Hi there!
Respond to the following questions in your discussion about the two articles that you've just finished reading.
What are some ethical issues with cloning? What is the difference between the two articles? Why would anyone want to clone? How should it be regulated if it were legal to clone others?
Respond to at least one of your classmates.
I had no idea how close many scientists thought we were to cloning before i read these articles. The articles were written a while ago, and i don't think there's been a lot of cloning development in the last 4 or so years. There are a lot of ethical issues with cloning, but then again many people were against invetro fertilization and that is regularly done now. Many people interested in cloning seem to want to clone a loved one (usually a child, themselves, a spouse, or a parent) and I understand the appeal behind this, but i don't think it's a good idea. First of all, what if you suddenly developed a horrible disease, and you had just clones yourself? You would know that you "child" would be afflicted as well when they were your age. Also, it would just be creepy to see yourself as a baby, and watch yourself grow up. And from the clones point of view, imagine basically knowing your entire life before you lived it? It would be so strange.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the two articles is the date in which they were written and how far science had developed. In the later one, the author seemed to have already accepted the idea of test tube babies and invetro fertilization. In the other, this had just been discovered and many people where horrified with the idea.
Many people want to clone if they can not have natural children, and others want to replace loved ones they have lost. Many parents want to replace children that died prematurely young. One man wanted to clone himself to become immortal in a sense. I personally feel that people should not be able to clone loved ones who have died. They will have expectations for the clone based on the previous person, and that cannot be a healthy environment for the clone.
If cloning were legal,I do not believe that it should be regulated much at all. If your going to make it legal, than what can you really do to stop people from cloning themselves, their spouses, any one? I do think you should only be able to clone your self once though- at most twice. And your clone- child must to do counseling so they don't become depressed that their going to end up looking like you.... or confused about who exactly you are to them anyway. What the answer to that question? Are you your clones mother, sister, or twin?
I agree with Emma, there are a lot of ethical issues with cloning. People would want to clone people, or animals that have passed away. If you do this though, it would be strange watching "your" dog or mom grow up. It wouldn't really be them even if it seemed exactly like them which would be kind of creepy to me!
ReplyDeleteAs Emma said, the difference in the two articles are the date, and how far science has developed. In the first article people were horrified when they found out that someone had succeeded in cloning everyone was horrified, and thought it was absolutely terrible! In the second one people seemed to have grasped the idea of cloning and actually want to do it.
Someone would want to clone if one of their loved ones passed away, and they missed them. This is understandable, but is it right?
If cloning were legal, I think it should be highly regulated. You don't want to go around seeing 50 clones of one person or animal, that would be just creepy. I think there would be rules about who gets to be cloned, how many clones, etc.
I'm really conflicted. Personally, from my faith and my own personal opinion, i would ban cloning. But, i also feel for those families that have lost a child, and want to replace them. One major ethical question is, "is it right to forge a life." I am worried for those who have staked there hopes on cloning, when there is a death rate of 98%. The differnence between the articles is people's opinion. people have somewhat became more relaxed against cloning, but there is still a huge percentage against cloning. To regulate it, cloning should only be done on willing people. that means before the person dies, they must agree to be cloned. how wierd would it be to be clonned unwillingly? it would also not be allowed to clone a living person. i think one of us is enough.
ReplyDeleteThis is crazy because even if we try to clone something it can still fail! what if that lady who paid to have her dog cloned didnt work or what if the dog died really early the pain would be even worse sure it would be auwsoe to clone people but the risks are just to great but i disagree with the ethical issues so god is the creator so... eh best not get into it
ReplyDeleteEthical problems: Oh God, where to start. Maybe with the oh God. Christians (and many other religions) are highly opposed to the idea of cloning. I have to agree with them. Humans weren't meant to create their own life... It's just not right. The power it gives us... we could virtually do anything. And if that power falls into the wrong hands... it could be the end of the world.
ReplyDeletePeople obviously like to clone, other wise it wouldn't happen. They like the idea of cloning because it's a scientific break through. It's an incredible power that man has discovered, and they can't wait to play with it. They love that feeling of power they get, the feeling of being able to do anything. They can't shake it, either. Once they know the feeling, they want to do it again and again, see what they can build.
Like I said, cloning should stay against the law. But, if it wasn't, the only people that should be allowed to be cloned are babies that die during birth. I think that it's fair to give them a second chance.
