Embryo cloned in U.K.

[-Verifist-]

For those of you who don't know yet:

Link (http://healthandfitness.sympatico.msn.ca/News/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=651c27aac43a498fb3bd 268bd130f771&show=True&number=6&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc)

One of the first stages to human cloning.

[loco]

Bout time, religous idiots have been holding back science for too long.

[floydheadnumba1]

Bout time, religous idiots have been holding back science for too long.
Are you retarted, cloning humans will lead to alot of bad things?!

[Micromininator]

Bout time, religous idiots have been holding back science for too long.

Your a real shit head what happends when the fuckin baby comes out with half a fuckin face!

[floydheadnumba1]

Your a real shit head what happends when the fuckin baby comes out with half a fuckin face!
Thats not the problem with with it.

[loco]

You're all morons...It is obvious you dont know anything about this...

That makes a lot of sence....Hmm first we are gonna have to find a baby with Have a face to clone.....Whatever the fuck that means....so that one can be born like that. Maybe you should look up what cloning is....

And floydheadnumba1 I'm sorry I'm so retarted I dont know that cloning humans will lead to a lot of bad things you fail to mention or prove or even attempt to defend in any way....

[XxMASTARRONxX]

Your a real shit head what happends when the fuckin baby comes out with half a fuckin face!

Thats not even a problem...

Cloning is cool and it can and will be able to cure a lot of sicknesses, but at the rate the human popullation is growing, we do not need to grow it even more, let nature do what it got to do. Iam against cloning.

[loco]

Thats not even a problem...

Cloning is cool and it can and will be able to cure a lot of sicknesses, but at the rate the human popullation is growing, we do not need to grow it even more, let nature do what it got to do. Iam against cloning.

Holy shit....

Cloning wont have any impact on the population...Babies are still born at the same rate....

[-Verifist-]

Oh, just so you guys know: They've already cloned stem cells to try and help patients with paralyses.

[droogsteve]

OK, floydheadnumba1, loco and Micromininator all get a 48 hour ban for violating Current Events rules by engaging in personal attacks.

If you can't post in a mature manner, don't post at all. See you on 5/25 at 6:00 pm.

[TFS]

There's two sides to this, like everything...except genocide, but that's another thread.

Cloning is good because it can and will lead to a better understanding of both evolution (if you believe that, which I do), and all living species. It will inevitably lead to cures for genetic disorders and possibly even become a form of artificial regeneration for people who lose limbs or get badly burned. There's certainly too much knowledge to be gained to ban it completely.

But you can't let it run wild either. There is definitely the slippery slope that can lead to designer babies, master races, super-soldiers, etc. If misused, cloning can throw the balance of nature out of wack a lot faster and in a much more estreme manner than we have done so thus far. So we cannot allow for the cloning of entire people as a means of reproduction or really for experimentation. If you were to clone and raise someone to perform experiments on them using the reasoning that they're a clone and therefore not really human, that's just sick and bizarre, because to them, they are human. A lot of tangents can ba made from this whole thing based solely on that.

So, yes, cloning of cells and genetic traits must be allowed to an extent, but never an entire person save the first few just to know that we are able to do so in case of some nuclear haulocaust or something. Do so for the knowledge, record what you learn, and then shut it down save for medical reasons to help those born naturally. Keep sex in the life cycle, though, as the only way to reproduce. Set those boundaries and enforce them. That's what needs to be done, IMO.

[Wu-tang]

I could never really support cloning. Never. I always hear stories of people who want to clone their kid because he died. How would you feel if you were a clone? If you were just a replacement. Or better yet, how would you feel if you were cloned? If you were replaced just like that? Like that story with Arnold Schwarzenegger, forgot what its called but it's good. Course that is kind of exaggerated... The movie is about a secret organization cloning people. The story follows Arnold around and he finds that he has been cloned. He tries thinking of ways to kill the clone but the secret organization battles with him. Then later he finds out, HE is the clone. Good movie.

But then another reason to clone is for medical reasons. If you lost a kidney, you needed a heart transplant, or other organs like that. So you clone yourself, you kill the clone and take its heart...Great idea. I might be bashed for saying that right there because I myself am not too knowledgable on the subject, all I know is that I don't like it.

[Bastard Fish]

I don't think cloning is needed. I just did a huge fat ass 800 word essay based on the subject for school, I can post it but why bother.

