Print

yes

7 (29.2%)

no

12 (50%)

possibly

5 (20.8%)

Total Members Voted: 23

[zard0z]

Which characteristics do you base your difference between plants and animals?  Don't you view cattle as a type of food source comoddity just as corn, wheat, etc.?

Give me a break...LOL    *

You know, I'm done with this, if you can't tell the difference between an animal and a plant, you need to go back to school or read a few books...!

[Flanders]

I was asking a serious question... The question did not ask the biological differences between a ear of corn and a chicken so don't start talking about King Phillip Coming Over For dinner or anything like that.

I'm talking about your perception of a food product.  From your replies I see that you do eat meat.  So, I'm asking about your feelings about eating a cow vs. eating a carrot. 
So again ....i'm curious how you come up with a difference between the two......

[zard0z]

I was asking a serious question... The question did not ask the biological differences between a ear of corn and a chicken so don't start talking about King Phillip Coming Over For dinner or anything like that.

I'm talking about your perception of a food product.  From your replies I see that you do eat meat.  So, I'm asking about your feelings about eating a cow vs. eating a carrot. 
So again ....i'm curious how you come up with a difference between the two......

I don't feel any different about eating a cow vs eating a carrot, so to speak, though I would rather have a steak over a salad...
http://www.askthemeatman.com/images/beefchart51201.gif

I guess, you're trying to see how I can be so for it with plants, but not with animals...Well, it's nothing concerning the well being of the cow, I see the cow as nothing more than my meal(not a laboratory test subject to work out new sciences)...I don't sympathize with it's plight in society and think it's quite humorous that some people go to such extents to say how bad we are for eating meat...And a plant is just a plant, it doesn't have emotions, feelings or behaviour characteristics( I don't care what the uber-hippies have to say about that either) that could be altered/flawed/changed by genetic manipulation whether intentional or not, which an animal does...

I'm not sure if that answers your question though...

[Flanders]

Yes you did answer my question.  I’m just curious of people’s reaction to this cloned meat phenomenon.  I’m getting the feeling that some people are opposed to it because they believe it is only a single step down a long road of uncertainly that could ultimately lead to altering human genetics, and that position is understandable.  However, let’s assume that any type of genetic engineering for humans is banned indefinitely. Safety issues aside, would this change anyone’s feelings toward the cloning?  Do you view cattle specifically as a food product? 

Zardz, I hold a somewhat similar position to yours regarding the cattle.  On one hand, to me a cow is a source of protein in my diet and I have absolutely no reservations eating a nice steak.  However, reading the article about the meat packaging company abusing injured cows also gets me upset.  So… obviously a cow has emotions and can feel pain and veggies do not.  Where is the line drawn?  I don’t care if a cow is put through a meat grinder, but if I saw a meat worker kicking it before hand I’d be like “hey jerk-***..”.
I guess I’m trying to figure out where on that spectrum of tolerance I put cloning of meat.

[marilyn.monroe]

There are plenty of GE vegetables and grains that are not safe or legal, but they still contaminate our food chain. (Thanks to China) Heck, they were even found in Bud beer.

They need to do a lot more studying, and quit rushing this crap to market, and at the very least, LABEL IT! I'd prefer not to eat it!

[marilyn.monroe]

This topic reminds me of the big dead cloned side of beef in the room

The New York Assembly 01/31/2008
BILL NUMBER:A3990

There have been several cases in the U.S. and around the world of farm-
ers and food businesses that have been negatively affected by GE contam-
ination. The most well known incident occurred when StarLink corn, a
variety of GE corn that was not approved for human consumption, was
found to have contaminated hundreds of food products in 2000 and is
still turning up in corn exports. Some experts estimate that the associ-
ated losses may reach $1 billion, and the liability issues remain unre-
solved. In 2002 a pharmaceutical corn contaminated non-GE corn and
soybean fields in Iowa and Nebraska and 155 acres of corn and $3 million
worth of soybeans were destroyed. In 2003 UC Davis researchers discov-
ered that for years they had been mistakenly distributing GE tomato seed
in place of a conventional variety. Seed companies have told their
customers that they cannot guarantee that all non-GE seed is not genet-
ically engineered.

