Talk:Human cloning

update section on EU Charter

The section about the prohibition of reproductive cloning in the EU is outdated. It states that "...if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified..." As it stands now, The Treaty of Lisbon, which makes the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights legally binding, has been ratified and goes into effect on December 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.179.109 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Source needed

"Current regulations prohibit federal funding for research into human cloning, which effectively prevents such research from occurring in public institutions and private institution such as universities which receive federal funding. However, there are currently no federal laws in the United States which ban cloning completely, and any such laws would raise difficult Constitutional questions similar to the issues raised by abortion." I'd like a source for that, and it should be more specific. What amandment of the American Constitution? Ran4 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC) use i dfg gb gs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.144.151 (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of spam and low quality links from External Links section

• I have removed a bunch of poor quality and spam links from the EL section. Note to spammers: putting a link on the page does not help your Google Page rank, see here. Please also note that a .org or tax exempt site does not automatically qualify for inclusion here. See the criteria for inclusion here. Also note that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. Skopp (Talk) 06:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of links to humancloning.org and associated site reproductivecloning.net

These sites, under the guise of "official" status (not official at all — even the owner is anonymous) are basically ad farms with pages designed to play upon the heartstrings and anxieties of the weak and desperate (e.g. the childless, the paralysed, the infertile, the bereft etc) for donations. The sites attempt to mislead people with unscientific claims and unpublished speculation. To the anonymous owner of those sites: provide footnotes with links to scientific, published papers if you want that site linked. At this stage, your sites feature a long list of pie-in-the-sky "benefits" of human cloning. As it stands, it is misleading and unscientific. Some may even say it is predatory. Skopp (Talk) 07:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.144.183 (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No controversy?

Human cloning is a very controversial topic. Why is not any entry on controversy and particular opinions or views on this topic cited on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.69.75.146 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very much. Possible controversy regarding ethical and religious points of view should be put under such an entry there. Mixing biased points of view into the "prologue" is a very bad idea, therefore I'll revert changes made by 18.96.6.53 on 23:35, 22 November 2007. One might want to revise the mentioned submission when creating such an entry. --80.221.19.39 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia needs to have a dicussion about cloning, while i do understand it is a touchy subject dealing with religious beliefs and other factors, i still strongly believe there should be one. I also need some opinions on the subject for my essay Ihave to right for my health class.please feel free to speak up.

• Cl*205.155.5.205 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Still being vandalized?

{{Editprotected}} Hmm, just noted that I couldn't add some stuff here.

The first human hybrid human clone was created in November 1998, by American Cell Technologies.. It was created from a man's leg cell, and a cow's egg whose DNA was removed. It was destroyed after 12 days. Since a normal embryo implants at 14 days, Dr Robert Lanza, ACT's director of tissue engineering, told the Daily Mail newspaper that the embryo could not be seen as a person before 14 days. While making an embryo, which may have resulted in complete human had it been allowed to come to term, according to ACT: "[ACT's] aim was 'therapeutic cloning' not 'reproductive cloning'"

~ender 2008-02-16 10:58:AM MST

N Declined. The article is not protected. Sandstein (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ermm.... I think IT IS PROTECTED! 88.105.87.97 (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC) i think the last comment was supposed to be under No controversy??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.202.198 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitions

What the hel does "descregligible" mean? "and "persistence cloning" to descregligible SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence)". As far as I can tell, this word doesn't exist anywhere outside of this article and the various websites that mirror it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.10.133 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the definitions of 'cloning'/'human cloning', 'clone', 'therapeutic cloning' and 'reproductive cloning' all need work.

There are no documented cases of successful human cloning. 

Directly contradicts this:

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being, human cell, or human tissue.

Since ACT (and others) have generated human embryos. However, I can see the confusion, if people are using different definitions of what 'human cloning' meants.

ACT itself complains about people mis-using the term 'therapeutic cloning'; "claiming that employing cloning techniques to create a child for a couple who cannot conceive through any other means treats the disorder of infertility. We object to this usage and feel that calling such a procedure "therapeutic" yields only confusion."[1].

