Cloning your pet

[akuchi]

Excuse me? Shouldn’t have the "right" to reproduce? You really should have made a better choice of words there. How dare you say people don’t have the "right" to do what nature intended, to reproduce. How dare you say something like that? So we just shouldn’t have sex then? Or all women should be forced to take birth control, or have their tubes tied. Cuz incase you didn’t know abortions are not the safest thing to be doing over and over and over again. I have a co-worker who’s uterus if falling out and falling apart because of an abortion, and that was from the first abortion. So I guess you want everyone to just not have sex or not form a family since not all women can take birth control and it doesn’t work on all women. Or I guess you would just want all the men to have their balls cut off.

Don’t have the "right" to "imprint their genes. You have said some things that were just wrong and ridiculous, but this one takes the cake. If your parents were told that they didn’t have the “right” to imprint their genes then you wouldn’t exist.

Oh god could you get any more strawman seriously

Did I ever say anyone should be forcibly sterilised/forced into an abortion/banned from fucking? No. Get a fucking grip.

Did I even say people should not be allowed to have kids? NO.

Was I, in fact, saying that people who spent tens of thousands on IVF when they could have adopted someone elses child because they are so obsessed with producing a baby that is biologically 'theirs' should perhaps think again about their motivation before continuing to blow their savings? Actually, yes.

I repeat: get a fucking grip.
And actually lexite I'm not biologically related to one of my parents - I happen to think parenting is a hell of a lot more to do with time, love, affection spent on the child than the fact some bloke once decided to donate my mum some sperm - so you're even wrong on that :)

 

[WaterBomb]

Lexite and akuchi - Stop shitting on my thread with your stupid feud. Take it to Private Massages. I'm tired of watching you two use every topic as a platform to harass the other.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

I think that, although wanting to get a lost loved one back is understandable, and certainly worth that money if one can afford it; there are other dogs around and $150,000 could have gone a long way to a good cause.
However, it's not like they were just throwing the money around. Apparently they had to sell something to pay for it.

 

[Syberia]

It's not "getting anything back," as much as it is "making another one." Another one that may look the same, but odds are will not have the same personality. People could fool themselves or others just as easily by getting a similar-looking dog of the same breed.

 

[IcyMan28]

They can spend it how they want, though cloning living things usually involves early death through cancer or something.

I can see where they are coming from though.

 

[Syberia]

They can spend it how they want, though cloning living things usually involves early death through cancer or something.

I'm not a biology major, but the way I've always heard it explained is that your genetic code "degrades" over the course of your life; over time this is what causes most cancers and the like. Since cloning uses your DNA at the moment in time you are cloned, the clone is produced at day one already having your degraded DNA. So while you'd think it's a brand-new you, its DNA has already aged as much as you have.

 

[IcyMan28]

I'm not a biology major, but the way I've always heard it explained is that your genetic code "degrades" over the course of your life; over time this is what causes most cancers and the like. Since cloning uses your DNA at the moment in time you are cloned, the clone is produced at day one already having your degraded DNA. So while you'd think it's a brand-new you, its DNA has already aged as much as you have.

I know this, I was just trying to state in a way that most people would get.

Basically, a one of your cells has its nucleus taken out, and placed into an egg cell that has also had its nucleus taken out. The egg cell is tricked into thinking its been fertilized, and divides using your DNA. The problem is that you DNA has already been subject to mutations and errors, which often result in abnormal development or cancer.

 

[Vidd]

Well thanks Lexite and Syberia for fucking up a thread that could have been somewhat interesting.

Anyway, for something on topic, here's a story about an animal that was brought back from extinction (albeit briefly).
It has interesting implications for the future.

 

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

Umbreon's right, this isn't the place for this discussion I suppose. Besides seems this Lexite chick gets kittens at just about any little thing it would seem.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe this family is really into science? Maybe they're all bio majors from some huge university who are simply at the forefront of cloning technology.

*tries desperately to cling to the topic and spark new discussion that isn't an argument*

 

[Lexite]

Oh god could you get any more strawman seriously

Did I ever say anyone should be forcibly sterilised/forced into an abortion/banned from fucking? No. Get a fucking grip.

Did I even say people should not be allowed to have kids? NO.

Was I, in fact, saying that people who spent tens of thousands on IVF when they could have adopted someone elses child because they are so obsessed with producing a baby that is biologically 'theirs' should perhaps think again about their motivation before continuing to blow their savings? Actually, yes.

