Human vs. ... Other

Post by **Diana Lowery** » 17 May 2020, 17:51

So many ethical problems already exist with abortions, in-vitro fertilization, and other related issues, it is hard to imagine how regulating clones could be possible. It is exhausting and terrifying to think of the implications. Since it is possible to harvest a frozen embryo without both parties agreeing to the birth, will it be possible to clone someone against their will as it was done in the book?

Lisa A Rayburn · Post by **Lisa A Rayburn** » 18 May 2020, 14:29

diana lowery wrote: ↑17 May 2020, 17:51 So many ethical problems already exist with abortions, in-vitro fertilization, and other related issues, it is hard to imagine how regulating clones could be possible. It is exhausting and terrifying to think of the implications. Since it is possible to harvest a frozen embryo without both parties agreeing to the birth, will it be possible to clone someone against their will as it was done in the book?

I'm quite sure it will be possible to clone someone against their will, or even without their knowledge. All it takes is a sample of their DNA, a hair perhaps, or a fingernail. The ethical issues will indeed be complicated, as is reflected in the book. I don't really find the possibility terrifying; to me, it would be like having a twin, but it is definitely going to be challenging to regulate. Thanks for dropping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

JGretz-7 · Post by **JGretz-7** » 18 May 2020, 18:16

This goes back to the...if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then it's a duck. A lab-grown human is still a human, correct? If it can think, feel, reason, etc... then it deserves to be treated as a human with the same basic human rights. Just because he/she was created for the purpose of being a slave, doesn't make them any less human.

Lady-of-Literature · Post by **Lady-of-Literature** » 19 May 2020, 16:28

I would say they are human, but I find it funny how people are so eager to create something so complex like life only to mistreat it since they can't agree if the life is "real".

Lisa A Rayburn · Post by **Lisa A Rayburn** » 19 May 2020, 20:18

JGretz-7 wrote: ↑18 May 2020, 18:16 This goes back to the...if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then it's a duck. A lab-grown human is still a human, correct? If it can think, feel, reason, etc... then it deserves to be treated as a human with the same basic human rights. Just because he/she was created for the purpose of being a slave, doesn't make them any less human.

I quite agree. The purpose for which they were made affected the abilities they have, not their fundamental nature. Having the same nature (and DNA) as a human should give them the same rights as the 'human stock' from which they sprang! Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

Anthony__ · Post by **Anthony__** » 19 May 2020, 23:12

I get what you are saying but what is made scientifically will definitely remain loyal to the master. So I think Tau and Kau will forever be loyal to their master.

SangeethaNarayan · Post by **SangeethaNarayan** » 20 May 2020, 06:18

Anything that lives and breathes should have rights. If I created my own clone, I would consider it my child since it came from me, an extension of me. How could I ever consider my child a slave? And does a clone not have a parent? What about the person who was cloned ...isn't he/she a parent to the clone? This is quite an interesting discussion

Ellylion · Post by **Ellylion** » 20 May 2020, 07:03

Of course clones deserve to have rights, humans are in charge of their creations.

Lisa A Rayburn · Post by **Lisa A Rayburn** » 20 May 2020, 08:44

Anthony__ wrote: ↑19 May 2020, 23:12 I get what you are saying but what is made scientifically will definitely remain loyal to the master. So I think Tau and Kau will forever be loyal to their master.

I understand where you're going (although I don't agree), especially with regards to Tau. He was basically brainwashed from the day he was created. That would be difficult for anyone to overcome. But Kau? He was born human and didn't undergo scientific manipulation until young adulthood. I'd say his 'humanity' was pretty well established by then. Having his body modified, against his will I might add, isn't going to overtake his genetics as a human. I appreciate your stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

Lisa A Rayburn · Post by **Lisa A Rayburn** » 20 May 2020, 08:50

Lady-of-Literature wrote: ↑19 May 2020, 16:28 I would say they are human, but I find it funny how people are so eager to create something so complex like life only to mistreat it since they can't agree if the life is "real".

Unfortunately, I think that falls under the umbrella of human nature...or at least some individual's nature. They regard anything they 'create' as inherently theirs, whether it is alive or not. Therefore, it's there to do anything they please with. To them, it being 'real'/alive...even sentient, just makes it more interesting to play with/work on. Thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

Lisa A Rayburn · Post by **Lisa A Rayburn** » 20 May 2020, 08:59

sursangeet_2000 wrote: ↑20 May 2020, 06:18 Anything that lives and breathes should have rights. If I created my own clone, I would consider it my child since it came from me, an extension of me. How could I ever consider my child a slave? And does a clone not have a parent? What about the person who was cloned ...isn't he/she a parent to the clone? This is quite an interesting discussion

I feel much the same. Just like a child I carried for nine months, the clone possesses part of my DNA as well...and would start as a child just like one born naturally. Unfortunately, historically there are many precedents for a parent considering their child a slave. Just think back to 'affairs' that must have happened in Egypt between 'master' and 'slave.' Most likely, those children, except for the rare occasion, were considered slaves. This goes for some of the antebellum plantation owners as well. It's wrong, I know, but it happened all the time. Of course, today, slavery has been outlawed...I would just hope that would hold true for clones as well. Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

Lisa A Rayburn · Post by **Lisa A Rayburn** » 20 May 2020, 09:02

Ellylion wrote: ↑20 May 2020, 07:03 Of course clones deserve to have rights, humans are in charge of their creations.

Unfortunately, that's part of the problem here. The scientists want to be in ultimate control of their 'creations.' If the clones were to be declared human, with all the rights, freedoms, and privileges that go along with it, they would have to cede their control to the clone him/herself, and they don't want that to happen. I appreciate you're dropping in to share your thoughts with us!

Abacus · Post by **Abacus** » 20 May 2020, 14:11

leximutia wrote: ↑03 Apr 2020, 18:56 Personally, I feel that any creature that displays sentience are, without question, entitled to certain rights. We already know Kata / Kalin is a born human, but Tau should be treated no differently, even though he is a lab-grown clone. Given that he has clearly displayed sentience, original thoughts, and his own desires, he is no less deserving of human rights, regardless of origin.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck.....

Rosemary Okoko · Post by **Rosemary Okoko** » 21 May 2020, 09:56

Having no parents and being a product of scientists, they are not human but look like humans and this likeness to humans gives them the rights.

María Andrea Fernández Sepúlveda · 21 May 2020, 19:30

It is a very interesting question to ponder and one that will become more meaningful as AI advances. One can state that they have no parents but, in that case, arent their creators/designers their parents? Of course, if we take a religious approach we have to wonder if they would have a soul and if that's what makes a human, human.