Artificial Reproduction Quotes

Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.

Cloning is great. If God made the original, then making copies should be fine.

A human clone is nothing but an identical twin that is born much later.

If society becomes comfortable with cloning and sees value in true human diversity, then the whole Neanderthal creature itself could be cloned by a surrogate mother chimp - or by an extremely adventurous female human.

The difference between writing a book and being on television is the difference between conceiving a child and having a baby made in a test tube.

Cloning interferon was not something I wanted to get into.

Why would you clone people when you can go to bed with them and make a baby? C'mon, it's stupid.

The Strandbeest is a self-replicating meme, a brain virus. It infects the student's brain. In fact, the Strandbeest abuse students for their reproduction. For two years, this reproduction fell into a flow acceleration. Now, 3D printers produce walking mini Strandbeests.

We managed to write chapter one. Chapter two, we will have a child a parent can take home and raise as a cloned child.

Cloning isn’t all that unusual. For thousands of years we have been cloning plants.

Cloning looks like a degrading of parenthood and a perversion of the right relation between parents and children.

This is what you get, Maura, for using your DNA to make a baby.

There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen.

Louise Brown's birth marked the end of the beginning of human IVF, acclaimed at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This event was snubbed by some clinicians now styled as 'pioneers', who shouted that the test-tube claim was a fake! They did not matter.

In cloning, in contrast, reproduction is asexual - the cloned child is the product not of two but of one.

Even a man's exact imitation of the song of the nightingale displeases us when we discover that it is a mimicry, and not the nightingale.

I do not think that there is a reputable scientist on this planet who would advocate using this technology to generate a human child as was just announced.

Perhaps you could sympathize with those who seek to replace a dead child with a copy, or to copy a parent or a relative or even a celebrity.

Suppose that every prospective parent in the world stopped having children naturally, and instead produced clones of themselves. What would the world be like in another 20 or 30 years? The answer is: much like today. Cloning would only copy the genetic aspects of people who are already here.

It struck me what we should be trying to do was pluck the egg from the ovary and fertilise it in the laboratory. We could do this in animals increasingly... this was the way to go in the human species.

Nowadays, people send rockets into space, and I think it does make you question if there's a God. They can make babies in a dish now! Everything we're seeing goes against what people always believed in.

In principle. what is done is to take the nucleus out of a cell with a very fine micro-pipette or needle and introduce it into an egg. That had been done with amphibians a long time ago, and then there was a long pause of many years before people were clever enough to make that work in the sheep.

It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction.

Life had become a reproduction: it was not the real thing.

We are at a major epoch in human history, which is that we don't need sex to recreate the race. You can have babies without sex. This is the first time in human history that has been true, and it means, for example, we could do some extraordinary things.