cloning
...oning is the definition of a cloned individual. Cloning, as its name suggests, is the biological replication of a human being, even from an adult cell. This is generally agreed to by all of the parties involved in the controversy. Although, George Annas, a professor of health law at Boston University believes that "cloning a person would change the definition of what it means to be human" (Masci). This argument was not followed up by any biological backings. No longer would sexual reproduction, as we know it today, be necessary in creating a human being. All that would be needed, is the nucleus of a cell and a female egg for the purpose of implantation. The fundamental idea of a child being conceived by a man and a woman would no longer hold true. It is also believed that cloning would change the way we think of human individuality, as stated by University of Maryland professor, Karen Rothenberg. This belief still holds true even though the clones would not necessarily have the same personality as the original donor. On the other hand, supporters of cloning, such as Rabbi Moses D. Tendler, a biology professor at Yeshiva University and a professor of Talmud at Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, see cloning "as an advanced form of sexual reproduction" (Kierman). Thus, he an other health professional see a clone as being no different than any other human being. The supporters of cloning use important reasoning in strengthening their position. The strongest supporters of cloning include many scientists. They support cloning for the benefits in which it will bring. These benefits consist of food supply, but mainly in the great medical possibilities. Some of these scientists believe that cloning can help to produce better food. In Texas two spotted calves were genetically altered. "The two spotted calves are a step towards disease resistant herds to be raised by a genetic engineering method nicknamed Pharming, which will design cattle to secrete pharmaceuticals in their milk and yield to better meat" (Schrof). Other medical professionals believe that cloning could potentially save millions of lives by uncovering many of the mysteries of medicine, including those of "spinal cords, heart muscle, and brain tissue that won't regenerate after injury " (Krauthammer). In addition, the effectiveness of vitro fertilization could be improved. In this procedure, a removed egg from the uterus of a women is fertilized with a sperm and implanted back into the uterus. The success of this process is only, on average, ten percent. The chance of a successful implantation would greatly be increased if the embryo is cloned and then implanted into the uterus (Masci). Cloning could also give couples unable to have children the option of having a child genetically identical to one parent. Another possibility is seen in the cloning of a dying child, to leave behind to the parents who may want to naturally give birth to a child. A child who may require a bone marrow transplant could greatly benefit from cloning research. This research would allow for bone marrow to be cloned based on the patient's genetic information. Thus, the chance of the body rejecting such a transplant would be very low ("Follow the Sheep"). Finally, cloning research may uncover the causes of the uncontrollable division of cancer cells (Krauthammer). Many of these cloning supporters are concerned that the blanket ban on cloning could prevent research, and stop the therapeutic benefits of cloning ("Public Consultation on Human Cloning Launched"). The many medical applications are supported by those in the above unfortunate situations, and thus they also support cloning. The opponents of cloning represent the majority of the population, supporting their view using cause. Generally, bioethicists, such as committees on ethics are strongly opposed to the idea of the cloning of humans. The European Union, a European bioethics committee consisting of a group of advisors, unanimously condemned any acts of human cloning (Watson). In America, a group of eighteen bioethcists gave a report on the subject in response to President Clinton's request. This National Bioethics Commission recommended that, though more research and education is necessary in assessing a concrete answer to the problem, "the enactment of federal legislation to prohibit anyone from attempting to create a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning" (Marwick) because it is morally unacceptable. They believe that the process could be unsafe, as seen in the case of Dolly, which required 277 attempts before an acceptable clone was made. This is also the view of those scientists currently against human cloning. In addition, the commission fears negative psychological effects on the clone. Many philosophers and theologists support this view feeling that the clone would be rejected by its "parents" if their expectation are not met. It is also believed that this could bring about a psychological trauma to the clone. Scientists, such as Colin Stewart, director of the Laboratory for Cancer Developmental Biology, add to the argument by the idea that using clones for medical research will have no benefits that research using mice and sheep would not (Masci). Other scientists, such as Hiliary Bo...