Would clones understand themselves as creations or copies? Would cloning undermine the conception of a human being’s individuality? (Medicines’ Brave New World) Those are two of the most questioned aspects of human cloning. Everyone always wants to be their own person and have their own thought, basically, be as original as they can be. How original can you get when there’s someone out there thinking, doing, and looking exactly like you? Not very original, if you ask me. Human cloning, cloning of any kind, has been looked at as being creepy, scary, immoral, and in the most dismal way, exciting. Cloning of humans should be prohibited because it is offensive to the human life and religion.
In July 2000, Dr. Ian Wilmut, a geneticist of Scotland publicized the cloning of a lamb named Dolly. Out of 277 attempts at fussing cells, only 29 of the fused cells became embryos, on which resulted in one pregnancy, which then became Dolly. The cloning of Dolly was the first successful cloning of a mammal. (Medicine’s Brave New World). The successful cloning of Dolly brought a wild borage of thoughts on whether this would lead to the cloning of humans. Most people would believe that it'd best to keep at experimentation and research of the subject, but there are many factors that need to be considered before delving into this topic. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce a viable offspring that will be strong enough for the fussing of cells to harvest. So, why do people believe that human cloning will soon be a thing of the future? Though the evident fact that new technology will further science along with human life, the chances of human cloning, cloning of any kind for that fact, are still slim. According to the man behind Dol...
... middle of paper ...
...believe themselves to be and what religion has established itself to be. It’s best to not play around what we already have and just cherish it. We’ll be playing with fire if we get too caught up in trying to create a brave new world. We’ll end up with more savages than Betas, Gammas, Deltas, or Epsilons.
Works Cited
Hyde, Margaret O., and John Setaro. "Facts And Fantasies About Human Cloning." Medicine's Brave New World. 76. Lerner Publishing Group, 2001. Health Source - Consumer Edition. Web. 4 Nov. 2011.
Broadway, Bill. "A RUSH TO JUDGMENT ON HUMAN CLONING? - U-VA. SCHOLAR WARNS NOT ENOUGH IS KNOWN TO BAN PROCEDURE PERMANENTLY." NewsBank. 7 Feb. 1998. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
“The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning (sidebar).” Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 21 Sept. 2007. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
Farrell, Courtney. "Cloning: An Overview. By: Farrell, Courtney, Carson-Dewitt, Rosalyn, Points of View: Cloning, 2013." Ebscohost.com. Mackinvia.com, 2013. Web. 21
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
Brannigan, C. Michael. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, Chatham House Publishers, 2001.
Postrel, Virginia. “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress.” In Dynamic Argument. Ed. Robert Lamm and Justin Everett. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 420-23.
Herbert, Wray. The World After Cloning. U.S. News and World Report. March 10, 1997: 59-64.
For years, the prospect of human cloning was fodder for outrageous science-fiction stories and nothing more. However, in more recent times, human cloning has moved significantly closer to becoming a reality. Accordingly, the issue has evoked a number of strong reactions, both praising and condemning the procedure. The fact that human cloning not just affects human lives indirectly but actually involves tinkering with human creation has forced human cloning into a position of controversy. The progress of the issue of human cloning, then, has been shaped not only by the abilities and resources of scientists but by public opinion and by governmental regulation that has resulted from public pressure.
“The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them”; these are the views of a US representative, Ken Calvert. Humans have been cloning plants and small animals like invertebrates since centuries but the idea of human cloning is controversial and a topic of discourse. Human Cloning refers to the asexual production of a human being from an ancestor to which it would be genetically identical. Scientists started their research on cloning animals in 18th century. August Weismann, In 1880s, proposed that the genetic information of a cell would diminish with every cell division. Hans Spemann challenged his idea and in his book entitled “Embryonic Development and Induction” talked about a fantastical cloning experiment which later became a basis for animal cloning. He called it a “nuclear transfer experiment” and suggested that cloning could be carried out by transferring nucleus from a cell into an enucleated – a cell whose nucleus has been removed – egg. John Gurdon, at Oxford University, put forward his idea and cloned South African frogs from an intact nucleus of a Xenopus tadpole. After Gurdon, an English embryologist, Dr. Ian Wilmut started research on cloning of mammals and cloned a sheep named “Dolly” which became an important scientific and technological breakthrough. With the birth of Dolly, the world realized that animal cloning was no longer a dream or an element of a science fiction movie and the debate about human cloning captured much attention.
Human cloning destroys individuality and uniqueness. “What makes people unique is the fact that we have different genes and cloning would lose these important parts of our bodies makeup.” There would be less of a variety of people and everyone would be the same. This would not only be the good qualities, but also the bad that would pass on. Since clones and the original donor will look alike and have the same DNA, it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference. Overtime, they would lose their individuality and uniqueness. For example, say a crime was committed.
National Bioethics Advisory Commision. "The Risks of Human Cloning Outweigh the Benefits." Biomedical Ethics Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998. 23-35. Print.
In recent years our world has undergone many changes and advancements, cloning is a primary example of this new modernism. On July 5th, 1995, Dolly, the first cloned animal, was created. She was cloned from a six-year-old sheep, making her cells genetically six years old at her creation. However, scientists were amazed to see Dolly live for another six years, until she died early 2005 from a common lung disease found in sheep. This discovery sparked a curiosity for cloning all over the world, however, mankind must answer a question, should cloning be allowed? To answer this question some issues need to be explored. Is cloning morally correct, is it a reliable way to produce life, and should human experimentation be allowed?
Cloning can be interpreted from numerous perspectives. Some may argue that it is beneficial, while others may state that “it only fulfills the selfish interest of a creation” (Pearson 3). Cloning shows the harshness some are able to put into action due to the end results. Most clones do not live quite that long, yet they are scrutinized as if they are some freak of nature since some do not consider them human since society tends to judge people and things on appearances instead of how things truly are. However, clones inherit the same genes as the individuals in which they are cloned from resulting in originality regardless of artificiality (Aurelia 2). In Never Let Me Go, the students’ originality and creativity are shown mainly through their art classes because their work is collected by Madame and Miss Emily at Hailsham. The reasoning behind having Hailsham is to provide more comfort to the clones as they are prepared to be picked apart little by little (Ishiguro 261). However, cloning still does not seem reasonable regardless of what the effort is to make them comfortable. As the subject of cloning becomes more disputable, everyone seems to have their own input on
Last of all, Cloning is not ethical, many religious groups look down upon cloning and think it’s not proper because they think it’s like playing God. Many scientists were mainly thinking about cloning animals and, most likely, humans in the future to harvest their organs and then kill them. “Who would actually like to be harvested and killed for their organs?” “Human cloning exploits human beings for our own self-gratification (Dodson, 2003).” A person paying enough money could get a corrupt scientist to clone anybody they wanted, like movie stars, music stars, athletes, etc (Andrea Castro 2005),” whether it be our desire for new medical treatments or our desire to have children on our own genetic terms (Dodson, 2003).
John A. Robertson, “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 119-122.
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
The. “Human Cloning: Comments by political groups, religious authorities, and individuals.” 3 August 2001. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 1 October 2001 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/clo_reac.htm>.