John Podhoretz asks (iconoclastically, given the venue) what's wrong with reproductive cloning? I don't know, either.

I'm with the 'Pod on this point. I have never seen anything immoral about reproductive cloning any more than IVF or any fertility treatment. The theraputic cloning does give me the heebies though.

Tob

Current technology tends to produce lots of screwed-up clones, that's what's wrong with it.

That's not an argument against cloning per se--it's only an argument against doing it badly.

Current technology tends to produce lots of screwed-up clones, that's what's wrong with it.

True, and that is the ostensible reason behind South Korea's (and several other countries') ban on reproductive cloning. However, natural reproduction is not free of screw-ups, called miscarriages and birth defects. Suppose in a generation or two cloning technology will be perfected to the point it is MORE reliable than natural conception (actually, I am pretty certain it WILL get so perfected). Will then South Korea, or anyone else, outlaw natural conception as too unsafe? I doubt it.

Banning cloning because it is unsafe is an excuse. The real reason is fear of the unknown.

I am surprised that NO ONE has yet asked, "who gets to choose who gets cloned?" Well like every other type of elective surgery the rich and famous go first. And this is elective folks.

Then again, maybe for starters I'd say the likes of Saddam Hussien, Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il would be first in line after western reseachers figure out how to do it safely. And any other ruthless people who control the purse strings of their countries would also be in that line.

The other thing that strikes me odd, is that some of the self same people who want abortion on demand at government cost, also want cloning. So we will abort viable children that could be adopted, and then create children for the rich and influential.

And don't give me that old crap about kids NOT being adopted now. Have you ever seen what its like to try to adopt? People get super top secret clearances easier than they can adopt. THAT ONE I saw for myself, several years ago with a family friend. A Marine Major, got the clearance, no drugs, no booze, no family history of any kind to keep that from getting approved. But the Virginia State Adoption folks couldn't let this man and his wife adopt. If the state of Virginia has stricter guidelines for adoption than the D.o.D has for clearances, then how can people adopt the kids that are out there now.

It all seems odd to me.

I await your ire, ladies and germs.

Then again, maybe for starters I'd say the likes of Saddam Hussien, Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il would be first in line after western reseachers figure out how to do it safely. And any other ruthless people who control the purse strings of their countries would also be in that line.

Humm. I'm a bit unclear why they would do it. The clone is a younger twin - genetically the same, but it wouldn't be the same person, they have to grow up just like anyone else. I suppose there might be a few callous enough to have a clone or two for spare parts, but that has limited utility, and by the time it because feasible there will likely be better options.

At one point, I had a knee-jerk reaction on reproductive cloning, but I've changed my mind. The key issue for me is that I wouldn't want to see children suffer during an extended "perfection" period, or see it be used if there was a large chance for a bad turnout. On the other hand, ONCE PERFECTED, I don't see where it would be far different from other options for people who want to have children.

I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other re: reproductive cloning, though I think it's a stupid way to go. (And far less fun than the normal way.)

But instead of banning cloning in this or any other Western country and thinking that somehow it will apply to the whole world, we'd better start thinking about how our laws may need to be changed if/when there are human clones.

For instance, the clone will have the same DNA as the original, just as identical twins do now. What about fingerprints? Identical twins don't have identical fingerprints, but it seems to me at least likely that a clone - being an exact copy - would have the same fingerprints as the original. What kind of identity and law enforcement problems would that cause, and how will we deal with them? (Besides the obvious of pretending there won't be a problem until after it surfaces in a big way, as our esteemed legislators do now.)

We'd better start thinking about this now, rather than 20 years after human cloning happens.

[b]like every other type of elective surgery the rich and famous go first. And this is elective folks.[/b]

So? The key word is "first". Eventually the price will drop.

[b]Then again, maybe for starters I'd say the likes of Saddam Hussien, Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il would be first in line after western reseachers figure out how to do it safely.[/b]

Not sure about bin Laden, but the likes of Saddam Hussien and Kim Jong Il would be the LAST people to want a clone (other than for spare parts, of course). Throughout history, one person any tyrant usually feared most was his brother -- next in line legitimate ruler. And more than one was done away by his brother -- or less often, son, -- if the dear relative had enough legitimacy in the eyes of population. And you expect a modern dictator to create for himself a replacement whose legitimacy would be a given from the start? Fat chance.

I could see reproductive cloning being used in lieu of adoption for infertile couples that want designer babies. Clones of movie stars or other celebrities, for example.

For instance, the clone will have the same DNA as the original, just as identical twins do now. What about fingerprints? Identical twins don't have identical fingerprints, but it seems to me at least likely that a clone - being an exact copy - would have the same fingerprints as the original.

No, a clone is no more an "exact copy" than an identical twin is. Fingerprints are determined during development--they're not specified by DNA. DNA is a recipe, not a blueprint.

I have no trouble with reproductive cloning itself. But the fact that experiments so far result in a lot of screw ups is means that it currently represents experimentation on human subjects without their consent.

And don't give me that old crap about kids NOT being adopted now. Have you ever seen what its like to try to adopt? People get super top secret clearances easier than they can adopt. THAT ONE I saw for myself, several years ago with a family friend. A Marine Major, got the clearance, no drugs, no booze, no family history of any kind to keep that from getting approved. But the Virginia State Adoption folks couldn't let this man and his wife adopt. If the state of Virginia has stricter guidelines for adoption than the D.o.D has for clearances, then how can people adopt the kids that are out there now.

So children aren't being adopted now. That is still correct. But it's because of bogusly high standards for adoption rather than a lack of people willing to adopt.

It has been pretty much said above, but just to make it perfectly clear: Identical twins are natural clones. You can't expect anything more from a clone than an identical twin. Doing it right is the trick.