Creation of an embryo which could be brought to term and/or has been successfully brought to term needs a specific name, versus the creation of other types of cells which while able to reproduce and differentiate, cannot be used to create a reasonably undamaged complete organism - which needs a different term.
~ender 2008-02-16 10:58:AM MST

Who is John Rick Shelton?

"However, the most successful common cloning technique in non-human mammals is the process by which Dolly the sheep was produced. John Rick Shelton was one of 277 attempts. It is also the technique used by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), the first company to successfully[2] clone early human embryos that stopped at the six cell stage."

I removed the sentence referring to the gentleman as Google didn't turn up anything relevant to Dolly the Sheep or cloning when I searched for his name. --Kyace (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow...

This article is horrible, it's written like a 6th Grade Essay. It discusses events in 2001, and rambles on about aliens... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.5.205 (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Please do not use personal attacks on Wikipedia. See WP:PA for further reading.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Advantages

One of the headings in the article on human cloning is 'possible advantages'. A few years ago I wrote articles on the subject of humanitarian cloning,and I mailed the articles to magazines,but unfortunately,none of them were interested in publishing my articles. As far as I know,I am the only person who has proposed the idea of humanitarian cloning. Basically,the purpose of humanitarian cloning is to preserve the genetic diversity of a population that has been devastated by genocide,for example,the Jews in world war two. Since six million Jews were killed by the Nazis,we should allow the Jews who are alive today to create as many as six million cloned copies of themselves. Another example is the Bosnians who were killed in the war in the 1990's. Bosnians who are alive today should be allowed to clone themselves,and these Bosnian clones would replace the Bosnians who were killed in the war. Of course,replacing people who were lost is only a symbolic gesture,to try to heal the emotional wounds of war,the people killed during warfare can never really be replaced. The real value of humanitarian cloning lies in the possibility of preserving the genetic diversity of the Jewish gene pool,the Bosnian gene pool,et cetera. Signed---- Anthony Ratkov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.74.116 (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on above statement: I believe that "preserving the genetic diversity" of the gene pool of populations reduced by genocide would not be achieved by cloning the remaining population because no new diversity would be achieved except where the usual mutations occur. Remember the clones would be genetically exact copies of the donors. (Panthora (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

Why is there absolutely no mention of cellular/molecular level human cloning? We are already growing human limbs and tissue.  Sirmikey1 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Identical Twins

The article should address "natural" cloning...i.e. identical twins.

Goeggel (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, to put it more comparatively, explain how "natural cloning" (multiple identical siblings) is often referred to as "horizontal cloning" where the children are born at the same time, and "reproductive cloning" as "vertical cloning" where the children are born after the first "sibling" has already grown to adult maturity. This could help to establish that clones aren't the same person, much like identical siblings aren't the same person, and that "genetic" identity is intrinsically flawed. FinalDeity (talk) (Sorry, forgot to log in)

No process of cloning stated?

Why is there no process/theories of Human Cloning stated? -Vincetti (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

can a diseased human use his part for cloning and if so what happens to the cloned being

i have wondered how human can be cloned and if they can be cloned why don't scientist clone people with HIV patience and develope clone liver for people with hepathitis B and also get artificial blood for blood transfusion instead of taking blood from people which can end up being diseased infested —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.13.77 (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Someone dead or someone infected?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 03:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"استنساخ البشر"