Actually wu-tang, the original character isn't the clone. It is a plot that they both made up to change their clothes and to act like the other to destroy the cloning companies. I watched it like, yesterday in school. Oh yeah I wrote a huge fatass report on that too.

[BlCkDeAtH]

There's two sides to this, like everything...except genocide, but that's another thread.

Cloning is good because it can and will lead to a better understanding of both evolution (if you believe that, which I do), and all living species. It will inevitably lead to cures for genetic disorders and possibly even become a form of artificial regeneration for people who lose limbs or get badly burned. There's certainly too much knowledge to be gained to ban it completely.



I agree with your post. However, evolution does lead to "cures to genetic disorders." Im sure most of the members in this forum how evolution works, so I don't think I need to explain why I put Cures to Genetic Disorders in quotes. If you do not know why PM and I'll explain it.


Cloning can and will get out of control, no matter how many restrictions we put on it. Some people will argue that people who are against cloning are too religious and that those people are only against it because "we are not God."
For myself at least, I am against cloning because I fear that some lunatic will clone themselves and wealthy people will be able to have "perfect" children. If humans allow cloning, any type no matter how beneficial it is at first, they are opening a pandoras box. No one can see the future, however, the best prediction is that people will use cloning for the benefit of themselves, not to the benefit of the people who really need it.

[TFS]

^I agree, there are potential problems with the ability that we will have to face head-on some day. But that is the test of how dominant a species we are: can we have our cake and eat it? So far with nuclear capabilities that has been the case. Cloning isn't too different: in the hands of the right people, it will be a huge benifit to society. But in the hands of the wrong people, it will be our downfall.

One can only hope that when we face these problems (and we will), we do the right thing.

And wu-tang, I do believe the idea behind cloning organs for replacement is that they will be able to (if not already) clone just that specific organ and not the whole body, so there will be no killing.

That's another one of the issues: if clones were made to replace dead children or to make perfect children to begin with, there will also be clones used purely for experimentation and medical reasons. What will be the difference between them? What makes one worthy of being considered a normal human and the others just tools of science and medicine? Would there be some sort of discrimination against clones like there once was against black people? Again, problems we will have to face and work through.

[vchampionl70]

I'm much more supportive of cloning along the likes of duplicating organs with stem cells. When it comes to creating the exact same genetic human being is where I draw the line. I just don't think that there is any good that can come from such actions.

[-Verifist-]

I'm glad my thread has finally got some people to think. :P
Time to share my opinion:

People will always be afraid of new advancements in science. I mean, look at all the movies spawned from the idea of Artificial Intelligence and the creation of robots and such. Examples: Matrix, Terminator, I-Robot. People fear the unknown. As scientists explore cloning, for all we know, they could find the cure for cancer and other diseases. And as for religion...well...they've always had a grudge with scientist. Remember when everyone thought the earth was flat and they punished anyone who thought differently?

If humans allow cloning, any type no matter how beneficial it is at first, they are opening a pandoras box. No one can see the future, however, the best prediction is that people will use cloning for the benefit of themselves, not to the benefit of the people who really need it.

Yes, no one knows the future, but does that mean that we should stop all our research because we are afraid of what could happen? I don't think so.
Sure somes clones might feel a bit sad if they find out that their parents cloned them because their son/daughter died and the parents couldn't bare to live without them. But what about all the millions of people that now live happily because their relative was saved from a disease because of the contributions that the cloning research has made.

Yeah, I think that's all for now. :D

[Solid Snake]

To tell the truth I want a clone of myself.

[wils0646]

Cloning and genetic engineering definitely are controversal, but they need to keep advancing because there can be so much upside. Gene therapy has had limited success and this is the next best process that could help us cope with disease.

[diab421]

This is a very good topic. I have a lot of issues with this. The first is that it doesn't matter how perfect a clone you create the person created will never be exactly like the person they were cloned from just because their life experiences will be completely different. No matter how hard you try not to, you will treat that person differently because they are a clone. Besides that how long would it be before someone decides to clone Einstein or Descarte or even Hitler and Stalin?
As far as cloning body parts, I guess it would depend on how they do it. I don't see how they could do it right now without cloning an entire person and "harvesting" them for parts. That sickens me, because that completely devalues the person. What you would be saying is that the individual is less than human because they are a clone. How many times in history have we the results of that type of thinking? "They are less than human so what does it matter?" It is amazing how people can rationalize away the most heinous of crimes when they see the person as less than human, i.e. Terri Schiavo. Until you can show me that you can clone body parts without creating a human life just to "harvest" it, I will be against cloning.

