproductive Cloning. I would stand behind it as it is essential for HUMAN BEINGS for infertility (barren; for those that needs biblical narrative) purpose.

Have yu heard of Dolly the Sheep? Much complexities came from the experimentations. How would yu stand for it? I'm pretty much for it. GE (Genetically Engineered) products? Anyone? Hello??!! We had those hybrid cloning back in the early 90s, for Christ sake.
Do yu need it? ~!@#$%^&* YES!

Regards, Joey

p.s: Religious understanding and practices are OUT OF THE WINDOW please.

This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 22 2009, 02:25 PM

Yes. Indeed, strictly no religion involved here. I just want to know how common human response in this bio technology...

ehh... my posts macam deleted liao "

anyway, what i'm trying to say is... the adverse effects on cloning in sociology....

i do not agree on cloning

Animal cloning would be fine,IMO,as we could get more food in a short time,for example.

Human cloning is just hairy as ethics and sociology would be involved.

^ Yes, agree. I somehow agree for animals. Not really 100% as i still have doubt on it. Eventhough they are just animals but they also have feeling & certain level of intelligence. I need to do more research.

Anyone read the book "My Sister's Keeper" by Jodi Picoult?





This story does not involved in human cloning but i believe it somehow give the same effect to society. I can't accept the thought of Anna's parent has when they bore her... The purpose they want to have her in tis world.

Sorry... abit out of topic....

This post has been edited by wacko_joy: Jun 22 2009, 03:11 PM

PETA would disagree, and so does many animal lovers.

I own pets and so it's not very hard to observe individualism in them. Don't think it's fair to clone them on the same reason as why we don't want to be cloned.

I dont mean cloning your pets,but i mean cloning cows,chickens etc that we eat them.

I own pets and i know how unique are each of them.2 dogs,to be exact.

As i reading about human cloning, i come across this:



- Just like what is happening in "My Sister's keeper". Well, they are heroes in the sight of others. But are they really want to be heroes in tis situation.

I will say alot of us don't want to clone someone that are still alive, how about the dead? Your premature dead baby, your just get married hubby/wife who die of an accident and so on... Will you agree with it?

If possible, tell us the reason on your "yes" or "no" answer.

This post has been edited by wacko_joy: Jun 22 2009, 03:29 PM

It's a bit strange,wont it? Like someone just died and you are seeing that person again in a week's time.

But what if is the owner who want it? Some are too emotional sad, they insist to have them so called back to life again. Are they consider as selfish people?

lol, I understand that, I am not just saying pets, because animal have individualism as well. That is why there exist people who are against battery farms.

Human's needs and ethics don't mix well anyway.

I dont know,but PETA might not be happy with it,IMO.

By means of stopping hunger,i think it's worth it.

Lolx... ya. For me personally, i don't agree with it. But some can accept it... you will never know.

you cannot copy the mind ... and you cannot perfectly clone the person ...


you see .. the human body is a SUPER LEARNING MACHINE ... we literally ... learn from the start of our life ... from mathematics to running

the body itself grows, from your physical training ... means ... if you do strength training, you might end up like arnold ... but the clone might not be the same person (physically)


not just that ... the brain whether u remember or not ... are fixed on recording from the start of birth ... your memories cannot be replicated
and since every encounter is unique .. there's no way to replicate the whole thing again ....



the word cloning is actually misleading ... the scientists uses this term "cloning" so we are easier to accept it ....... but what if they use the term "artificial human", that's harder to accept

It probably give me a huge psychological impact,IMO.

True,all you get is just a different person,with the same exterior as the other people.

You might clone the used to be muscular Arnold,but he could end up as the most obese man in the world.

@Serpentarius - Mind... hmmm... i was thinking it is possible for the doctor to implant so called "memory chips" into the baby's brain? Then transfer it to the clone when you die?

Artificial human.... ya. That's the word. You might able to program /duplicate it perfectly like the original, but somehow is not real as you used to feel.

Same goes to pirated DVD .. haha...

This post has been edited by wacko_joy: Jun 22 2009, 03:55 PM

Thats the best analogy,IMO.

How about "cloned for therapeutic purposes"? Any opinion?

