OT: Cloning of dead pets?

[Rose Immortal]

I happened to see this story and I thought it was more than a little bit creepy, especially when I read stuff about the "gruesome failures" that take place in order to produce a healthy animal by cloning. And then there's the other moral/ethical level involved in cloning an animal that has died.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,142385,00.html

And just to bring this (slightly) back on topic, I can't help but thinking of certain lyrics on V when I read this...about those disfigured, soulless creatures that were created when some decided to meddle in things they shouldn't have. Very chilling.

 

[MorphineChild205]

I'm all for any kind of scientific research on cloning and embryonic stem cells.

 

[Beelzebub]

The only pets I've had were guppies we flushed when I was about 7, so I haven't known an animal I was particularly close to. There are families who are very attached to their pets, consider them as members of their family, and I respect that. However, family members die, and it's a part of life. Dolly the sheep had complications with her health such as arthritis. If a family brings back their Skippy, who knows what other complications could arise? You'd be better off with happy memories than a shitty clone.

 

[MC Pee pants]

I think that there are advantages and disadvantages, but I don't really want to list them or have to think of them right now. I would say that even if cloning doesn't help most people that much, the research of it could potentially lead to other things that we may very well need, since it does deal with genetics and cells, although of what I know about the process it doesn't involve reading the dna, but putting it in a empty egg that has had it's dna taken out. I do think that people should just get over losing their pets though, they knew (or should have known) when they got it that it wasn't going to last as long as they were.

 

[Rose Immortal]

MC, I'd respectfully suggest that this wasn't cloning for the sake of science...I think this was someone doing this because they couldn't deal with their grief. (As for cloning for science, that's a whole other can of worms, but I don't want to open it right now.)

One of the aspects that bothers me is, I almost think it dishonors the creature that has died, by acting as if he or she can be replicated or resurrected by humans from the dead. I imagine most people would react with revulsion at the idea of doing something like this with a person. A cloned animal might have the same DNA, but there are other factors even on the physical level that differ--factors affected by environment and nurture, which cannot ever be exactly the same between the original and the clone. Plus, many clones become sick and die. Some age more rapidly than normal animals. I don't understand how I could knowingly have a creature created simply because I could not deal with grief--and run a high risk of subjecting him or her to that sort of torture just because I could not face a natural part of life.

On no level can we create the same creature twice. And I know not everyone will agree with this, too, but I think that the worst thing about it is, the new animal has a new soul, that thing that we cannot create ourselves. Yet to expect him or her to be the same creature is somehow very wrong. I speak as someone who has had cats and dogs, and currently has a cat...and I could not ever attempt to clone one of them. I feel like it would dishonor their lives and their uniqueness. I even say this after having acompanied and soothed my old cat as she was put to sleep, because I couldn't turn my back on her then. It was terribly hard...I was crying...but I truly feel like the right thing was to let her go and keep the memories. And I know not everyone feels that animals have souls, but I honestly believe that grieving and letting her go was the way to honor all that she was.

 

[frozen_core]

well, you can never clone a personality...that said: do clones have souls?

 

[MC Pee pants]

Rose, I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that cloning the cat was good because it was for the sake of science, I think that cloning pets to bring them back is kinda silly and stupid (but you articualted that point much better). On the contrary I believe that the research of cloning will benefit science, because it may futher our understanding of nature, and possibly many other things. Again I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I should have you understand that I don't know if I'm for or against it right now, and don't think that it should be aplied, but just studied...that said I see where your coming from and also don't think we need to get into a discussion about cloning in general. I hope this cleared anything up, btw as i have never seen a clone so I couldn't tell you if I think they have souls, but as living creatures I must assume at this point that they do.

 

[SilentRealm]

I think its stupid though to clone a cat.. its a cat! How many have I seen that have markings and resemblence identical to ones I've had before.. Also with the amount of unwanted pets in this world, it makes absolutely no sense to do it.

If a persons grief is that intense they cant handle the natural forces of life and death, then I think something is seriously wrong with their heads. Normal people wouldnt clone their children, why would they clone their pets?

And the amount of money she paid to have it done, there are so many better things in this world to spend it on, such as helping the millions of animals that are already in need.

Lastly, cloning a human, though morally wrong, would be interesting to see. To see what kind of person he or she becomes, the soul aspect, lifespan aspect etc.

 

[Rose Immortal]

MC, don't worry, I think we probably both misread each other, and I think I understand your position better now.

Somehow I would assume that a cloned creature would have a soul...I just don't think our ill-judgment would be allowed to go that far.

Also a good point about unwanted pets. Both of the cats our family has had either came off the street or from the shelter, and I've got no regrets about doing that. In fact, that first cat I told you about (the one I accompanied to the very end) would have almost certainly died young of cancer had we not taken her in and been able to get her the treatment she needed to live a good life.