استنساخ البشراستنساخ البشر هو إنشاء نسخة مطابقة وراثيا من الإنسان (وليس عادة في اشارة الى تعدد المواليد) ، خلية بشرية ، أو الأنسجة البشرية. أخلاقيات الاستنساخ هي قضية مثيرة للجدل للغاية. مصطلح يستخدم عادة للإشارة إلى استنساخ البشر الاصطناعي ؛ استنساخ الإنسان في شكل التوائم المتماثلة أمرا مألوفا ، مع الاستنساخ التي تحدث أثناء عملية التكاثر الطبيعي. هناك نوعان من الشائع ناقش أنواع الاستنساخ البشري : الاستنساخ العلاجي والاستنساخ لأغراض التكاثر. ويشمل الاستنساخ العلاجي استنساخ خلايا من حيوان بالغ للاستخدام في الطب و هي منطقة نشطة للبحث ، في حين أن الاستنساخ ينطوي على جعل استنساخ البشر. مثل استنساخ البشر لم يتم تنفيذ وغير قانوني في كثير من البلدان. وثمة نوع ثالث من الاستنساخ الاستنساخ البديل هو مجرد احتمال نظري ، وسيكون مزيجا من الاستنساخ العلاجي والإنجابية. الاستنساخ استبدال سيستتبع والاستعاضة عن أضرار واسعة ، وفشل ، أو فشل الجسم عن طريق الاستنساخ تليها كليا أو زرع جزئي للدماغ.

==التاريخ==على الرغم من امكانية استنساخ البشر ، وقد كان موضوعا لتكهنات عن الكثير من القرن العشرين ، والعلماء وصانعي السياسة بدأت تأخذ على محمل الجد احتمال في 1960s. الحائز على جائزة نوبل الوراثة جوسوا ليدربيرغ نادت الاستنساخ والهندسة الوراثية في المادة الأصيلة في التعامل مع الطبيعة الأمريكية في عام 1966 ومرة أخرى ، في السنة التالية ، في صحيفة واشنطن بوست. انه أثار جدلا مع المحافظة أخلاق الطب الحيوي ليون كاس ، الذي كتب في ذلك الوقت أن "الاستنساخ المبرمج للرجل ، في الواقع ، إهانته". آخر الحائز على جائزة نوبل ، جيمس واتسون ، ويعلن عن الأخطار المحتملة للاستنساخ في مقالته الشهرية الأطلسي ، "تتحرك باتجاه مان منسوخة" ، في عام 1971.

استنساخ البشر أيضا كسب موطئ قدم في الثقافة الشعبية ، التي تبدأ في 1970s. ألفين توفلر في صدمة المستقبل ، وديفيد لRorvik في صورته : نحو الاستنساخ لرجل ، في فيلم وودي ألن النائم وبنين والبرازيل كل من ساعد على توعية الجمهور حول القضايا الأخلاقية المحيطة الاستنساخ البشري.

الآثار الأخلاقية

المدافعون عن الاستنساخ العلاجي الإنسان نعتقد أن الممارسة يمكن أن توفر للخلايا متطابقة جينيا الطب التجديدي ، والأنسجة والأعضاء لزرعها. وهذه الخلايا والأنسجة والأعضاء من شأنه أن لا يمنحهم استجابة مناعية ولا تتطلب استخدام الأدوية المثبطة للمناعة. كل من البحوث الأساسية وتنمية علاجية لأمراض خطيرة مثل السرطان وأمراض القلب والسكري ، فضلا عن إدخال تحسينات في علاج الحروق والجراحة التجميلية والترميمية ، هي المجالات التي يمكن أن تستفيد من هذه التكنولوجيا الجديدة. اخلاقيات الطب في جامعة نيويورك يعقوب محمد ابيل جادل بأن "الأطفال المستنسخة لأغراض علاجية" مثل "للتبرع بنخاع العظم لأحد الأقرباء مع اللوكيميا" قد تكون يوما ما ينظر إليها كأبطال.

أنصار الزعم بأن الاستنساخ البشري أيضا سيحقق فوائد. سيفيرينو انتينوري وبانوس زافوس الأمل لإيجاد علاج للخصوبة أن يسمح للآباء الذين هم على حد سواء يعانون من العقم لديهم أطفال على الأقل مع بعض عينات من الحمض النووي في ذريتهم.

