Here comes Dagon with his usual fecal opinion drop:
Cloning is (as Frankenstein said I think) not the same individual. Even Frankenstein's monster was a composite of parts and had a new personality perhaps than any particular individual, except in the Sean Bean version where he seemed to still retain the prior personality and mind of the Sean Bean character after being Frankenfried.
Anyway, clones are, like I think maybe Frankenstein said, at best twin-like and not the same individual at all, not sharing their original brain or memories or if there is any sort of "soul" not likely to be sharing that either.
The original "person" of that dog is dead and gone, and even one's memories of that individual are not likely to be considered the actual individual by most standards.
That being said, if one does make a clone, that clone only has the appearance and genetic material repeated or whatever, but is a different person and should be treated as a different person.
Should people make designer animals, even designer babies? Yes, why not? I can not find any reason not to "mess with nature", eradicate diseases, reduce elements of "chance" or accidents, deformities, and what not. It is a person you are making, and you are making the image of this person, just like giving them a name, they also didn't really apparently who they chose as their parents, and if it is said they really did choose them, then it can be argued they eithet chose poorly or chose knowing and somehow fully informed that their parents would genetically modify them to look a certain way. The results may be even better than the "art" of "nature" left to "chance" which has led to many apparent unfortunate results.
So what exactly is happening in the article that I didn't even read? What I guess is happening is that people are getting a dog bred that looks like their former dog, its a new dog, it looks like the other dog they used to have, sort of like how lots of dogs look the same or similar to each other and even some people from all around the world.
This may start happening with human babies (and probably has, lots of times, all over the world), and what the result of it is, is more new peoplr who look like other people.
So, I don't see the problem really. I think people should interfere with genes and genetics to eradicate disease at least, and if they can help people to be stronger, healthier, happier, maybe it won't be so bad in comparison to what "nature" has done or what "cruder genetic manipulation techniques" have produced in certain breeds of dogs which are widely accepted and re-produced, who have trouble breathing, eating, living, walking, but aww how cute, look at him waddle over. Surely that dog might have enjoyed long legs that could help it not struggle as much, but then again, maybe looking unfortunate has gotten that dog a better life in the lap of luxury for a few years.
So, what argument can really be made that people should not breed appearances they want? People also choose their mates and sexual partners sometimes with some thought or hope regarding the possible appearance of their children to be something they hope they might like and love, they were attracted to people (hopefully) that they didn't mind looking at either.
In the article I scarcely read, it just appeared that the Rodriguez person was more than likely some kind of idiot who was insisting that this new dog was somehow their old dog? I don't know, I just guessed since I didn't read it and assumed they were probably some kind of exhibitionist imbecile or whatever who doesn't think much and doesn't seem to realize that the two dogs are not the same person and one is no longer alive and this one is a new dog that looks the same or similar.
I'm almost glad I didn't read the article, because even this one I'm inventing through guesses is pissing me off.
Can someone explain to me what is wrong about making a baby or a person appear a certain way or increasing the chances they appear a certain way before they are born and how that doesn't already basically occur in at least some haphazard fashion?
Cloning is (as Frankenstein said I think) not the same individual. Even Frankenstein's monster was a composite of parts and had a new personality perhaps than any particular individual, except in the Sean Bean version where he seemed to still retain the prior personality and mind of the Sean Bean character after being Frankenfried.
Anyway, clones are, like I think maybe Frankenstein said, at best twin-like and not the same individual at all, not sharing their original brain or memories or if there is any sort of "soul" not likely to be sharing that either.
The original "person" of that dog is dead and gone, and even one's memories of that individual are not likely to be considered the actual individual by most standards.
That being said, if one does make a clone, that clone only has the appearance and genetic material repeated or whatever, but is a different person and should be treated as a different person.
Should people make designer animals, even designer babies? Yes, why not? I can not find any reason not to "mess with nature", eradicate diseases, reduce elements of "chance" or accidents, deformities, and what not. It is a person you are making, and you are making the image of this person, just like giving them a name, they also didn't really apparently who they chose as their parents, and if it is said they really did choose them, then it can be argued they eithet chose poorly or chose knowing and somehow fully informed that their parents would genetically modify them to look a certain way. The results may be even better than the "art" of "nature" left to "chance" which has led to many apparent unfortunate results.
So what exactly is happening in the article that I didn't even read? What I guess is happening is that people are getting a dog bred that looks like their former dog, its a new dog, it looks like the other dog they used to have, sort of like how lots of dogs look the same or similar to each other and even some people from all around the world.
This may start happening with human babies (and probably has, lots of times, all over the world), and what the result of it is, is more new peoplr who look like other people.
So, I don't see the problem really. I think people should interfere with genes and genetics to eradicate disease at least, and if they can help people to be stronger, healthier, happier, maybe it won't be so bad in comparison to what "nature" has done or what "cruder genetic manipulation techniques" have produced in certain breeds of dogs which are widely accepted and re-produced, who have trouble breathing, eating, living, walking, but aww how cute, look at him waddle over. Surely that dog might have enjoyed long legs that could help it not struggle as much, but then again, maybe looking unfortunate has gotten that dog a better life in the lap of luxury for a few years.
So, what argument can really be made that people should not breed appearances they want? People also choose their mates and sexual partners sometimes with some thought or hope regarding the possible appearance of their children to be something they hope they might like and love, they were attracted to people (hopefully) that they didn't mind looking at either.
In the article I scarcely read, it just appeared that the Rodriguez person was more than likely some kind of idiot who was insisting that this new dog was somehow their old dog? I don't know, I just guessed since I didn't read it and assumed they were probably some kind of exhibitionist imbecile or whatever who doesn't think much and doesn't seem to realize that the two dogs are not the same person and one is no longer alive and this one is a new dog that looks the same or similar.
I'm almost glad I didn't read the article, because even this one I'm inventing through guesses is pissing me off.
Can someone explain to me what is wrong about making a baby or a person appear a certain way or increasing the chances they appear a certain way before they are born and how that doesn't already basically occur in at least some haphazard fashion?
