Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Psychology Reflections of Irony A Ban Against Cloning Reflections of Irony A Ban Against Cloning "A Reflection of Irony-Bans Against Cloning" Cloning, a very controversial debate, is it right or wrong? Most Americans automatically assume cloning should be outlawed due to their moral standards. At first, I condemned cloning, on pure ignorance of what cloning really is. Most people have this science fiction view upon what cloning could produce. Many misconceptions about human cloning come from science fiction. Almost all science fiction displays human clones as zombie like troglodytes (Pence 39). The people who are afraid of cloning tend to think that someone will break into Napoleon’s tomb, steal DNA, and make 2,000 emperors (Wertze 1). Human cloning is anything but this and should not be banned but allowed to proceed with care to ensure the “Cloning is an obscure term, even in science, and can refer to molecular cloning, cellular cloning, embryo twinning, and nuclear somatic transfer"(Pence 11). In molecular cloning, strings of DNA containing genes are duplicated in a host bacterium. In cellular cloning, replicas of a cell are made, resulting in what is called a “cell line,” a procedure that is repeated to make identical copies of the original cell which can be grown indefinitely (Pence 11). In Embryo twinning, an embryo that has already been formed sexually is divided into two identical halves. In theory, this process could repeat itself repeatedly but in practice, there are a limited number of times an embryo can be twinned and retwinned (Pence 11). The Somatic Process takes the nucleus of an adult cell and implants it in to an egg cell where the nucleus has been removed. A variant of this process called “fusion” is to put the donor cells next to an enucleated egg and “fuse” the two with a tiny electric current (Pence 1). To put it into simpler terms, cloning is a method of producing a baby-whether animal or human-that has just about the same genetic make up as it’s parent. Keep in mind that a person originated by cloning would not necessarily be an exact replica of an adult human being. At the molecular level there would be differences, even though the gene structure would be quite similar (Pence 13). The probability of any two cloned human bodies being the exact same down to the last cell is next to zero because the probability of any two things being identical drops dramatically as the complexity rises (Pence 14).Most of the popular discussions surrounding asexual reproduction, producing offspring without sex, revolves around the question of whether a person could “clone oneself” (Pence 49). The answer to that question is no. Take for example, a fifty year old man wants to reproduce himself, so he persuades his wife to undergo a minor surgery, have an egg removed by laparoscope’s, have its nucleus cut and have his genes inserted. She will then spend nine months carrying the embryo. Even if those assumptions came true, would the baby be the fifty-year-old man? It is not likely. He would definitely not be an instant, replica of him. For one thing, he would be a baby, whereas the man is fifty years old. Also, he would grow up not in the years close to World War II, but in the 21st century. The child would grow up with different surroundings, parents and friends, therefore, being a whole other being There are many benefits that are overlooked by the government and the media when discussing human cloning. Many people would benefit from human cloning and human cloning research. The biggest group being, infertile couples. About ten to fifteen percent of the population is infertile- physically incapable of conceiving children. Medically, infertility is classified as a disease, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the American College for Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Legally, infertility is a disability- the kind that entitles people to protection from discrimination under Americans with Disabilities Act (Eibert 2). Infertility also affects someone psychologically. It is a devastating condition that frustrates a very powerful and biological drive that is intimate with a persons will to survive (Eibert 2). “One analogy you hear infertile couples say is that learning that you are incurably infertile is not like having your child die. It’s like having all your children die and your grandchildren as well” (Eibert 2). With cloning, infertile couples may have children. Current treatments for infertility, in terms of percentages, are not very successful. One estimate shows that current infertility treatments are less that ten percent successful. Couples go through painful procedures for a small chance at having children. Many couples run out of time and money without successfully having children. Human cloning could possibly make it possible for many more infertile couples to have children than ever before (Human Cloning Foundation 1). Besides helping infertile couples conceive biological children, human cloning has a wide variety of other potential benefits. Dr. Richard Seed, is one of the leading proponents of human cloning technology, he suggests that it may someday reverse the aging process because of what we learn from cloning (Human Cloning Foundation 1). Human cloning technology could also be used someday to reverse heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged (Human Cloning Foundation 1). Embryonic stem cells can be grown to produce organs or tissues to repair or replace damaged ones. Skin for burn victims, brain cells for the brain damaged, spinal cord cells for quadriplegics and paraplegics, hearts, livers, and kidneys could be produced (Human Cloning Foundation 1). By combining this technology with human cloning technology it may be possible to produce needed tissues for suffering people that will be free of rejection by their immune systems. Conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, heart failure, degenerative joint disease, and other problems may become curable if human cloning and it’s technology was not banned (Human Cloning Foundation 1). The mass production of animals with genetically altered organs that could be transplanted into humans safely, could be developed if human cloning research was not banned (Worldbook.com 2). We may be able to learn how to switch cells on and off through cloning and than be able to cure cancer (Human Cloning Foundation 2). Scientists still do not know exactly how cells differentiate into specific