this belongs to comradstalin
"Let’s first take a look at the arguments that are commonly presented against cloning.
The first one is that is cloning is “tampering with natural laws” Well, guess what, the ENTIRE field of medicine has tempered with “natural laws”. Creation of antibiotics is a creation of something that does not exist in nature. Reliance on drugs such as Penicillin to cure infections is not “natural”, but a triumph of human brilliance. Consider this: we create medicine that seeks to eradicate a specific virus. Is that virus not part of “nature”? Sure, yet no one with even basic ability to comprehend reality is going to argue that it is a bad thing to exterminate it. If we want to stop “tempering with natural laws” we should all go back to living in caves or sitting around in the desert, butt-naked and wishing we had made advancements in farming so we could perhaps plant something and eat it.
The second argument is that cloning will somehow conflict with God’s (of whatever religion you choose to subscribe to) Grand Master Plan. Here the argument is simple logic with a bit of religious dogma thrown in. God did not create just the fleshy substances, he creates a soul” or some other spirit. Cloning, while creating the physical cells of an organism, will not be creating a "soul”, thus in no way it is in conflict with God’s Super Great Unknown Master Plan For His Chosen. There is no conflict of interest; we are not creating a “human being” in “His Image”, just a soulless golem, a tradition of which exists in just about every single religion I can think ok. And it is not expressly forbidden to creating a “soulless golem” in most religions.
The final anti-cloning argument is that to the tune of “oh look we can’t create a perfect clone; it’s not the same as genetic engineering of plant-life”. What people forget is that bio-engineering did not come to exist all of a sudden but took many long and painful years of hits and misses by a multitude of the most brilliant minds in society. Now, thanks to these scientists, we can grow more and better foods, thus feeding more of the world’s population. Same applies to tissue cloning, it shall take many more tries (as it is incredibly more complex), but eventually it will be perfected.
So as I have shown above, arguments against cloning are flimsy and not rooted in reality, just paranoia’s and prejudices of simple-minded superstitious peasants. Cloning is not only completely ethical; it is a necessary step in the scientific progress and the Triumph of the Human Will!"
took the word right out of my mouth.
once upon a time, surgery was seen the same way cloning is today by overzealous and misguided religious nuts.
The first one is that is cloning is “tampering with natural laws” Well, guess what, the ENTIRE field of medicine has tempered with “natural laws”. Creation of antibiotics is a creation of something that does not exist in nature. Reliance on drugs such as Penicillin to cure infections is not “natural”, but a triumph of human brilliance. Consider this: we create medicine that seeks to eradicate a specific virus. Is that virus not part of “nature”? Sure, yet no one with even basic ability to comprehend reality is going to argue that it is a bad thing to exterminate it. If we want to stop “tempering with natural laws” we should all go back to living in caves or sitting around in the desert, butt-naked and wishing we had made advancements in farming so we could perhaps plant something and eat it.
The second argument is that cloning will somehow conflict with God’s (of whatever religion you choose to subscribe to) Grand Master Plan. Here the argument is simple logic with a bit of religious dogma thrown in. God did not create just the fleshy substances, he creates a soul” or some other spirit. Cloning, while creating the physical cells of an organism, will not be creating a "soul”, thus in no way it is in conflict with God’s Super Great Unknown Master Plan For His Chosen. There is no conflict of interest; we are not creating a “human being” in “His Image”, just a soulless golem, a tradition of which exists in just about every single religion I can think ok. And it is not expressly forbidden to creating a “soulless golem” in most religions.
The final anti-cloning argument is that to the tune of “oh look we can’t create a perfect clone; it’s not the same as genetic engineering of plant-life”. What people forget is that bio-engineering did not come to exist all of a sudden but took many long and painful years of hits and misses by a multitude of the most brilliant minds in society. Now, thanks to these scientists, we can grow more and better foods, thus feeding more of the world’s population. Same applies to tissue cloning, it shall take many more tries (as it is incredibly more complex), but eventually it will be perfected.
So as I have shown above, arguments against cloning are flimsy and not rooted in reality, just paranoia’s and prejudices of simple-minded superstitious peasants. Cloning is not only completely ethical; it is a necessary step in the scientific progress and the Triumph of the Human Will!"
took the word right out of my mouth.
once upon a time, surgery was seen the same way cloning is today by overzealous and misguided religious nuts.