Scientists Produce Embryo Clones Of Two Men

Have you seen The Island with Scarlett Johansson? This reeks of that movie. Only difference is, scientists here are "taking the life" (in quotes because people differ in opinion on when life is really established) before adulthood of the clone.

Who's to say you don't already have some fatal gene? Human kind is full of them and it's a wonder as a species that we've lasted as long as we have. (And no - a lot of these diseases are not "modern" before anyone makes that sort of comment, plenty of them have descriptions from ancient Greek times and have been found in bones from archaeological digs.)
There are plenty of people just on this site with chronic diseases from asthma, heart problems, or even severe allergies that without care might have died in childhood. So using the argument that it might cause "fatal genes" that will weaken our species is an illogical argument.

As for killing embryos... by that reasoning lots of women are murders too. Something like 1 in 4 pregnancies (or higher) are lost to miscarriage - some already a few months old and much more developed then anything they would use to harvest stem cells from. They're working on different ways to make those though.

We can all agree there's problems with the transplant list, that has nothing to do with the research and technology end - controlled by very very different groups.

And the rest of your post sounds like nonsensical fear mongering... the "they are out to replace us!" parts and such. I suggest you and many others read up on the science behind this, some on genetics, and what the UN and US has already passed concerning it.


emrldsky- your post does raise a valid question. People fear what they do not understand, what is different (look at racism all over the world). I seriously hope they never do decide to grow a cloned fetus to adulthood. There would be serious human rights problems. Would a clone be considered a person? Would they be given the same rights? or would it be an us and them debate that decrees they're worth less? Human nature being what it is, there would certainly be hate directed at the individual from several groups if not the majority of the public. Even those less judgmental view something cloned as inherently wrong.

Reading this almost makes me happy that I'm old and won't have to deal with all the ethical questions it raises.

I'll leave it to the other posters, because you've already done a good job to bring up some of the questions.

The whole thing just gives me a sliding down a slippery slope feeling. This won't be the first time science has carried us along on a wave of hope for wonderful changes before we were ready to deal with the changes in society that it would bring.

It's beyond extremely unlikely that the embryos would be able to develop and survive beyond the stem cell extraction date, even if they were left untouched and implanted into a womb. I consider it about as close to life as the eggs I lose with each period.

The organ donation problem would be nearly solved if it was opt-out not opt-in.

The drs that told you that were insensitive jerks, but it is really hard to get an organ, and current alcoholics/junkies stand no chance of getting an organ... unless they are a famous footballer ... Although I shouldn't speak ill of the dead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4380332.stm

I don't think we can clone a full human yet, the genetic material needed to clone Dolly meant that 3 different sheep were involved- the original dolly, the womb she grew in, and the 'dad'.

Could clones be viewed in the same way as an identical twin? I think you'd be surprised at what people can get used to. Sometimes I feel sad that I'll miss out on so much technology and change after I'm gone, and I'm only 18!

Humankind's genetic genepool is really small anyway, there is less genetic variation across the whole human race than there is in one wolf pack. We're much more susceptible to genetic diseases etc as a result, and don't most families nowadays have a history of heart disease and/or cancer. The number of people with disabilities is increasing too, as improved quality of life means they are more likely to have children, who unfortunately may be carriers for or share their parent's condition.

I'm sorry but I have to point out the contradiction with this statement. A miscarriage can in no way shape or form be compared to this situation. A miscarriage occurs, not because the woman chose to end the life of the fetus, but because of a complication with the pregnancy. Creating embryos and then conciously destroying that embryo is completely different.

But its not as though the embryos are carried by women until the stem cells are extracted, they wouldn't survive anyway. The whole breakthrough was that the embryo developed for long enough (and I think embryo development outside the womb is slower as well) that there were stem cells to be collected. Those embryos have no chance whatsoever of survival from the moment of creation.

Did you get the cyst checked out?
for your sister.

Even so, you can not compare it to a miscarriage. When a woman has a miscarriage it isn't like she got pregnant knowing "hey, this baby is going to miscarry but I am going to do it anyway". I actually have way too much experience with this as two of my aunts and a few other women I know had a few miscarriages before they finally were blessed with children.

Regardless of whether the embryos are implanted in a womb or not, we are still creating them for the purpose of destroying them. I really wasn't saying that I completely disagree with this new "breakthrough" I was just saying that you cannot use the fact that many miscarriages happen each year to justify it because they are not in any way the same thing.

Hmm, what can you compare it to then...
The closest I can come up with is supermarket chicken eggs, that never had a chance to become chickens. But as analogies go, that lacks the human touch.