kinds of tissue, nor do they understand why cancerous cells lose their differential. Cloning, may be the missing piece to the puzzle to understanding differential and cancer (Human Cloning Foundation 1). For the devastating disease leukemia, we should be able to clone bone marrow for children and adults. This is expected to be one of the first benefits to come from cloning technology (Human Cloning Foundation 2). The average person carriers eight defective genes inside them (Human Cloning Foundation). These defective genes allow people to become sick when they would otherwise remain healthy. Human cloning technology may possibly ensure we will no longer suffer because of our defective genes (Human Cloning Foundation 2). Besides curing infertility and numerous other diseases, human cloning research, may have an alternative to silicone breast implants and other forms of cosmetic procedures that may cause immune disease. With new technologies, instead of using materials foreign to the body for such procedures, doctors will be able to manufacture bone, fat, connective tissue, or cartilage that matches the patient’s tissues exactly (Human Cloning Foundation 1). The major argument against cloning is that it would rob an individual of their uniqueness, a uniqueness some consider ordained by God or Nature. This argument is based on the assumption “we are our genes,” and nothing more (Wertze 2). This belief is called “genetic essentialism.” In reality, we are much more than our genes (Wertze 2). Nature clones people all the time. One of sixty-seven births is of twins. Twins enter different jobs, get different diseases, live different life spans, and have different experiences in relationships, alcohol, and homosexuality (Wertze 2). Speaking more logically, twins have separate souls and so would cloned people (Wertze 2). Another popular argument against human cloning is cloning is affront to human dignity. People who make this argument are usually not able to explain why cloning is affront to human dignity (Wertze 1). The argument is supposedly supposed to be self-evident. The argument is based upon “genetic essentialism,” and “genetic determinism” a belief that one’s unique humanness is entirely a product of one’s DNA (Wertze 1). The argument is low and is offensive to human dignity itself (Wertze 1). Many argue that cloning will be used to create armies or slaves. However, armies and slaves can be produced faster and cheaper by other means than cloning. Women are a necessity in bearing clones and most are not willing to raise them for armies or slaves (Wertze 2). There are many more ridicules arguments against human cloning but they are time consuming and not worth discussion. Many important debates over human cloning are not new, just twenty years ago (Pence 25). It is impressive how many famous experts opposed help for the infertile and how if it had been up to them, such help never would have been allowed (Pence 25). Before the first birth in 1978 through invitro fertilization (IVF), condemning terms were often used. Eliminating a genetic disease such as Cystic Fibrosis was condemned as “genetic engineering” (Pence 25-26). Creating a wanted baby by combining the husband’s sperm and wife’s egg for a few hours outside the fallopian tubes was called, “ making test-tube babies” (Pence 25-26). At first, they thought it was weird and it reminded them of “Frankenstein.” There was a debate on whether the so-called “test-tube babies” should be outlawed. All the same, arguments now used against cloning were used against IVF (Eibert 2). The public has long since forgotten the horror and now accepts IVF, which so far has brought children, families and new found happiness into over 150,000 infertile couples lives (Eibert 2). We all know now that the arguments against IVF were humiliating wrong. The same thing will happen with cloning (Eibert 2). Can the state really ban cloning? Mark D. Eibert suggests that under current 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 a constitutional right to have children, and to make all sorts of reproductive decisions without government interference. That stems from the constitution right to privacy, because reproductive decisions are some of the most private and personal and life changing decisions an individual can make” (Eibert 3). “Reproductive freedom isn’t the only constitutional values that anti-cloning laws infringe on. For instance, there is a lot of Supreme Court dicta to suggest that scientific freedom might have some constitutional protection, and some lower courts and about one million scholars have stated that scientific freedom does or should have constitutional protection. That protection is based on the First Amendment right to free speech. In science, it is not enough to argue for your theory, or to publish your theory. You and others-including ones who disagree with you-have to be able to test your theory through experimentation. That’s how science works and how it finds the truth” (Eibert 4). “Cloning-whether of animals or humans-is one of the “most exciting and important scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century” and should not be prohibited by the government” (Libertarian Party 1). The most star-studded group to a pro-cloning position is the International Academy of Humanists. It’s members are an assortment of eminent scientists and intellectual leaders, wrote an open letter calling cloning bans “the Luddite option” and urging that the bans be reconsidered (Kolata 230). The humanists main concern was that an anti-cloning fever would result in Draconian laws that preclude the advancement of exciting science. “The potential benefits of cloning may be so immense that it would be a tragedy if ancient theological scruples should lead to a Luddite rejection of cloning” (Kolata 231). Human cloning still has a long way to go and much research is needed on this subject. Unfortunately, research is banned and society’s ignorance prohibits such expansion in this field. Cloning is not as monstrous as the media makes it out to be. “It would be a shame if frightened politicians slammed the door on one of the most exciting and important scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century” (Dasbach, Libertarian Party 2). “Yes, cloning of human beings does raise serious ethical issues, but those issues are best addressed by individuals, doctors, and scientists-not politicians” (Dasbach, Libertarian Party 2). Bibliography: Word Count: 2095
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.