FREE ESSAY ON THE REAL POSSIBILITIES OF CLONING

THE REAL POSSIBILITIES OF CLONING

The Real Possibilities Of Cloning
On February 22, 1999 news was announced that Dolly the lamb was the first successful
animal cloned. Unlike the other cloning experiments done over the past 15 years, this was
the first successful clone made with an adult cell. The cell was used to activate and
program the egg from which Dolly grew. Past clones involved using the cell from a
fertilized embryo in the early stages of development. As news of Ian Willmut's cloned
lamb got out across the globe, many people feared what they thought could possibly never
come true. With the technology to clone identical animals, can humans be cloned too?
Since then topic of discussion throughout the scientific world has centered on the
cloning of humans. Recently, The University of Texas lab cloned the first headless
creatures, headless mice. Since then, headless tadpoles have also been born at The
University of Blath. This discovery is even more chilling because it opens up the door to
headless humans, for purposes such as organ banks. Headless human production could also
be used as a means for testing out new treatments for diseases such as cancer.
Controversy is coming up more often considering the morals and ethics of cloning. Is
headless cloning opening the gate to human immortality? Is a headless clone ever a living
creature? Many people are beginning to wonder if cloning will be beneficial to our
country. 
The cloning of animals as well as human cloning could prove very beneficial to our
nation. For instance, cloning research would be very beneficial to improving the vitro
fertilization process. Vitro fertilization is when a woman's egg is removed from her
uterus, fertilized by a sperm donation, and replaced back in the uterus. John Robertson,
an authority on reproductive technology and the law at the University of Texas School of
Law says, Even if they only produced three or four embryos, it could greatly improve the
odds that it will work (Robertson, 3). This could be very beneficial to couples that are
having trouble having children the traditional way. As for animal cloning, we will be
able to clone extinct animals, and increase the populations of endangered species. Animal
cloning could also improve livestock for food. Randall Pranther, a professor of animal
sciences at the University of Missouri stated this, You could implant identical embryos
of a cow with more meat, less fat and greater resistance to disease (Pranther 6). I think
these uses for cloning would be very beneficial to the health and medical knowledge of
our country. Another use for cloning is as a donor bank for spare human organs. Since the
discovery of headless cloned mice at The University of Texas, the idea of headless humans
has been lingering in the public's minds. There are some problems facing this procedure,
such as finding sane women to carry these embryos in their bodies so they can grow. But
eventually, these problems will be solved and headless cloning will be possible. Charles
Krauthammer, a graduate of Harvard and a licensed psychiatrist, wrote an essay concerning
headless cloning. In the essay he stated, I find cloning personally distasteful, but
given the shortage of organs, I do not think distaste is sufficient reason not to go
ahead with something that would save lives (Krauthammer 470). So what is right and what
is wrong? Although cloning does sound like a reasonable thing to do given the shortage of
organs in the U.S., are we going to pave the way for human immortality? George Annas of
Boston University's School of Public health argues, Cloning a person would change the
definition of what it means to be human (Annas, 1). Is this a problem we are willing to
deal with as a consequence? 
With this new breakthrough now cloning takes on two meanings. Cloning a person is
certainly different than forming the identical body of a human that's not alive, a body
for the use of spare organs. In Charles Krauthammer's essay Headless Mice...And Men, he
addresses the problems with headless cloning. Is it cloning, or is it the gateway to
immortality? And why did they even create them? It was said that these mice were created
to learn how genes determine embryo development. But we can easily figure out that true
utility of manufacturing headless creatures is for their organs. These organs from
headless clones are perfectly formed and perfectly useful. Regular cloning can be looked
at differently than this. After all, it is not really the same person, but a twin who
looks identical to the original person. As for clones conscious, it could be completely
different than the original persons conscious. But with this technology, the possibility
of indefinite life has opened. Indefinite life is something that has never been looked at
by the scientists that are cloning. If we clone for the purpose of body parts in a way we
are playing god by creating lives that don't have a chance to live. With these nonliving,
identical organs ready to be used, human consciousness could stay alive for possibly
ever. We were not created to be immortal, and who knows what could happen to human life
if immortality was possible? Krauthammer states that, If you create a clone, you cannot
transfer your consciousness into it to truly live on. But if you create a headless clone
of just your body, you have created a ready source of replacement parts to keep you-your
consciousness-going indefinitely (Krauthammer 470). Krauthammer even compares headless
creation of human bodies to narcissism, nothing satisfies narcissism like immortality
(Krauthammer 470). Like Charles Krauthammer, theologian Paul Ramsey thinks the idea of
cloning is dangerous to human life. In his 1970 book Fabricated Man, he says, Humanity
will not have the wisdom to manage the power that comes with gaining total control over
its own destiny (Ramsey 2). 
With all these issues surrounding cloning, it has become a very controversial topic with
no correct answer. Is it the right thing to do, or is it going to hurt our nation and
take the meaning of humaness away from us? I say that cloning is wrong, and shouldn't be
tolerated in America, at least headless human cloning. Why do I think that cloning should
be banned? Well, I base my decision on many arguments that cloning is unhealthy for our
nation and even possibly dangerous. There is no equal to sheer immortality than the
purposeful creation of these animal monsters. I think that with the cloning headless
creatures, we would take life for granted because we can always fix ourselves with these
spare organs we have waiting aside. Cloning animals for the purpose of food might sound
good, but is not worth the problems cloning could possibly bring. Designer animals are
unethical and dangerous. I agree with Jeremy Rifkin when he says, Every creature that
comes into being ought to have the right to its individual genetic makeup (Rifkin 7). We
should look at the whole spectrum of the cloning subject and not just the positive
aspects of it before we leap into a way of life we are not ready for. 
Bibliography
Ramsey, Paul. Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control, Yale University Press, 
1970.
Krauthammer, Charles. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: Of headless mice... and
Men, St. Martin's Press, 1999.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: Ewegenics, St. Martin's
Press, 1999.
Cloning (Editorial). CQResearcher, http://library.cp.com/search/, 1998.