Do clones get human rights? -

[ZeCommissar]

Alright so to begin I will say I don't believe in "souls", so cloning to me is not "playing god" or whatever.

If someone cloned themselves, would said clone be a natural born citizen of whatever nation it was in? Would they also get human rights? Hell this even brings up the question: Should human cloning ever become legal?

Say two parents have a kid that died at a very young age in a horrible accident, would it be legal for them to just clone the kid?

What about a scenario like The Island movie where rich people have clones just incase they need their organs?

 

[neverendingmidi]

If it's a full body, that lives on it's own, then I'd say yes they should have the same rights as any person born normally. However, there would probably have to be laws developed so you can clone organs individually, or a whole person, but not some nightmarish torso/partial body that slips between those two states.

I can't quite see being able to clone an adult without them going through childhood, making an adult body with the experiences/understanding of an infant seems like a bad idea.

Edit: It'd be highly unethical, but it would be interesting to clone one random person say 5 times, adopt said children to various families, and truly see what nature vs. nurture shows.

 

[Sailor_Jupiter]

OF COURSE clones get human rights under natural law: genetically, they're just the twin brothers/sisters or the tissue donor, whilst biologically/psychologically they might be more like their offspring. Human DNA? Living body? HUMAN.

Kinda spergy, but I'm actually glad someone brought this up. I've thought about it a lot: in movies, human clones are always dehumanized/treated as monsters, and our technology is getting to the point of being able to clone/modify them... We're already willing to harvest tissue from harmless embroys, and we define humanity in babies as being bequeathed miraculously by a trip out the birth canal. Where does it end? Human beings can be awful. It's very, VERY conceivable to me that we might possibly use manufactured clones as an donor organ source in the future. Especially if their nervous systems were somehow modified to prevent or inhibit consciousness- besides the religious folks, who would object?

I hope it never gets to that point, but humanity produced things like late-term abortion, the Russian dog head (and fetus head) experiments, and Unit 731: I'm not optimistic about the species' morality! sigh. It's sci-fi NOW, but will it be in the future..? Some of the tech we have now was beyond the reaches of human imagination mere decades ago. Time will tell! :autism:

 

[Some JERK]

A clone of a human is a human. That's the entire point.

 

[Daughter of Cernunnos]

Yes if they are sentient and they still have human DNA.

 

[ADN_VIII]

Is the clone sentient and capable of self determination? If so, yes, it gets human rights like the rest of us meatbags.

 

[GV 998]

Parts: The Clonus Horror dealt with this very subject.

Purely speaking in logical terms, no they wouldn't, because they are an entirely artificial creation. The reason for cloning, as shown in the Clonus Horror, would be a readily available organ donor, in the event that you need an organ transplant

However, while growing up, these clones will develop personalities, (will they have a soul? I can't say. They theoretically should not.)
But they will be people, with feelings. So is it ethical to use a person as an organ supply?

I think it's because of these difficult questions, along with SO MANY others that arise that justifies why cloning a human is illegal and is considered a crime against humanity. Interestingly, in the US, there is a 7 year prison sentence for anyone who is caught attempting to clone a human. I wonder what the charge would be for someone that actually succeeded?

 

[Randall Fragg]

Making a whole clone of yourself for replacement organs is inefficient. If they were active (not comatose), it'd be horrifically unethical. If you could somehow modify the clone so that it would be unable to develop higher brain functions, meaning that it would be born a vegetable, the ethical issues would still be present, and you'd have to keep a sack of organs on life support around in case you, for some reason, need 5 organ transplants simultaneously.
Of course, if the level of technology needed to clone a brainless version of yourself exists, something like a brain or head transplant may exist, and the younger clone of yourself may be a way to extend your lifespan by sticking your brain into a younger body. (Of course, you're still fucked if you develop Alzheimer's).
Honestly, it may be easier to 3D print organs, something that is currently being researched.

 

[Antipathy]

An unaltered clone is just as human as a regular child, and as such should maintain such rights. Altered clones, however, is where things get iffy. If one was made to be better than the baseline person, should they have more rights? I say no.

If a clone was made just for organs, it'd be unethical to give it a brain, as you'd basically just kill someone every time you grow an organ. Thus, a clone with a brain shouldn't be harvested for organs (unless they're a corpse donor, in which case, go ahead).

 

[WW 635]

Your clone, having the same DNA as you, would be like an identical twin. Experiences would be different and so the personality would be shaped differently and it would effectively be a different person... Unless you consider your identical twin to be the same person. Either way, it's probably fine to make out with it and the only way some incels will ever get laid.

 

[Conrix]

All the clones get is @Calooby fucking them in their delicious bare snap heha

Edit: And also a website to bitch about it, it's called Doomworld lol

 

[ICametoLurk]

>Rights

Lel, what a spook.

 

[feedtheoctopus]

Listen, we're all ignoring the important question here: if you're fucking a clone of yourself, are you still technically fucking yourself even though physically it's a different person (who just so happens to look, talk, and act exactly like you)?

 

[Un Platano]

If there was a big risk of us making clone farms for organ harvesting, wouldn't that already be an issue? We can already very easily farm normal non-cloned humans, but we don't for obvious reasons, both ethical and logistical. Would them being a clone change anything?

 

[Sperglord Dante]

I think that once we're capable of producing functional and sentient clones with regular life expectancies we'll split the word "clone" into two different neologisms: one for the artificially crafted but humane beings and one for the organ factories, and humanity will slowly lose aversion to the idea of "playing god", kinda like how we lost aversion to homosexuality.

and you'd have to keep a sack of organs on life support around in case you, for some reason, need 5 organ transplants simultaneously.

You could give away organs you don't need to family members or other compatible people, so it's not as wasteful as you make it sound.

 

[WW 635]

Listen, we're all ignoring the important question here: if you're fucking a clone of yourself, are you still technically fucking yourself even though physically it's a different person (who just so happens to look, talk, and act exactly like you)?

Agree, the big question here is whether or not fucking your clone would be considered masturbation.

 

[CaptainKidd]

I've seen this ethical question brought up in this movie called "Never Let Me Go" which is centered around these people who are clones where their purpose of existing is so that they can have their organs harvested for the original.

These clones are told if they can prove they have a soul they wouldn't have to have their organs harvested. Good movie.