|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi American brothers !
I'm French, so sorry in advance for the eventual mistakes, as English is not my native language.
As far as cloning is concerned, it appears to me to be beneficial for men, because it will give men an alternative way of having children.......human "normal" reproduction is obviously dominated by females, as they are the only ones in charge to decide if the embryo must live or not, and to decide to give men children. Furthermore, now they hace free access to men's sperm, so they can have babies by themselves without resorting to men in any way.
With cloning, it will be a corporate service like others offered to both men and women, a service to be paid for of course.
If a man decided to be cloned, the cloning companies would offer him the ability to do so, and put a woman at his disposal to bring the child in her womb for nine months.
And as the baby boy will be a clone of the father, either single or homosexual, no woman will have any legal means of stealing the baby from him.
Normal human reproduction enables women to reproduce without men.
Cloning reproduction will enable both men and women to reproduce thier gender without resorting to each other.
So that's a progress for men's reproductive rights. It is more equalitarian than it was.
See you in january for the first baby boy ever cloned, by doctor "genius" Antinori.
See you brothers,
And happy new year !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 29, @05:23PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with the French guy!
As for ethical delemahs and scientist doing it "For their own sick and twisted reasons", we should KNOW by now that whenever some new technology is developed, no matter WHAT it involves, there is always going to be some group of people against it. It happened when Telivision was invented, it happened when we made breakthoughs in various types of medicine, Heck, it probably happened back when the written language was in development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 29, @09:59PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes those people in the 'against' category have valid points and should be listened to. We have also come to see new consequences that weren't known when 'new' technology was first made, sometimes later it creates new problems down the road that's even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see your point. But if cloning is to become a business like others, the rights of the male client willing to be cloned, will be protected by business contracts ; I mean the women supplied by the company to carry the childs to term, would probably accept not to claim on the child. It would be a part of the business offered by the cloning company.
And unlike the current situation, the child will have 100% DNA in common with the father, and not 50% like in the normal way. So the claim and the rights of the father will be reinforced.
And don't forget that artificial wombs are currently being conceived (remember the Guardian article a few months ago ?) so science will really be a way to free men from women.
The leader of the Raëliens has stated himself that cloning was only a first step, prior to the conception of an human being in a lab.
So females are going to lose their priviledges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rage.
You make some good points. However, I have always noticed that when ANY new way of "reproduction" comes along, men ALWAYS get hosed!
Feminists wet themselves with glee because they KNOW that.
So, I can understand why you might think "females are going to lose their priviledges", But, again it is almost, if not always men who lose, in cases like this. Some how, some way, the 'powers-that-be' always make certain it happens that way.
PS.
Don't worry about makeing mistakes with English.
I'm American-Indian and haven't spoken English all my life either, and I make some really bad spelling errors. So don't worry.
And welcome aboard!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 Reasons I Can't See This as Being Good
1) This may be more about upstaging the Italian doctor who is hoping to succeed next year. To achieve this the host mother would have to have been pregnant about April. It might therefore be a publicity stunt anyway.
2) Dolly the sheep was the 257th attempt to clone a sheep. Things may be better, but it still looks the technique has a low success rate. This means that stillbirths and abnormal babies are highly likely.
3) Even when you get a successful birth there are aging problems, including livers that don't work and early deaths. It is quite possible the first clone babies will have severe health problems and not last to adulthood.
4) We're closer to the feminist dream of a woman only world. Feminists will try to make that happen. There are plenty of rich women who would give money to help that idea. How many men would give money for men to have babies? Even if it doesn't happen, it is more ammo for the feminists "What do we need men for" hate propaganda.
5) Cloning produces nothing new, only a copy. Imagine millions of Germaine Greers. The whole point of sexual reproduction is to make someone unique (twins being the exception). We need this uniqueness if we want the human race to evolve, and move forward.
6) Cloning costs. Most reproduction technology favours women. You have to have womb to have babies. You can hire host mothers but that costs. Estimates for cloning are $100000 just for the embryo, as well as any expenses like a host mother. If we eventually get an artificial womb, don't expect that to be cheap. Perhaps only women (who can do it for free and send the man the bill) and rich men will have children. Ordinary men may not have children except to pay for them.
7) Cloning is illegal in most Western countries. Since the babies will have to come in from abroad you could expect a feminist backlash if lots of male clones enter the country. If lots of female clone babies enter the country the illegality will be brushed aside with talk of a woman's "right to have baby". If lots of male clone babies come into the country, it will be "it's illegal" and anyway "what are these men up to with these babies?".
8) Cloning mostly produces single parents. Even assuming we get cloning happening all over the place, then we could end up with two separate societies. Men and their boy clones, and women and girl clones. You could even get female/feminist countries.
