| Question of the Day |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November My Links Bobby Joe Daft and Demented AESav - AE's new home Joolieblog II Krazedone's Blog Irishred (aka ApplesnOranges) Andaloo Sillygrrl Crap Pix - Really Briggsy Anagamesx's Blog Susan of Pudlin and the "Puds" Fotocali on tblog Fark all day - you know you want to Lynne (aka ThingsIKnow) Big Doral Mark's Life Flaring and her Fish that were once Fry Ladyblog Tenkin - not to be forgotten Hhunter's Blog The Original Natblog Nattoons's Blog tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: Roxgirl (reply) post date: 04.12.05 (12:06 pm) Never thought about it! Why not? Moral obligations? Potential side-effects? Hmmm... good question, DK! posted by: EvilEye (reply) post date: 04.12.05 (4:17 pm) I would as long as it's the same as the real thing. posted by: kreativekat (reply) post date: 04.12.05 (7:45 pm) not until they get all the bugs out i mean like the 3 eyes kinda thing. we already eat vegetables that have it's genes kinda altered. Broccoflower. posted by: Joolie (reply) post date: 04.13.05 (9:14 am) As a clone (twin) myself I can quite safely say that I would never eat my sister lololol!!! Joolie xxx posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.27.05 (9:05 am) I think a lot of people miss the point that identical twins are essentially clones, and the differences between them and other clones is that twins happen naturally and at the same time, and other clones don't. Then again, fraternal twins who are the product of in-vitro fertilization don't necessarily happen at the same time. If the fertilized eggs are implanted at different times, we don't call them twins since they were not womb mates, but if the eggs were harvested at the same time, and so was the sperm, then the only difference is temporal. But that's not quite all there is to it. If you are cloning a cell or a blastocyst, you are not really going after the characteristics of anything specific since they are still unknown. Cloning tends to try to replicate the characteristics of an adult at a later time. Twins don't. But a clone is not really a new copy of somebody, but a delayed twin. Cloning is not perfect. There are still a lot of things not known about fertilization. When sperm enters an egg, there's still a lot that must happen. The way it enters and the direction it goes is still important for things to unfold properly. Cloning might result in genetically identical beings, but if the artificial process causes the genes to deploy incorrectly, there's room for error. The big difference between the errors from cloning and potential risks from gene splicing or other genetic engineering is that errors from cloning could occur naturally and do occur naturally. A cloned pig might not be a perfect copy, but its meat won't be tainted. If it ends up with a heart defect or a vision problem, it's a different issue. I might not eat the pig. It's not that it's cloned, but I'd prefer a nice salad, thank you. |
 Ayn Rant: AESav.net  Daft and Demented: Mal Uncensored  Captain Jack Sparrow Shop DangerKitty on Zazzle.com  |
Recently, it has been reported by the FDA that cloned meat and byproducts are as safe as their natural counterparts (if you can call a giant pig farm natural). Would you eat cloned meat (that is meat from a cloned animal) or by-products from a cloned animal like cheese, butter and milk?