Better watch what you say, we aren't terribly far from being able to do just that. We've had the capability to manufacture synthetic mRNA and subsequently, an in-vitro(test tube) protein synthesizing system from 'a bunch of chemicals' since the 1960's. Now that the entire human genome has been mapped it's not much of a stretch to imagine building a human from the ground up without the use of gametes.The day that we create a human from just a bunch of chemicals (not from a sperm and an egg) I will renounce Christianity, become an atheist, and lobby forabortion.
Did you jot read "bacteria" or do you not know the difference between mammals and bacteria? Also, without sperm AND egg? See my post about cloning.
I know, that's why I gave you a goal. I know we can reproduce a lot of 'life' but get back to me when we CREATE a human from nothing. Clone also. When we do that I say God doesn't exist. Until then I feel thatabortionis wrong.Better watch what you say, we aren't terribly far from being able to do just that. We've had the capability to manufacture synthetic mRNA and subsequently, an in-vitro(test tube) protein synthesizing system from 'a bunch of chemicals' since the 1960's. Now that the entire human genome has been mapped it's not much of a stretch to imagine building a human from the ground up without the use of gametes.
Venter has already created a single celled, completely synthetic, reproducing organism. It's only a matter of scale to spin that up into a eukaryote.
If you think there isn't a few hundred labs out there trying to clone a person right now you are out of your mind. The minute they successful do it you will hear about it and then it will no longer be considered unethical.Well the only reason a human hasn't been cloned yet is because it is unethical. Just because we haven't done that does not mean we can't do it right now if we tried. We have been cloning mammals for decades.
Once they do successfully clone humans, I am going to open a business that aborts cloned fetuses for stem cells to sell.If you think there isn't a few hundred labs out there trying to clone a person right now you are out of your mind. The minute they successful do it you will hear about it and then it will no longer be considered unethical.
If you really think this, you're an idiot. No one reputable is attempting to clone humans because they'd lose whatever funding they have, be expelled from whatever university or lab they work for, and more or less be exiled from the scientific community.If you think there isn't a few hundred labs out there trying to clone a person right now you are out of your mind. The minute they successful do it you will hear about it and then it will no longer be considered unethical.
Okay. They're probably labs run by Transgender God hating faggots, right?If you think there isn't a few hundred labs out there trying to clone a person right now you are out of your mind. The minute they successful do it you will hear about it and then it will no longer be considered unethical.
I guess you are quite wrong.If you really think this, you're an idiot. No one reputable is attempting to clone humans because they'd lose whatever funding they have, be expelled from whatever university or lab they work for, and more or less be exiled from the scientific community.
Not at all. I welcome anyone to try to clone a human.Okay. They're probably labs run by Transgender God hating faggots, right?
They're doing that for stem cell research. Not to clone humans. Right in your quote it says that they had no intention of proceeding further. If you say that someone is trying to clone a human, that means that they're implanting those blastocysts in to surrogate mothers in order for them to be gestated and carried to birth.I guess you are quite wrong.
In May, 2013 the group of scientists published a report of successful human cloning [4]. The approach involved the somatic cell nuclear transfer from human fibroblasts to oocytes and resulted in viable embryos developing to the blastocyst stage. The authors managed to obtain embryonic stem cell from the blastocysts which can lead to therapeutic cloning. It remained unclear however if the cloned embryos are capable of further development as no such experiments were attempted.
I have read plenty on cloning and stem cells. Don't assume. Not all Christians have a backwards view of science. What do you define as "any stage"abortion? I am not against preventing early implantation. I am against reaching in and terminating. What does this have to do with a stance on human cloning?So you morally object toabortionat any stage, but have no objection to human cloning? Link to the primary literature, a peer reviewed article (I'm sure you've never read or published one) on that human cloning please.
If you don't think people are taking it one step further also you are putting blinders on. I know this study stopped at a certain point and they made a lot of progress up to that point. There are other groups out there that you know and I know are going past the draconian idea that human cloning is wrong.They're doing that for stem cell research. Not to clone humans. Right in your quote it says that they had no intention of proceeding further. If you say that someone is trying to clone a human, that means that they're implanting those blastocysts in to surrogate mothers in order for them to be gestated and carried to birth.
Anyone doing that?
Did you read the article, because read what I posted. They did a somatic cell nuclear transfer. If you cannot see the difference between bringing a fully cloned human being to term over aborting a blastocyst, and the ethical ramifications of the first then I don;t know what to say to you. Are you not against cloning because the Bible says nothing about it?I don't know if this was ever brought up, but for those of you who believe life begins at conception (are there any?), how do reconcile the fact that a viable embryo can be produced via nuclear transplantation and other cloning techniques? I ask this because, in theory (and practice in animals) it is possible to remove the nucleus of a differentiated cell (let's say a skin cell for this example) and transplant it into an egg that has had it's nucleus removed. At this point the cytoplasm of the egg, which contains the correct concentrations of specific proteins would "reprogram" the transplanted DNA from the skin cell nucleus. Granted this would only result in a viable zygote a low percentage of the time due to a lot of unknowns such as epigenetic modifications of the transplanted DNA.
Now let's say this new zygote was cultured in the correct medium with the necessary growth factors and eventually transplanted into a uterus (or in the future, an environment that was sufficient to facilitate the normal development of the zygote/embryo). Would terminating the development of this still be morally wrong to those who believe that life begins at conception since technically the only thing that was done was the transfer of a diploid set of chromosomes to an environment that is conducive to reprogramming this genome to develop into a zygote/embryo. Also, I know zygote isn't truly the correct term to use in this case since it is by definition the diploid cell formed by the joining of two gametes via sexual reproduction.
Just a question I wanted to ask because of the relative ease that nuclear transplantation and other cloning techniques can be done, and probably will be used in the future to generate tissue for individuals for medical treatment (though most likely I'd think transdifferentiation will be pursued more over just cloning to get pluripotent stem cells).
Still none of you have explained:Lol, that is in no way evidence that there are "hundreds of labs actively trying to clone a person". Your lack of insight or expertise in the bio sciences is glaring.
Exactly. So why would there not be even thousands of labs attempting this under a massive amount of privacy?Maybe in a few years we'll all be watching a news report with a 20 year old standing next to his 40 year old brother/self proving that it's been possible for years.
Human cloning is only bad under the context of life being special, aka religious reasons.