Cloning - For or Against
Cloning can be the answer to many of the threats that loom on the human horizon. I believe that it can help many people in the future. Through cloning we might eventually be able to find cures for cancer, AIDS, or other genetic or life-threatening diseases. We might also be able to prevent heart attacks or strokes. We may also be able to correct peristalsis, which has paralyzed many including Christopher Reeves. When scientists finally finish mapping the human genome, and apply that knowledge with what is known about cloning, we will be able to accomplish all of these positive goals. Unfortunately, when people think of cloning they do not think of these positive achievements, but rather the cartoon like events that have been pressed upon us by the media and futuristic fatalists. They espouse that millionaires will get themselves cloned or their children cloned, in an attempt to live forever. They will use the clones to provide organs whenever necessary. This of course is pure fantasy. The Human Rights Act insures that all humans, clones or not, have rights even birthrights. This means that if the clone does not want to give an organ to their original, then they don't have to. By analy
eggs that have been stripped of their nuclei and fuse them with a cell from the endangered animal. In studies where this has successfully been accomplished, the scientists found that the embryos went through the early stages of development. The one problem with the plan is that the rarer the species, the harder it is to get an egg to use as donors for the cloned genetic material. However, with close management of the endangered animals eggs can be extracted before the animals become extremely rare. The scientists are not completely sure if the eggs, once they have completely grown in the test tube, will attach itself onto the uterus of the animal, or abort. This is something scientists hope will not happen, but it is something they must be prepared for and must continue to research. According to Tanja Dominko "The results look encouraging, but at this point we have many more questions than we have answers." (Philip Cohen, January 24, 1998) Hopefully, these methods of breeding will decrease the number of animals on our list of endangered species. (Philip Cohen, January 24, 1998) Other concerns are often raised about cloning. People are concerned that it is "unnatural". This is not the case. Some organisms in nature only reproduce using cloning such as bacteria and yeast. Some snails and shrimp also reproduce through cloning. In nature, sexual reproduction is the only way to improve the genetic stock of a species, therefore most asexual species tend to die off. However, at least one - a shrimp called Artemia perthenogenetica - has survived for at least 30 million years. Many more species, including the aphid, reproduce by cloning most of the time. They only reproduce sexually every few generations. Another fear is that some lunatic could clone Hitler if human cloning were perfected. In theory, this is possible but the result would not be what was planned. First, some living cells from his body would be required. Unless they was frozen or otherwise preserved soon after death the cells would probably be unusable. More importantly, because of differences in the environment of the womb and upbringing the cloned 'Hitlers' would not act, think or even necessarily look like the original. A further concern is that people could be cloned without conscious brains so their body parts could be harvested with fewer moral qualms. This is not possible as whatever 'consciousness' is, it doesn't reside in any one-brain structure or set of genes that could be easily removed from the clone before or during its development. Moreover, attempting to surgically or genetically erase someone's 'consciousness' is itself morally and ethically questionable. It would also be hard to know if the 'technique' worked. A person can look and behave like a mindless vegetable but have a very active mind as is witnessed by the paralyzed French writer, Jean-Dominique Bauby, who dictated a 130-page novel by moving an eyelid. Movies and futuristic novels have raised the concern of creating 'super warriors' or super-intelligent people through cloning. Although possible, scientists do not yet know enough about human genetics to do much "improving" of people. Because of ethical concerns, geneticists are concentrating on finding the causes of genetic diseases and then curing them. While cloning makes it easier to meddle with human and animal genes, even before recent discoveries a considerable amount of genetic improvement of animals was already taking place and accepted. For example, a thoroughbred horse is basically genetically engineered. Finally, the concern for the 'soulless' clone has arisen. Since identical twins and various kinds of "test tube babies" who have already been born have what we call a soul, it follows that a clone would have one too.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Nell Boyce, Cohen July, Jean-Dominique Bauby, Pendick August, Cohen January, Madison Neal, Society Boston, Cloning Ban, Rights Act, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, philip cohen, cohen january, philip cohen january, 17 1998, january 17 1998, january 17, human cloning, july 11 1998, july 11, es cells, endangered animals, 16 1997, august 16 1997, 11 1998, cohen january 17,
Approximate Word count = 3355
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)
|