Also, I started reading House of the Scorpion. Baby embrios fertilized in cows? Ew.
Harris, I don't even think dead family members should be brought back. They're dead. Just leave it alone.
I agree with a lot of what you said, Emma. Cloning has a whole lot of moral issues associated with it.
ReplyDeleteI am very much against cloning. Not religiously, but morally. Part of this is because I've already read THOTS. It really made me think about cloning and how frightening the concept of creating a human being is. From these articles, it seems like most people assume that their clones would be exactly like them. But people's personalities are formed by their experiences in life and how they're raised, not by their DNA. So just because someone has the same genetic makeup as you, it doesn't mean that they'll act or feel the same.
People are people. Cloning is making another person. A living, breathing person with thoughts and feelings. And disabilities because of being cloned, problems with organs, diseases. Would you want to make a copy of your deceased relative only to watch the new baby slowly die, suffering?
The second article seemed more supportive of cloning, and, being more recent, more certain that cloning will happen.
Someone might want to clone themselves if they cannot have children, or clone a loved one who is dying or has died. Which seems so horribly, horribly cruel to me. Like trying to make it up to yourself that your child has passed away, and then you just expect that clone to be the same and make up for his or her death.
No one seems to think about the clone's feelings.
There is a little bit of right and wrong on both ends of the spectrum, and I completely agree with Harris. Clones can be made for a number of reasons: to create a genetic match for a sick person, to revive that dog you had when you were young or to help a couple have the baby they've always wanted. Both sides have merit, but whether you agree or disagree with cloning depends on the reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of cloning deserves a little credit, because it's so fascinating. The ability to have your own twin is unnatural, but it's pretty cool to think that we've come this far. Sure, we don't have hovercrafts or rocket shoes, but to think that scientists can "bring back" living things is amazing. Of course, like twins, they are different people. Having endless cloned grandchildren that all look like you isn't the same as living forever. The general thought sounds bad, but cloning can be very beneficial. Helping a couple get pregnant isn't so awful, and neither is curing cancer. Things like these make cloning sound like it's only trying to help.
Personally, I believe that cloning is tampering with what's already fine. I don't necessarily like that some people are unable to have kids, but helping them like this is like jumping out of the frying pan and into the flame. Imagine life if everyone on Earth had a clone. Considering the average person's ecological footprint, would we be able to live like that? Messing with DNA will only add to the huge list of problems we've got.
The main ethical arguments with cloning are that it is “playing in god’s domain” and for the fear of “baby-farming”. The “playing in god’s domain” argument is totally unreasonable and illogical as there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for it. But, on the other hand, the fear of “baby-farming” is very real. As the name suggests, the clones could be “grown” only to have their organs harvested for their original. The main difference between the two articles is that one article accepts the reality of cloning and is just explaining its’ mechanisms, whereas the other article is expressing fear of human cloning. The main reasons people would want to clone themselves for is either to always have extra organs in stock or have their genes passed on. The latter sounds extremely narcissistic but this is the purpose of trying to have kids in the most primal terms, to pass one’s genes on. If cloning and related mechanisms were legal it could easily be regulated. Scientists would be allowed to grow replacement organs as long as they weren’t grown inside a clone. The decision to have a clone made would be akin to the decision to have a child. Lastly, all clones would have the same rights as regular people and wouldn’t be allowed to be used for their organs and such.
ReplyDeleteOne ethical issue with cloning is that many people believe that life is a gift from God. If humans were to create life, then that would completely disregard that. It would seem like, if we can create our own life, why should god have to? Another reason is that the clones can have very hard lives. They would probably feel very set apart from other people if a cloned human was created. And if a mother made a clone of herlself, when the daughter gets a older, the man would have to live every day with the older version of his wife, and the younger one. The one he fell in love with in the first place. It just woulnd't be right, it doesn't respect human life as being a gift from God. It treats it like something that you can put on the shelf of Target and put a price tag on it. One difference between the two articles is that the first one tells more about cloning in general. About what it is, and whether it is right or wrong. The second is more about different methods of cloning, focusing a lot on Hall and Stillman's method. However, both articles seem to lean towards the perspective that cloning is a wrong and unethical thing to do. People would want to clone if their child died, and the couple wanted to have the exact same child again. The same could be done with a pet. Also, infertile couples could have children this way that is a twin of one of the parents. Or just somebody else. I think that, if it were legal to clone others, it should be regulated by having liscences to be allowed to clone. The liscences would be given by the government to those who they believed would only make clones for clients, not for their own benefit. The cloning would also not be funded, so as to induce that someone would need to be paying the person to create a clone, rather than them just wanting to clone their dog. Anyone found to be trying to create clones or creating clones without a liscence would go to jail for life.
