QUOTE(Popogeejo @ Feb 15 2007, 10:39 PM) [snapback]505471[/snapback]
It's a minimal risk and people have taken bigger risks for science before.
Who will be so stupid willingly let herself to contract uterus cancer...
Your point being?
Take how you are born against how they are born... easy as that...
You've lost me here. The clones I described would be "born" but not alive in the traditional sense. It sounds stupid but it's possible.
I got it... Same concept with KFC's chickens long long [10-12 years ago] time ago...They grow chickens without heads, feathers and feets... and yet the chickens grows day by day...
What the hell are you talking about? A cure for what? If we made fully active human clones then they would be subject to the same rights as everyone else, they would not be forced to donate their organs to the person they were cloned from...(assuming that's what you mean)
How do you know they will be subjected to the same rights as everyone else?
How do you know they will not be forced to butchered themselves to donate their parts?
1) Your "Tiger and Zoo" thing is not a theory.
2) It seems like your saying if we clone people we'll end up using them for food "because we could."
Forget it...thats my own theory...
I dint stat that "we'll end up using them as food"....
3) This is about the stupidest argument I've heard against cloning. It doesn't even begin to make sense.
All these debates are getting bogged down in retarded statements. Please people, think through your points loigcally before you post them.
Just because my theory sounds retard it doesn't mean the whole
debate, to be precise, sounds stupid... Try think out of the box... =.=
Stem cell research and human cloning belongs to different genetic engineering field...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6353919.stm