9) Cloning isn't done for the love of humanity. Certainly some of the doctors give the impression that if someone with a funny moustache asked for millions of blond blue eyed male Aryan types, the only question that would be asked is - do you have the money?
10) Cloning would just be the beginning. With genetic manipulation, what would they want? Plenty of feminists would love to have more muscular women so they can win races against men and prove they're our equal, or how about we get male babies with none of that nasty aggression feminists don't like. I doubt I can imagine the worst that cloners will be asked for, and try to provide.
Raymond Cuttill
Men's Books/ Men's Radio /Bracknell Home for stray cats, old computers and political incorrectness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> It might therefore be a publicity stunt anyway.
Maybe. But the Italian doctor will achieve the cloning process for sure. And you know what ? The three cloned babies to be born in coming January are.....boys ! Indeed Antinori (doctor's name) considers cloning as a way to give childs to parents when the father is sterile.
This scientist doesn't belong to a Cult, and he became famous a few years ago by enabling a 63-year-old woman to have a child, who turned out to be a baby boy.
So I really trust this doctor, and as you can see, these alternative ways of reproduction will have produced at least four boys who wouldn't have existed without these new techniques.
> There are plenty of rich women who would give money to help that idea. How many men would give money for men to have babies?
Narcissism is common to all humans. Rich men as rich women would like to be cloned.
And do not forget that on a world scale, men are far richer than women.....so they will have themselves cloned in priority. For instance, there have been rumors that in Arabic countries, where women have almost no rights, all "Emirs" and religious leaders, males exclusively, have begun to be cloned.....cloned babies are going to be almost excusively boys in the vast majority of the world, except in the USA and in the Western countries. But even in your country, I'm convinced that rich men would have themselves cloned, in the case this reproductive process wouldn't be banned.
> Perhaps only women (who can do it for free and send the man the bill) and rich men will have children. Ordinary men may not have children except to pay for them.
You are right. But with the current normal reproductive way, no men at all can decide to have babies. With cloning processes, there would be at least rich men who would have this ability, so that's a progress.
> then we could end up with two separate societies. Men and their boy clones, and women and girl clones. You could even get female/feminist countries.
And male/masculinist countries also.
> Plenty of feminists would love to have more muscular women so they can win races against men and prove they're our equal
Genetic manipulation is unavoidable in the long run. But it will benefit to many people, no matter which gender they belong to.
When a man takes testosterone and DHEA pills to slow down the aging process, he can thank scientific breakthroughs. Genetic manipulation must be seen in the same logic.
To conclude, I would say that men mustn't be scared of every new scientific progress ; on the contrary they should be interested in this kind of stuff, if they don't want to be neglected by science.
Yours sincerely, American brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 30, @08:22AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I first heard about this story on BBC Evening News. Where the so-called 'expert' on the subject of human cloning simply mislead the viewing public when the question of the impact of reproduction came up. It was basically a pop at men and how they will become 'reduntant' in the reproduction sense. Claiming that women will be able to reproduce without men.
But this is NOT reproduction.
Reproduction is the way every life on earth keeps its species alive. Plants, reptiles, birds and Mammals all have their own unique way of reproducing.
Take Mammals, as this is what we humans are.
Mammals come in two forms - male and female - both are essential components for the survival of each particular species of mammal.
When a male and female come together to reproduce, the male plants his seed into the egg of the female, along with some genetic information about that male. This info is coupled with the genetic information of the female to fertilize the egg. Then over a certain period of time a foetus develops and eventually the female gives birth to a new member of that species.
The important thing is this:
Althought this offspring has inherited certain genetic information from its mother and father, thus showing some characteristics of both, it is important to remember that this new addition to that particular species is its own INDIVIDUAL.
This is an important point we must grasp when the subject of cloning comes up.
If it is true that this Cult has successfully cloned the first human what we must understand is that the host female used has not reproduced a new human being. She has been simply copied. The cloned baby girl is not an INDIVIDUAL, she is a carbon copy of her 'mother'.
THEREFORE CLONING IS NOT REPRODUCTION.
Red Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 30, @01:36PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
This is getting beyond the issue of men's rights, but I'm going to disagree. Being a "copy" of someone else doesn't make someone not an individual any more than being a twin makes someone not an individual. This person is still an individual and will grow up with different experiences, etc. I'm not taking a position on cloning. But having the exact same genetic makeup of someone else doesn't make you a non-individual at all. That is nonsense.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 31, @08:30AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not really that well up on Mens Issues I must admit. However, the reason is clear why you guys aren't getting very far. If you want to win this gender war then it is about time you united together.
