After reading Talia's take on cloning and my own, it seems clear that we both believe that cloning to duplicate humans wouldn't be in the best interests of our society. In both of our blogs we state that cloning of organs or tissues are an acceptable form of cloning for both of us, however Talia brings up another controversial issue when she states, "Creating human life in a lab, in my opinion, is not right based on my reasoning above." People have been creating life in labs for decades now, the process of in-vitro fertilization starts with a woman's egg and a mans sperm and they are joined together in a petri dish or test tube and then reinserted into the woman's uterus via her vaginal opening. If making people in a lab is Talia's main issue, then that aspect of cloning is already legal. However, she makes points about being able to procreate asexually and I completely agree that this is not a good idea. I feel that this will lead to a form of eugenics and people will strive to create the "perfect baby". I believe a quote by Franklin Thomas gets right to the core of the issue very effectively, he says, "One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to things like the amount of melanin in our skin or the shape of our eyes or our gender instead of the unique identities of each of us as complex human beings." This quote makes the point that it is what we share with others, emotions, intellect, empathy, fears, and understanding that makes us important humans, not what we look like and the focus of our future should always be on what kind of people we are, not what we look like on the outside.
In conclusion I think that Talia and I agree on most everything about cloning. We share the same thoughts about cloning being something we believe can be helpful to our world in a medical sense, but is better left alone when trying to clone a human in whole. Cloning humans takes many, many human eggs and the way to retrieve human eggs is very uncomfortable, meaning people would not do this unless they got paid to donate their eggs, and then the success rate of the eggs making it to embryo status is very very low. To me, this is a waste of time, resources, and money; money that could be spent on cloning tissue and organs for the people who are already living.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Cloning
I have many strong opinions on cloning. The first is that cloning people would not be a good idea. By cloning humans you would be taking away the uniqueness of all human kind. After a while there would be so many people alike that everyone would start looking the same. Al though everyone would still have their own personality they would all be similar in looks. The way I see it is that if I were to be a clone and knew I was a clone I would not feel like I belonged. I would have not had the proper birth and would have not been created by both my mother and father. I would not have came into the world the natural way, I would be a science experiment. The only thing I think that is okay about cloning would be cloning organs. I feel this would be good for people in need of hearts, livers, lungs and so on. Only in the cloning of organs I see the good.
It has been more than a year since embryologist Ian Wilmut and his colleagues announced to the world that they had cloned a sheep. This sheep’s name was Dolly and is pretty famous all over. Naming the worlds first cloned mammal also has great significance for it was the sole survivor of 277 cloned embryos.(Annis) Instead of naming the first cloned mammal as a product they gave it the name Dolly that suggests a unique individual. Cloning can only “copy” something not make it better(Annis). Just by the word “copy” there is no individual or unique thing about it. They used to say that cloning a human being was not possible, that it was fictional and would not work. Al though now that has been proved wrong. Thanks to cloning the death of a human being would be no longer a tragedy but, rather, can be an opportunity to try to replace the no longer priceless or irreplaceable dead person. We also argue that psychological harms could fall upon children. They could suffer from a reduced sense of individuality, and a cloned child may feel that their future is worth less as it now rests in a cloned individual. Also critics argue that cloning encourages parents to value how well children can genetically meet their expectations rather than loving them for being just their children. Also with cloning humans, parents and society may now see their children as objects and not as human beings with actual feelings(Annis). I feel that no one should have such a dominion over a person as to use his or her genes to create the clone.
Cloning would radically alter what it means to be human by replicating a living or dead human being asexually to produce a person with a single genetic parent. It is stated in all literature about cloning that through human cloning we will lose something vital to our humanity, the uniqueness of every human. The children would have no say in whether they want to be cloned or not, it would be the parents choice since they are the ones reproducing. Clones are not able to reproduce.(Annis) There are many reasons why this would not be a good thing. When the clone would grow up and possibly want to get married and have kids they wouldn’t be able to do so. Some are also afraid that clones will age quicker since the cell used in the cloning procedure has already been used in a real life individual. Also because of there short lives they wouldn’t be able to live the full 100 years we are expecting to live, its almost cutting their lives in half.
