Forum
Human Cloning Foundation Hails British Scientists
Paralyzed
Walk Again
Childless Couples
Essays
The Benefits of
Human Cloning
All the Reasons to
Clone Human Beings
The Top Ten Myths
about Human Cloning
Human Cloning is the Cure for Infertility
Infertility is
a Disease
Books
People
Reports
Archives
Feedback
Donate
Links
Website Links
About Us
Contact Us
Site history
Site Map
Past Books of the Month
John Kunich's Books
Copyright
Illegal Beings: Human Clones
Re: My proof that cloning,Human and Animal, is wrong
EternalWater7K ( 11/24/2004, 22:14:32 )Human Cloning April 8, 2002by Carrie Gordon EarllThe prospect of human cloning raises questions about the limits of science and how far humans should go in research. Human cloning moved from science fiction to a realistic possibility with the 1997 announcement of the cloning of a sheep named Dolly. The cloning project in Scotland made history as the first successful cloning of an adult mammal. The event also triggered a wave of controversy over the ethical implications of human cloning. Views of human cloning in the scientific community are varied. Some, like Chicago physicist Richard Seed, believe that human cloning is a necessary venture in the name of research and scientific progress. According to Seed, "We are going to become one with God. We are going to have almost as much knowledge and almost as much power as God. Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God."1 Others strongly oppose human cloning. Even Ian Wilmut, who led the Scottish scientific team that cloned Dolly, has stated, "It would be desperately sad if people started using this sort of technology on people."2 In 1997, President Clinton issued an executive order establishing a five-year ban on the use of federal funds for research into human cloning. But the federal restriction does not affect privately funded research. Meanwhile, critics of human cloning want to make the ban permanent and extend it into the private sector. Several states have passed laws to ban human cloning and federal bans have been introduced in Congress. Most Americans are uncomfortable with the prospect of human cloning. In fact, a poll published in the February 19, 2001, issue of Time magazine found that 90 percent of those surveyed thought cloning human beings is a bad idea. POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF CLONING? Cloning advances in the animal kingdom could benefit humanity, especially in the fields of food production and medicine. One possibility is to reproduce animals that are genetically designed to be healthier, larger and produce greater yields. On the medical front, animal cloning may bring the reproduction of animals engineered to have human illnesses such as cystic fibrosis, Parkinsons disease, diabetes and muscular dystrophy. This would provide more subjects for medical research in hopes of finding cures for these and other deadly human ailments. The high demand for donor organs could be relieved through the creation of transgenic animals, genetically engineered animals whose organs that are less likely to be rejected by humans. Cloning would allow these animals to be easily replicated. WHAT IS CLONING? Strictly speaking, clones are a group of cells descended from a single cell. In this sense, identical twins are clones of a single zygote. They inherit not only the cells genetic material (DNA from the cell nucleus), but all the other cell structures as well. For the purposes of the current scientific debate, however, the word "cloning" refers to "a duplication of genetic material from one organism to the next."3 In this context, cloning intentionally copies the genetic code of one person in order to create another with the same genetic material. HOW CLONING WORKS Any attempt to clone humans will utilize the same technology used on animals. Mammalian cloning is the process of using asexual production to replicate an organism. The method employed is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and results in the creation of a new organism by way of fusion, as opposed to fertilization. SCNT consists of removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a somatic cell from the donor to be cloned. A somatic cell, such as a skin or white blood cell, contains the donors DNA or genetic code. Then, instead of fertilization, a small electric pulse is applied to cause the cells to fuse and divide. If successful, the result is a newly cloned individual who begins the same process of human development that we all experienced.4 THERAPEUTIC VS. REPRODUCTIVE CLONING The current debate centers on two categories of potential human cloning: therapeutic and reproductive. The distinction is based on what you intend to do with the embryo created by SCNT. All human cloning is reproductive, as it involves creating a human life. The distinction comes in whether the cloned embryo will be used for medical purposes and then destroyed (therapeutic) or implanted in a womans womb with the intention of delivering a baby (reproductive). More accurate terms, however, would be "stem cell" cloning rather than therapeutic and "live birth" cloning instead of reproductive. "Stem cell" (or therapeutic) cloning creates a human embryo using a patient's DNA. Theoretically, scientists would then use the embryo's stem cells to grow personalized replacement cells and tissue for treating, and hopefully curing, the patient. Since the tissue contains the patient's own DNA and is genetically compatible, there is no risk of rejection. Unfortunately, the therapeutic benefits only extend to the patient; the embryo is destroyed in the process, making therapeutic cloning an immoral and unethical (as well as unproven) proposition. "Live birth" (or reproductive) cloning most closely