 

[MC Pee pants]

Yeah, we have a dog and two cats in our family, and all three of them we got at the shelter. We've also lost a cat before, but I don't think anyone in my family felt the need to clone it, we just buried it and moved on. I'm glad also that we are on the same page and I hope you and everyone here a merry christmaquanzacha.(or even festivus: a holiday for the rest of us!)

 

[Dobbit]

Meh, I guess I'll put in my 2 cents here.

Firstly, I reject the notion of a soul and I'm an absolute athiest, so the arguements about the sanctity of life and the moral ethics (mainly the religious arguements) having to do with cloning don't concern me at all. I think if someone wants to have a cloned pet or not, they should. Whatever reason it may be. None of us can say if it will have the same personality, certain behavioral traits ARE inherited after all. Most likely not though, because behaviors are also learned, but there would still be some similarities.

If the family feels all nice and fuzzy with the illusion that its the same kitty that died, then let them have their peace of mind.


Edit: In the report the lady says the cat is identical, including the personality. I say if someone has the money to do it, let them if they want.

 

[OfSinsAndShred]

I think it's fucking creepy. I spent a lot of time looking into it, and I'm pretty much against it - scientific purposes is indeed a whole new can of worms, but this stuff... I'm against it. And I'm not a religious person, either.

Meh. It would bother me a lot more if it were a person.

 

[Rose Immortal]

This sort of thing seems to encourage a certain attitude towards all life as if it's disposable and replaceable, and that runs a risk of cheapening life.

There are some "atheistic" arguments that can be made against this devaluation of life as well as the religious ones. At least as I understand it, in a strictly humanistic system, value is placed on the lives of the living (that is, as opposed to valuing deity or spirit first)--and if that value were to be undermined by anything, it seems like that would place quite a strain on the moral/ethical system as a whole, because if that were gone, I'm not sure on what grounds an ethical decision could be made. I could be wrong, of course, but that just seems like a potential risk.

 

[Dobbit]

Everyone has their own opinions. I don't see an ethical problem with cloning. I don't see humans creating other beings as being wrong. I don't see why it would cheapen the 'value of life' if thats what you'd like to call it. They are still living creatures. Nothing can change that they're alive (well, except death, but I meant that nothing can change that while they live, they are living), so why would the value of life be cheapened as long as people still realize that they ARE living entities?

 

[MC Pee pants]

I think in this situation it lessens the value of life because the owner can know that if they're cat is going to die, it's alright because they can just bring it back. Then if it is the same with humans, we wouldn't feel the need to live every day to the fullest, becuase we could die the next day. We would know that if we did indeed die that someone could just bring us back.

Also when talking about it from a scientific stand point I would like to think of cloning as a stepping stone, that maybe we don't use once we've crossed it, but that it could bring better things that we don't know about (because if we did, they would have already been discovered).

 

[Dobbit]

I don't think people would see a 'cheapening' of life because of that. People KNOW that clones aren't going to be exactly the same because they'll have different memories. The behavior may be similar or the same, but wouldn't have the same memories. A human clone would be the most obvious in this respect. Now, only if a way to "save" someone's memories and then implant it into a clone, would what you're saying, apply.

EDIT: Hell, if I knew I could just be brought back after dying, I'd be living life much more to its fullest. And much farther beyond as well, I think it'd be fun to be able to do something and not have to worry about the consequence of death. I'm a little perverted, I'll admit that.

 

[Rose Immortal]

MC said pretty much what I would've said. What's interesting to me is Dobbit's response, as to what you'd do if you didn't have to worry about the consequence of death. Does that mean you'd act with zero restraint? If so, why? And if you would act with restraint, I'm curious why.

BTW, kind of a side point, which I found a little amusing as I was thinking about this subject offline earlier...

Isn't it funny that we talk here about "creating" life when in fact that's kind of a misnomer? I know I say it as well, for convenience. But it seems to me that we don't actually create life so much as manipulate it. In fact, I'd actually argue that we are not capable of true creation of life--to impart life where none ever existed previously. Even if (for instance) we cloned something from DNA we got from a corpse, it was previously a living being. Same goes for in vitro fertilization, genetically modified animals, and other interventions into the reproductive process. Even in our own normal reproduction we do not create life in the sense of something-out-of-nothing.

Just some off-the-wall food for thought.

 

[MC Pee pants]

that's why the first single celled organism was such an amazing thing. The transformation we still don't understand, although atempts to recreated the atmosphere have been made, it would take the same amount of time as it did on earth to see the results, and man isn't that patient.

 

[Dobbit]

Actually, in laboratory experiments, many simple organic compounds and protiens have been created, by re-creating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere. A living organism hasn't be made, but progress has been made to point in the direction of how those first cells came into existence.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Yep, I do remember reading about those experiments, but like you said, so far all we've managed to do is create amino acids...nothing that's looked back and said "Hi".