Difference between revisions of "Talk:Human cloning"
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
::*It has a place in an encyclopedia that bills itself as Conservative and Christian, and pledges to be "friendly" to both. Since all of that is stated upfront, users are not lead astray. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 05:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ::*It has a place in an encyclopedia that bills itself as Conservative and Christian, and pledges to be "friendly" to both. Since all of that is stated upfront, users are not lead astray. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 05:31, 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? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 05:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 09:35, April 16, 2007
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)