Clones and Sex.

• Zid wrote on 2010-11-18 16:56
  It's not masturbation.
  
  

  Quote from Merriam-Webster:

  erotic stimulation especially of one's own genital organs commonly resulting in orgasm and achieved by manual or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse, by instrumental manipulation, occasionally by sexual fantasies, or by various combinations of these agencies

  
  
  Even if it's your clone, it's another entity, and not to yourself. Therefore, it doesn't count as masturbation. Homosexual, yes, because you cloned the gender. Incest, yes, since it's within society's accepted measurement of how far blood relation goes before it becomes familial. Child molestation, I don't think so, since that's dependent on maturity state of body, not age.
  
  As for changing your clone's sex from male to female to create a baby, um... it probably might have the same genes. I can't remember exactly how probability works in genes in terms of dominance and recessive genes.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-11-18 16:58
  lol robot chicken.
• Kueh wrote on 2010-11-18 17:23

  Quote from Zid;220265:

  since that's dependent on maturity state of body, not age.

  
  
  I don't think so. What about individuals with aging diseases where their biological age is not a true representation of their actual age?
  
  That would mean it's not child molestation to molest a 13 year old with a 20 year old body to have sex and 36 year olds with 14 year old bodies can never get married and have children because they're biologically below the age of consent.
• Taycat wrote on 2010-11-18 17:29
  I'd call it twincest.
  
  Having sex with yourself is like with your twin. A twin that does everything you do.......
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-11-18 18:57
  Never mind what it's called it sounds cool. Why is cloning not allowed yet?
• Athde wrote on 2010-11-18 19:11
  Reminds me of an anime but thats for a different time.
  
  I would call it heterosexual due to the fact that you thought about it....
• Adelynn wrote on 2010-11-18 19:19
  Depends on how you work it out. It could be both at the same time. OwO
• Zid wrote on 2010-11-18 19:47

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;220286:

  I don't think so. What about individuals with aging diseases where their biological age is not a true representation of their actual age?
  
  That would mean it's not child molestation to molest a 13 year old with a 20 year old body to have sex and 36 year olds with 14 year old bodies can never get married and have children because they're biologically below the age of consent.

  
  
  They are exceptions to the rule that applies to the majority, aren't they?
  
  In this situation of cloning, it doesn't seem to be an exception.
• NewbieNub wrote on 2010-11-18 19:54

  Quote from Osayidan;220333:

  Never mind what it's called it sounds cool. Why is cloning not allowed yet?

  
  
  Because cloning technology is **** right now and there's the moral issues.
  
  It's so ****, the clones die of weird diseases, like heart malfunction, or a disabled liver.
  
  In most cases, clones don't last more than 5 years. In MANY cases, you'll most likely live longer than your clone.
  
  Then after that, you'll have people cloning the president, or people cloning their most hated enemies to serve under them as a toilet cleaner or a waiter etc. After that, you'll have people cloning people just to kill that individual.
  
  
  In the end, life would be meaningless since you could be cloned infinitely.
  There will be no meaning for you to live a life, since you could just... Clone yourself and live through it again?
• Finnea wrote on 2010-11-18 19:55

  Quote from NewbieNub;220374:

  Because cloning technology is **** right now and there's the moral issues.
  
  It's so ****, the clones die of weird diseases, like heart malfunction, or a disabled liver.
  
  In most cases, clones don't last more than 5 years. In MANY cases, you'll most likely live longer than your clone.
  
  Then after that, you'll have people cloning the president, or people cloning their most hated enemies to serve under them as a toilet cleaner or a waiter etc. After that, you'll have people cloning people just to kill that individual.
  
  
  In the end, life would be meaningless since you could be cloned infinitely.
  There will be no meaning for you to live a life, since you could just... Clone yourself and live through it again?

  
  
  Not to mention over population.
• Navy wrote on 2010-11-18 20:24

  Quote from Andy-Buddy;220048:

  Now let's say somehow, only one gene was different, and my clone was female.
  
  And I impregnated her/myself.
  
  
  Would the baby have the same genes?

