When We Finally Get Around To Completely Cloning Humans, Should Clones Have The Same Rights As The Original, Or Should

[Aoidh]

they be the property of whomever clones them, with only basic rights? Such as, if I get some from Michael Jackson's body, and create a copy of MJ, should I be able to pimp him out for concerts and collect the proceeds? Or, couple I make a bunch of Farrah Fawcett clones and open a brothel and collect the money?

[Edsel]

The human species is not ready for cloning.
We must advance way beyond our current level of character. Just as a good percentage of humans should not procreate we should not be allowed to give birth without the 9 months of agony and preparation.   Our process has the female doing most of the work and mothers tend to be more responsible than the males. Your scenario suggest an immediate violation of the clone and this is probably what would transpire.   We tend to be egocentric, greedy and when we think we can escape discovery, abusive. Maybe in 100 years or so we might advance enough to possess the character to properly deal with a copy of ourselves.   The idea of a deity making a human and then, on a whim, killing a bunch of them is horrible enough but if you want to see genuine carnage just allow average humans to have clones.   We have demonstrated, ad infinitum, our inability to responsibly procreate how would we ever qualify for the responsibility to hasten the process by assuming the place of a petulant deity?   We are not ready.   To answer, the clone must have all the rights of the DNA provider and this includes equal ownership of all possessions. The DNA provider will NOT be an owner. The DNA provider must provide all facilities equal to his/her own. The DNA provider will not be allowed to copulate with his/her clone. Essentially the responsibility of such a venture is far out of reach of the average person.   The only exception might be a parent, near death, to allow a healthy clone, if possible, to take that person?s place in the family and assume their responsibilities for child rearing, income, and protection. Sources: rednecksputter, Phill-oss-a-fur, read some, been places skep 55 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Meinhard]

So if the fetus doesn't get a choice nor protection, why would the clone? If you think about it, the clone biologically is quite analogous to the fetus.  

[arrigo]

We have decided some decades ago that the soon-to-be humans have not ANY civil rights whatsoever. So if the fetus doesn't get a choice nor protection, why would the clone? If you think about it, the clone biologically is quite analogous to the fetus.   danielpauldavis 55 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Chalmer]

Babalooga65 said: 2 You should watch "The Island" with Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor.The lead characters live in a compound and are made to eat super healthy foods-- they are brought up being told that there has been like.. a nuclear holocaust and the only place untouched is an Island, so every now and then, people win a lottery to go to the island.Turns out, these people who live in the compound are clones of people in the real world and are grown to harvest organs and such(for example: one of the "Lottery winners" is a man who's "owner" is a football player who injured himself, and now needs his clone to be harvested.) It's a Micahel Bay film, so there's lots of explosions, and it's not going to win any awards for humnitarianism or depth, but it's still entertaining.I don't think we should clone PEOPLE. if we need to clone for body parts, haven't they already figured out how to do that? didn;t they grow an ear on a mouse's back? what would be the purpose of cloning someone? I think if we DO end up cloning people(i'm sure we'll get around to it, if it hasn't already been done in secret) --i think the clone should have the same rights as a regular human.... if they have owners, and people like you want to pimp them out(because that is exactly what you'd be doing if you forced them to work for your own personal profit without doing any of the work yourself) that would be the same as slavery wouldn't it? 55 months ago

[Keith]

You should watch "The Island" with Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor.The lead characters live in a compound and are made to eat super healthy foods-- they are brought up being told that there has been like.. a nuclear holocaust and the only place untouched is an Island, so every now and then, people win a lottery to go to the island.Turns out, these people who live in the compound are clones of people in the real world and are grown to harvest organs and such(for example: one of the "Lottery winners" is a man who's "owner" is a football player who injured himself, and now needs his clone to be harvested.) It's a Micahel Bay film, so there's lots of explosions, and it's not going to win any awards for humnitarianism or depth, but it's still entertaining.I don't think we should clone PEOPLE. if we need to clone for body parts, haven't they already figured out how to do that? didn;t they grow an ear on a mouse's back? what would be the purpose of cloning someone? I think if we DO end up cloning people(i'm sure we'll get around to it, if it hasn't already been done in secret) --i think the clone should have the same rights as a regular human.... if they have owners, and people like you want to pimp them out(because that is exactly what you'd be doing if you forced them to work for your own personal profit without doing any of the work yourself) that would be the same as slavery wouldn't it?

[Parkinson]

We must advance way beyond our current level of character. Just as a good percentage of humans should not procreate we should not be allowed to give birth without the 9 months of agony and preparation.   Our process has the female doing most of the work and mothers tend to be more responsible than the males. Your scenario suggest an immediate violation of the clone and this is probably what would transpire.   We tend to be egocentric, greedy and when we think we can escape discovery, abusive. Maybe in 100 years or so we might advance enough to possess the character to properly deal with a copy of ourselves.   The idea of a deity making a human and then, on a whim, killing a bunch of them is horrible enough but if you want to see genuine carnage just allow average humans to have clones.   We have demonstrated, ad infinitum, our inability to responsibly procreate how would we ever qualify for the responsibility to hasten the process by assuming the place of a petulant deity?   We are not ready.   To answer, the clone must have all the rights of the DNA provider and this includes equal ownership of all possessions. The DNA provider will NOT be an owner. The DNA provider must provide all facilities equal to his/her own. The DNA provider will not be allowed to copulate with his/her clone. Essentially the responsibility of such a venture is far out of reach of the average person.   The only exception might be a parent, near death, to allow a healthy clone, if possible, to take that person?s place in the family and assume their responsibilities for child rearing, income, and protection.

[Taylan]

I thought you were a socialist.That being the case, I would think you would endorse the idea of the clones being the property of the state(just like everyone else).

[Manolo]

... and i'll consider thinking about someone else's owning property rights in that cloned being's talents or labor.  Until then, i judge that the clone must be treated as a full-status, independent human being.  I wonder which organized religions will argue that s/he doesn't have a soul?

[Iason]

YoBob said: 1 I thought you were a socialist.That being the case, I would think you would endorse the idea of the clones being the property of the state(just like everyone else). 55 months ago