To TS: Please highlight or bold or capitalize stating no religious talk in here. Else some fanatics will be coming in to invade later on

Done. Thanks.

actually it is religion that always stops scientific progression.

if during the dark ages, where the church did not persecute scientist and label them as fanatics. humankind would be on a whole new level.

neways i am always pro cloning. not because of saving lives but because to answer questions. like

if i were to clone my self. will my clone have the same consciousness as me or will my clone be a whole different individual.

will my clone retain my memories and skills.?

^ hmm... You mean out of curiosity/pushing the limit as in you never try you will never know that kind of concept?

strongly disagree even it's with animals.

Hi there!

As much complexities as in a human anatomy, the complexities of therapeutic cloning has yield different proportions.

Okie...Let's start off with, for an example, I got some tissues/organs damage resulting from mountain biking in the wilderness. In order to get a quick fix or to accelerate this "healing" of the said damaged tissues/organs, I need the whole tissue to be transplanted in my damage area of tissues/organs. (Let's just say I'm using the possibility of therapeutic cloning in stem cells)

However, there's alwaiz a catch! (I hate this part but it's unavoidable, so pardon me, eh?). Let's say I got the cloned tissues/organs in place,prior to my unfortunate incident. Before I could transplanted it in, I need to make sure the cells are functioning and grow "coordinately in term of "signals" sending. (Synapses? Per se) This needs not the cloned embryos, it can all be done with the existing OR newly created cell lines.

As mentioned, this requires the stem cell MUST "coordinate in parallel with the "existing cells as it is required for the body to function properly and "naturally". With the surrounding tissues/organs influencing the stem cell to "work in tandem" properly and "naturally", it is remained as questionable as yu and me.

As much as I hate it, the process is numb minded and the whole ~!@#$%^&* delicate processes MUST BE TAKEN into consideration. I'd hate to be in the shoes of the scientists/researchers involved in therapeutic cloning. It has yet to be answered and hopefully with the advancement of Bio Technology we will able to achieve a breakthrough in this area.

It is very well known that Therapeutic Cloning is the next step in Bio Technology and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for it. As the time comes, I said it as it presumably would, it will be used in reproductive cloning.

Furthermore, from this breakthrough, the potential for abuse and exploitation are just too great to ignore. (IVF to create babies? Anyone?) It's up for grabs and it is the responsibility of HUMANS to address the implementations accordingly.

Regards, Joey

p.s: The SCIENTISTS are equivalent to creeps in DotA and they are being farmed by capitalists/capital dogs a.k.a Heroes in DotA. What says yu regarding this particular issue?

This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 22 2009, 05:31 PM

skip the chicken/cow, clone lots and lots of drumsticks and rib eye steak instead.

i agree with human cloning and modification done on the genes to create a better type of human beings.

anyways it is very hard to clone a human being. i tried cloning a stupid banana and to no avail.

but i should not fret because banana is one of the most hardest plants to clone after oil palm

I remember few years back there was a korean scientist/biologist who claimed he successfully clone an animal, I think its a goat or something. But later on, he admitted that he make that claim to get more funds into his research.. No source..I read it from thestar if not mistaken.

Reminds me of 'The Island(movie)' where they clone people and isolate them into a facility from outer world then dissect them to obtain their vital organs

Wouldn't it be great if we could just clone the needed organ?

This post has been edited by NicJolin: Jun 22 2009, 11:34 PM

i remember they grow a heart in a lab....i think tats the stem cell reasearch?

Truthfully, cloning is very exciting for medical application. You could replace damaged organs that are unrepairable with a clone from the same person. It could definitely eliminates the severe complications that transplant patients had.

It will take more than a few hundred years to clone a real human. They need to take physiological, psychological and anatomical evaluation to redeem the clone is a human. Humans can't copy a being but it can copy cells that imitates the original being.

I'm ok 100% with the research. Being a muslim is not an issue to say that cloning is unethical. Its unethical to put a stop into development that can save you and other's life. Putting a halt in it is the same as promoting avoidable death among mankind.

BTW, Fiction stays fiction.