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to argue with Harris, I agree completely. I am just pointing out that there is a differnce between a death rate of 98%, and the 98% of embryos that fail to become more than a few cells. Don't they just not attach? I mean, yes, it is in a way destroying human life. But not necessarily killing a person. I know most of the clones die. And I might be wrong. I just understood it that 98% didn't work. Unless you are counting every single embryo that failed to create a clone as a death. Then, everything you said I agree with. But other than that little detail, I agree completely with your views. And I also agree with Josh. God is the creator. It is best to stay out of his buisness.
ReplyDeleteJulian, man (mankind in general, not just men, but the relative term as in humans) has had the power to create life forever. The embryo still has to grow and fertilize just like any other embryo, it's not like we're hitting a button on a machine and a fully grown human pops out. You'd have to raise a clone just like any other baby, it's not like you get an exact copy of the person you had before! So honestly, I don't see how that gives man any more power than they already have.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean that I like the idea of cloning. Mostly because of the incredibly low success rate, the extremely low amount of people who are willing to do it, the resources it would take, and what happened with Dolly, the sheep. Like Harris said, I believe that unless people agree to be cloned, they should not be cloned. That seems like an extreme invasion of privacy to me. Also, why spend so much valuable time and money on researching this, when people are already making babies just fine? Mostly, though, because of what happened to Dolly the sheep. I know that sounds odd, but Dolly died very early because people used adult sheep to clone her. If things keep going the way they are, the only person you could really clone would be a baby, anyway! If making a clone with an older person's DNA would make them more susceptible to serious diseases, why would you even want to try it?
The problem with cloning is, well there are a lot of them. Ethical problems like dealing with the people's who's religion think's life is a gift with god. If a clone is made, then there is the fact that whenever you commit a crime your clone will always be blamed and no one will know who really committed the crime. Another problem would be a baby with old person's bones could be a terrible thing. As stated in the second article cloning could be useful for same gender couples and fertile men. The difference between the two articles is the second article was way more advanced. The article was set farther in the future and the technology had evolved.
ReplyDeleteCloning should become legal. It is just the same as giving birth. The Christians say that it is against God's will but he did say that regular pregnancy is just fine. And that's what cloning is! I do see their point (if their idea of souls is true) that it is a trial-and-error process and many embryos will die. But what if really their are no souls? Then, it is completely ethical to create a clone. But seeing as we will probably not figure that out for sure for a while, this cloning debate could go on for a long time.
ReplyDeleteAnd Daniel, if someone were to create a clone of a dead person, then I'm pretty sure they would make them less susceptible to diseases and whatnot so they don't DIE again.