Cloning can change the thoughts and ideas on reproduction. In cloning the male is not required.(Annis) Normally the birth of a child has genetic input from both the father’s side and the mother’s side. The way I feel about this is that if cloning was allowed and the males were not needed in the reproduction process this would cause many, many problems. I think that the men would want to have a part in the reproduction process. They would want their child to be made of both from him and the mother, the mixture of both the fathers and the mothers chromosomes and genes. In my opinion the clone would not have a true father since they male is not even needed. The meaning of having a mother and a father would change completely. Also women would be able to give birth to a child that has no genetic relationship to her what so ever.
There are many cons about cloning and religious views on this topic is one of them. All religions would say cloning is playing god. These scientists are interfering with the natural human reproduction process. The expenses on cloning would cost about 250 million. There are people who are dying all over the world due to hunger, thirst, and diseases. I feel that all of that money that would be used for cloning could be used for a much better cause. That 250 million dollars could save many lives in other places in the world other then creating a scientific duplicate of a person that is going against the natural way of life and humanity.
There are two types of cloning. Tissue cloning and type I organ cloning does not produce an embryo. Human cloning and type II organ cloning does produce an embryo. The non-germinal tissue cloning and type I organ cloning are beyond the ethical question and will not change human beings as a species.(Ke-Hui) This type of cloning is the only kind of cloning I support. This specific type of cloning tissue and organs is promising for our future in medicine and I believe will help many people. The only reason I don’t stand by type II is that it has to do with human cloning and I am one hundred percent against that. Creating human life in a lab in my opinion is not right based on my reasoning above.
In conclusion I feel that cloning humans should be banned. Cloning humans would mean getting rid of each and every one of our individualities and our identities as humans. A clone would have no individual uniqueness about them. They would be a copy of another human being. Cloning humans would cause conflict among many religious organizations and people with their own ethical views. Cloning humans in my opinion would cause more bad things then good. The cost of cloning one individual would be to much money to waste on an scientific experiment when there are so many other things out there like cancer research and dying people all over the world that could use it much more. Cloning humans is not something we should be thinking about with our economies and all the poverty that’s going on it the world.
Work Cited:
Annas, George J., and John A. Robertson. "Human cloning." ABA Journal 83.5 (1997): 80. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
Ke-Hui, Cui. "Three concepts of cloning in human beings." Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11.1 (2005): 16-17. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
It has been more than a year since embryologist Ian Wilmut and his colleagues announced to the world that they had cloned a sheep. This sheep’s name was Dolly and is pretty famous all over. Naming the worlds first cloned mammal also has great significance for it was the sole survivor of 277 cloned embryos.(Annis) Instead of naming the first cloned mammal as a product they gave it the name Dolly that suggests a unique individual. Cloning can only “copy” something not make it better(Annis). Just by the word “copy” there is no individual or unique thing about it. They used to say that cloning a human being was not possible, that it was fictional and would not work. Al though now that has been proved wrong. Thanks to cloning the death of a human being would be no longer a tragedy but, rather, can be an opportunity to try to replace the no longer priceless or irreplaceable dead person. We also argue that psychological harms could fall upon children. They could suffer from a reduced sense of individuality, and a cloned child may feel that their future is worth less as it now rests in a cloned individual. Also critics argue that cloning encourages parents to value how well children can genetically meet their expectations rather than loving them for being just their children. Also with cloning humans, parents and society may now see their children as objects and not as human beings with actual feelings(Annis). I feel that no one should have such a dominion over a person as to use his or her genes to create the clone.