The person who questions whether a clone is an individual or not has a valid point. Whether you Marc disagree with him or not does not give you the right to slur people's opinions, calling it 'nonsense' infront of everyone is way out of order. Your argument put forward misses the point where you talk about 'experiences'. My own life experiences do indeed contribute to who I am and how I think. I was born in Bristol, UK and I grew up there. What though by chance my ancestors emigrated to America in the 1800's and I was brought up in New York, sure my way of thinking would be different. However the point being is that I am ME. I am unique to all but the billions of other people I share this planet with, no matter where I grew this will aways be the case. In the case of a clone however no matter what life experiences one may have had you will always be a 'copy' of someone else. Your eyes are the same, you have moles in the same place on your body, you speak the same, your fingerprints are the same, you hair colour and structure is the same. You are the same. Therefore, technically, you are a 'non-individual'. It is clear that Marc believes in Politically Correct Science where we are told that Environment is more important than genes when it comes to defining ones intelligence and behaviour.
What ever next Marc? Will you be saying that people grow up to be serial killers because they watched too many violent movies as a child?
Now 'THAT's NONSENSE'!!!!!
Birdman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks but, Heh nark it, stop being catty!
Marc is just as entitled to his opinion as we all. Ebviously he doesn't agree with my sentiments and I don't feel as though he is trying to undermine my opinions. I couldn't give a damn if the whole world thinks I'm talking bollocks, these are my views and I am quite happy with them.
As for us not getting very far, I think we're doing a damn good job! Things were much worse ten years ago.
Red Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 31, @12:05PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Birdman,
What I call nonsense is the idea that if someone is genetically identical to another person, then that person is not an individual. That means every identical twin, triplet, quadruplet, etc., is "not an individual." Sorry Birdman, call me "PC" or whatever you'd like, but I stand by the claim that that is indeed nonsense. I did not attack or even disagree with the point that the genepool needs diversity to survive. Nor have I even taken a position on cloning. But calling ANY individual human being "not an individual" is more than nonsense. It's even worse than calling a child born out of wedlock "illegitimate."
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 30, @05:26PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I just think the question is ethically misposed. I acknowledge this is a valid men's issue on one level, but I can't help but feel it is first and formost an ethical issue affecting the cloned individual most of all.
For the record I feel the same about other procreative issues. It seems we are focussing on selfish wishes of the chronologically older parties at the expense of the new human lives created. I have ethical problems with all of it from that perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 30, @06:05PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree there are ethical issues involved. Just as far as "copying," it may be worth noting that the same technology used to "clone" a person can also be used to reproduce a person from the DNA of two or more people combined, which would in fact result in a unique, "uncopied" individual so to speak.
I heard a great debate once over cloning at an Italian-American Bar Association dinner in L.A. Both sides did well, but I was a little more persuaded by the guy supporting cloning, especially as far as its benefits to medical research. The other side made some good points particularly about possible abuses and social problems, but some of his other points reminded me of the people who fought against the lightning rod in the middle ages because it manipulated nature or divine acts.
I do think our French friend above offered interesting points to think about.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The artificial womb is a reality. It has been successful up to the 2nd trimaster but the foetus has to be aborted because of legal matters not scientific. Im very sure the artificial womb is operative.
On the same note from my understanding of cloning the host womb does not necessarily have to be the same species either. If a parody can be found among the animal kingdom which in fact has been found when cloning other animals, one would not need a 'human' woman to bare the child. C sections can be performed etc... in ragards to concerns of the birth canal being to small.
Im with marc on this, these clones must have human rights. Desinger clones could be the wave of the future and these clones will be nothing but 'slaves'if we do not protect them.
To be honest I feel that much of the conversation has been somewhat selfish, but maybe wanting children of your own is purely selfish. The innate biological urge to contribute.
I ask a question here -Will it be enough to ease the burden? They say women have a biological clock or urge, its clear from these posts that men also have that urge. Will cloning be enough to satisfy the innate needs to reproduce if such an innate need exists?
I am not a father but many of my friends are and after they had their kids they in their words "mellowed". They felt they done their bit and that was that.
I for one want kids, maybe about 20 or so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 30, @11:56PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"I for one want kids, maybe about 20 or so. "
Frugal and smart, you'll get the bulk rate no doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case lots run at 24 per, I believe. On the other hand, tour groups and travel packages start to discout after the fifteenth passenger, or at about 2/3 to 3/4 of the capacity of the vehicle. Now, if you can use a gallon can of ketchup before it goes bad, then you got something: you can use restaurant-size cans of everything. 20 kids, huh? From the same mother, Dan? Good Luck!
:-)
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO
Thanks for the tips guys, this stuff will be handy to know. As far as having the same mother, nahh. Im going to try and have as many different mothers as possible and they can fight over who gets the money. Pull up a seat boys this could be fun. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then you could give them the same LAST name and tell them apart by giving tham all different first names, right? Huh? Or something like that..
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
