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
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
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
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 authors have a huge roll in the
persuasive part, Krauthammer has examples that might be more persuasive
They both explain the two faces of cloning and under which conditiond it
might be developed. Macklin gives us an explanation trying to convince
the public of giving human cloning a chance to happen. She also
describes cloning as some kind of human farm, but mostly what she
explains is that cloning can be taken as something normal, as an in-
vitro fertilization, for example. Many people do not really know what
human cloning really is and misunderstand its meaning. Macklin gives a
short explanation, but as every experiment, it must have some
Krauthammer’s essay is totally against cloning. He is very persuasive
and gives examples that will change the way of thinking of many people
and turn them against cloning. He gives exapmles, that are almost
imposibble to believe. Headless people, headless mice, keeping human
clones alive as an organ farm, etc. All these examples are a reality and
anyone who is mature enough and has reasoning will be against the
creation of headless humans.
This essays have the same topic, but are different. Although both
talk about human cloning, the essays are different.
As we could see, in Macklin’s essay, the cloned humans are considered
persons. Krauthammer’s essay mostly discusses human clones as human
farms. Macklin talks about cloning being banned, but she does not state
who banned it. Krauthammer explains this as saying that Dolly made
president Clinton create a comission and temporary banned human
clonning. Eventhough there is a temporary ban, this could someday be
accepted. Krauthammer thinks, that this should be banned forever.
There are a lot of different opinions about cloning and also a lot
of mistaken thoughts about this issue. Many articles have been written
and discussed. Many questions are to be answered and more research is to
be done. This type of essays can clear some doubts people have, but are
not enough to say I am in favor… or I am against…. It is an
issue that will be a controversy for al long time. It might be right to
create a human clone as a person, but it is very wrong to use a human
clone as a human farm. Everyone has the right to live a normal life. If
this right will be violated than, no cloned humans should be created.
As Macklin says: A world not safe foe cloned humans would be a world
not safe for the rest of us.
Macklin, Ruth Human Cloning? Don’t Just Say No Perspectives on
Contemporary Issues. Pages 507-508
Krauthammer, Charles Of Headless Mice…And Men Perspectives on
Contemporary Issues. Pages 509-511
Wachbroit, Robert Human Cloning Isn’t as Sacry as it Sounds Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com