Cloning would radically alter what it means to be human by replicating a living or dead human being asexually to produce a person with a single genetic parent. It is stated in all literature about cloning that through human cloning we will lose something vital to our humanity, the uniqueness of every human. The children would have no say in whether they want to be cloned or not, it would be the parents choice since they are the ones reproducing. Clones are not able to reproduce.(Annis) There are many reasons why this would not be a good thing. When the clone would grow up and possibly want to get married and have kids they wouldn’t be able to do so. Some are also afraid that clones will age quicker since the cell used in the cloning procedure has already been used in a real life individual. Also because of there short lives they wouldn’t be able to live the full 100 years we are expecting to live, its almost cutting their lives in half.
Cloning can change the thoughts and ideas on reproduction. In cloning the male is not required.(Annis) Normally the birth of a child has genetic input from both the father’s side and the mother’s side. The way I feel about this is that if cloning was allowed and the males were not needed in the reproduction process this would cause many, many problems. I think that the men would want to have a part in the reproduction process. They would want their child to be made of both from him and the mother, the mixture of both the fathers and the mothers chromosomes and genes. In my opinion the clone would not have a true father since they male is not even needed. The meaning of having a mother and a father would change completely. Also women would be able to give birth to a child that has no genetic relationship to her what so ever.
There are many cons about cloning and religious views on this topic is one of them. All religions would say cloning is playing god. These scientists are interfering with the natural human reproduction process. The expenses on cloning would cost about 250 million. There are people who are dying all over the world due to hunger, thirst, and diseases. I feel that all of that money that would be used for cloning could be used for a much better cause. That 250 million dollars could save many lives in other places in the world other then creating a scientific duplicate of a person that is going against the natural way of life and humanity.
There are two types of cloning. Tissue cloning and type I organ cloning does not produce an embryo. Human cloning and type II organ cloning does produce an embryo. The non-germinal tissue cloning and type I organ cloning are beyond the ethical question and will not change human beings as a species.(Ke-Hui) This type of cloning is the only kind of cloning I support. This specific type of cloning tissue and organs is promising for our future in medicine and I believe will help many people. The only reason I don’t stand by type II is that it has to do with human cloning and I am one hundred percent against that. Creating human life in a lab in my opinion is not right based on my reasoning above.
In conclusion I feel that cloning humans should be banned. Cloning humans would mean getting rid of each and every one of our individualities and our identities as humans. A clone would have no individual uniqueness about them. They would be a copy of another human being. Cloning humans would cause conflict among many religious organizations and people with their own ethical views. Cloning humans in my opinion would cause more bad things then good. The cost of cloning one individual would be to much money to waste on an scientific experiment when there are so many other things out there like cancer research and dying people all over the world that could use it much more. Cloning humans is not something we should be thinking about with our economies and all the poverty that’s going on it the world.
Work Cited:
Annas, George J., and John A. Robertson. "Human cloning." ABA Journal 83.5 (1997): 80. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
Ke-Hui, Cui. "Three concepts of cloning in human beings." Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11.1 (2005): 16-17. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Cloning
Cloning; the word alone brings to mind pictures of science fiction movies or heated debates over whether cloning should be allowed or not. Cloning has been a controversial subject that became a reality in 1997, when Scottish scientists created the first cloned mammal, a sheep named Dolly. After this made worldwide news, I became more aware of the issues surrounding cloning and the ethic and moral implications associated with cloning. I agree with the idea that cloning should be used in positive ways like finding cures to cancers or many debilitating diseases, or possibly bring back endangered species of animals, but I strongly disagree with the use of cloning to create humans.
