 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
My two cents:
It seems to me that most major religions view man as naturally flawed and prone to "sin" or whatever equivalent there may be. Therefore, despite the fact that cloning could/does have many positive benefits, there is too much possibility of a downside (creating a clone army, downgrading the sanctity of life if another, exact replica can be created in its place, etc.) for it to be acceptable.
I'm not saying I agree with this (cause I don't), but rather that it is my best guess as to why "religion" has a problem with cloning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
Was your problem with religion Sava? Your nick was the guy who founded the Serbian Orthodox Church and schools in Serbia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
quote:
Except that I didn't say all religious people were ignorant of science |
quote:
Since religions seem to specialize in rampant ignorance |
You used religions plural and did not qualify in any way. To me that is generalisation. |
It is a generalization of religious institutions, and I believe a valid one, but not one of religious people. Religious people and institutions aren't the same thing.
quote:
The Catholic Church did a lot to advance science, its just a few high profile cases where it disagreed with the way revolutionary new ideas were taught that it appears that way.
As an example of its pro-science postion - One of the leading cosmologists of the 1920s was LaMaitre, a RC priest and scientist, who was the key proponent of the later named Big Bang theory. |
The modern Catholic church, yes. In the past, not so much. Anything that tended to undercut official church doctrine was suppressed with vigor. Today that role is, as I said, generally occupied by Islam and Christian Evangelical religions.
And again, can you think of any institutions who have been more influential in the suppression of science throughout history? I can't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
*Having less hesitation than Dinodoc*
There are several reasons religious organisations oppose cloning. To understand their position, you have to divide cloning into two sections, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves in-vitro fertilisation of embryos, which are harvested in order to provide stem cells. Religions oppose this because embryos are always destroyed and they consider embryos to be fully persons, just like ourselves, only younger.
Reproductive cloning is somewhat harder to understand from a non-religious perspective. Christians take reproduction very seriously, although they most certainly do not oppose sex. Read Song of songs- there is lots of beautiful Christian love poetry.
Cloning is problematic because it seems to encourage breakup of families. If one person can produce genetically identical clones, then why would they need anyone else for a family? This is seen as opposite to what is best for children. Children need a stable family to grow up, and Christians fear cloning devalues this arrangement.
Other fears are genetic disorders, and experimental problems with cloning. Since killing embryos for experimental purposes is considered unethical, therefore clone research cannot kill embryos to develop a procedure for clones. Also, since we do not know what happens to clones as they age, it is imprudent to clone human beings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Cloning is problematic because it seems to encourage breakup of families. If one person can produce genetically identical clones, then why would they need anyone else for a family? This is seen as opposite to what is best for children. Children need a stable family to grow up, and Christians fear cloning devalues this arrangement. |
This argument makes no sense to me. This would also have to apply to invitro, which I don't see religious organizations clamoring to decry. In fact, many of the women who had invitro and then sextuplets/septuplets were devoutly religious, and it was seen as a blessing. I don't see how cloning for reproductive purposes would devalue the family. I think the contrary is true. The expense and difficulty of the process would likely require a couple of financial means, and it would also likely ensure their being bound to themselves and their children more closely.
Certainly, the "let's have sex and make a baby" method isn't proving particularly conducive to families staying together.
quote:
Other fears are genetic disorders, and experimental problems with cloning. Since killing embryos for experimental purposes is considered unethical, therefore clone research cannot kill embryos to develop a procedure for clones. Also, since we do not know what happens to clones as they age, it is imprudent to clone human beings. |
Such fears are of the medical ramifications, ones that are, as yet, unfounded. That doesn't, IMO, prescribe a wholesale dismissal of cloning in and of itself. And to say that it might lead to health problems so we should do it would be rather short-sighted, as pretty much all medical breakthroughs that rely on today first had to be tested to make sure they worked and look for side effects, etc. This logic would seem to preclude almost any medical advancement.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-01-2003 23:55
My signature sums up what my problem with religion is.
|