You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #33: none of that had ANYTHING to do with what I posted.... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. none of that had ANYTHING to do with what I posted....
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 12:10 PM by mike_c
Whoa, cool your jets, Sparky! Where have you EVER heard me advocate government telling people what they can or cannot eat? What I advocate is people making intelligent, educated, and informed choices rather than hysterical, ignorant, and knee-jerk choices. No one has yet shown any reason to think that cloned animals are any less suitable for consumption than any other animals.

Do you know how mammals are presently cloned? The only part of the process that differs from normal sexual reproduction is the insertion of a diploid somatic nucleus into an ovum rather than insertion of a haploid spermatozoan and consequent syngamy. The resultant zygote is then returned to a host mother's uterus for normal development, just as it would have been if it were fertilized normally. Nothing in that process affects food quality one iota. Zip. It most assuredly does not turn calves into rat's asses or anything else but T-bone steaks.

You mentioned that cloned mammals often have shorter lives. So do most food animals, cloned or not. Leaving that aside, it's clear that current clonal technology is flawed in some ways-- not that that has any impact on suitability for consumption at all. There are likely some developmental problems associated with using somatic nuclei as DNA donors, for example, or possibly problems initiated by the enucleation of the egg and subsequent nuclear transfer of somatic cell DNA. I think that dramatically reduces the viability of clonal technology as any kind of replacement for normal sexual reproduction, especially artificial insemination, but as long as the resultant offspring develops desirable body mass and other food characteristics, those problems don't have any impact on its palattability or its wholesomeness, but rather its economic viability.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, we've been eating cloned fruits and vegetables for thousands of years, with no apparent harm. Why would cloned animals be any different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC