DC Cookie: Controversy Thursday: Copy Cat

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Controversy Thursday: Copy Cat

Remind me again what the heck the big deal is over stem cell research? Cloning human cells could lead to cloning human organs which could lead to cloning humans...the horror! However, imagine a world full of DC Cookie clones. I can't fathom there is any god who would deny ownership of such a population.

And on the 6 billionth day, the Cookie clones restored equilibrium and serenity to Eden... (but on the 7 billionth day, god was not resting; his Cookies had him on the center of a dance floor with a V&T).

19 Comments:

At July 13, 2006 1:33 AM, Raincouver said…

I believe that one of the controversies would be on how far to go with the cloning, and who owns the rights to the organs.

I am not against it, but until the technology is mature, I look forward to cloning my self the "old-fashioned way", if you get my drift.
At July 13, 2006 1:49 AM, O-FACE said…

You are heathens if you support stem cell or cloning. May your souls burn in the bowels of hell with Flavor Flav as your life partner..............

P.S.--I really don't know enough to make a educated comment, but you probably can already tell that by this and previous comments....Oh dam Israel just bombed Lebanon's airport.....WW III kids...dig those bomb shelters..
At July 13, 2006 6:42 AM, DC Cookie said…

Clearly, by the way I wrote the post, I don't know much about the technology either ;-)
At July 13, 2006 9:14 AM, Phil said…

Cloning is bad...m'kay?
At July 13, 2006 10:03 AM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

Are you asking about cloning or stem cell research? They are pretty much two different issues, though slightly related I suppose. The controversy over stem cell research stems (no pun intended) from the fact that they use human embryos in many cases to do the research. And of course the religious right thinks those are babies and so using them for science is just wrong. So they'd rather real humans continue to die of degenerative diseases that stem cell research may later assist in curing. Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc. etc.

Cloning is a whole other issue, which pisses the religious right off because mankind has figured out how to "play god". As if creating life was ever difficult for humans. We do it everyday. Just not usually in a lab. I personally don't want a clone of myself, though I do believe that a clone of myself, I like being unique. But do they not realize that identical twins are genetically identical? Yet I don't think they walk around thinking they are the same person. The only issue I have with cloning is it isn't perfect and I don't think cloning a human unless you know you can succeed is something we should be doing. To create a life that could be sick or handicapped or suffer for the sake of science is a bit disturbing.
At July 13, 2006 10:48 AM, Brian said…

The religious argument against embryonic stem cell research is the same as the argument against abortion: it requires destroying a fertilized embryo, which is, in spiritual terms, a human life. The religious right would no more "rather see real humans die" than those who support abortion rights want to see as many abortions performed as possible and have them on display for all to see. To the religious, destroying life is wrong, period. You won't hear much complaint about research involving adult stem cells, since that doesn't require the same gathering methods. It's the baby thing.

I think the cloning issue is a whole lot more complicated, and I don't have nearly enough of a handle on it to be very articulate. But it makes me uncomfortable (the notion of human cloning, as opposed to the growth of organs). I guess I see human cloning as only being a step or two away from customizable people, and there are a host of ethical/philosophical problems there (master race, anyone?). But I'm not sure how cloning, in and of itself, is necessarily different from test-tube babies.
At July 13, 2006 12:29 PM, Anonymous said…

Movies such as Gattica and The Island is about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

Those wascally Christians... always standing in the way of progress for the sake of a so-called belief system. How dare they! If only we could *all* be athiest, life would be so much better.
At July 13, 2006 12:36 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

The religious right doesn't want to destroy human lives, but yet they overwhelmingly support the death penalty. It's okay to play God as long as its by their own rules.

And if the religious right refuses to allow stem cell research which could likely cure those diseases, it isn't false to say they'd rather let people die of those diseases than sacrifice human embryos. That's exactly what they are doing. That's not to say they WANT those people to die, but they are no willing to sacrifice what they deem another life for the sake of saving someone. Personally if it were me, I don't associate my existence on the same level as a 3 week old embryo. Period. To say I should suffer and die to save what is nothing more than a collection of cells is, in my opinion, crap.

Cloning cannot be "customizing" people since you're copying an already existing person's genetic makeup. If you altered it, they wouldn't be a clone. You're not customizing anything. You're speaking of genetic manipulation, which again, is different and is already being used to cure hereditary disorders/diseases. It's all related but the issues involving them are different.

Cloning is different than test tube babies because it makes a genetic copy of someone who already exists. It's a person who's genetic makeup is based solely on one person, with whom they are an exact match. Test tube babies are simply creating a baby outside the womb using sperm and an egg. It's no different than normal reproduction except it happens in a dish and not a uterus. There are worlds of difference between the cloning and test tube babies.
At July 13, 2006 12:37 PM, Anonymous said…

)ha! I love the idea of Cookie Clones restoring serenity to the world. Could this be Brave New World (In Cookie's Jar)? What would Huxley's beginning paragraph be? (Poutine Rap is not forgotten - will be sent to you, as soon as I can locate it). P.s. Your Cookie is even better than a bag of Humpty Dumpty Chips.
See URL: http://www.canadianfavourites.com/store/chipssnac.html
At July 13, 2006 12:38 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

And there are plenty of Christians who support stem cell research to cure disease and illness because they actually understand the science behind it.
At July 13, 2006 1:46 PM, Brian said…

CB - the death penalty thing is different. The hows and whys are a bit long to get into here (plus, I don't entirely understand/agree with them as it is), but I've been around that tree with a few friends several times; it has to do with what in the Bible is supposed to be directed at individuals vs. governments. Long story, another Thursday perhaps.