[Danimal87]

^I agree, there are potential problems with the ability that we will have to face head-on some day. But that is the test of how dominant a species we are: can we have our cake and eat it? So far with nuclear capabilities that has been the case. Cloning isn't too different: in the hands of the right people, it will be a huge benifit to society. But in the hands of the wrong people, it will be our downfall.

Manufacturing nuclear weapons is a bit different than human cloning. Individual labs are attempting this, yet it absorbs the focus of a whole nation for years to get one nuclear weapon.

Cloning could have many benefits, but this is just another attempt by mankind to delay the inevitable deaths of some unfortunate people. Curing diseases is great, but what moral and religious lines are we crossing just so we can live a few more years? If human cloning is unchecked, whoever has the money will be able to play God. For all we know, there may be few or no medical benefis from cloning, yet we could still be stuck with the implications of artificial human beings.

[-Verifist-]

As far as cloning body parts, I guess it would depend on how they do it. I don't see how they could do it right now without cloning an entire person and "harvesting" them for parts. That sickens me, because that completely devalues the person. What you would be saying is that the individual is less than human because they are a clone. How many times in history have we the results of that type of thinking? "They are less than human so what does it matter?" It is amazing how people can rationalize away the most heinous of crimes when they see the person as less than human, i.e. Terri Schiavo. Until you can show me that you can clone body parts without creating a human life just to "harvest" it, I will be against cloning.

Simply put:

Different cells have different functions. If you take a particular kind of stem cell, a liver one for example, and start reproducing it, you'll end up with just the liver.

More detail:

Adult stem cells are obtained for scientific research from many organs and tissues including the brain, bone marrow, blood vessels, skin, and the liver. These stem cells are generally limited to becoming the cell type of its tissue of origin.

Why Do Researchers Want to Study Stem Cells? Scientists indicate that there are many ways in which human stem cells can be used in basic and clinical research. Stem cell research may provide information on the complex events that occur during human development that lead to serious medical conditions like cancer and birth defects. Human stem cells could be used to test the safety of drugs. Also, researchers indicate that stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, or diabetes, or to treat spinal cord injuries.

Edit: This is the source http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_entire.pdf

[Fossil]

Stem cell research has a lot of potential, but there are no guarentees that it will provide the miracles that scientists have promised.

My question: is the research, and the people it might save, more important than the millions and billions of embryos (potential people) that will be ground up in the laboratory in the process? Is the knowledge so important that it cannot wait to be discovered through alternative means and advances in technology that would allow us to skip embryonic stem cell research?

If so why?

[Devastation]

I'm all for stem cell research after doing research on it myself.

I really see nothing wrong that can come from it.

Cloning replicas of humans would be incredibly weird to me, but if it's done in a way to benefit public good, I see nothing wrong with it.

That said, all those British scientists are going to Hell. ;)

[TLC]

I watched on Discovery that parents can "save" the placenta from their Childs birth, have it cryogenically frozen, so that in the event that the child develops a disease or requires a heart /lung, or whatever, body part transplant they can simply "grow" the parts required from the placenta stem cells.

That means you don't have to go on any waiting lists for body parts, or fear the part rejecting. For burn victims it means no more skin grafts - because they can grow more of your own skin.

I am all for this type of research.

[-Verifist-]

Stem cell research has a lot of potential, but there are no guarentees that it will provide the miracles that scientists have promised.

My question: is the research, and the people it might save, more important than the millions and billions of embryos (potential people) that will be ground up in the laboratory in the process? Is the knowledge so important that it cannot wait to be discovered through alternative means and advances in technology that would allow us to skip embryonic stem cell research?

If so why?

And what guarantee is there that the knowledge you're talking about will be found through other process? What if it takes hundreds or thousands of years, through other means, to find the cures that the scientists are looking?
"Millions and billions" of people will suffer and die because scientists wouldn't have the necessary treatments for them. I'm just debating.

I do see your point though.

[dead]

There's two sides to this, like everything...except genocide, but that's another thread.