1 thing about cloning organs, it doesnt seem to me as easy as it sounds. say u want to clone a liver, how do you make the cell grow into a liver? usual sperm and egg when combined grow into a zygote which gradually grows into a human being where its cells undergo differentiation to form different working (sometimes not) organs to sustain life. the question is, how do you make the cloned cell turn into a liver, and how do u sustain the liver's growth without all other supporting organs of the human body?

read up on stem cells.

basically, during our embryo stage, all cells are the same, there is no brain cell/muscle cell/skin cell etc. there is just cell. with the correct signals, these cells undergo specialization to be come whatever cell needed. theoretically (practically??) all you need is to get some stem cells, put them in a lab environment, provide nutrient, input signal, and viola - new organ then put in patient

Is there any genetics counsellors in malaysia?

and whic degree holders normally qualified to be a genetics counsellor?

that is all in theory. what signals? hormones? (i dont think hormones initiate differentiation though. how do u isolate these so called "signals" and do we even know what "signal" sparks what kind of organ differentiation?) there are alot of unanswered questions. how will the cloned organs develop in-vitro when fed with nutrients? will the blood vessels and nutrient transport system be the same (and as efficient) as the human body? will the size shape of the organ be totally the same as the one on the human? i'm in the opinion that the development of the body and thus organs is affected by nature as much as nurture. personally i dont think an organ grown in-vitro, despite cloned will be identical to the host's.

In my opinion, cloning for therapeutic purposes is bad.

First of all, there's a question on whether the clone should be treated as a human being or just an object. If one were to say that they're just objects, they look like humans, behave like humans, feel like humans. What makes them any less human than us? One the other hand, they are not special individuals, unlike all of us. Even one of a twin, the closest you can get to a clone, is special. However, clones are genetically identical to the person from whom they were cloned. For religionists who believe in the spiritual aspect of individuals, these clones are not created by God, but by humans are therefore are different. Would these clones have rights? Can they marry and have children? If they commit a crime are they bound by law? If they fall sick, can they get medical treatment?

Secondly, to have clones is to use more resources. Even if you'd want to grow these clones, you would need to feed them, house them and process their wastes. As it is now, humans are running short of naturals resources. If we have clones, we will need to use more resources. What will happen if due to these clones, our resources deplete faster? It would then be the survival of the fittest. If they're fitter than humans, considering the fact that they might be abused by humans (probable difference of upbringing would lead to different lifestyle), they would replace humans.

Thirdly, there could be the issue of identity theft. If you see a photo of a person doing something, can you tell whether that is the original person or his clone? How would the media and news reporting be affected by the rise of clones? How do you differentiate the real person from the clone since they have the same fingerprints, genetic fingerprints etc. In the event of a crime, who do you prosecute? Can the clone replace the person if the real person dies? If the clone had no rights previously, would he have rights when he replaces the original person?

Fourthly, by creating clones for therapeutic purposes, we're pushing the allowance of bad genes further. As it is now, with modern medical facilities, we as humans have already done everything we can to avoid the pressure from natural selection. When we are sick, we see the doctor, get the cure and we continue to live. In nature, an animal that suffers from a disease (and if it's antibody does cannot fight away the disease) will die and thus those genes that cannot tolerate that disease would not be passed on to the next generation. We, on the other hand, defy natural selection and continue to past those bad genes to the next generation. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what we are doing. We as humans, are different from animals, because we are (or are supposed to be) morally higher than animals, and therefore, out of compassion, we save our fellow human being from death. But would it be right to go to that extent to avoid death? Should we do it until we risk overpopulation?

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Jun 27 2009, 03:16 PM

I'm no religious person, but I personally object to human cloning.

Each human is an individual in his/her own right. Everybody has a different sent of genes and DNA. As in the movie "Artificial Intelligence", everybody is 'unique'.

If somebody close to you dies, it is part of life. People are born, people age, and they die. If we continue cloning or "resurrecting" people, the world will never progress. A grandfather today will still be a grandfather 100 years later.

Plus, can you imagine a world with clones of the same person? What you thought was your family/friend/spouse/children is actually a clone. You can't differentiate who is real and who is not.

For medical purposes, I'm all for stem cells.

i disagree with the natural selection point. as it is, cloning (organs or whole humans -if it even is possible) is a highly costly operation which makes it only possible for the rich and affluent. this means that only successful people who are "strongest" or more "powerful" will be able to afford it. the "weaker" or less successful people will have no way of cloning themselves or a part of themselves and therefore will not survive in the event of a deadly disease. natural selection at work.

