mbining the husband’s sperm and wife’s egg for a few hours outside thefallopian tubes was called, “ making test-tube babies” (Pence 25-26). Atfirst, they thought it was weird and it reminded them of “Frankenstein.” There was a debate on whether the so-called “test-tube babies” should beoutlawed. All the same, arguments now used against cloning were usedagainst IVF (Eibert 2). The public has long since forgotten the horror andnow accepts IVF, which so far has brought children, families and newfound happiness into over 150,000 infertile couples lives (Eibert 2). We allknow now that the arguments against IVF were humiliating wrong. Thesame thing will happen with cloning (Eibert 2). Can the state really ban cloning? Mark D. Eibert suggests that undercurrent constitutional principles, it probably cannot (Eibert 3). “Reproductive freedom means a lot more than just the right to abortion. The Supreme Court has said many times that every American has aconstitutional right to have children, and to make all sorts of reproductivedecisions without government interference. That stems from theconstitution right to privacy, because reproductive decisions are some ofthe most private and personal and life changing decisions an individualcan make” (Eibert 3). “Reproductive freedom isn’t the only constitutionalvalues that anti-cloning laws infringe on. For instance, there is a lot ofSupreme Court dicta to suggest that scientific freedom might have someconstitutional protection, and some lower courts and about one millionscholars have stated that scientific freedom does or should haveconstitutional protection. That protection is based on the FirstAmendment right to free speech. In science, it is not enough to argue foryour theory, or to publish your theory. You and others-including oneswho disagree with you-have to be able to test your theory throughexperimentation. That&#...