Cloning is good because it can and will lead to a better understanding of both evolution (if you believe that, which I do), and all living species. It will inevitably lead to cures for genetic disorders and possibly even become a form of artificial regeneration for people who lose limbs or get badly burned. There's certainly too much knowledge to be gained to ban it completely.

But you can't let it run wild either. There is definitely the slippery slope that can lead to designer babies, master races, super-soldiers, etc. If misused, cloning can throw the balance of nature out of wack a lot faster and in a much more estreme manner than we have done so thus far. So we cannot allow for the cloning of entire people as a means of reproduction or really for experimentation. If you were to clone and raise someone to perform experiments on them using the reasoning that they're a clone and therefore not really human, that's just sick and bizarre, because to them, they are human. A lot of tangents can ba made from this whole thing based solely on that.

So, yes, cloning of cells and genetic traits must be allowed to an extent, but never an entire person save the first few just to know that we are able to do so in case of some nuclear haulocaust or something. Do so for the knowledge, record what you learn, and then shut it down save for medical reasons to help those born naturally. Keep sex in the life cycle, though, as the only way to reproduce. Set those boundaries and enforce them. That's what needs to be done, IMO.
there is also another downside for now.
dolly got arthritis at a young age and other elderly diseases .
I wonder how old a humam will get and how healthy it's life will be when it's cloned .

[Viceroy]

Cloning human beings was outlawed in the UK in 2001. It aain't gonna happen. Stem cells on the other hand are allowed (I think) and if they provide cures for serious problems, then I say lets go for it.

[droogsteve]

For all we know, there may be few or no medical benefis from cloning, yet we could still be stuck with the implications of artificial human beings.

Do you consider children born of in vitro fertilization to be "artificial human beings"? I would think not. However, there was a time when many people did. They were labeled as "test tube babies" and dire predictions about eugenics and master races abounded. But as the first generation of normal healthy babies grew up, the hysteria subsided.

Everyone needs to calm down. First of all, no one is talking about actually cloning people, only embryonic cells. Secondly, even if they were, clones would not be artificial human beings, they would just be human beings. They would not grow into babies in a lab, they would need to be implanted in a woman to mature and be born just like in vitro babies. The only difference is that they would have the same DNA as another human being. So what? I'm an identical twin, which means that like a clone, I share the same DNA as my brother. I don't believe that makes me any less human, do you?

[Sirius B]

i'm all for it in terms of making specific body parts for people. for example kidneys, it would make so much sense to give people a perfect, non-rejectable kidney instead of having them hooked up to dialysis machines for 4hours 3 times a week or whatever it takes. but cloning a full human? i dont think thats such a great idea.
Cloning human beings is bad, in my opinion, yeah.....

Now cloning organs and stuff, that's the place where this is most useful.

For all you people who think cloning's a bad thing in whichever way:

Think about what they did to people a thousand years ago if they thought the world was round, they burned them. I'm not saying this is the future or anything, we should just be more openminded.

[TFS]

Manufacturing nuclear weapons is a bit different than human cloning. Individual labs are attempting this, yet it absorbs the focus of a whole nation for years to get one nuclear weapon.

Cloning could have many benefits, but this is just another attempt by mankind to delay the inevitable deaths of some unfortunate people. Curing diseases is great, but what moral and religious lines are we crossing just so we can live a few more years? If human cloning is unchecked, whoever has the money will be able to play God. For all we know, there may be few or no medical benefis from cloning, yet we could still be stuck with the implications of artificial human beings.
I was just making a comparison between two things that if used improperly by some nutjob would really fuck everything over. That's how nuclear capabilities (not just weapons, I'm including the power source aspect there too), and cloning are similar.

And if you read my first post, you would see that I said they should probably not clone entire people for that reason. Irrationality would cloud clear-sightedness and create a whole mess of problems.

And Viceroy, it's only illegal if they get caught :D

[wils0646]

there is also another downside for now.
dolly got arthritis at a young age and other elderly diseases .
I wonder how old a humam will get and how healthy it's life will be when it's cloned .

You're right and it still is a mystery. Some people think that Dolly got those early diseases because she had shortened telomeres (ends of chromosomes) from the somatic cells of the cloned sheep, but when Dolly gave birth to more offspring, they did not have shortened telomeres. It's still a mystery why she died so early.

Also, know that it took 277 tries of somatic nuclear transfer to get one cloned sheep. Our methods are far from perfect yet.

