To Clone Or Not To Clone Essays (1149 words) - Cloning,

To Clone Or Not To Clone Cloning is an issue that has been evolving during time. At the begining, cloning was been researched and was described as something that was hard to reach. Even science fiction movies, such as Multiplicity, were produced about cloning. As the time went through, cloning became a reality. In 1996 Dolly, the first mammal, a sheep was born. Dolly was created by Ian Wilmut, an embryologist of the Rosling insitute ( World Book, http://www.worldbook.com ). Since then, many mammals, such as mice and calves were created. Right now, there is a fear, that humans might be the next to be cloned. Ruth macklin and Charles Krauthammer discuss this matter in two essays were they state whether cloning is right or wrong. Ruth Macklin, a professor of Bioethics, wrote an essay about this issue. Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No is the title of her article. Her essay discusses the negative response of the people to Human Cloning. As the title of the essay says: Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No, Macklin believes that cloning deserves a chance to be developed in humans. Macklin talks about Human Clones not being accepted as human beings. She states that an ethicist said once, that human cloning would be a violation to the right to genetic identity (Perspectives of Contemporary Issues, pg. 508). Macklin doubts about the exsistence of this right. She explains many points about Human Cloning and about ethics. One of the points she mentiones, is about the violation to human dignity. Theologians say that cloning would be a violation to dignity and also that cloned humans would be treated with less respect than other human beings. Another issue she discusses is the fact that Human Clones could be used as human farms or organ donors. Macklin gives many examples about the cases where human cloning might be accepted. Mothers that can not have children, families that have children that are sick to death or also couples that may have genetic defects (Perspectives of Contemporary Issues, pg. 508). In conclusion, Macklin thinks, that human cloning should be accepted or at least an opportunity should been given to develop Human Cloning. On the other hand, Charles Krauthammer, the author of the second essay Of Headless Mice.....And Men is totally against Cloning in every way. His essay talks about the cloning that was made in mice. Researchers have been able to locate different genes and than delete some genes, just to see what comes out. They erased the clone that creates the head and produced headless mice that obviosly died when the were born. Krauthammer does not understand, how humans can create such type of mice. He talks about the chance of creating humans with no heads. He says, that the goal of these production of headless humans, could be kept as an organ farm. He also gives examples of Cloning, such as the possibility to create models, and geniuses (Perspectives of Contemporary Issues, pg. 510). Krauthammer mentiones that President Bill Clinton banned cloning, but it won't be long until it is accepted. Krauthammer cloncusion is the prohibition of Human cloning and every type of cloning. These essays are a clear example of what cloning is and what the responses might be. As Macklin is in favor of Cloning, Krauthammer is not. Macklin's essay talks more about cloning as having a twin, a person that will be living with us and form part of the family. A companion that will be there to live life as it is. There are other terms for cloning such as carbon copy. On the other hand, Krauthammer's essay describes human clones with no heads. Human farms that will be there in case something goes wrong with the original. These half human beings would be different, they would be kept alive, like an organ reserve if the original loses a hand, then the clone gives that person a hand. What kind of thoughts are those? Is it possible that scientists have come to a point were they want to create Monsters? This would really be a violation to human dignity. A harm to the cloned person that might not have a brain to think, but he sure will have the same arms, legs, hands, etc... as the original. He might not have the same face as the original, but he will have a heart and I am sure that he would not like to live headless. If cloning will be this way, than it should be completly banned. Both essays are very persuasive, but there is a difference in both. The examples given by the