Seen on GMA this morning
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4895250&page=1 In my opinion this is soooo wrong. Having dogs since I can remember, although I have missed each dog that has passed, each new dog didnt replace but formed a new bond. Each pet has its own distinct personality. I would never want to clone any of my pets and have an exact copy of the one that has passed. The price for doing this is $150k but if someone is going to go to this extent and price to clone a pet then they should donate just as much to a rescue org. |
|
|
| it does seem excessive. but the cost right now is the research cost. to each his own I guess. |
| I tried not to reply, but it go too hard not to.
I completly agree with cheyennebuford, not only for the reasons already mentioned, but for moral reasons. IMO it is just wrong for humans to try to "create" life by cloning, someone who has much more experience, wisdom, knowledge, and power should be in charge of that. And, I could on and on about hormones, antibiotics, cage-free, and organics, but I will save that for another day. |
| IMO, just because the newborn has identical genetic material it does not, in any way, guarantee that it will turn out to be identical to the donor. Physically maybe (but still not guaranteed), but in other areas that are affected by the environment, in utero as well as its home environment, there is no way to replicate all the variances. Even identical twins aren't identical. (Thank goodness in some cases.) |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|