[Danimal87]

Do you consider children born of in vitro fertilization to be "artificial human beings"? I would think not. However, there was a time when many people did. They were labeled as "test tube babies" and dire predictions about eugenics and master races abounded. But as the first generation of normal healthy babies grew up, the hysteria subsided.

This is a different subject, which I didn't comment on. Having the process of fertilization happen outside rather than inside a woman's body doesn't make them any less of a person, I would full-heartedly agree.

Everyone needs to calm down. First of all, no one is talking about actually cloning people, only embryonic cells. Secondly, even if they were, clones would not be artificial human beings, they would just be human beings. They would not grow into babies in a lab, they would need to be implanted in a woman to mature and be born just like in vitro babies. The only difference is that they would have the same DNA as another human being. So what? I'm an identical twin, which means that like a clone, I share the same DNA as my brother. I don't believe that makes me any less human, do you?
What I'm saying is that if this research becomes very widespread and is unchecked, it could very easily fall into the wrong hands where cloning would be done, regardless of the goals of the rest of society. Cloning a human being doesn't seem to have much purpose though. Why would parents want a child to look exactly like someone else? Wouldn't all that accomplish would be to take away part of the child's own individual identity, i.e. his or her body? I'm sure most of us here treasure our own unique selves, our very own minds, bodies, and souls. To have another person's genes and DNA stapled onto you before you were born so you would grow up less unique seems to have no medical research benefits and would only serve to outcast that person. The choice for some people to be identical is not man's duty to decide, but it is God's.

[droogsteve]

What I'm saying is that if this research becomes very widespread and is unchecked, it could very easily fall into the wrong hands where cloning would be done, regardless of the goals of the rest of society. Cloning a human being doesn't seem to have much purpose though. Why would parents want a child to look exactly like someone else? Wouldn't all that accomplish would be to take away part of the child's own individual identity, i.e. his or her body? I'm sure most of us here treasure our own unique selves, our very own minds, bodies, and souls. To have another person's genes and DNA stapled onto you before you were born so you would grow up less unique seems to have no medical research benefits and would only serve to outcast that person. The choice for some people to be identical is not man's duty to decide, but it is God's.

Please don't bring that "God's choice" business into the debate. If you use in vitro fertilization, aren't you subverting God's choice that you not have a baby? If you have chemotherapy, aren't you subverting God's choice that you have cancer? People seem to be awfully selective about which of God's choices they choose to accept.


As far as "our unique selves", your DNA does not determine your mind or personality. My brother and I have identical DNA, yet are complete opposites in most respects except looks. And what's wrong with a child looking like a parent? It occurs all of the time. Children that are the spitting image of their parents are common. It does not make them any less of a unique individual.

[TFS]

The choice for some people to be identical is not man's duty to decide, but it is God's.
I seem to be of the mind that since we have the knowledge and ability to do so, then it is God's choice that we do so. Sure, we weren't originally supposed to be knowledgable at all, but don't you think it a bit odd that Adam and Eve didn't know how to make babies in a tube right as soon as they said "holy shit, you're naked!"? Perhaps the reason we know how to now, after 2 millenia, is that God thinks we're ready.

Not saying that's the case, but I'm sick of all these religious zealots running around trumpeting their opinions as if it's God's will. You're not God, you don't know what the fuck his will is. Having faith in something like that is accepting that your fate is ultimately in his hands. You ever say the Nincene Creed? Lemme quote for you: "...Thine will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven..." If it happens, it's because God allows it, therefore it's his will. If he really wanted Satan or Hitler gone, he'd have blinked them out of existance, or better yet, they just would have never been.

So tell us, oh enlightened one, what's God's will? You apparently know better than the direct link to God himself, the Pope, so tell us.

