Cloning, isn't the right the same as other rights?

[RB TexLa]

Such as the right to control and regulate your own body. It is your own DNA.

Doesn't the opposition come from the thought "I don't like what that person wants to do with their own DNA there should be a law to stop them from doing that with their DNA."

[Tunkamerica]

1. i think a lot of the fear has to do with...

...either someone or some entity cloning you without your permission or someone or -thing pulling a star wars and making an army of super clones. Popular culture and Science fiction in particular has done a lot to tarnish the idea of cloning. Which may be a good thing.

Basically, the consequences and possibilities are so unknown most would rather leave it alone. I mean would you trust those we have in power with any more power or responsibility?

But on a basic level I'd say that your DNA is yours and as long as you're not hurting anyone else, you can do what you want with it.

[BootinUp]

2. Its the whole when does life begin thing,

that is human life as in "divine soul" begin.

[RB TexLa]

3. I wasn't addressing theological or even biological questions with

it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. you think you own your own body? try to

do something the gov't disapproves of...like smoke a little weed. Try to sell and organ or a limb. You do not own yourself.

sP

[Igel]

5. Interesting premise. Leads to an absurdity.

I own my DNA. My wife owns hers.

We decided to contribute some of each and we have a 2-year-old. Half mine, half hers. It's our DNA. We should be able to do with it what we want, as long as we agree; and if either one of us disagrees, s/he should have no authority.

However I don't know anybody that thinks that; there are *some* that think that. We usually think they're benighted.

If I try to sexually abuse our walking, breathing combined DNA, even if my wife agrees, people will intervene if they find out about it. If I decide to harvest some organ, even if my wife agrees, there's a problem. Moreover, under some circumstances a judge can decide that I have no say over my portion of DNA. Custody of my DNA may be given to my wife (or, more rarely, vice-versa).

Hell, if we decide to merge our DNA again to produce another unit, my wife can unilaterally decide to throw my portion (with hers, of course) into a trash can, since in some sense she's considered to "own" my DNA when it's in her body.

Define "clone", and we'll go from there. After all, if I produce an exact replica of myself (at least at the genetic level), do I still own the DNA when that replica starts to talk? The ethical implications are large; and we haven't finished hashing out abortion.

[RB TexLa]

6. Until you gave your DNA to her it was yours

And laws are pretty clear as to when what rights are given to the child.

As far as not having finished hashing out abortion, science operates on it's own timetable and doesn't always wait for us to be ready for things.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Is it still "your DNA" once the clone is born?

If so, can you take it's liver to replace your damaged one?

The answer to your poll is no - for a number of reasons.

[RB TexLa]

8. That would depend on what you made with the DNA

a person would have all the rights granted by the state/country. Do we limit rights of "test tube" babies because of how they were made?

If you just clone a liver and not a person of course it yours and you can use it to replace the one you have.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. There's the question of how healthy a cloned person would be

because their DNA comes from a process that has had different DNA replication/repair mechanisms. Dolly the sheep died fairly early, and the suspicion was that it was related to the 'age' of her DNA. This may have been cleared up by now, but I'm not sure - you might be creating a person more susceptible to cancer and other DNA-related diseases.