بعض العلماء ، بمن فيهم الدكتور ريتشارد البذور ، تشير إلى أن الاستنساخ البشري قد تغني عن الإنسان عملية الشيخوخة. الدكتور بريستون Estep قد اقترح مصطلح "استبدال الاستنساخ" لوصف جيل من استنساخ شخص يعيشون في السابق ، و "استمرار الاستنساخ" لوصف إنتاج هيئة مستنسخ لغرض تفادي الشيخوخة ، وعلى الرغم من أنه يرى أن مثل هذه إجراءات الخيال العلمي في الوقت الراهن ينبغي النظر [عدل] وتقنيات الاستنساخ الحالي خطر إنجاب طفل الشيخوخة المبكرة.

في أوبري دي غراي SENS المقترحة (استراتيجيات الهندسة الشيخوخة التي لا يعتد بها) ، واحدا من الخيارات المطروحة لإصلاح استنفاد الخلايا المتصلة الشيخوخة الخلوية هو بديل لزراعة الأنسجة من خلايا جذعية تم حصادها من جنين مستنسخ.

معارضي الاستنساخ البشري يجادلون بأن عملية من المرجح أن تؤدي إلى الأطفال المصابين بإعاقات شديدة. على سبيل المثال ، اخلاقيات الطب توماس موراي من مركز هاستينغز يجادل بأن "لا مفر منه ومما لا ريب أن الجماعات تسير في محاولة لاستنساخ كائن بشري ، ولكن أنهم ذاهبون إلى خلق الكثير من القتلى والجرحى الاطفال على طول الطريق." أي : بسبب لصعوبة استنساخ أي حيوان يعيش ، فمن المرجح أنه لن يكون هناك عدد كبير من الفشل في إيجاد استنساخ البشر الذين يعيشون مثل الحيوانات المستنسخة دون نظم المناعة قابلة للحياة أو الفشل الإجمالي غيرها من الموارد الجينية.

Totally unclear passage

"With regard to" is a weasel term. Tell me, what does this passage mean? It's not even clear whether the research is legal or not: The remaining gap with regard to therapeutic cloning was closed when the appeals courts reversed the previous decision of the High Court.[16] 199.172.169.33 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rorvik book title needs correction

{{editsemiprotected}} Established user needed to correct this last part of History section please:

"Human cloning also gained a foothold in popular culture, starting in the 1970s. Alvin Toffler's Future Shock, David Rorvik's In His Image: Toward Cloning of a Man, Woody Allen's film Sleeper and The Boys from Brazil all helped to make the public aware of the ethical issues surrounding human cloning."

The correct title to Rorvik's book is: "In his Image: the Cloning of a Man". Not "...Toward Cloning..." and "his", not "His"

Please change "In His Image:Toward Cloning of a Man" to "In his Image: the Cloning of a Man"

The word "his" is intentionally left uncapitalized by the author at least on the cover. I assume Rorvik did this to underscore the play-on-words concerning a man cloning himself (thereby creating a being in "his" image), as apposed to the more familiar meaning of the phrase (a supreme being creating a life in "His" image, usually a direct reference to God) in which case the word "His" in the phrase "In His Image", would of course be capitalized regardless of whether it appeared in a title or not.

Also this last small paragraph in the History section listing the books and films involving human cloning, would probably be better placed, or actually incorporated, into the Popular Culture section in the article.

I have made the appropriate edits to the book title in Rorvik's article. Can I please get an established user to make the corrections in this semi-protected article?

Y Done Requires sourcing though if you have any, I'll see if I can come up with some later on tonight when I get some more time to spare. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to WP but in a case like this where the correct title of a book is disputed, wouldn't the most reliable and authoritative source have to be the book itself?- Racerx11 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding hitman franchise to popular culture section

I suggest someone writes a few lines about the "Hitman" franchise of games from game developer Eidos. The game theme and story revolves around cloning, with the games protagonist being a clone himself. The last game in the franchise "Hitman: Blood Money" is about the political and legal aspect of cloning, especially in the United States of America. --87.58.243.118 (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From a global viewpoint, this is not important at all. See WP:TRIVIA. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Misconception on therapeutic cloning

The probably most common misconception about therapeutic cloning is that it would mean the creation of a whole human to take the needed organ(s) from. But since a human clone would inevitably develop a full human mind and an unique personality this would be equivalent of killing one person in order to cure an other. Consequentially, the goal of therapeutic cloning is to create only the tissues which the patient needs. As such I think that therapeutic cloning should be encouraged due to its potential to cure diseases otherwise incurable. For a more detailed explanation of cloning of whole humans please read the discussion under the subtitle “Misconceptions on reproductive cloning”. I have started it myself.