I repeat: get a fucking grip.
And actually lexite I'm not biologically related to one of my parents - I happen to think parenting is a hell of a lot more to do with time, love, affection spent on the child than the fact some bloke once decided to donate my mum some sperm - so you're even wrong on that :)

[FONT=&quot]I am not talking about parents as in family, I am talking about your biological parents, and yes you are related to both. Your mom had the right to artificially inseminate herself then. So you think your mom had no right to create you? And whether you agree or not that guy is your biological father.
You are all for women's rights but right now you are saying that women don’t have the "right to imprint their genes", as in carrying a child. Wow, if that isn’t a big contradiction then I don’t know what is, this is why I am not a feminist.

And if you think women don’t have the "right" to have children, how do you exactly propose that this is followed if not through forcing sterilization and abortions? I guess we could just never have sex, but then you are saying women aren’t allowed to have sex. If you fail to see the flaw in your statement still, then you are clueless. By stating that people do not have the right to have children and should just adopt instead you are saying that people should be forced to prevent pregnancy[/FONT]

 

[the Lexx]

I am not talking about parents as in family, I am talking about your biological parents, and yes you are related to both. Your mom had the right to artificially inseminate herself then. So you think your mom had no right to create you? And whether you agree or not that guy is your biological father.
You are all for women's rights but right now you are saying that women don’t have the "right to imprint their genes", as in carrying a child. Wow, if that isn’t a big contradiction then I don’t know what is, this is why I am not a feminist.

Akuchi clearly said in her post that a woman has the right to have children, in vitro or not. Her point was that people should consider adoption, which is not only significantly cheaper but can help a child who already exists.

And if you think women don’t have the "right" to have children, how do you exactly propose that this is followed if not through forcing sterilization and abortions? I guess we could just never have sex, but then you are saying women aren’t allowed to have sex. If you fail to see the flaw in your statement still, then you are clueless. By stating that people do not have the right to have children and should just adopt instead you are saying that people should be forced to prevent pregnancy[/FONT]

Where the hell did this come from? Did you even read her post before you responded?

I honestly don't understand you Lexite, what are you trying to accomplish? You make yourself look retarded and are certainly not drawing anyone to your side.

 

[Syberia]

I don't really think anyone has the 'right' to imprint their genes on the world when there's so many kids who need help, overpopulation and general unpleasantness.

Clear as day to me. May not have been what she intended to say, but it was what she said.

 

[Lexite]

You dont know how to read then, cuz Akuchi said

I don't really think anyone has the 'right' to imprint their genes on the world when there's so many kids who need help, overpopulation and general unpleasantness.

If she doesnt think anyone has the right to imprint their genes, that means women dont have the right to have children. I am not making myself look like an idiot, I am pointing out things people are saying and everyone is denying that those words are being said. You are the one that is not reading.

All I am trying to acomplish is to point out that saying that people not having the right to give birth a child and the right to live is just stupid.

 

[the Lexx]

You're completely missing the point, and are taking everything literally instead of thinking about what it might mean. She was saying it was irresponsible and not the best option, not that they literally should not have the right to do so.

If she doesnt think anyone has the right to imprint their genes, that means women dont have the right to have children.

That's a pretty dumb argument, and taken out of context.

Clear as day to me. May not have been what she intended to say, but it was what she said.

Because taking everything literally and not thinking about it first is so much fun!

 

[Lexite]

Hhjj does have a good point. They arent morning the loss of the dog, they are trying to quickly replace it with somehting that isnt going to be the same thing. That dog is going to die in a short amount of time and that dog isnt going to have the same personality at all. Sadly they are too blinded by their "great idea" to realize that this is set up to fail and fail hard.

 

[Synre]

I deleted a lot of really bad posts in this thread and left a few questionable ones. This is Congregation - not Firebot. Debate the issue, not other users. This is not a flame war, this is not a personal battle, you're in a serious forum discussing an issue like civilized adults. Thanks.




I should probably have just closed this because I deleted what was literally about half the thread and most of what is left is not that good but this is a real issue here that I know people probably have some intelligent opinions on - let's get back to the topic at hand. I'm a little skeptical about the comparison that shows up through much of this thread comparing human babies being adopted to dogs in the pound, being adopted myself, and it is off the main point - I find it really unlikely someone who is going to clone their dog to begin with is the type of person who would be getting dogs out of the pound anyway, but that is another issue for another day, I suppose.

I think 'disgusted', as used in the OP, is a little over the line but I agree witht he basic sentiment... there are so many better ways to spend 150k. This is not being able to let go at its finest, and while it is probably good for science for there to be some demand here there's so much more you could do with that kind of cash... I find it a little alarming with the economy in the state it is in that people are dropping this much cash on a luxury item, living or not, that they could be getting almost for free, even from a breeder by comparison, or from a pound and doing some other creature a favor. A little sad.

 

[TorchicBlaziken]

These people are sick...

Aside from the fact that this dog will not live as long as the old one, so it'll just die again, but sooner...