[ell]

Hopefully they won't clone liver.

[Lithunica]

Comparing cloning to "playing God" is the same as to think that cars run on voodoo magic. Should it be labeled? Yes- same way as everything else at the store.
Cloned vs Organic, lets look at Mad cow disease and bird flu, I am sure that could be taken care of in the lab, that said it could as easily open door for other horrible mutations.
It's so expansive because they haven't perfected the cloning possess.
But I think it's a good intent to solve the food deficiency in many countries, and as all good intents it can easily go wrong, look at people who abuse cough syrup.

And sadly I don't think that there will be any laws protecting humans, or in that matter any animals against cloning until there is an actual problem with that, and as always it will probably too late.

[zard0z]

Comparing cloning to "playing God" is the same as to think that cars run on voodoo magic.

Bah, not even a close analogy... *

Gene manipulation and internal combustion are so entirely different you can't possibly be serious with that statement...LOL

[Lithunica]

Perhaps not, but the point was that genetically cloning an organism be it a plant or an animal, is creating a new life- and if one is acceptable the other should be by default, and also that it has a potential to solve a lot of food deficiency problems.

[zard0z]

Perhaps not, but the point was that genetically cloning an organism be it a plant or an animal, is creating a new life- and if one is acceptable the other should be by default, and also that it has a potential to solve a lot of food deficiency problems.

But, you're failing to see that there is a major difference in plant life and animal life...Just because you can clone a plant doesn't necessarily mean it's "OK" to do it with an animal or that you should even try...I've already stated the reasons for my opposition on this and the bad science that looms behind it...

Yeah, and the prospects of hydroponics fill the same food deficiency problems...Yet their is no grand plans for it and neither for the cloning of animals...Show me the plan...

[Lithunica]

But, you're failing to see that there is a major difference in plant life and animal life...Just because you can clone a plant doesn't necessarily mean it's "OK" to do it with an animal or that you should even try...I've already stated the reasons for my opposition on this and the bad science that looms behind it...

Yeah, and the prospects of hydroponics fill the same food deficiency problems...Yet their is no grand plans for it and neither for the cloning of animals...Show me the plan...

So there is a moral hierarchy of what is ok to clone based on the complexity of an organism?
And actually what I said was "also that it has a potential to solve a lot of food deficiency problems" hydroponics is great and yes it would also help with to maintain food production, but we were on the topic of cloning.

[zard0z]

So there is a moral hierarchy of what is ok to clone based on the complexity of an organism?

Shouldn't there be...?

[marilyn.monroe]

So there is a moral hierarchy of what is ok to clone based on the complexity of an organism?
And actually what I said was "also that it has a potential to solve a lot of food deficiency problems" hydroponics is great and yes it would also help with to maintain food production, but we were on the topic of cloning.

Yes, it is called bioethics.
Genetically engineering food can produce bad results as well as good. I am not so sure the good outweighs the bad, and if a bad situation happens it gets out of control quickly and is hard to remediate. I question the need for many of the manipulations that have occurred.
There is definitely a difference between crops, animals, and humans!
And while man may be able to join eggs and sperm in the lab or manipulate dna, they are not able to create sperm or eggs or even the simplest human cell.

[Lithunica]

Yes, it is called bioethics.
Genetically engineering food can produce bad results as well as good. I am not so sure the good outweighs the bad, and if a bad situation happens it gets out of control quickly and is hard to remediate. I question the need for many of the manipulations that have occurred.
There is definitely a difference between crops, animals, and humans!
And while man may be able to join eggs and sperm in the lab or manipulate dna, they are not able to create sperm or eggs or even the simplest human cell.

Cloning organism is cloning organism, the only difference is in complexity of the process, most of us who have ever bought food have eaten eggs which have been exposed to radiation, met that have been pumped with chemicals, vegetables which have been planted in the artificially enriched soil Cloning would become just another way of production (regarding food) especially after using this for years with plants - isn't the next logical step to move up into more complex systems?
And they have artificially created sperm cells, by using stem cells from a bone marrow, and from what I understand it has the potential to treat infertility.
Here is some information about that if you are interested - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6547675.stm