  
  
  If that happens not only do you inherit Disney World you are the master of the Universe. Congrats.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-11-21 17:14

  Quote from NewbieNub;220374:

  Because cloning technology is **** right now and there's the moral issues.
  
  It's so ****, the clones die of weird diseases, like heart malfunction, or a disabled liver.
  
  In most cases, clones don't last more than 5 years. In MANY cases, you'll most likely live longer than your clone.
  
  Then after that, you'll have people cloning the president, or people cloning their most hated enemies to serve under them as a toilet cleaner or a waiter etc. After that, you'll have people cloning people just to kill that individual.
  
  
  In the end, life would be meaningless since you could be cloned infinitely.
  There will be no meaning for you to live a life, since you could just... Clone yourself and live through it again?

  
  
  Only you can never live through life again. Your clone lives his/her own separate life.
  
  Not yours.
• gentrone wrote on 2010-11-24 12:25
  Aww, I should read this section more often, interesting debate here.
  
  Just wanted to say that a clone of yourself is a complete different being, given that personality, and whatever makes people what they are, is a sum of experiences represented by neuronal connections that develop independently under infinite possible combinations of chemical reactions brain cells produce after perception by the senses. In religious terms, a clone and a cloned person would have different "souls", although after my explanation you might deduce that I do not believe in such thing.
  
  Therefore, it's not masturbation. Gay sex? Yes, because a clone has the exact same chromosomes as the cloned person. Incest? Well... I really don't know. Like socially, legally or technically? The word means a lot of things.
  
  

  Quote from Zid:

  Child molestation, I don't think so, since that's dependent on maturity state of body, not age.

  
  
  But that person has no experiences, Locke's Tabula Rasa. Maturity is determined by age and experiences; I was inclined to say that age was the only factor but then I thought of the "mental age" thing. Then again, it is experiences what really matter and you can't possibly have experienced anything as a "newborn" which would be the case of this clone. And of course, biologically your brain would not let you ponder certain things basically due to the lack of experiences (or lack of neuronal connections). So we're talking about a child, a person with the mental age of a child, at the very least.
  
  So it would be molesting indeed. Something like trying to have sex with a mentally retarded person (no insult intended, that's how it's called).
• Zid wrote on 2010-11-24 16:08

  Quote from gentrone;227151:

  But that person has no experiences, Locke's Tabula Rasa. Maturity is determined by age and experiences; I was inclined to say that age was the only factor but then I thought of the "mental age" thing. Then again, it is experiences what really matter and you can't possibly have experienced anything as a "newborn" which would be the case of this clone. And of course, biologically your brain would not let you ponder certain things basically due to the lack of experiences (or lack of neuronal connections). So we're talking about a child, a person with the mental age of a child, at the very least.
  
  So it would be molesting indeed. Something like trying to have sex with a mentally retarded person (no insult intended, that's how it's called).

  
  
  I'm under the premise that a clone receives the original's thoughts and memories, including the experiences. This is due to the brain being cloned (and thus its neural system and all that biology/psychology matter).
  
  If cloning doesn't transfer neural storage like memories, then I can see your point. But I do believe in neural storage transfer.
• gentrone wrote on 2010-11-26 00:48

  Quote from Zid;227304:

  I'm under the premise that a clone receives the original's thoughts and memories, including the experiences. This is due to the brain being cloned (and thus its neural system and all that biology/psychology matter).
  
  If cloning doesn't transfer neural storage like memories, then I can see your point. But I do believe in neural storage transfer.

  
  
  Oh, if that clone was an exact same copy of a person--- like in the Fifth Element when they clone that red head girl--, then they would share the same neuronal connections. However it might get a little confusing, because that clone would already have an identity (the one of the person cloned) but at the same time they would stop being the same person. I would dare to say such thing is immoral, that clone would actually believe he *is* the person cloned. Clone rights? lol.
  
  However I don't think that is the case. From what I understand DNA is extracted from the donor and put in an ovule like it was a normal fecundation with sperm. Then that zygote would grow like a normal person in a female's womb. Therefore the clone would be raised as a completely different individual with his own identity (much like a twin).