This dog is a genetic copy, not "Lancelot." Lancelot is the name of a certain soul, not a clone. The same genes, the same name, that's all they have in common. The new Lancelot will not remember them. And it probably won't have enough time to get to know them.

And rather than spending a whole bunch of money on something shady and unethical, they could have bought another dog and got along fine. They could have used that money to find a cure for AIDS! Heck, they have so many pets, they didn't even NEED to get another dog!

He should have thought it over more, because not only is it economically bad, it's ethically bad too! He spent so much money...just to see his pet again. If he wanted that he could have put the corpse in a trophy case.

If they have kids, they'll either have to keep it a secret (which they wouldn't be able to keep for long) or tell them that cloning your best friend is OK. That's like telling the next generation, "Nuclear bombs solve all your problems! So when in doubt, nuke everyone!" Soon they'll start cloning humans, and then they'll get a little thing I call LSECC or Low Self-Esteem Clone Complex and take over the world!

And I find it blasphemous to say "Thank God" for a clone.

I agree with polis4rule, Xia, and cookie.

And if they DO clone humans, you can't count on them being treated like normal people (If you read Naruto you'll know what I'm talking about)

 

[Raverist]

tl;dnfwasdr

let's get back to the topic at hand. I'm a little skeptical about the comparison that shows up through much of this thread comparing human babies being adopted to dogs in the pound, being adopted myself, and it is off the main point - I find it really unlikely someone who is going to clone their dog to begin with is the type of person who would be getting dogs out of the pound anyway, but that is another issue for another day, I suppose.

I think 'disgusted', as used in the OP, is a little over the line but I agree witht he basic sentiment... there are so many better ways to spend 150k. This is not being able to let go at its finest, and while it is probably good for science for there to be some demand here there's so much more you could do with that kind of cash... I find it a little alarming with the economy in the state it is in that people are dropping this much cash on a luxury item, living or not, that they could be getting almost for free, even from a breeder by comparison, or from a pound and doing some other creature a favor. A little sad.

So, basically, I see here that we may not show extreme emotional distress to the folly of humanity.

Sadly, people's opinions are their own, and as a result, one should not try and assert authority over a small opinion, and seek to bemoan and chastise flame wars.

Now that that's off my chest, I'll add my opinion that won't be taken for trolling by some people.

As is the controversy of cloning, I find it intolerable that these people doing the cloning actually got some 'profit' off the act. Life, no matter whether it is human or animal or even bacterial, is created through a natural process. Trying to create life from the dregs of the deceased is akin to raiding a cemetery for body parts and blasting the sewn up parts together with a few lightning bolts of energy to create Frankenstein; No matter what the situation is through genetic replication of stem cells.

That a family who has access to that amount of money, they could have easily donated a chunk of it to the cloning company to research further into the human genome and help further the creation of 'artificial' donor organs for terminally ill people, instead of becoming one of the first people to do the unthinkable and use something so sacred and precious to human medicine as a bloody business deal. I'm appalled at the sort of thing people can do, and as stated before by our good old friend Teifu(plus), they could have easily obtained another dog, natural life, from a breeder or kennel, rather than paying an extortionate fee to have their old pet cloned into a new one that will doubtlessly last less time than the previous one, due to our incomplete knowledge of cloning and whatnot.

It is this sort of thing that makes me worry about what the future for our children will be like: Will we have ourselves a bright, happy future where we all mourn the loss of a friend before telling ourselves that we need to move on with the memories of a good time in our minds, or are we going to wake up to the sound of the real-life GTS cloning glitch?

 

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

I think a lot of people are exaggerating the consequences of this dog's successful cloning. There were several kind of arguments made that I will address separately. I implore everyone to read them since I'm generalizing and would be speaking to quite a large number.

Argument from Fiscal Responsibility

Yes, these people could have spent their money on something else. Perhaps something you would've felt would be more cost efficient and have a larger positive effect on society.

But before you do this, are you just as fiscally selfless? What did you eat for dinner over the course of last month? What did you purchase? How about last year, would you say a good chunk (roughly 30% at least) of your paycheck was willingly donated to a Human Rights service like Feed the Children, a Cancer Research Fund, or simply providing shelter for the homeless?

I think we all may find that most of us aren't exactly giving it our best to lend our money to others, yet we don't condemn each other. Rather in this thread I've seen people condemn this couple and make scrupulous assumptions about their spending habits(how do we know this couple hasn't hosted fundraising events before or donated?). Is it because of the large chunk they spent? Because I am quite confident that among us the money we wasted on luxuries far exceeds $150,000. Or is it because of the goal? (Creating a genetic twin of a loved one).

