"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:sl2vl2hbi87eh82a4s4d90irvve00lukd5@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:21:44 -0600, "Steve" <no.one@example.com>
| wrote:
| - Refer: <sXJ7h.54$_n1.14@newsfe04.lga>
| >
| >"Rusty Sites" <SpameYouToo@spamex.com> wrote in message
| >news:12luom648f25h20@news.supernews.com...
| >| Mark Stahl wrote:
| >| > "Rusty Sites" <SpameYouToo@spamex.com> wrote in message
| >| > news:12lths2qcjiqtd0@news.supernews.com...
| >| >> Steve wrote:
| >| >>> | >Why is this on-topic for alt.atheism? It should he titled "OT:
| >Cloning
| >| >>> | >discussion".
| >| >>> |
| >| >>> | In its defence, it is a lot more "on topic" than many of the
posts
| >| >>> | that we get.
| >| >>> | I imagine that those in favour of reproductive cloning are far
more
| >| >>> | likely to be without theism than not!
| >| >>>
| >| >>> save, those who worry about population control and masking
evolution.
| >if
| >| >>> you can't breed, shouldn't that kind of clue you in as to what
defects
| >| >>> you may be passing on even if you could reproduce with such a
| >procedure?
| >| >>
| >| >> So maybe it would be better if only people who could reproduce
normally
| >| >> should be allowed to clone themselves. Maybe there is something to
| >that.
| >| >> If you have "good genes", are robust and have no known genetic
defects,
| >| >> maybe you would rather go with what you have rather than risking
| >picking
| >| >> up some bad genes somewhere. You could have some nasty recessive
genes
| >| >> that are not a problem unless you produce a child with somebody else
| >who
| >| >> also has the same defective gene. Eventually, genetic screening
could
| >| >> solve that problem. There is also the chance that whatever cell
| >contains
| >| >> the genetic material could have picked up some mutations that don't
| >affect
| >| >> it but could be a problem during development.
| >| >
| >| > This is absurd. People with perfectly good genes have accidents,
suffer
| >| > illness, etc., etc., etc. People carrying recessive traits reproduce
| >| > successfully all the time. Under different conditions those traits
could
| >be
| >| > advantageous. Imposing eugenic controls over people is, well,
fascist.
| >| > Literally.
| >| >
| >| >
| >| Who is talking about imposing eugenic controls? The subject is
cloning.
| >
| >plus, when is being able to NOT reproduce advantagous? you mean when
we've
| >occupied too much space for our biosphere's capacity?
|
| When you can nurture your grandchildren.
| It is very advantageous to the future survival of most of your genes.

you've missed the point. without using cloning techniques to enable such
people to produce offspring in the first place, they would not be nurturing
anyone...unless they adopted. in that case, they'd be helping to ensure the
future survival of most of *someone elses'* genes.

the point is, i don't think it's good to compensate, or mask, what evolution
would normally take care. THAT is not advantageous in the long run...for
all, not just a few - which in this case, are the ones wanting to conceive
but can't.

Because the specific issue we were discussing is
Joe Zillionaire deciding to populate the earth with
clones of himself.

You are raising it as an issue. I am saying it is a non-issue.

How do you think cloning is accomplished in mammals?

Why? does that really effect the non-religious issues
that would surround human cloning?

It directly impacts the argument that cloning increases the
likelihood of inbreeding. Cloning is like IVF except that
the embryo has the DNA of one individual rather than a
combination of two.

It's not far fecthed at all. In fact, "inbreeding" was one
of the issues raised when a fertility specialist was
caught repeatedly using his own sperm in place of that
from an "anonymous donor." He may have fathered
as many as 75 children, but we'll never know for sure.

So sperm banks are a more likely source of inbreeding than
cloning.