In the first place they wanted to clone humans to be armies so that they wouldn't get hurt in the first place in war. Think of this as you can go to war without having ur citizens getting butchered while the enemy suffer casuaties

If we can upload our mind into a new cloned bodies when we die, then we will have achive inmortality, this is the greater achivement of the human cloning process in my view, but there will be to many moral and religious question on this, even if the technical process can be perfect.

if you can live forever does it devalue the meaning of life? this is the question that will be hard to answer. or a even more interesting one is if you clone yourself and there is two you, are the two the same person, what happen to your property right, do you guys now have share ownership of everything you have?

a much larger problem deriving from cloning would be over-population. even at the rate we are going now, our way of self preservation is already proven to be our own self-destruction, let alone having more clones.

If it’s possible to clone your body, maybe a younger stronger version of your current body, and give it life...wouldn't that body's mind come in a blank state? I mean that the second version of you might have consciousness/life but it wouldn't have collected any data or experiences or have the same memories as you right now.

If downloading/saving and uploading your current mind into a new body is possible, I think I’d have a more personal/identity questions to ponder.

For example, a frail old man is going to die sooner than later, so he cloned his body and uploaded a copy of his mind into this younger version of his body. Technically it’s like immortality because his consciousness will live on, but his original consciousness is still in this old body...I doubt he’ll feel ok terminating himself tho.

Unless it’s a sudden, accidental death. Imagine waking up on the operation table and the doc said “Welcome back buddy, you were hit by a bus yesterday and died, we couldn’t save you. But lucky for you, we have a copy of your consciousness and uploaded it onto this clone of you. The last time you came in to back-up your mind to our database was a month ago, so you didn’t miss much.”

ur clone's DNA is still ur old DNA. for example, u're using ur DNA to clone urself at 40 yr old. after 30-40 yrs, u die, and ur clone will probably die that time.

the telomeric region decreases after each cell division. so when no telemores to loss, the important part of the DNA will be loss.
this is just a theory though. it can be use to explain why Dolly die so early.

What you say makes some sense. Yes, the rich are, in a way, the best in acquiring wealth. But then again it's hard to say that the rich have the best genes. Maybe it's intelligence, which is in inherited. But so many other things have to be taken into consideration. Upbringing also plays a part in determining one's future. And I wouldn't say that children born in the richest families have the best upbringing. For example, some people are born into riches but die in poverty because they do not know how to manage their riches.

Furthermore, a person can be rich by winning a lottery, or through a stroke of luck, become rich. For example, if you happen to inherit a piece of cheap land from your parents and keep it, and 30 years down the road, the government plans to build something big there, and is willing to compensate you with many zeros on a cheque. Well, then you've just hit the jackpot. Although it's rare, it happens. But this doesn't mean the person is in anyway, genetically superior to another.

Besides, the trend shows that the human population has been increasing exponentially in the last century. Why the last century? It coincides with the improvement of medical knowledge and techniques to an extent such that the number of births can exceed the number of deaths in the human population by a large ratio. If cloning were to be allowed, these people would make the human population increase even further than without cloning, because at any one time, those who are cloned will continue to live way beyond their years and when birth rate stays the same (if we assume that cloning has no effect on the present birth rate), the total number of humans will increase. And if the therapeutic cloning and organ transplant procedure becomes more affordable over time (say due to breakthroughs or the discovery of new medical methods), the rate of increase will also increase.

Ultimately, when overpopulation occurs, and if we don't find a solution (to overpopulation) by then, we would have to face the full force of natural selection, because it would then be a competition for inadequate resources. Therefore, I think it would be wise to postpone (if stopping is not an option) the usage of therapeutic cloning until we find a solution to overpopulation.

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Jun 28 2009, 02:02 AM

humans are so developed that optimal "genes" or inheritance no longer matter. natural selection is simply survival of the fittest, the factor that gives one individual an edge over another. in the animal kingdom it may be strength. for humans, it may be wits, it may be wealth. simply put, the richest survive, regardless of genes and whatnot. there are no rules to this game of survival.

i would really love to clone jessica alba, mandy moore and let them live in my house...haha....but i think cloning is possible cause we already cloned a goat before right?

