ABSTRACT

This essay gives an insight into the real world of cloning with the purpose to inform the general public about what cloning processes have yet to offer in the next few years.

 

The idea of keeping aborted babies alive to harvest organs through cloning might seem far too odd from what we usually see in the news. As a result, negative attention has been brought into cloning because some people think that aborted babies are considered legal people who have a right to live. However, you might want to take into consideration that cloning organs from aborted individuals could serve as a faster way of obtaining organs that are immediately available and ready to be transplanted into the patient’s body because, depending on certain cases, patients wait for a very long period of time to find people who are willing to give their organs away. Otherwise, aborted fetuses would have gone into waste when they had the potential to make such a huge leap in the medical field.

The benefits that cloning can bring to health needs are what have kept scientists on their toes throughout the long confrontation against controversial issues. The reason why cloning sets many controversies is because it involves the destruction of embryos which, most of the time, is compared with the unrightful killing of a human being for certain purposes. However, that does not have to be the case because cloning is done for good intentions, and not for selfish ones. This is because there are two different methods of cloning which are classified based on their functions; therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning serves as a cure to incurable diseases in which the production of embryonic stem cells, tissues or organs for transplantation is involved. This method is more viewed on the negative side as it destroys and create embryos at the same time. The second method is known as reproductive cloning whose function is to create a living person using one’s DNA resulting in the clone sharing the same genome as his/her progenitor. In addition, this method serves as an alternate means of conceiving a baby for infertile couples (Savulescu 2005). Overall, combining these two methods could facilitate the harvest of organs extracted from aborted fetuses.

Despite the controversial issues, human cloning benefits infertile couples and their decision of opting cloning to procreate should be protected as a fundamental right (Wu 1998) because there are many other means of procreation which have been gradually accepted, and the decision of choosing these processes have been morally respected throughout many years, but as might be expected these current fertility treatments also had it tough due to the critics when they were introduced for the first time, before finally becoming available in the medical market. Furthermore, it is a matter of time for people to fully adapt themselves to this new medical technology known as cloning.

Others may argue that a child born through cloning could have some health complications which will lead to short lifespan. This has happened with the first clone ever, Dolly the sheep, a clone of a female adult sheep. Dolly seemed to have died from premature aging because she was created from the genes of a very old sheep which made her cells to age faster than usual (New York Times 2013). However, science will always have sufficient room for improvement, thus, a research on how to make cloning safer is possible.

Furthermore, human cloning does not only play an important role when it comes to reproductive needs, it also contributes with therapeutic needs in which a clone is created for the immediate availability of compatible organs, stem cells, and other vital parts of the body (Savulescu 2009). As mentioned previously, the reason why patients wait for so long is because it is difficult to find a donor whose blood matches the patient’s blood. For this reason, once clones, who share similar genetic aspects are created, the long search for the right donors will not be necessary. Yet, philosopher Kant has stated that we should always treat people as an end, rather than as a means to an end (Morales 2009). Thus, clones are also human beings regardless of the fact that they are artificial, they deserve to be treated as an end as well.

Another concern that has kept the public worried about is the lack of diversity because it is often thought that clones would lack uniqueness which would obstruct the development of their own personal identity and personality (Morales 2009). Since they share the same genes as their progenitors, thus, they will also portray similar psychological features. In addition, another factor that contributes with this issue of identity development is that the cloned child will eventually come to realize that he/she is a mere of copy of someone who may be his/her own parent which will make the child feel less unique and lose confidence over his/her true identity. However, the idea of having duplicated brains through cloning has been proven wrong as Pence and Strong have indicated that it is impossible for the brain to be cloned along with the physical characteristics, meaning to say, experiences cannot be replicated by any means because they are primarily shaped by environmental aspects (Morales 2009). For instance, natural twins share similar physical features but their minds are completely far from being identical. As result, clones would yield no difference.

Clones and twins share the same concept, but clones are forbidden because they would undermine the diversity found in the population at a fast rate but is it not happening already? Natural twins are the closest example of clones and they are accepted by society (Savulescu 2005) so if clones were not allowed to exist then twins should not be allowed to occur which is not quite right as you cannot stop what nature creates. However, clones are man-made and have been drawing attention to the public, especially to certain religious groups who have been claiming that there is no other God and that human creation can only naturally happen as it is God’s role (Chadwick 1982). Nevertheless, the arrival of cloning is a miracle for infertile couples who also have the desire to build a family just like any other.