2010-06-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I really felt the need to write this. I know this is intended to be a discussion of the article but I apparently minsunderstood that. It would be suitable to point out in the article that therapeutic cloning does not involve the creation of a whole human as many people seem to think.

2010-06-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Fair enough. Which source would you use? Gabbe (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't remember where I got my statements from. Sorry for not thinking about that.

2010-08-25 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Misconceptions on reproductive cloning

There are many misconceptions about reproductive cloning. I intend to debunk the two most important ones here. If you want to criticise my text please avoid ad hominem attacks. I know that cloning is a hot topic but please just ask about or criticise things immediately related to what I have written here.

One is that clones would be soulless. It is based on the claim that the soul enters the embryo at conception. This idea is in turn based on two misunderstandings of what conception means. First, conception is not a moment but a process which takes between 24 and 48 hours. Secondly, the result is just a barely visible single cell. This cell divides into two, which divides into four ones, which divides into eight and so on. When there are enough cells they split up into one inner layer which later develops into the foetus and one outer which develops into the membrane of the foetus and placenta. The inner layer splits up further into three layers. The innermost develops into the digestive system and lungs. The middle layer develops into skeleton, muscles, the circulatory system, kidneys and genitals. The outermost layer develops into skin and the nervous system. This is a completely natural process which takes place in all Chordates but at different speeds and with different end results. Comparable processes take place in all animals except for sponges and Cnidaria which develops two cell layers instead of three. (A possible other exception is the Placozoa which have only been seen to reproduce asexually.) My point is that a soul can't exist without a brain. It does not matter if you call it soul, spirit, mind or personality it is still dependant on the function of the brain. Consequentially, if there is a sufficiently developed brain there is also a soul. The only way a child can be born soulless is if it is born without a cortex. However, such a child could be considered born brain-dead.

If a healthy clone can be made the development of the brain would not be influenced by the coning process. Although clones may have aberrations from human nature but these will be aberrations existing in non-clones as well. People ignorant of such aberrations may mistake them for evidence that clones does not have a full mind. The idea of clones being soulless will result in them being treated as if they where not sentient. If carried out from start such a treatment will result in clones having their mental development neglected. In severe cases they may not have the chance to learn fundamental human skills such as speaking and knowing the properties of everyday objects. There are cases of severely neglected children which have not even learned to chew because their parents had never given them any solids! Clones which never had the chance to learn fundamental human skills may be misunderstood as being born without the ability to learn them. This will result in no effort to repair the damage done to their minds to the extent it is possible. All in all this misconception has the potential to make a clone’s life truly miserable.

One other is that cloning would recreate the personality of the cloned person. But since there is no magic involved in cloning cones can be directly compared to identical twins. What we call “identical twins” may be physically nearly identical. Yet they always develop unique personalities regardless if the grow up together or apart. As such a clone would inevitably develop an unique personality. Most important, a clone will have no memory of anything that has happened to the cloned person. Neither is there any guarantee that the clone will have any of the cloned person's skills, habits or addictions. (A clone may have the genetic potential for addiction but this is not the same as addiction itself.) However, a clone will to great extent share the cloned person's specific talents, lack of specific talents and general temperament. Some element of taste for food and drink is also hereditary since the density of taste buds on the tongue is genetically determined as well as dislike of certain plants. These similarities – combined with skills and habits based on them – may be mistaken for evidence that the clone is the cloned person. Is there anything more frustrating that not being believed? Moreover, children who grow up with the expectation of becoming someone who already exists become unhappy because they can't live up to people's expectations. This has already happened to several children of celebrities. So we might call this condition “famous parent syndrome”.