Harris, I think you have it sort of mixed up. The ethical problem you were talking about with cloning is not "is it right to forge a life?" but "is it right to let so many die?".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaniel another problem with Clones, is bone age. My doctor says my bones don't grow enough because of my bone age is slower than my actual age. I think that old bones in a new body could cause some serious problems, and a lot of research resources should be devoted to this. When this is solved cloning should be a relatively smooth process.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely Anant. But I feel that UNTIL that happens, we shouldn't mess with people's lives. Tom, being agnostic (that which has no religion) I have to protest against what you're saying. God doesn't place an egg into a woman's womb, semen does. No, I'm not being immature, I'm just stating what science proves to be the truth. Man has created life since they've been around. I apologize if that insulted anyone, but i felt it imperative to state my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think that cloning is right. I don't have any ethical problems as some people think as humans trying to play the role of God, but I think there is something really weird about cloning. Lets say you lose a child, and by some miracle, your are able to successfully clone it (which rarely happens), that would be like erasing the childs life and starting it anew. You are almost like rewinding the childs life, but leaving everything else the same. A clone has the same genetic makeup as another organism, but that doesnt mean it will have the same personality. You make raise the clone just a little bit differently than your first child, and then the clone will be different. It would not be like having your child back either; it would be like raising another child who looks like the one you lost, and will remind you of him or her often. In one of the articles, a man wanted to clone his mother who was about to die. That would be one of the weirdest things of all times. She would no longer be your mother, she would only be someone who looks the same. She would have a different personality than your mother, and be horrified to find out that she was his mothers clone. I know I would. If a child is a clone of one of the parents, one of the parents may feel attracted to it since it would be a replica of the person he/she fell in love with much earlier. If homosexual people want to have a child, they can just adopt one. One of the articles was more recent than the other, and both articles expressed different views. The more recent one was more accepting of cloning and just gave the facts. The other article seemed quite horrified at the idea of cloning. People want to clone for various reasons- to recreate a lost family member or pet, to get genetically matched transplant, or to have children when it is possible. While cloning, so many embryos are destroyed, and in each and every one of them, there is life. That is just killing off unborn babies. If people are against abortions, then why not cloning? Like I said, I have no problem with the ethical side of cloning. I completely agree with Elizabeth. We should let cloning be and not mess with the creation of life. If cloning had to be made legal, it should be restricted to only cloning body parts for transplants. Even those sometimes cannot be made in time! I also agree with Emma. For many years after the first clone is created, it will be examined so much. Clones would not be able to live like normal humans for a very long time. Even if they are not examined any longer, (which would take atleast a hundred years, they would be treated like outcasts. Clones would just be animals with no mother and father, and everyone would hate them. I would not feel anything against them. Contradictorily, I would feel so bad for them. Cloning could also be used for bad things like creating an army.
ReplyDeleteMy Opinion- If you want a kid so bad, adopt one. Thats giving another child hope for a new life instead of adding to the evergrowing population of the world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaniel is right. There is no great force overseeing the creation of life. It is all plain science. Personally, I don't see any problems in the ethical field related to cloning. If an embryo dies, that's too bad, but it's not as if it could tell. Babies' brains aren't developed enough at that time to tell. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but what do you remember from before you were born? And then we come to where the two articles differ. The first article makes a point in which scientists (who are specialists, by the way) have no problem cloning human embryos since at that point, they are no smarter, and have no more feeling than sheep just like Dolly. The second article insists that cloning humans is unethical because they are humans. What (other than our brain) sets us apart from other animals? No matter what, our brains are just as developed at the time of birth as other animals that we kill. Why is human life suddenly so sacred? It would definitely have to be regulated to people who have good reason to clone i.e. they have a stillborn baby or they are infertile but have always wanted a child, not 'I love myself so much that I need another one of me to revel in my glory.' If anyone feels that way, get real. You're not going to save the world if you clone yourself. So, yeah. Cloning humans is fine as long as we don't overpopulate.
ReplyDeleteTo me, cloning is against what I believe in. I thinks its really cool, but there are a lot of ethical problems with it. But even though I don't believe in it, I can see why people want it so bad. The main point is the actual clone. It's hard to think about it from the clone's point of view. For them,it would be hard know that they are just a biological copy, something that someone wanted to copy, and not their own original person. The difference between the two articles is the second one is set in a time where they know way more about science.
ReplyDeleteBreanna, I completely agree. No one seems to understand the clones feelings, If there was to be one. They first 1000 clones would just be science experiments , scorned by everyone else. One thing a person doesn't seem to understand, and what took me a really long time to realize is if you clone someone, its NOT THAT SAME PERSON. It is someone else with thoughts and feeling that is human. Twins are clones of one another, but that is natural. Do you see twins with telepathy and that have the exact same personality and say the exact same thing at the same time? They will have different lives, different experiences. They are not the same person. They are different.
ReplyDeleteAn ethical issue is that people would treat the clones like they're not human. And a lot of people would clone only for spare parts, even if they don't need it all that much, which is wrong. That's using somebody. Even if they're a clone, they're still human. Also, a lot of people want to make clones to let their legacy live on. Those people have usually had long, well-lived lives which isn't fair. And people want to clone deceased family members to spend time with them again, which I think is acceptable only for small children who have not had long lives. Otherwise, it is probably best for them to move on. And whatever happened to "everyone's different"? A clone is the exact same as another person! It would complicate things.
