INTRODUCTION A clone is defined as an exact replica of a living thing that is genetically identical to the organism that produced it. Cloning occurs naturally; for example, many common plants are identical copies of a parent plant. “In these cases, cloning simply requires cutting pieces of the stems, roots, or leaves of the plants and then planting the cuttings” (“Cloning”). The first clone of a mammal was a sheep named Dolly in 1997. This was achieved by using a cell from a mature female sheep, which was inserted into a surrogate ewe, or female sheep. Only twenty-nine of the eggs with the sheep nuclei developed into suitable embryos out of the 277 created. Also, out of the twenty-nine embryos, only one succeeded in a viable birth. A discovery
…show more content…
However, the same risks exist and are accepted in other forms of reproduction. “Of embryos produced normally, 75 per cent do not make it to birth” (McLachlan). Thus, cloning should not be banned based on safety alone. Instead, the dangers of cloning should be explained to the potential parents, similar to other medical procedures. Furthermore, banning cloning is a legal issue because it directly violates the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects ideas, not because of their substantive merit but simply because ideas stimulate thought, which in turn breeds the courage and boldness necessary for effective self-governance. And while cloning research is clearly disturbing to many, the Supreme Court has stated that “the First Amendment ordinarily prohibits courts from inquiring into the content of expression, expect in cases of obscenity or libel, and protects speech … regardless of [its] motivation, orthodoxy, truthfulness, timeliness, or taste…. …show more content…
In a 2003 poll, fifty-nine percent of people stated their personal opinion that human cloning should be banned, while only four percent voted that human cloning should not be banned. The remaining voters voted that human cloning should be allowed for purposes of research only, while two percent had no opinion (“Public opinion on a human”). In another survey, a graph illustrates that only eight percent of voters held the view that it is morally acceptable to clone humans in 2003 (“Public opinion on the moral”). This unacceptance of human cloning is based on the ignorance of average citizens about the subject. “I believe it has more to do with an irrational fear of cloning than any logical reason” (McLachlan). I agree with this statement with the additional view that many people have an inaccurate assumption on the purpose of human cloning. There are many future benefits to additional knowledge gained in this study and perfection of techniques. There is a specific type of cloning called therapeutic cloning that “might have the potential to cure crippling ailments such as Parkinson’s disease” (“Cloning”). This would be achieved by cloning tissue and particular organs to produce healthy replacements for the use of healing the patient (“Cloning”). Another important benefit of cloning is an additional way for infertile couples to have children related to them (Easterbrook). Also,
However, the same risks exist and are accepted in other forms of reproduction. “Of embryos produced normally, 75 per cent do not make it to birth” (McLachlan). Thus, cloning should not be banned based on safety alone. Instead, the dangers of cloning should be explained to the potential parents, similar to other medical procedures. Furthermore, banning cloning is a legal issue because it directly violates the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects ideas, not because of their substantive merit but simply because ideas stimulate thought, which in turn breeds the courage and boldness necessary for effective self-governance. And while cloning research is clearly disturbing to many, the Supreme Court has stated that “the First Amendment ordinarily prohibits courts from inquiring into the content of expression, expect in cases of obscenity or libel, and protects speech … regardless of [its] motivation, orthodoxy, truthfulness, timeliness, or taste…. …show more content…
In a 2003 poll, fifty-nine percent of people stated their personal opinion that human cloning should be banned, while only four percent voted that human cloning should not be banned. The remaining voters voted that human cloning should be allowed for purposes of research only, while two percent had no opinion (“Public opinion on a human”). In another survey, a graph illustrates that only eight percent of voters held the view that it is morally acceptable to clone humans in 2003 (“Public opinion on the moral”). This unacceptance of human cloning is based on the ignorance of average citizens about the subject. “I believe it has more to do with an irrational fear of cloning than any logical reason” (McLachlan). I agree with this statement with the additional view that many people have an inaccurate assumption on the purpose of human cloning. There are many future benefits to additional knowledge gained in this study and perfection of techniques. There is a specific type of cloning called therapeutic cloning that “might have the potential to cure crippling ailments such as Parkinson’s disease” (“Cloning”). This would be achieved by cloning tissue and particular organs to produce healthy replacements for the use of healing the patient (“Cloning”). Another important benefit of cloning is an additional way for infertile couples to have children related to them (Easterbrook). Also,