[Danimal87]

Please don't bring that "God's choice" business into the debate. If you use in vitro fertilization, aren't you subverting God's choice that you not have a baby? If you have chemotherapy, aren't you subverting God's choice that you have cancer? People seem to be awfully selective about which of God's choices they choose to accept.
My whole problem with full human cloning is that it has no distinguishable medical purpose. Overcoming infertility or stopping cancer is one thing, but making a child to grow up to look exactly like you doesn't seem to have any positive purpose, and worse yet, seems to be only for the parent's amusement.
As far as "our unique selves", your DNA does not determine your mind or personality. My brother and I have identical DNA, yet are complete opposites in most respects except looks. And what's wrong with a child looking like a parent? It occurs all of the time. Children that are the spitting image of their parents are common. It does not make them any less of a unique individual.
Children looking like one of their parents is much different than being a human clone. Them looking like their parents doesn't make them any less different, and I would think most people look much like their parents. But for a parent to choose for his child to be a clone, that will make the child less unique in one respect- having the same body as somone else. On the other hand, they will be quite different in that they will be the only, or one of the few, clones on this planet. And for what? Why should scientists and people want to make a clone?
I seem to be of the mind that since we have the knowledge and ability to do so, then it is God's choice that we do so. Sure, we weren't originally supposed to be knowledgable at all, but don't you think it a bit odd that Adam and Eve didn't know how to make babies in a tube right as soon as they said "holy shit, you're naked!"? Perhaps the reason we know how to now, after 2 millenia, is that God thinks we're ready.

Not saying that's the case, but I'm sick of all these religious zealots running around trumpeting their opinions as if it's God's will. You're not God, you don't know what the fuck his will is. Having faith in something like that is accepting that your fate is ultimately in his hands. You ever say the Nincene Creed? Lemme quote for you: "...Thine will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven..." If it happens, it's because God allows it, therefore it's his will. If he really wanted Satan or Hitler gone, he'd have blinked them out of existance, or better yet, they just would have never been.
I never said I knew God's will, but I know that God has made certain choices for thousands of years in people. And just because God lets something happen, that doesn't mean he approves. We may have the ability to murder others, but he has commanded us not to. He leaves many things up to us, which me must accomplish. You've distorted the creed to say that whatever happens, God must've wanted it to happen and nothing should be done to stop it. But what the creed is saying is that we must do God's will here on Earth, because God does not approve of sin, and we must set out to stop as much of it as we can.
So tell us, oh enlightened one, what's God's will? You apparently know better than the direct link to God himself, the Pope, so tell us.
Excuse me, but there is no barrier between God and man that only a Pope could bridge. We may all talk to God through prayer, and to say that we need a catholic figure to do this for us is blaspemous. No one person is "the" direct link to God. And if you want to know God's will, I suggest you read the Bible, which apparently you aren't doing enough of.

[droogsteve]

My whole problem with full human cloning is that it has no distinguishable medical purpose. Overcoming infertility or stopping cancer is one thing, but making a child to grow up to look exactly like you doesn't seem to have any positive purpose, and worse yet, seems to be only for the parent's amusement.

Why would you assume that it is only for the parent's amusement? What about infertility? What if a father is unable to reproduce but doesn't like the idea of raising a child fathered by another man?

Children looking like one of their parents is much different than being a human clone. Them looking like their parents doesn't make them any less different, and I would think most people look much like their parents. But for a parent to choose for his child to be a clone, that will make the child less unique in one respect- having the same body as somone else.
I repeat: So what? I have the same DNA as my brother. I'd be interested in hearing you explain how this has handicapped me in any way whatsoever.



On the other hand, they will be quite different in that they will be the only, or one of the few, clones on this planet.

Huh? I thought being different was vitally important. Now you're saying that it's bad because they wouldn't be the same as everyone else. And how would people know anyway? Would they all wear special "Kiss Me, I'm a Clone" t-shirts? Just as with adopted, surrogate, or in vitro babies, it would be up to the parents whether or not to tell them at all.

[TFS]

I never said I knew God's will, but I know that God has made certain choices for thousands of years in people. And just because God lets something happen, that doesn't mean he approves. We may have the ability to murder others, but he has commanded us not to. He leaves many things up to us, which me must accomplish. You've distorted the creed to say that whatever happens, God must've wanted it to happen and nothing should be done to stop it. But what the creed is saying is that we must do God's will here on Earth, because God does not approve of sin, and we must set out to stop as much of it as we can.

Excuse me, but there is no barrier between God and man that only a Pope could bridge. We may all talk to God through prayer, and to say that we need a catholic figure to do this for us is blaspemous. No one person is "the" direct link to God. And if you want to know God's will, I suggest you read the Bible, which apparently you aren't doing enough of.
First off, the Bible is not God's will put in writing. It is a collection of accounts of what happened through the eyes of specific people. Most of them came up with their accounts in a time when people in their social classes could not read or write, therefore it had to be passed by word of mouth until eventually written by others, who also took heavy liberties in editing what is in the Bible. It is not God's will, so reading it won't clarify it for anyone. Nothing can.