ReplyDeleteThe first article made it sound like cloning would be the best thing that is going to happen to us, and that we should use it to help us. It listed the advantages and tried to make it sound amazing. Whereas the second article sounded skeptical and highlighted the extreme risks and made everything sound extremely unethical.
If cloning was to be legalized, it should only be used for the good of the community, not just an individual. Although it could be ok to present a family a clone of one of their lost ones if they were just absolutely grief-stricken. And organ transplants should only happen between someone and their clone if there is no other alternative nor donor.
Avi, I totally agree with the "baby-farming" part. It's not right to take someone's body parts because they're a clone. It's immoral. I also think growing replacement organs not within a clone's body is great too.
long comment was long.
ReplyDeleteCloning, in its most basic definition, is an exact genetic copy of a person. It started by cloning a poor sheep who in the new form was named Dolly. Dolly appeared to age faster because it already had the older organs.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are plenty of ethical issues with cloning. Humans definitely wouldn't become immortal, but it has ethical problems anyway. First of all, I am wondering how effective it would actually be to use the young organs. Without the younger organs, the person would probably live about as long as the original copy. Doesn't the human body need bigger organs as it gets older?
I also think it is pointless to "reincarnate" your dead child. Speaking from a purely scientific point of view, that baby is never going to thank you for it. In "honoring the memory", how do you honor something's memory by just creating a new one to forget about the old one.
There aren't different types of cloning, but there are different ways. For example, a mammal is cloned by inserting DNA into an embryo with the nucleus sucked out. It often doesn't work correctly. Another type of cloning, is cutting a stem off of a plant and putting the stem in the ground. This works much more often.
I disagree with Emilie. She first said "people would treat the clones like they're not human". There is no difference between them. how will somebody know whether they are human or clones. They are indistinguishable because they are human. She also said "whatever happened to "everyone's different"?" Are you suggesting we should start killing off one identical twin because they are effectively clones. I am sure more people would have ethical issues with that then cloning.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ethical issues with cloning. Many people are against humans creating a exact genetic copy of someone else. There are also people worried about if cloning becomes a market, if then a life would have a price. There are many reasons that people might want to make a clone. If someone needs a transplant then if they had a clone there would be an exact match so their body won't reject it. If someone's pet or child dies they might want another one that looks the same. Also if a couple can't have a child they might want to clone one of them to raise as their child. Scientists should be able to study cloning as much as they want to. If they believe it is okay to clone someone then no one can tell them it is against God's will. Cloning people should only be for couples who can't have children and people who need a donar and can't find someone that could be their donar. For the people that would make a clone to be a donar, it should only be for things like bone marrow, so the clone could still live even though it is a donar.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emilie about using a clone just for spare parts is wrong. Even if the clone is a donar it still has to be cared for because it is still a person.
When I read the articles, I found that these people who wrote the article, think very downly upon cloning humans. I have to agree with them on most things that have to deal with cloning. So, I do believe that there are tons of ethical issues with cloning. Since we are still experimenting with cloning and genetics, there are tons of things that could go wrong when you clone someone. First of all, the embreyo could be damaged when in development. Also, when the cloned baby is born, some of the organs could be disfunctional, and give out. The two articles are fairly the same, but the article, "Human Cloning: Baby, It's you! And You, And You..." talks more about the dangers of cloning. I can understand the reasons for people wanting to clone, their child dying at an early age, gay or lesbian couples wanting to have a child. Those are good reasons, but I don't understand why anyone would want to spend thousands and thousands of dollars, just to have a child. Personally, I don't think anyone should clone because it just isn't natural. For example, if your child dies in a car accident, and you clone the child, you would have your child back, but you still know that your child is dead, even though your child is right in front of your face. If cloning were legal, I think the government should have a resriction of two clones per family. If cloning gets too out of hand, then the world will be overpopulated and the world will starve because of lack of resources.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Riley, I think you would actually have more grief with having a clone of your lost child, because it would make you feel like the clone is mocking you and making you miss your child even more.