As you can see cloning reflects what is coming in the years ahead, a demonstration of what humans are capable of, and an insight into a completely different world of medicine. Furthermore, it is normal for people to be not accustomed to seeing unusual changes taking place which is the reason why many controversies arise at some point but once again, there is always time and room for improvement and adaptation.

The idea of keeping aborted babies alive to harvest organs through cloning might seem far too odd from what we usually see in the news. As a result, negative attention has been brought into cloning because aborted babies who are still able to breathe and have their hearts beating out of the womb are considered legal people who have a right to live. However, you might want to take into consideration that cloning organs from aborted individuals could serve as a faster way of obtaining organs that are immediately available and ready to be transplanted into the patient’s body because, depending on certain cases, patients wait for a very long period of time to find people who are willing to give their organs away. Otherwise, aborted fetuses would have gone into waste when they had the potential to make such a huge leap in the medical field.

The benefits that cloning can bring to health needs are what have kept scientists on their toes throughout the long confrontation against controversial issues. The reason why cloning sets many controversies is because it involves the destruction of embryos which, most of the time, is compared with the unrightful killing of a human being for certain purposes. However, that does not have to be the case because cloning is done for a reason, not for selfish ones, as there exists two different methods of cloning which are classified based on their functions; therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning serves as a cure to incurable diseases in which the production of embryonic stem cells, tissues or organs for transplantation is involved. This method is more viewed on the negative side as it destroys and create embryos at the same time. The second method is known as reproductive cloning whose function is to create a living person using one’s DNA resulting in the clone sharing the same genome as his/her progenitor. In addition, this method serves as an alternate means of conceiving a baby for infertile couples (Savulescu 2005). Overall, combining these two methods could facilitate the harvest of organs extracted from aborted fetuses.

Despite the controversial issues, human cloning benefits infertile couples and their decision of opting cloning to procreate should be protected as a fundamental right (Wu 1998) because there are many other means of procreation which have been gradually accepted, and the decision of choosing these processes have been morally respected throughout many years, but as might be expected these current fertility treatments also had it tough due to the critics when they were introduced for the first time, before finally becoming available in the medical market. Furthermore, it is a matter of time for people to fully adapt themselves to this new medical technology known as cloning.

Others may argue that a child born through cloning could have some health complications which will lead to short lifespan. This has happened with the first clone ever, Dolly the sheep, a clone of a female adult sheep. Dolly seemed to have died from premature aging because she was created from the genes of a very old sheep which made her cells to age faster than usual (New York Times 2013). However, science will always have sufficient room for improvement, thus, a research on how to make cloning safer is possible.

Furthermore, human cloning does not only play an important role when it comes to reproductive needs, it also contributes with therapeutic needs in which a clone is created for the immediate availability of compatible organs, stem cells, and other vital parts of the body (Savulescu 2009). As mentioned previously, the reason why patients wait for so long is because it is difficult to find a donor whose blood matches the patient’s blood. For this reason, once clones, who share similar genetic aspects are created, the long search for the right donors will not be necessary. Yet, philosopher Kant has stated that we should always treat people as an end, rather than as a means to an end (Morales 2009). Thus, clones are also human beings regardless of the fact that they are artificial, they deserve to be treated as an end as well.

Another concern that has kept the public worried about is the lack of diversity because it is often thought that clones would lack uniqueness which would obstruct the development of their own personal identity and personality (Morales 2009). Since they share the same genes as their progenitors, thus, they will also portray similar psychological features. In addition, another factor that contributes with this issue of identity development is that the cloned child will eventually come to realize that he/she is a mere of copy of someone who may be his/her own parent which will make the child feel less unique and lose confidence over his/her true identity. However, the idea of having duplicated brains through cloning has been proven wrong as Pence and Strong have indicated that it is impossible for the brain to be cloned along with the physical characteristics, meaning to say, experiences cannot be replicated by any means because they are primarily shaped by environmental aspects (Morales 2009). For instance, natural twins share similar physical features but their minds are completely far from being identical. As result, clones would yield no difference.

Clones and twins share the same concept, but clones are forbidden because they would undermine the diversity found in the population at a fast rate but is it not happening already? Natural twins are the closest example of clones and they are accepted by society (Savulescu 2005) so if clones were not allowed to exist then twins should not be allowed to occur which is not quite right as you cannot stop what nature creates. However, clones are man-made and have been drawing attention to the public, especially to certain religious groups who have been claiming that there is no other God and that human creation can only naturally happen as it is God’s role (Chadwick 1982). Nevertheless, the arrival of cloning is a miracle for infertile couples who also have the desire to build a family just like any other.

