To Clone Or Not To CloneCloning is an issue that has been evolving during time.
At thebegining, cloning was been researched and was described as somethingthat was hard to reach. Even science fiction movies, such asMultiplicity, were produced about cloning. As the time went through,cloning became a reality. In 1996 Dolly, the first mammal, a sheep wasborn.
Dolly was created by Ian Wilmut, an embryologist of the Roslinginsitute ( World Book, http://www. worldbook. com ). Since then, manymammals, such as mice and calves were created. Right now, there is afear, that humans might be the next to be cloned.Order now
Ruth macklin and Charles Krauthammer discuss this matter in twoessays were they state whether cloning is right or wrong. Ruth Macklin, a professor of Bioethics, wrote an essay about thisissue. Human Cloning? Don’t Just Say No is the title of her article. Her essay discusses the negative response of the people to HumanCloning. As the title of the essay says: Human Cloning? Don’t Just SayNo, Macklin believes that cloning deserves a chance to be developed inhumans.
Macklin talks about Human Clones not being accepted as human beings. Shestates that an ethicist said once, that human cloning would be aviolation to the right to genetic identity (Perspectives ofContemporary Issues, pg. 508). Macklin doubts about the exsistence ofthis right.
She explains many points about Human Cloning and aboutethics. One of the points she mentiones, is about the violation to humandignity. Theologians say that cloning would be a violation to dignityand also that cloned humans would be treated with less respect thanother human beings. Another issue she discusses is the fact that Human Clones could be usedas human farms or organ donors. Macklin gives many examples about thecases where human cloning might be accepted.
Mothers that can not havechildren, families that have children that are sick to death or alsocouples that may have genetic defects (Perspectives of ContemporaryIssues, pg. 508). In conclusion, Macklin thinks, that human cloning should be accepted orat least an opportunity should been given to develop Human Cloning. On the other hand, Charles Krauthammer, the author of the secondessay Of Headless Mice. . .
. . And Men is totally against Cloning in everyway. His essay talks about the cloning that was made in mice.
Researchers have been able to locate different genes and than deletesome genes, just to see what comes out. They erased the clone thatcreates the head and produced headless mice that obviosly died when thewere born. Krauthammer does not understand, how humans can create such type ofmice. He talks about the chance of creating humans with no heads. Hesays, that the goal of these production of headless humans, could bekept as an organ farm.
He also gives examples of Cloning, such as thepossibility to create models, and geniuses (Perspectives of ContemporaryIssues, pg. 510). Krauthammer mentiones that President Bill Clintonbanned cloning, but it won’t be long until it is accepted. Krauthammercloncusion is the prohibition of Human cloning and every type ofcloning.
These essays are a clear example of what cloning is and what theresponses might be. As Macklin is in favor of Cloning, Krauthammer isnot. Macklin’s essay talks more about cloning as having a twin, a personthat will be living with us and form part of the family. A companionthat will be there to live life as it is.
There are other terms for cloning such as carbon copy. On the other hand, Krauthammer’s essay describes human clones with noheads. Human farms that will be there in case something goes wrong withthe original. These half human beings would be different, they would bekept alive, like an organ reserve if the original loses a hand, thenthe clone gives that person a hand. What kind of thoughts are those? Isit possible that scientists have come to a point were they want tocreate Monsters? This would really be a violation to human dignity.
Aharm to the cloned person that might not have a brain tothink, but he sure will have the same arms, legs, hands, etc. . . as theoriginal. He might not have the same face as the original, but he willhave a heart and I am sure that he would not like to live headless.
Ifcloning will be this way, than it should be completly banned. Both essays are very persuasive, but there is a difference inboth. The examples given by the authors have a huge roll in thepersuasive part, Krauthammer has examples that might be more persuasivethan Macklin’s. They both explain the two faces of cloning and under which conditiond itmight be developed. Macklin gives us an explanation trying to convincethe public of giving human cloning a chance to happen. She alsodescribes cloning as some kind of human farm, but mostly what sheexplains is that cloning can be taken as something normal, as an in-vitro fertilization, for example.
Many people do not really know whathuman cloning really is and misunderstand its meaning. Macklin gives ashort explanation, but as every experiment, it must have somedificulties. Krauthammer’s essay is totally against cloning. He is very persuasiveand gives examples that will change the way of thinking of many peopleand turn them against cloning. He gives exapmles, that are almostimposibble to believe. Headless people, headless mice, keeping humanclones alive as an organ farm, etc.
All these examples are a reality andanyone who is mature enough and has reasoning will be against thecreation of headless humans. This essays have the same topic, but are different. Although bothtalk about human cloning, the essays are different. As we could see, in Macklin’s essay, the cloned humans are consideredpersons. Krauthammer’s essay mostly discusses human clones as humanfarms. Macklin talks about cloning being banned, but she does not statewho banned it.
Krauthammer explains this as saying that Dolly madepresident Clinton create a comission and temporary banned humanclonning. Eventhough there is a temporary ban, this could someday beaccepted. Krauthammer thinks, that this should be banned forever. There are a lot of different opinions about cloning and also a lotof mistaken thoughts about this issue.
Many articles have been writtenand discussed. Many questions are to be answered and more research is tobe done. This type of essays can clear some doubts people have, but arenot enough to say I am in favor. . .
or I am against. . . . It is anissue that will be a controversy for al long time. It might be right tocreate a human clone as a person, but it is very wrong to use a humanclone as a human farm.
Everyone has the right to live a normal life. Ifthis right will be violated than, no cloned humans should be created. As Macklin says: A world not safe foe cloned humans would be a worldnot safe for the rest of us. BibliographyMacklin, Ruth Human Cloning? Don’t Just Say No Perspectives onContemporary Issues. Pages 507-508Krauthammer, Charles Of Headless Mice.
. . And Men Perspectives onContemporary Issues. Pages 509-511Wachbroit, Robert Human Cloning Isn’t as Sacry as it Sounds Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com