If they weren't, then why don't we use them to test new vaccines, instead of the animals. At least we will get more accurate results
2006-07-14 10:29:53 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
I think that they would have the same rights, as they would still be humans. They would still feel the same pain and emotions as "normal" people. If they were tested on, it would be a shame!
2006-07-14 10:34:47 · answer #1 · answered by Paul T 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's go over what a clone actually is, first:
A clone is someone who is born genetically identical to someone else because they were intentionally fertilized that way. A clone is not made in a machine - a clone is born from a human woman after 9 months, just like all other people. A clone is fertilized in a test tube, just like babies that are the result of in vitro fertilization.
So, what does that mean?
Absolutely nothing, in terms of ethics. A clone is exactly the same as a twin, or someone who is the result of in vitro fertilization. They have the same rights as all other people; that's not even subject to debate.
Creating a clone for the purpose of testing is exactly the same as having a regular baby for the purposes of testing - it's illegal and unethical.
2006-07-14 10:40:02 · answer #2 · answered by extton 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Human clones are produced all the time, already. They are called identical twins. I would hope that we would rely on existing common law if artificial clones are ever created (they would be newborn infants not adults). This says they have all the rights as any human.
However, history shows, that we are always happy to find reasons to claim someone of another skin color, nationality, or even sex isn't really human and doesn' t deserve such rights.
Let's hope we do better next time.
2006-07-14 11:16:26 · answer #3 · answered by soulrider 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Possibly not, because you would not actually be born... There would have to be massive changes the human rights act and parliamentary statutes, as a clone cannot be called human according to these legislations.
2006-07-14 11:37:35 · answer #4 · answered by jodie t 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure. Clones are basically human beings that are compelled into being yet another persons twin. no longer something greater. they're human beings comparable as you and that i yet basically with the comparable genes. i do no longer see any reason we could continuously lock twins up and harvest their organs. Clone certainly basically capacity man made twin. It nevertheless a residing questioning guy or woman.
2016-10-07 22:28:12 · answer #5 · answered by greenwell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i should think so - seeing they are at the end of the day cloned to be a human
2006-07-14 10:41:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there'd probably groups protesting for the rights of clones and eventually they'd have all the rights we have and get intergrated into society, rather than being used for what they were designed for
2006-07-14 10:34:25 · answer #7 · answered by Yoyo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A counter question ... why wouldn't they have the same rights?
We have numerous "unnaturally" born humans already ... yet we don't have separate rights and privileges to those conceived by intercourse over those who were conceived by artificial insemination or other related means.
2006-07-14 10:43:17 · answer #8 · answered by Arkangyle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cloning people is so hypothetical.The government would do a study and write laws.
2006-07-14 10:51:51 · answer #9 · answered by Balthor 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know how they say if you aren't born in America, then you can not be President? You can be from China and clone yourself in America. It works!
2006-07-14 11:01:39 · answer #10 · answered by vinible2006 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