As you can see cloning reflects what is coming in the years ahead, a demonstration of what humans are capable of, and an insight into a completely different world of medicine. Furthermore, it is normal for people to be not accustomed to seeing unusual changes taking place which is the reason why many controversies arise at some point but once again, there is always time and room for improvement and adaptation.

Cited Works Page

o  Savulescu, Julian. “The ethics of cloning.” Medicine 33.2 (2005): 18-20.

o Morales, Nestor Micheli. “Psychological aspects of human cloning and genetic manipulation: the identity and uniqueness of human beings.” Reproductive biomedicine online 19 (2009): 43-50.

o The New York Times. “The Story of Dolly the Cloned Sheep | Retro Report | The New York Times.” YouTube, YouTube, 14 Oct. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=tELZEPcgKkE.

o Chadwick, Ruth F. “Cloning.” Philosophy, vol. 57, no. 220, 1982, pp. 201–209. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4619559.

o Wu, Lawrence. “Family Planning through Human Cloning: Is There a Fundamental Right?” Columbia Law Review, vol. 98, no. 6, 1998, pp. 1461–1515. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1123303.

Reflection Paper

The rhetorical situations for science writings have different purposes and ways of conveying information compared to other types of writings. For instance, genre for science writings mainly reviews a specific study case and then informs the public, without taking position, about what it is, its importance, and its pros and cons. In terms of audience, writing about science is a bit challenging when it comes to informing people who is not used to hearing or reading scientific terms, for this reason, an informative review paper about science should be broken into different sections in order to increase its effectivity in conveying information to the audience as well as it should include clear definitions and some background information about the topic. For stance, a scientific review paper should not take a position as its purpose is to relieve the audience from certain controversial issues and to create an equilibrium between both good and bad sides. As for media/design, visual images should contain a hidden meaning that is related to the topic and should be easy for the audience to decipher, and the design should be formal and as simple as possible. An informative review paper contains relevant information about a certain topic or issue and has the purpose to convey that topic or issue to the audience in the most neutral way possible. The potential audience impacts science writing because they are the core of all the controversies taking place and by narrowing your focus to them can help decrease these issues. I used adaptive measures such as narratives to narrate past events, definitions to clear out difficult terms, and visual images to let the reader know about what my paper is about. In the opening paragraphs, I introduced the issues of cloning and the benefits that cloning has yet to offer the public in order to keep the reader focused. The exigence of cloning was that it has the ability to improve health issues in the fastest and easiest way, and the main key issues were that cloning involves the destruction of embryos as well as it goes against nature because it allows you to artificially create and design a new human being. The reason why I chose the visual image in the cover page of my paper is because most people are aware that Dolly the sheep was the first mammal ever in history, to be successfully cloned so it gives readers a heads-up that my main focus will be cloning. I used strategies to identify the motivating issues in the sources such as mentioning what part of cloning has been seen as an issue, for instance, the idea of being capable of human creation has given rise to religious conflicts. The collaborative and social aspects such as class discussion has helped me realize how others interpret cloning which gave me an idea of what aspects I should and should not include in the paper in order to appear neutral, and the peer-review section helped me improve the few issues I had on my paper such as grammatical errors. The print and digital technologies that I used as a means to completing this assignment were the readings which were given as homework, the video clips we watched in class, and the databases I used to retrieve secondary sources such as JSTOR and Academic Search Complete. The reason why I chose the secondary source that I did is because it contained relevant information that was useful for my paper as it mentioned that infertile couples’ decision of choosing cloning as a means of procreation is a fundamental right that should be protected. This kind of states that cloning should be considered like any other treatment of fertilization as well as any decision made on cloning should not concern others. Some of the sources we read for the class were challenging so I underlined the terms I had difficulty with and looked them up then I wrote the meaning of those words above them, lastly, I reread the whole paragraph again to understand it better. One evidence that supports my claims from my writing is the following quote, “clones are man-made and have been drawing attention to the public, especially to certain religious groups who have been claiming that there is no other God and that human creation can only naturally happen as it is God’s role (Chadwick 1982)” This shows that I used outside secondary sources.