The latter I would say is the more sensible reason for disagreement, arguments about money that should've been better spent isn't a good one since everyone seems to have a different line between "worthy" and "unworthy". And then of course,there is the viable argument that while a small amount for each individual, collectively we've "wasted" more.

Argument from Sanctity

I can't really disprove this argument or say it is wrong, everyone has their own moral compass and beliefs on what actions simply should not be done and are clearly "wrong".

Still I find arguments like "They violated life!" or "This is blasphemy!" to be just noise. It's just an appeal to ones own morals and less rooted in the physical world or sociology.

Now to address the specifics:

Lancelot is the name of a certain soul, not a clone.

I agree, this isn't the same dog. It would be incredibly hard to make him behave the same too, since this dog can't have the same experience as the previous one. If that is what you meant by referring to the soul, the unique behavior and memory of the animal.

Otherwise, if you wouldn't mind could you tell me what faith you follow? I'm under the impression that most mainstream faiths believe that animals don't have souls (as in an eternal essence that will exist in the afterlife)

If they have kids, they'll either have to keep it a secret (which they wouldn't be able to keep for long) or tell them that cloning your best friend is OK. That's like telling the next generation, "Nuclear bombs solve all your problems! So when in doubt, nuke everyone!" Soon they'll start cloning humans, and then they'll get a little thing I call LSECC or Low Self-Esteem Clone Complex and take over the world!

I don't think telling your children "It is okay to get a new pet or replace one" is at all the same as telling your children mass nuclear genocide is alright. o.o As for the rest of your post, Metal Gear?!?!!!

Extreme analogy and completely inappropriate.

Really cloning a pet is a natural extension of getting a new one to replace one that died, as long as a person loves and remembered the old one and also loved the new one I don't see how whether the replacement of the new one matters. You would still acknowledge the old one's existence and are just now caring and loving its twin/son.

Will we have ourselves a bright, happy future where we all mourn the loss of a friend before telling ourselves that we need to move on with the memories of a good time in our minds, or are we going to wake up to the sound of the real-life GTS cloning glitch?

I don't think we ever have to worry about that happening, everyone in the world wants to keep their uniqueness. If the technology does arrive where we can duplicate people, without a doubt it would be forbidden. Even with memory placement for spiritual reasons people wouldn't think of the copy as being the original brought back in a new body. At least hopefully.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

I don't think telling your children "It is okay to get a new pet or replace one" is at all the same as telling your children mass nuclear genocide is alright. o.o

Well, that's just it. "It is okay to get a new pet or replace one" is just fine, but "It is okay to scientifically get your old pet back" is a different matter.
Still, I don't really have a side on this debate. Mikazukinoyaiba, Raverist, and TorchicBlaziken have all put forth really good arguments. I think this is the kind of matter that will forever be controversial.

Will we have ourselves a bright, happy future where we all mourn the loss of a friend before telling ourselves that we need to move on with the memories of a good time in our minds, or are we going to wake up to the sound of the real-life GTS cloning glitch?

This made me think of George Orwell's 1984 for some reason... >_>

 

[REQUIRED FIELD]

So you dont care if a country follows and respects basic human rights. Ok, so you think it is fine that china forces people to only have one child and if they family has a second they have to abort the second. Or if the family has a girl first, you don’t care that that family just tosses the baby in the trash can?

going to make my post for the year and go back to lurking

way to fail at knowing about other cultures, china is hugely overpopulated and thus the government made a law that any family with more than one child has to pay a fine. the fine is too high for most of china (EG: poor people) to pay, thus they only ever have one child

 

[Xia]

Woah... all of a sudden we went from talking about a dog to discussing the Chinese culture? Flames took this entire thread and twisted it. >.<

 

[tdub13]

I'm not a biology major, but the way I've always heard it explained is that your genetic code "degrades" over the course of your life; over time this is what causes most cancers and the like. Since cloning uses your DNA at the moment in time you are cloned, the clone is produced at day one already having your degraded DNA. So while you'd think it's a brand-new you, its DNA has already aged as much as you have.

Actually I just saw a movie in Biology regarding cloning pets and people, so I'll try to elaborate a bit.

Let's say a dog lives about 14 years, but the owners want to clone it and have the same pet. So they clone the dog when it's 7 years old already.

But the problem is, the created dog will have the same genes and DNA as the cloned dog at age 7, meaning the created dog will only live 7 years old.

 

[MagneZoneIsAPunk]

yes they are helping science but i think $150,000 would have helped science a more i dont really care but it is a little selfish

EDIT : i read further down and this almost made me sick Sitting on 12 acres in Boca Raton, the Ottos have nine dogs, four birds, ten cats, six sheep and now little Lancy. ... they already had nine more dogs they also had a hell of a load more animals why the hell waste 150G to add one more animal to the already outrageous amount they already have