Anyone want to have a pet clone?!?

V

Vance

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,265
Reaction score
1
Following up the debate about clone in my topic, 'Clone Sexual Therapy', I asked one of my classmates who spend many and many hours on clone technology than I do (I am more of interested in nanotechnology than I do for clone technology). She showed me this link: http://www.savingsandclone.com/ and see for yourself. Allow me to quote:

Genetic Savings & Clone enriches the lives of pet lovers through superior cloning technologies. Cat cloning available today; dog cloning available in 2005.
Click to expand...
So.. your old dog died from car accident? Clone it and have your old dog back! The glory is here! [/sarcasm]

Seriously, that is the beginning of the age of cloning. So what do you think..? If your pet get killed from natural accidents, will you clone yours?
 
I don't see any point in cloning a pet. Even if it were genetically the same, it is NOT the same animal. The shared experiences and memories are not there. In fact, there is a greater possibility that the cloned animal will be defective and cause further disappointment for the pet owner.

Reminds me of "Pet Cemetery" movie.
 
Yeah, this has been anicipated in the last few years, especially months. I don't really give a damn about it. I thought we are in favor of spaying and neturing. Go to the local shelter and adopt.
 
:werd: oh yea i agree with reba with the movie.. definitely sounds like that movie with this issue... i rather go out and adopt dog instead clone. once is once, thats enough then go next different breed or something.. it would be scary to clone
 
Reba said:
I don't see any point in cloning a pet. Even if it were genetically the same, it is NOT the same animal. The shared experiences and memories are not there. In fact, there is a greater possibility that the cloned animal will be defective and cause further disappointment for the pet owner.

Reminds me of "Pet Cemetery" movie.
Click to expand...


Yep it does remind me of Pet Cemetery too, That cat "Church" scares the crap out of me.

Never know if the pet becomes violence after being cloned, who would want to take that risk? sure not me.. yikes!
 
i rather not get a cloned pet.. i'm totally against cloning animals or human begins. let god do whatever he wants.. god create animals and human.. human don't create animals.

this is gonna scare me if they're gonna clone dinosouars :eek:
 
This brings back something that my uncle who runs and operates the largest dairy farm in Eastern Iowa (over 5,000)...he hitched up with some partners and had a dairy cow cloned which sold for $100,000 at a big cattle show several years ago...The success that they had veered them into planning and producing more cloned dairy cows in the future, although, presently I do not know how that has worked out...or what has become of it....

As for pets, I wouldn't want to consider doing something like this...the likeness and spittin' image of a pet might be incredible, but it wouldn't be able to replace the 'personality' of the original pet, etc.,....
 
Roadrunner -
Are you familiar with New Trend 315? That bull SHOULD be cloned.

Interesting to hear a Diary cow selling for that high. Must have a high output gene.
 
I thought that cattle breeders preferred to mix the best qualities of several stock rather than limit to one gene pool (as in cloning). Most animal breeders (livestock and pet) constantly improve their "product" by refining the features that are bred into each generation. Without introducing new and different genes, the pool becomes stagnent. Cloning might produce an animal with a specific positive attribute but also pass on a specific negative attribute. For example, suppose a cattleman has a complete herd of one cloned cow. Each cow is an outstanding milk producer. However, each cow also carries a certain gene that is susceptible to a specific virus, but the cattleman doesn't know that because the original cow was never exposed to that virus. Well, one day, his cows are exposed to that virus, and the whole herd is wiped out. He has no stock left. Hmmm....
 
Reba said:
I thought that cattle breeders preferred to mix the best qualities of several stock rather than limit to one gene pool (as in cloning). Most animal breeders (livestock and pet) constantly improve their "product" by refining the features that are bred into each generation. Without introducing new and different genes, the pool becomes stagnent. Cloning might produce an animal with a specific positive attribute but also pass on a specific negative attribute. For example, suppose a cattleman has a complete herd of one cloned cow. Each cow is an outstanding milk producer. However, each cow also carries a certain gene that is susceptible to a specific virus, but the cattleman doesn't know that because the original cow was never exposed to that virus. Well, one day, his cows are exposed to that virus, and the whole herd is wiped out. He has no stock left. Hmmm....
Click to expand...
Yup. The outcome of these cloning cows will be disastrous. I wouldn't surprise if there will be some kind of virus that developed from clones which will cause many death(s) and incurable disease(s). You know, nature is not to be mess with. Nature set its own rules and it works for thousand years...
 
I can see cloning to a limited extent; like for body parts for the medical profession; beyond that, it gets scary!
 
Yup, and it gets sticky, too, and science gets on thin ice here. The duty and compulsion to cure diseases are among the most intuitively obvious duties there are, despite the fact that they do not rest upon any previous voluntary acts of our own. Cloning one's body parts for future transplant is really based upon the premise that duties, obligations, and entitlements arise out of benefits you accept, and not ones you merely receive. You do not really own yourself. If you truly owned yourself, you would have the moral right to sell yourself, and thus give other people the right to buy and own you. Your family and state do not own you---you instinctively feel a sort of obligation to take care of your parents in their later years, but this comes from a feeling of love for them and really nothing else. After all, we had no choice in where and when we were born, and the choices we make are just those, choices, not rights. The idea that we MUST pursue cloning technology without weighing all aspects of it makes us slaves to the wishes of others. Some rights are inalienable, but the right to cloning doesn't exist.
Well, enough rambling.
 
Sorry, I am disagree to this thread.

I reject cloning animals or humans.

Nobody can replace dead animal or humans.
 
Though I don't think I would ever try to clone a pet, I did have a cat when I was in elementary school that I would love to have back. For two and half years, that kitty was my best friend (ages 6 and up) until our animal hating neighbors ran him over. He followed a foot and a half behind me everywhere I went, and if I went indoors, he sat in the window waiting for me to come back. He meowed in response to me when I spoke to him. Best cat ever.

If I could have that cat back -- I'd consider cloning. However, this particular cat was "special" because he got imprinted on me -- he was taken away from his mother too young, and attached to me. So even a genetic duplicate wouldn't produce the same loving behavior, now, would it?
 
I don't really think cloning is a good idea. It is best for the person whose pet died to come to terms with their death and accept their death as eventual, or else it'll end up like that movie, err... Minority Report or some cloning movie.
 
Back
Top