Imagine your hands shaking uncontrollably, your muscles aching, you sit and watch as you slowly lose function over all your bodies functions. This is what Parkinson's disease does, this is what people with Parkinson's have to look forward to. Fortunately, a new study by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center shows a promising possible cure for Parkinson's through their research work with mice; "The new study shows that therapeutic cloning can treat Parkinson's Disease in a mouse model. The scientists used skin cells from the tail of the animal to generate customized or autologous dopamine neurons--the missing neurons in Parkinson's disease. The mice that received neurons derived from individually matched stem cell lines exhibited neurological improvement. But when these neurons were grafted into mice that did not genetically match the transplanted cells, the cells did not survive well and the mice did not recover"("Therapeutic Cloning Treats Parkinson's Disease In Mice"). This study shows us the major benefits of having a cure derived from our own DNA, in essence each individual person would have their own specific cure, with very little side effects because it was made especially to work with their body and only their body. It is understandable that the costs for a cure like this would be quite outrageous, but I feel that insurance companies may decide it would be more cost effective to pay for a one time cure versus years and years of medical bills from doctor visits to hospital stays. To me, cloning seems like the only logical and effective way to help people struggling with Parkinson's and many other debilitating diseases.
Have you ever heard of the Asian gaur? I hadn't, until I did a little research. Imagine your children or your grandchildren asking you what an Asian tiger is, or if you had ever seen a ring tailed lemur. It would be very sad if my children or grandchildren weren't able to enjoy these animals that have been common place for me and generations before me. The Asian gaur has become one of those animals that people don't know about, probably because it is on the endangered species list. "Scientists clone endangered species: In October 2000, scientists with the Massachusetts based bio tech firm Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) announced that they had successfully produced the first clone on an endangered species, a humpbacked, ox-like creature called the Asian gaur. The embryonic gaur, dubbed 'Noah', is also the first cloned animal to gestate in the uterus of another species--an Iowa dairy cow named Bessie"(Anderson, "Company behind the Clones: Advanced Cell Technology"). Imagine if they brought back a species that was considered extinct. Imagine if we could watch other endangered species numbers grow and multiply, and be able to observe and watch these animals as they once lived.
Many others oppose the cloning of animals to increase numbers in species or recreate a species all together because it would show society that we do not have to take care of what we have, that if something goes away, we can just replace it. This is not the message that cloning endangered or extinct species should be sending. I agree that the message should still be very clear, we need to take care of our animals and wild life and preserve as much of what we have now for the future because cloning, to replace a species, is costly and time consuming and not the best way to go about replenishing a population. However, I believe if we send the same message and make it clear that we are "righting" a wrong, from our past abuse to the species', people may be able to see the purpose and the importance of cloning a species and therefore may respect it.
Humans have been on the earth for thousands of thousands of years, we have evolved, and we have continued our human race. Having a baby has always been associated with a man and a woman having sexual intercourse/making love and creating a baby that is equal parts of both of them. The parents wait nine months to see what their baby looks like and who they take after physically, and later watch as their child's personality emerges. Cloning a person would take away the wonder and excitement of what grows within the woman's belly, it takes away the unknown. I believe that it is important to create people from two sets of genes, this creates diversity in gene pools and allows for evolution to continue. I also believe in God and it clearly states in the bible that we come from him and the meeting of male and female; which makes me think that if we dabble in his work, something will go wrong that we may not be able to foresee. It has worked well so far and why should we change the natural progression of life, just because we can.
Many others feel that there should be no bans put on our ability to clone anyone or anything. I feel that this could be dangerous in the wrong hands. This could mean that if anyone was able to get a hold of a single cell of ours they could clone us, with no regard to whether we want a clone of ourselves or not. Do we not own our DNA, common sense would lead me to believe we do. The implications of replicated a human without any laws governing who can and can not be replicated and when and where it would be deemed appropriate make cloning humans a very scary idea to me.
In conclusion I believe that cloning is necessary for medical advancements to occur and I believe that it would be beneficial to bringing back species that are on the brink of being gone forever. I do not believe that it is a good idea to clone humans, it puts us all at risk of having our DNA used in ways we would not want, as well as, forgetting the importance of God and his role in creation
Works Cited:
Anderson, Porter. "Company behind the clones: Advanced Cell Technology." CNN.com. CNN, 25 Nov. 2001. Web. 2 Feb. 2010.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "Therapeutic Cloning Treats Parkinson's Disease In Mice." ScienceDaily. 24 March 2008. 2 February 2010 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080323210229.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)