The key thing in your point about embryos is "in my opinion." I largely agree with you, but to someone who believes that life begins at conception/fertilization, it isn't just a bunch of cells. It's a person, just like mom/sis/your kids. So if you're willing to put a fertilized embryo to "death" to further science, then you should be equally willing to put mom down, too. Again, it's not a view I necessarily support, but I understand it.

Cloning is not customizing people, per se, but I was saying it's just a couple steps away. Combine cloning technology with genetic modification, and you get customized people. We already have genetic tests for Downe's, so what's to stop someone from cloning a Downe's kid, but taking that gene out in the process? I was just saying that, to me, it's not far away; I wasn't equating them.

Cloning and test tube babies are both reproduction outside the womb, the difference is only in what you're reproducing. That was my point. You made the reference to identical twins yourself, so genetic copies can't be all bad. It's a matter of philosophy (besides, the reproduction involves fewer total cells than a 3-week old embryo, so what's the big deal?). The nature of identity gets a little more cloudy if you clone someone. Other than that, both the clone and the tube baby are people.

Understanding the science behind any of this is beside the point, from a religious perspective. Some people take a more liberal interpretation of their faith, and some don't. I'm sure even conservative Christians would say that it isn't the stem cell part that bothers them, it's the embryonic part. Use all the adult stem cells you want, just don't kill babies to do it.

All in all, I agree with you on most of this; I just thought you were oversimplifying the counterarguments, reducing them to crazed fanatical ranting. Not that some of them aren't crazy, but still...
At July 13, 2006 2:09 PM, Anonymous said…

Mam'zelle Cookie:

Have you had a chance to read this: Kinsley's article about the stem cell debate?

http://www.slate.com/id/2145168/

*shrug*

- an anon. e. mouse
At July 13, 2006 4:53 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

But that is exactly the point. In my opinion versus their opinion. So why should their opinion rank higher than mine? Because I'm an "atheist" (which by the way is not true, but was referenced earlier)? If the only argument one can make about why stem cell research is immoral is based on faith and not based in science, how can the law follow that and not be unconstitutional? The very fact Roe v. Wade is upheld shows that our law does not see an unborn fetus, much less a 3 week old embryo as a separate entity from the mother carrying it. And in the cases of the embryos used for research, these are discarded embryos. In vitro fertilization results in discarded embryos all the time. Its just unfathomable that anyone thinks a 3 week old embryo that will undoubtedly be discarded is a human being. I understand people think that, but how is that my problem. In any case, less religiously driven nations will undoubtedly advance this research so just because the US may outlaw it does not mean it isn't the future.

While cloning and test tube babies are both methods of reproduction, they are not the same thing. That is all I was saying.

I have issues with cloning, as I said, but not rooted in a belief it is immoral but in one that worries it is dangerous. And only because we cannot guarantee that clones will be free from harm. Other than the fact that it's simply unnecessary to clone another human. Organs? That's useful. Cells? Useful. Why does someone need to create a copy of someone who exists already? And with genetic modification, you don't need to clone a person with Down's and then remove the "gene" (which isn't exactly what causes Down's but I get what you're saying) that causes it. Why would you even do that if you can take make the modification prior to birth of a child with Down's anyway and prevent it in the first place? Which you can't as of yet, but that's the point of such research is to try to make that a possiblity. And how on earth is that a bad thing? Who cares if you can special order your own kid? You sort of do that when you choose your mate because you're choosing someone who will contribute 50% of the genetic makeup of that child? My only issue is the safety behind such tampering. Frankly, I'd want my kid to look relatively like me, but I'd certainly not want my kid to inherit a genetic defect if I could prevent it.

I guess from a spiritual perspective, to "tamper" with nature is an absurd theory to me since we are part of nature itself. How do we know it isn't our destiny to be able to improve our own lives (I know this is touching on the singularity theory mentioned earlier)? I have to believe we cannot fear science in fear that it will reveal a godless world. There's no reason why the two cannot coexist. God created man and clearly we have the potential to improve our own lives, how do we know that isn't a gift? I just don't think someone's religious beliefs should prevent advancements that are clearly amazing in preventing illness and death.
At July 13, 2006 5:17 PM, Brian said…

CB - I gotcha, and like I said, I agree with you for the most part.

All I know is, given an infinite number of cloned Flavor Flavs at an infinite number of turntables, one will eventually remix "911 is a joke."
At July 13, 2006 7:41 PM, Jinxy said…

Four lengthy comments from Carrie on one post?!

Seriously, do you have a job?

Religious and right-wing, but not "The Religious Right".
At July 13, 2006 8:23 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

Off today. Don't hate.
At July 14, 2006 8:10 AM, DC Cookie said…

I love how I barely have to write anything on Thursdays. I pretty much just throw a topic onto my blog and let you guys go at it...
At July 14, 2006 6:00 PM, VP of Dior said…

clearly the world could not handle clones of me and the "girls."
At July 16, 2006 4:16 PM, Anonymous said…

I was having trouble getting past the idea of 20 million cookie clones running around. I thought I might've been in heaven there for a minute!

After struggling to get through that vision, I think Carrie should be cloned a few times, too. :)

I side with CB on this one, esp when it comes down to whether or not the cells are "human."