This post has been edited by Shah_15: Jun 29 2009, 12:47 AM

It depends on the situation. In times of peace, it may be wealth. In times of war, it may be it's ideology. When overpopulation occurs, it might be something different. So, I think it would be wise to avoid accelerating overpopulation through cloning.

i don't think we could achieve immortality by "uploading our mind" into new bodies. imo, even if we can recreate our mind in another form, like digitally for example, it wouldn't really be ours, it's merely a copy of our memory while our true consciousness will always bound to our self. when we die, our consciousness ends there. the copied memory will be another version of our consciousness once transferred to another body, unnoticeable to the clone, but our own original self (the consciousness) stay dead and won't be transferred to the other body. in other word, it's not a continuous process.

even if the clones retains the memory of the original person, i don't think we should think of him as the same person as the original.

speaking non-scifi, how do we even "copy" memories onto a clone? as far as my understanding goes about cloning, the cloned human's life and therefore experience and knowledge begins when it is conceived by the host (a woman). it may turn out to be a completely different "human" than the original as it grows and develops. aside from implementing a device which stores memory digitally and somehow finding a way to synchronize the device and the brain, transferring "memory" will not work.

cloning a human whose thinking and actions mirror the original is completely sci-fi. humans are as much affected by nature as well as nurture in their growth.

The cloning of human just involved in body or hardware, it has not much meaning for you or individual. Your cloned DNA or another person is not you, just like having another twin brother of you which shared the same DNA.

You cannot upload your mind, intelligence into the cloned body.

To simplified, you cloned the hardware (body) which is identical to you currently, but software wise is totally a new one, your mind, intelligence, thinking etc.

The cloned person is another blank HDD, just the HDD is as same as you.

i mean just that.

This post has been edited by Shadow Kun: Jun 29 2009, 04:31 PM

one more thing. say memory and knowledge can somehow be transferred by some stroke of genius.

1. original human clones himself at age 50 and dies. the question is - when is a suitable time to transfer the original's memory to the clone? 10 years? 20 years? that is, of course if the human brain can even take that sort of amount of information,

if say memory were transferred to the clone at 20 years of age. wont the original "time travel" to 20 years in the future? and 20 years is a long time if u ask me...it would be pretty scary.

err i dunno. depends on what your intention for the transfer i think. anyways notice that in my first post that you quoted, i was speaking on "even if" basis as a reply to robertngo regarding his idea of achieving immortality by preserving memories in clones. all of that is still sci-fi in today's context. also i think he speak of cloning as reproducing the exact copy of the body at time of cloning, not creating a baby clone from the DNA that needs to be grown to adulthood so the issue of when to transfer the memory doesn't exist. you just transfer them instantly after death of the original. again, it's still sci-fi in today's context.

ARE WE READY FOR IT?

What the cons and pros on it? If it is successful....
Somehow we can live eternally by the power of science and etc.

Ok if we got cloning technology available and able to transfer memories - based on the quote above "Somehow we can live eternally.."

My Answer : NOT A CHANCE.

Let me explain why in a dramatical way...

Subject A : I think I am coming to my end....
Doctor : Do not worry, soon you will be resurrected and live a healthy life as normal
Subject A : I hope so, *cough* well.. goodbye world.. *closed eye*
Doctor : Confirmed subject dead at 12:00am 12/12/2300
Nurse : The clone is ready doctor.
Doctor : Begin the memory transfer process now.

*with a data rate of 5000GB/s equipped with an error correction and verification tools* - 5 minutes later...

Subject B : *open his eyes - saw dead body of himself next to him* I am .. I am.. ALIVE!! Doctor thank you very much!
Doctor : Piece of cake. How's your memory?
Subject B : Based on the procedure, you told me if I can remember AB111 which happened when I was 20 years, and GH1100 when I was 40 years, I think everything is fine with me.
Doctor : Darn.. you may want these back then *shows keys to Lambo*
Subject B : Of course i still need this, ok bye doc, i'm going home now. Ciow!

Now, from our view - let's observe.

