.. l one, it would be a totally separate human being. Would it be right to expect this child to take the place of one you have lost? This would be a huge responsibility for a child to try and live up to. What would it do mentally to this cloned child, to not be wanted for itself, but to replace another? Since this child would have the identical gene make-up of the original, would it not also be susceptible to the same illness. There are a few common misconceptions I would like to address.
A clone would be a normal human being, an identical twin, only younger. Cloning only produces life from existing life it does not create it. A human clone would have a soul. Twins have souls and the same applies here. It is widely believed that a clone would have the same emotions and feelings as the genetic parent.
This is also false. The last is probably the most outrageous. It is a wide belief that great people in our history could be re-born. This is not possible since a clone must be developed from a live cell. Here are some arguments used against and in defense of human cloning: ARGUMENTS AGAINST Cloning might lead to the creation of genetically engineered groups of people for specific purposes, such as warfare or slavery.
Cloning might lead to an attempt to improve the human race according to an arbitrary standard. Cloning could result in the introduction of additional defects in the human gene pool. Cloning is unsafe. There are too many unknown factors that could adversely affect the offspring. A clone might have a diminished sense of individuality.
A clone might have fewer rights than other people. Doctors might use clones as sources of organs for organ transplants. Cloning is at odds with the traditional concept of family. Cloning is against God’s will. Some aspects of human life should be off limits to science. ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF Cloning would enable infertile couples to have children to their own. Cloning would give couples that are at risk of producing a child with a genetic defect the chance to produce a healthy child.
Cloning could shed light on how genes work and lead to the discovery of new treatments for genetic diseases. A ban on cloning may be unconstitutional. It would deprive people of the right to reproduce and restrict the freedom of scientists. A clone would not really be a duplicate, because environmental factors would mold him or her into a unique individual. A clone would have as much of a sense of individuality as do twins.
A clone would have the same rights, as do all other people. Cloning is comparable in safety to a number of other medical procedures. Objections to cloning are similar to objections raised against previous scientific achievements, for example, heart transplants and test-tube babies, that later came to be widely accepted. (*This information is from World Book) I have to admit, that when I started this paper I was deadset against cloning. The more and more I read and study about the subject, I find myself changing my mind.
There seem to be a lot of definite good things that could be accomplished. Don’t get me wrong; there are definitely some problems to be worked out. But admit it; is there really anything that does not have problems? Sure there are crazy people out there that may try and do strange things. They are out there everyday doing strange things not related to cloning. Already there is a cult out there; they think they are aliens cloned. They have some very odd ideas. This is no reflection on cloning, though. If it were not cloning it would be something else, like Elvis.
Is everyone against him, because of all the rumors and weirdoes surrounding him? No, it only makes him even more fascinating. We are constantly looking for medical breakthroughs in all areas. Why not allow the professionals in the cloning area use the knowledge they have to try and better the quality of life. Sure, there will have to be governing laws as in anything else in this country, but don’t completely tie their hands. Remember a few years ago people felt the same way about in-vitro and surrogate mothers as they do about cloning now. These days that stuff is old news. Roses are cloned all the time to make them more healthy and disease resistant.
Does the human race deserve less than a flower. Maybe we should step back and take a good look at our standards. Do we hold some less important things above the most important things? Is the quality human life not the ultimate goal in this time and age? If not, it certainly should be. I am definitely looking at cloning as a positive thing. Not all issues are resolved in my mind, yet. That may come with more information and technology.
I definitely do not think that there should be a total ban. Some type of research needs to be allowed and a some point, testing of some type. For years cancer has eluded doctors as to a cure. There are treatments and some go into remission, but are they ever really cured? Maybe the answer to the cancer cure could also be in some form of cloning. I have no doubt that there are those working outside the rules and regulations on cloning. Most of these though are not the ones we need. We need the big laboratories, with the money to back them to be working on this issue.
Maybe, like so many other things, it will take time for people to accept. But how much time do we have? What about all the people dying now that might possibly benefit from cloning? I say lets get moving and find out just what can and can’t be done. Maybe in the end we will all be disappointed but at least the effort will have been made. Science.