God is supposed to be the supreme being, therefore if he does not will something he can simply not allow it. He allows for murders, therefore he must condone it sometimes, but also because he more likely condones those that bring the murderers to justice. That is how God's will plays out on earth: we have the ability to choose our fates, but that's only because God allows it. He knows what we're gonna do, but let's us go on to make mistakes anyway.

You don't know God's will any more than I do. And since i don't know it at all, you should stop pretending, because that is blasphemous.

Also, saying that the Pope is not a direct link to God is blasphemy to Catholics. And no, I'm not catholic, but that's something else: you suggest I'm not reading the Bible enough. For all you know I'm Jewish or Muslim, or even Buddhist. What you just suggested could be offensive and blasphemous to me, but you out of ignorance said it anyway. Poor form.

I'm episcopalian, by the way, a protestant religion. My dad is Catholic, my mom Methodist, and one of my sisters was a wicka (ps?) for a time being.

Just stop trying to pretend you know more about God's will and religion and trying to apply it to something totally unaddressed by the Bible in the first place. Seriously, tell me where in the Bible God handed down a law to man saying "thou shall not clone." It must have been on the original set of teblets that Moses shattered in rage at seeing the Macabes worshipping the golden cow.

Your argument that cloning is against God's will just does not hold water. Don't even try to use it for anything like this.

[Danimal87]

First off, the Bible is not God's will put in writing. It is a collection of accounts of what happened through the eyes of specific people. Most of them came up with their accounts in a time when people in their social classes could not read or write, therefore it had to be passed by word of mouth until eventually written by others, who also took heavy liberties in editing what is in the Bible. It is not God's will, so reading it won't clarify it for anyone. Nothing can.
You are completely wrong. The Bible is all God-inspired, according to II Timothy 3:16-
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
The Bible is how the Lord tells us who He is and what He wants us to do. Your claim that the Bible is heavily edited through generations is unfounded. Most of the New Testament was written by St. Paul, who wrote about his own actions and what he saw himself. Moses wrote much of the earlier Old Testament, and I doubt you'd claim that he was out of touch with God. The Bible was written mostly by scribes and priests, all of who would have quite a bit of experience with reading and writing, usually involving the Torah. To say that the Bible is just a collection of foggy memories and is not the word of God is just ignorant, God wants to show us His will and this is how He did it.
God is supposed to be the supreme being, therefore if he does not will something he can simply not allow it. He allows for murders, therefore he must condone it sometimes, but also because he more likely condones those that bring the murderers to justice. That is how God's will plays out on earth: we have the ability to choose our fates, but that's only because God allows it. He knows what we're gonna do, but let's us go on to make mistakes anyway.
I don't disagree with this. What I had an issue with was this-
If it happens, it's because God allows it, therefore it's his will. If he really wanted Satan or Hitler gone, he'd have blinked them out of existance, or better yet, they just would have never been.
He allows evil on Earth, yet he doesn't approve of it. We are the instruments through which God works much of the time, and through us, Hitler was defeated, and Stalin's Soviet Union eventually collapsed. I'm not quite sure we're understanding each other here, and I don't think we're getting anywhere with this specific point.
You don't know God's will any more than I do. And since i don't know it at all, you should stop pretending, because that is blasphemous.
Again, God shows us His will through the Bible. God gave us the Bible for a reason, so that all the following generations could know what He wants. Now, since you disregard the Bible as not being His will expressed through a book, then how could you ever know what God wants in your life and in others? Unless he appears directly to you, then you wouldn't. That is why the Bible is His will, and is so very important.
Also, saying that the Pope is not a direct link to God is blasphemy to Catholics.
I could care less, and that isn't what I said anyways. I said the Pope isn't the direct link to God. To have to go through the Pope to know God would make the Pope a barrier, not a link. We all have access to the Lord.
And no, I'm not catholic, but that's something else: you suggest I'm not reading the Bible enough. For all you know I'm Jewish or Muslim, or even Buddhist. What you just suggested could be offensive and blasphemous to me, but you out of ignorance said it anyway. Poor form.
If you are going to quote the nicene creed, then don't be surprised if I assume you're Christian. You're going way out of your way to criticize me here.
Just stop trying to pretend you know more about God's will and religion and trying to apply it to something totally unaddressed by the Bible in the first place. Seriously, tell me where in the Bible God handed down a law to man saying "thou shall not clone." It must have been on the original set of teblets that Moses shattered in rage at seeing the Macabes worshipping the golden cow.
God didn't speak out against insider-trading in the Bible, but that doesn't make it not wrong (props to Pat Buchanon on that point). I agree with Bush's stance on cloning.
"Allowing cloning would be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beings are grown for spare body parts and children are engineered to custom specifications," Bush said, "and that's not acceptable."Link (http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/bush-cloning.htm)