Subject A died.
Subject B (clone) lived with Subject A memory.

Subject B is still Subject B, Subject A still dies and goes to heaven / hell.

Subject B is a fake, it's a new lifeform (artificial if I may add) with a Blank memory, which memories of Subject A had been added on to it. Subject B THINKS he lived on, but in reality, NOT.

Any case happens, you DIE.

I know this thread prohibits religious talks, but I must insert this quotation from the Islamic view "There is cure for every sickness, EXCEPT dead"

Anyway, it's an interesting issue to discuss.

another way to explain it.

@shadow - i guess mine is the layman term version

It is just sci-fic.

You cannot clone a 'blank body' without a brain or blank brain, which in order/wait for transferring 'you' into it.

If the cloned body has brain (let label as B), then it has its own thinking aka as B personnel, not "you".

The more realistic sci-fic to 'transfer into another body or clone', is through sterm cell which develop organ for you to replace one by one, which is more realistic/futuristic discussion.

hmm..
agreed.
but the only weakness is, you still can't replace your brain with a new one.

Another perspective is:

Subject A: Ahh... (breathing back). Damn, I'm not dead yet.
As you a bit unconscious, you heard a conversation in the room (and turn and look at ur left) .

Subject B (ur clone): *open his eyes - saw dead body of himself next to him* I am .. I am.. ALIVE!! Doctor thank you very much!
Doctor : Piece of cake. How's your memory?... (bla bla and the talks continue)

and he walk away from the room for tonight date with ur girlfriend and you just WTF!!.

Conclusion: Subject B is just like your twin and the only different is he got 100% of ur memory.

The question of the existence of a soul is not scientific. The question of people's beliefs about the existence of souls is scientific. As far as I can tell, there's nothing that indicates the notion of a "soul" as being anything more than a direct result of peoples desire to be more important than they are. Bigger than life, supernatural, ...special.

Souls seem to be a convenient way for people to devalue other life forms. Many people believe animals don't have souls, so it's okay to slaughter them. Though, it's surprising how those same people will say their dog has a good soul. Apparently, souls are for people and animals we approve of. Those things we don't, we say are soulless, and it's peachy to suspend ethics around.

If you cloned someone, from birth, they would have to have exactly the same upbringing, in the same environment, with the same parents, with the same peers & the same world events, that you had, & even then, as in identical twins, there's no guarantee you'd turn out the same.

Unless you're talking about the kind of magical cloning in movies, where at 45 years old, another 45 year old copy of yourself is created, at which time you'd be thinking the same thoughts, but every thought after that would differ, even from standing a few feet apart, you'd see different things, and think different things, and grow along two different paths.

Or you could be the first person in human history to actually find an actual link between a brain and some other superspecial kind of universe that has no way of existing here or being detected or measured, but still exists here physically enough to be a part of your person.

Fluff.

very impossible. cloning an exact copy of a human just liek that is sci-fi by today's standards

OMG, i lol'ed at this..
it's like that story.. where rich people clone themselves for their organ parts, the clones were raised in a very isolated place and were limited to a 7 years old child exposures - then somehow two of these clones went out and one of em met with his actual self - can't remember the name of this movie, can someone recall for me?

that is the terrible Michael Bay movie, The Island.

If this happen, "World is not World anymore ".

This post has been edited by kira_mha: Jul 2 2009, 11:26 AM

Theres waaaaaay too much fiction in the science here

lol.. got people vote... but no one give comment?

Ah yeah the island!
Now will proceed to download that movie back.. long time no see

joy joy eh thread ah ... muz comment lor

cloning is ok ... it is just getting a delayed twin ... nothing wrong with that ... who know's, your parents might want to get you a twin sister ... delayed by quite a few years tho

cloning for medical purpose is probably a no no ... the island comes to mind ... unethical

the sixth day will never happen tho ... that is only for ppl who does not understand cloning

Cloning of a certain organ is permited so save someone's life...though it depends how u clone it.

Cloning of animals so we can eat it...do we need that? We still can raise our animals right now. No threat of extinction of our chickens so far haha.

Cloning of a human being just because the owner misses someone...now that is freakish....do you stop to think that the clone has its mind of its own? It'll never be the same person even though the bodies are identical.