My Arguments In Support Of Human Cloning
Cloning by definition is, “the process of creating a genetically identical copy of a cell or an organism”. People can benefit and or take advantage from cloning in regards to helping those experiencing infertility, organ replacement, genetic research, and human development. Some people would disagree saying cloning could be a disadvantage due to societal impacts, human rights for the clones could be in violation, some would believe this is wrong in religious views, and many more. The history of cloning has been around a lot longer than what most people think. In 1885, German scientist Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch was the first to clone a set of twin salamanders by splitting viable embryos in two.
The expression 'cloning' for the most part applies to a procedure more commonly referred to as physical cell atomic exchange. This means the DNA from the cell of a matured creature (take bovines, for instance), called the 'contributor,' is removed from the cell (generally a skin cell taken in a biopsy) and embedded into an egg cell from another member of the same species. The egg cell has had its core removed with the goal that it will use and copy the DNA of the contributor cell. Then it has a jolt of electricity applied to start the cell dividing process. When it turns into a blastocyst (a little cluster of cells that structures after an egg is prepared), which is then embedded into a surrogate mother.
The different types of artificial cloning are reproductive, gene, and therapeutic. Reproductive cloning involves taking one species of animal and making a genetic identical copy through somatic cell nuclear transfer. Basically, taking a newly created egg and putting it back into the uterine wall so it can implant and begin to develop. An example of reproductive cloning is Dolly the sheep, who was created in 1996 by scientists Wilmut and Campbell. This example truly brought cloning to the surface of interest in the modern world.
Gene cloning is a process in which DNA is extracted from an organism, a gene is located from the DNA and is finally replicated. This was discovered by German scientist Hans Spemann in 1938, and would be the basic method used for cloning genes. In which scientists can better understand how genes functions.
Last but not least there is therapeutic cloning. This can involve the same process as reproductive, but the result differs due to the cloned cells remain in a petri dish in the laboratory and not implanted immediately. The main purpose is for medical therapy for certain ailments through the use of stem cells and or organ replacement.
The subject of debate is it okay that we are going against nature itself and not letting survival of the fittest do its bidding? Or is it beneficial to our society to have the ability to clone/grow replacement organs for those needing transplants from chronic illnesses. As well as for those facing complications from infertility, losing a child at a young age, and options for those whom are same-sex couples who want biological children.
The first advantage I’d like to discuss would be Infertility. Infertile couples seek help through their doctors for a way to conceive children naturally versus going the adoption route due to the fact that they want the biological relationship. Most couples will go the route of IVF, in vitro fertilization, in which the already fertilized eggs are then implanted in the female. Those wanting the ability to have biological offspring, but have a medical issue such as no viable eggs or sperm would benefit from this. With reproductive cloning, babies can be born with fewer birth defects and diseases due to flawed genetics. With this available, families would not have to endure painful procedures that leave physically and mental scars. For the animal industry, dairy cattle for example, cloning may be utilized to produce multiple copies that are good at producing meat and milk. Weaknesses to this approach would be the possibility of faster aging, premature deaths that interfere with nature, and some believe this as “playing god” with life.
Another would be organ replacement which is a prime instance of therapeutic cloning. This could definitely provide better results in regards to finding an organ donor as well as no more waiting lists. Not to mention faster recovery times for those experiencing traumatic injuries and battling acute/chronic ailments. Along with prolonging the human life span. Being a genetic copy of that person’s original organ, it is less likely for the body to reject it and be on those drugs to help prevent infection. With any positive comes with a possibility of a negative circumstance. Due to the fact that you’re just copying the organ, there is the possibility that it could be less stable. Take the heart for example, if you already had an issue with the valves of the heart so they clone it, grow it and replace it. It’s only a matter of time for who knows if and when that heart will be defective again with the valves. Another problem that could follow would be money. The cost of something like this wouldn’t be easy for a low or even middle class tax payer to afford.
One of the disadvantages for cloning would be no genetic deviation. Basically, we would have the same genes, the clone and myself, thus possibly the same health issues and immunities. What if we had a plague or viral outbreak implode upon the world and a human couldn’t build up resistance? Both the human and clone would both succumb to it. For instance, take “the marbled crayfish which is the only decapod crustacean that reproduces asexually, with the all-female species making clones of itself from eggs unfertilized by sperm. The marbled crayfish’s three sets of chromosomes, containing enough diversity for adapting to different environments, so they are making self-clones”. These crayfish are thriving and over populating certain habitats and driving out genetic diversity. Without genetic diversity, scientists are worried that disease might come out and wipe the entire population because there is no gene resilient to the disease.
Another issue would be social impacts. Does the clone have human rights or not? Will this could a divide between humans and clones? Would it put a decrease in value of overall human life? Clones would be us, so does this mean that they cannot think for themselves? Would we have the same ideas? Would it have a unique individuality/personality? “Some say a clone would suffer psychologically because it would know in great detail many things about its life. It would know pretty much what it would look like, what kind of genetic diseases it would suffer and maybe it's intellectual capabilities. Some feel that knowledge would be difficult for an individual to handle”.
On the off chance that you simply take a gander at the realities, you will see that cloning is required in this world for a considerable lot of the undeniable reasons I have talked about. It will help in our personal satisfaction and enable us to live longer lives. It will help dispose of birth defects in babies since we will comprehend hereditary qualities better with cloning. There is such a great amount of upside in this development that I feel that it exceeds the slight good issue that accompanies it. The organ diversion is the most critical to me. This could spare a large number of lives all over and in any case not a full human clone; it's a body part to assist you with continuing to carry on with an ordinary life. I don't have the smallest issue with that. Everybody presently needs to live as long as the can in a healthy manner and this is a way that it can occur.