[TFS]

You are completely wrong. The Bible is all God-inspired, according to II Timothy 3:16-

The Bible is how the Lord tells us who He is and what He wants us to do. Your claim that the Bible is heavily edited through generations is unfounded. Most of the New Testament was written by St. Paul, who wrote about his own actions and what he saw himself. Moses wrote much of the earlier Old Testament, and I doubt you'd claim that he was out of touch with God. The Bible was written mostly by scribes and priests, all of who would have quite a bit of experience with reading and writing, usually involving the Torah. To say that the Bible is just a collection of foggy memories and is not the word of God is just ignorant, God wants to show us His will and this is how He did it.

Again, God shows us His will through the Bible. God gave us the Bible for a reason, so that all the following generations could know what He wants. Now, since you disregard the Bible as not being His will expressed through a book, then how could you ever know what God wants in your life and in others? Unless he appears directly to you, then you wouldn't. That is why the Bible is His will, and is so very important.Wrong. The Bible was not written by God it was written by people. The stories were passed down from those who witnessed them over many generations before all collected into one book. Even then, the Bible's been translated so many times. There's no denying that translation causes loss of original meaning. With all of that, it is safe to say that the Bible is not the word of God, but the word of his followers. This is especially true since God did not dictate the words in the Bible like Allah did for the Koran, and other eastern religions.

There's even a huge difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which is an off-shoot of the Bible in that the Book of Mormon is said to have been dictated to John Smith by God, himself. That was not the case with the Bible.

There is no denying that the Bible is the best resource to the history of Christianity we have, but it is not the word of God. To say otherwise is an ignorant mistake. There are so many books collected for the Bible that were not included, many simply because they were written by women. Other stories in the Bible were edited from their original form to make men appear superior. You see where this is going: humans saw stuff, got all their stories together, and butchered them through initial editing, word of mouth, and translation.

I could care less, and that isn't what I said anyways. I said the Pope isn't the direct link to God. To have to go through the Pope to know God would make the Pope a barrier, not a link. We all have access to the Lord.

To Catholics, he is a direct link. That's why those in Protestant religions, like I'm going to guess you are originally seperated from Catholicism: they felt he was a barrier, but the other perspective says otherwise.

In short: that's what you think.

If you are going to quote the nicene creed, then don't be surprised if I assume you're Christian. You're going way out of your way to criticize me here.

I was proving a point, and was apparently successful. Just because I quote something from Christianity does not make me Christian. I could quote lines from the Torah or Koran. Would that make me Jewish or Muslim? No, just well-rounded in my education. It means I have an understanding of other cultures. You lack knowledge of your own, which is scary. It's that ignorance that lead to people applying "religious" laws and morals to issues that weren't even in peoples' imaginations when those laws were written. That's dangerous. You're skewing your own religion to promote your own moral opinion, which is pretty immoral to do so.

Just read what you say below and tell me it makes sense. Insider-trading is a form of stealing so, um, yeah, he did speak out against it, actually. Perhaps it is not I that need to brush up on my Bible facts and what they mean and it's really you that need to brush up on current events and what they mean.

God didn't speak out against insider-trading in the Bible, but that doesn't make it not wrong (props to Pat Buchanon on that point). I agree with Bush's stance on cloning.
Link (http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/bush-cloning.htm)
Once again: you tried to say that it is not God's will that we are able to clone. Where does it say that? Quote from the Bible where God says to anyone that cloning is bad.

By your logic, any scientific advancement we came up with on our own that God did not give us is wrong. Therefore we should stop using the wheel and refridgeration. We should stop using plastics. We should stop using man-made fire/heating.

Maybe we should all just take our clothes off and run around in the woods, refusing to eat apples too.