Talk:Human cloning
No cloned human has reached the fetal stage, but for entirely non-scientific reasons. In most countries, implanting a cloned embryo is illegal. No publishing scientist has even attempted it. This situation is not likely to change any time soon, as success rates are still too low for practical use as a fertilitity treatment. Primates are considerably more difficult to clone than most other animals, but not impossible. There is no evidence to suggest humans are any more difficult to clone than other primates. - Suricou
Hmmm
The block on ChickenHawk for three days seems severe. The edit he made, questioning whether cloned human beings would have souls is a valid point...Okay he should have put in here on the talk page but gee 3 days? Crackertalk 19:28, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Look for more of the same. People will either move on, or learn this is a Conservative, pro Christian encyclopedia. Issues can be fairly presented without ignoring that fact. Or are you intimating that some our of our editors are incapable of doing so? --~ TK MyTalk 05:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Immorality
If cloning humans is immoral or not can be discussed, but i dont think its something to be stated in an encyclopedia as an fact.
- Yes, i forgot to sign the comment, but that dosent change the fact that the immorality of cloning is an opinnion, and encyclopedia should be free of those. So i would like to ask you why you think that comment has an place in an encyclopedia? Timppeli 05:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- I would like to cite the Conservapedia commandment number 5: Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited. I think the comment about immorality of human cloning is in direct violation with that. Are we now ignoring the commandments? Timppeli 05:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Please provide documentation of your claim. I am an Administrator of this site, so you should understand I am aware of our rules. Perhaps you need to ask Andy if cloning is immoral, and purely my personal opinion. I will of course bow to his decision. As should you.--~ TK MyTalk 05:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- Im not sure what documentation you are asking, im not claiming anything else than that the morality/immorality of human cloning is an opinnion. And im sure its an opinnion shared by many people, mayby even by Andy. But it dosent change the fact that it is still an opinnion and the rules say this encyclopedia should be free of those. But if you think we cant get to an agreement over this matter in here, sure, we can let Andy make the decision. Timppeli 05:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- It is only your opinion, and perhaps many others, as well. To most Americans, it is immoral. Would you like to see documentation of that? There has been hundreds of polls done. They document what the American people believe. Unless you can provide proof, categorical proof that cloning is not immoral, I will not change my fact. --~ TK MyTalk 06:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- The point isnt what people belieave, if encyclopedias would gather their facts on bases of what people belieave the current featured article on mainpage would claim that there is life outside earth, because 54% of americans belieave there to be. I dont have any hard evidence on behalf or against the morality of human cloning. You might belieave in absolute morals, but i dont. More opinnions right there. So... Seams we cant agree on this. Mayby its best to let Andy decide as you proposed earlyer. Timppeli 06:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Hmm... I see Sulgran just made some modifications to the article. I would be fine with the current wording, as it now atleast states the immorality of it as an opinnion not as an fact. Timppeli 06:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)