On Human Cloning

[Anacoluthon64]

This site is an island of sanity amidst a sea of hysteria and knee-jerk on the emotionally laden topic of (human) cloning.  The discussion of common myths is especially useful.

'Luthon64

[bluegray V]

Interesting site, thanks.
I must say, I will be very intrigued but at the same time feel very uncomfortable with a clone of myself. But of course it's not much different from having a twin brother or sister.
http://www.humancloning.org/books/posts/6.html

There's a few thing on that site that I feel a little uncomfortable about though. The idea that people that can't have children could clone themselves and essentially have a later born twin as a child, sounds to me a little extreme. I can understand cloning an egg or sperm from a couple if that could help them have a child.

That said, do we really need more people in this world?!

[Anacoluthon64]

That said, do we really need more people in this world?!

Well, that's a rather different question.

The irony is that the uninformed multitudes (at whom the site is probably aimed) who would vociferously denounce human cloning as "immoral" are generally the same lot who would loudly decry abortion and, to a lesser degree, contraception.  The question arises then, after the myths have been exposed, on what ethical basis can the "immorality" of human cloning be said to outweigh the "moral imperative of right to life."  After all, abortion, contraception and cloning are all products of human technology.  It is, therefore, likely to be very illuminating to investigate the psychology of why we should feel uncomfortable when confronted with these ideas.

'Luthon64

[bluegray V]

It is, therefore, likely to be very illuminating to investigate the psychology of why we should feel uncomfortable when confronted with these ideas.

I agree. For me personally, the idea of raising a clone of me (or of anyone for that matter) as my child, makes me feel uneasy. I can't put my finger on why though. I suppose it is just because it is not natural. But more and more "unnatural" ideas become quite natural in the modern world.

Also, I for one still think of a clone as more or less a replica of someone. Which could also be regarded as taking away something that is unique about a person. But as pointed out, a clone could never be an exact replica, and this fear is therefore unfounded.

[Anacoluthon64]

Also, I for one still think of a clone as more or less a replica of someone. Which could also be regarded as taking away something that is unique about a person. But as pointed out, a clone could never be an exact replica, and this fear is therefore unfounded.

Yes, that's mostly in line with my idle speculations on the matter: the thought that someone else could make one's doppelgänger is disturbing.  It suggests that one's uniqueness can perhaps be threatened.  It also suggests that the visual dimension is a primary factor because the thought of a "clone" who only thinks, but does not look, as I do is, at least to me, somewhat less disturbing than the converse.

On the other hand, identical twins seem unperturbed by all of this, perhaps because they usually grow up together and are therefore totally at ease with a complete and living likeness of themselves.

But I'm only guessing here.

'Luthon64