I think that cloning of whole humans is immoral. By cloning you create a person who merely from the way he or she came into existence runs a constant risk of being wrongfully treated. This kind of cloning should be outlawed. But artificial dividing of embryo could be allowed provided they are all developed during the same pregnancy. If so the result will be indisguisable from natural identical twins, triplets, and so on. Most likely the first human clone in not born yet. However, it is probably only a matter of time before the first human clone is born. Since clones would not differ from non-clones in any intrinsical sense they should have full civil rights. They should be raised by people who have not only realized this but also are highly motivated to let them live their own lives. To everyone who blames a clone for the actions of the cloned person I want to say: Would you blame an identical twin for something the other twin has done? To all future clones I want to say: Please remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.

2010-07-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Interesting. However, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss sourced improvements of the article, it isn't a general forum on the subject of human cloning. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Are there any specific improvements to the article, based on reliable sources, that you would like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the use of Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate – The modern denial of human nature. I have read it myself in Swedish translation. In this book he writes that personality is 40–50% hereditary, 10% or less due to parenting and 50% due to pure random chance. If no-one has anything against the use of this book as a source I think it should be used to fill a hole I found. The article states that we don’t know to which extent I clone’s personality would resemble that of the cloned person. However, I think we already know enough to make rough estimates of the similarities between them. I was in fact more prepared to criticism based on bad analogies. For example, some people compare modern twin studies to the experimentation on twins conducted by the Nazis. In reality they have no more in common than the use of identical twins. What the Nazis did wrong was conducting painful human experimentation instead of painful animal experimentation. (The Nazis treated many animals better than many people.) I can’t find out any way in which twin studies could be painful. Identical twins divided shortly after birth for other reasons has just been traced down and asked systematic questions independently of each other. From the answers they have given their degrees of different personality traits can be estimated. Although there are always significant similarities between their personalities there are also always significant differences as well. From this I draw the conclusion that clones would inevitably develop unique personalities yet there would still be some similarities with the personalities of the persons they where cloned from.

My point is that a clone would not be the cloned person any more than an identical twin is the other twin. People thinking that cloning would recreate the cloned person most be using some kind of magical thinking. Many habits and skills can’t be hereditary themselves since their very existence depends on what can be found in the environment. When similar habits are found in identical twins raised apart they most be due to the same inborn tendencies getting a similar outlet in a similar environment. In the same way we do not inherit skills themselves but the ability to learn specific types of skills. About memory I am convinced that humans are born with almost no memory at al. What little memory we do possess at birth is due to experiences during the later stages of fetal development. Since there is no magic involved in cloning cones will be no different. Please note that there are several different types of which mature at different ages. Infants can remember and learn a lot but they can’t have any conscious memory of events. This ability develops at the age of two or three when the mind of the child matures to the stage of being aware of its own existence independent of the environment. This can usually be noticed due to the child starting to use pronouns in first person or referring to itself by using its first name.

Some people think that clones will be “soulless” due to the absence of conception. These people can’t be aware that identical twins (triplets and so on) originate from a single conception. Do they share a single soul or is all but one soulless? This is a good question to ask such people.

2010-07-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

A big problem arises when you say "From this I draw the conclusion [...]". While there is nothing wrong with drawing such a conclusion (and, in my view, it is a reasonable one to make), we aren't allowed to insert conclusions we've made ourselves when editing articles, see WP:NOR. Every single statement (and conclusion) in every article must be attributable to a reliable source that directly support the material as presented. Furthermore, if we want to include statements like "some people think [...]" into the article, that would likewise require a source explicitly saying so. Gabbe (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Brave new World

I think Huxleys take is all the more meritorious since he came up with it in '31. I added it to pop culture. I appologise I screwed it up and am unable to fix the damn thing. Please help&delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.177.126 (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

the first person who was cloned the process of --190.58.206.24 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Subjest

While I was reading this article, this phrase caught my eye. "The ethical and moral issues cannot wait and should be discussed, debated and guidelines and laws be developed now" This statement seems to infer that Wikipedia is not neutral about this topic. Any thoughts? BubbleBuggy (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)