I agree with Julian, Zach, and Emma. Cloning is just wrong. I don't think that there is really much of a point to cloning. Why not just have a regular baby? How would you feel if you were growing up as someone's CLONE? It's like growing up as someone else that has already grown up. It's just not right. There are many other ways to have a child such as regular childbirth or adoption. I also agree with Riley and Austin when they say that if someone wanted a clone of their lost child, it WOULD be kind of mocking you. You would remember the child and feel even more grief. Not to mention, it would be unfair to the clone. They would always be treated differently. How weird would it feel to be a replacement for a lost child? People may be freaked out by them or greatly saddened. That's no way to treat someone even if they are a clone
ReplyDeletei agree with both elizabeth and emilie. Clones would definitely have prejudice issues- i know i personally would be creeped out if i saw someone who looked just like a younger version of my dad walking down the street. The actual idea of cloning, however, is very cool and would be a true landmark in scientific research.
ReplyDeleteIn elementary school, they teach you that people are all different, and no one in the world has the same eyes, the same nose, the same smile as you. Naturally born babies are all different, so why not keep it that way?
ReplyDeleteOkay, say your husband dies. Then you give birth to his clone. Clones aren't exactly guaranteed to live forever. If your husband dies when he's 40, it's like you're giving birth to some kind of Benjamin Button.
I agree with Emilie. One of the biggest ethical issues is the one you mentioned. That's the main problem I see with cloning.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I am going to say is that I don't think that cloning is that horrible. I mean, the people in these articles are making it seem like cloning is the worst thing that humans have ever done! Thats just my opinion. I have to admit that cloning is wrong, in some ways. But it could also bring good things to human kind. Cloning embryos could save lives of cancer patients, it could increase the chance of a couple who wants a baby more than anything else in their lives. I believe that cloning for those purposes are acceptable. But cloning humans for organs, is basically cloning someone so they can die. Clones would not just be a mannequin that was produced for what was needed of it. Its human. It would have feelings and soul just like every other human. And just think what would happen if a handful of human clones escaped. We would have a national crisis on our hands! I also semi-agree with the fact that cloning is against Gods will. Life itself is a privilege to have. God gives you life. (For those who are religious) Life is not something that you abuse and take advantage of. Its a gift. Considering that so many other countries have developed such negative views on cloning then I think that the U.S. should take that as a signal that cloning does have the potential to lead humanity spiraling out of control. Yet, if we have the power to control the privileges of cloning then we could really help a lot of people. Like the examples in the second article. One of them being that your five year old child has drowned in a lake. Now that I think about it, I have read a book about cloning. It was fiction of course, but a young girl died in a car crash and her DNA was cloned to create her again. But the book did take a turn for the worst when the government attempted to catch the girl. Anyways, cloning is not all that bad. If human kind limits cloning to only helping people then maybe people's opinions would change about the whole idea.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything Divya said. I think that cloning is cool but it would come with so many complications. Like Emma said there would probably be prejudice issues because would they really be seen as actual normal humans? (When I say clone I'm not including twins because that naturally happens).If someone told you they were a clone you would probably think of them differently. You would think of them more as a science experiment not a person. Cloning would be good to do things like cure disease, but having clones live like normal people would creep me out. As far as using clones to replace a lost child, you're not getting the child back you've just made a new one with looks exactly like it. And only that, it's not guaranteed to act the same only to look the same so it's pointless.
ReplyDeleteIf you had a clone of yourself you would call it your clone not you. If someone can not have children of their own they should try adoption. It's better to give a child that is already here a better life than to create a child that is probably going to have a difficult one.
So basically I think cloning to help someone with a disease is a good idea but I also don't think anyone should have to live just to accommodate someone else. I am completely against what I understand to be clones "replacing" human life. Twins of course are normal people because they are natural clones. But a clone that has been created would be hard to consider a normal human because as I've said if I had a clone of myself I would not consider us both "me" I'd only consider myself "me" and it would be a clone.
I just really don't think we need to go messing around with life like Elizabeth said it just causes more problems than we need. And the problems out weigh the benefits
I agree with you elizabeth, and I also liked the joke you made. Your absolutely right, everyone should be different. Its what makes you, you. Everyone has a right to look at a picture and say "Oh, look theres me" I don't think many people want to look in a picture and say "Oh, look theres me, and me, and me again."
ReplyDeleteI'm only one person but I have so many different opinions on the topic.
I know it is too late to post a comment. I just had to say, Daniel, if I said that God puts the egg into the womb, I didn't mean that. I meant that he gives the embryo life. I understand what you are saying about God not puting the egg in the womb. But what I meant to say was that he gives it life. And even though you probably won't read this, sorry if you disagree with that. It's just an opinion.
ReplyDelete