represents what people generally think of when they hear the term "cloning." This process involves creating a human embryo using a donor's DNA with the intention of implanting the embryo in a woman's womb and delivering a baby. For example, one recent proposal to help infertile couples have a child involves taking a cell from the man, extracting the nucleus containing his DNA, and injecting it into an empty, nucleus-free egg provided by the woman. The egg is then stimulated by a pulse of electricity, causing the cells to divide and grow into an embryo, which is implanted into the womb of the woman. Any child born by this process would be a "clone" of the father, carrying his genetic code and (virtually)no genetic material from the mother. While assisting infertile married couples to conceive a child is arguably a noble endeavor, cloning human beings for reproductive purposes is fraught with unacceptable scientific risks and immoral practices. REASONS TO OPPOSE HUMAN CLONING Cloning is an unsafe process that sacrifices human life for scientific gain. Attempts to clone humans will utilize the same technology used to clone animals. And, if the experiences of scientists trying to clone animals are any indication, those who attempt to clone humans may be in over their heads. For example, the creation of Dolly required 277 sheep embryos before the nuclear-fusion process was successful. This means that 276 sheep embryos either failed to develop fully or were destroyed because of complicationsall to clone a single sheep. Experimenting on and destroying human embryos can never be considered ethical or acceptable. A human-cloning project could mean hundreds, if not thousands, of human embryos would be discarded before one human being is successfully created through the nuclear-transfer process. Once you have a successful nuclear transfer producing embryos for implantation and eventual live birth, the embryos are still at risk. The failure rate for completing the cloning process in animals is a horrifying 95 to 97 percent with most clones dying in utero or being born with severe, life-threatening abnormalities. (Dolly was euthanized in February 2003 due to complications from premature aging.) Some animal clones develop to an abnormally large size, risking the lives of the surrogate mothers carrying them. The prospect of subjecting preborn children to such genetic malfunctions is so appalling that one expert in mammalian cloning, Mark Westhusin, said, "No one who actually has any experience with cloning wants anything to do with [human cloning.]"5 Scientists may have few qualms about aborting a deformed animal fetus but what would they do with a human in the same condition? Public outcry followed the early 1960s discovery that giving even one dose of the drug thalidomide to pregnant women (to prevent nausea) caused serious birth defects. One must question if society will tolerate scientists knowingly subjecting preborn children to such horrors. Humans are not objects for laboratory experimentation. If human embryos can be created in a scientific experiment, with the knowledge that abnormalities and deformities will follow, destroying them cannot be far behind. Cloning violates two values God bestows upon each human being at conception: pricelessness and uniqueness.6 Human life is priceless, created in the image and likeness of God. Each person is of infinite worth, and each life is sacred. In procreation, humans participate with God in creating new life. This offspring not only reflects the likeness of the Creator, but also carries the blended DNA of two separate individuals: a mother and a father. Cloning intentionally produces a genetic copy of one existing individual, questioning the uniqueness of the clone. Procreation reveals that God intends us to be unprecedented individuals. Human cloning contradicts this basic truth of our creation by attempting to create man in our own image, rather than in Gods. Human cloning also rests on the false notion that we reproduce in the same way one manufactures products in a factory. Each life should be viewed as a priceless gift from God and never as a mere industrial product.Carrie Gordon Earll is the Senior Policy Analyst for Bioethics at Focus on the Family and a fellow with the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Joe Palca, "Human Cloning," National Public Radio’s All Things Considered, January 6, 1998. 2 Thomas Maugh, "Scientists Report Cloning Adult Mammal," Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1997, p. 1. 3 James C. Peterson, Genetic Turning Points, (Grand Rapids: Erdmans Publishing Co., 2001), p. 296. 4 Richard Doerflinger, "Fact Sheet, 'Human Cloning Debate Raises Pro-Life Issues,'" National Conference of Catholic Bishops Information Packet on Human Cloning, February 9, 1998. 5 Jeremy Manier, "Potential Perils Born in Cloning, Risks Great Even in Animals, Researchers Say," Chicago Tribune, March 4, 2001, p. 1. 6 Jonathan Cohen, "In God's Garden: Creation and Cloning in Jewish Thought," Hastings Center Report 29, no. 4 (1999), pp. 7-12. ^ Back to Top Creative Giving | Donate Online | Jobs | Monthly EFT | Pray for Focus | Resources | Volunteers © 2004 Focus on the Family. CitizenLink is a registered trademark of Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. (800) A-FAMILY (232-6459). Privacy Policy/Terms of Use
This Message is being posted for educational purposes, as well as for comment and criticism, by the visitors to the HumanCloning.org Foundation website (www.HumanCloning.org ).
Disclaimer: Information provided on this web site is for educatonal purposes only. It is not a substitute for, nor can it replace advice from your own physician.
HumanCloning.org™ Established December 11, 2002.
Who's Afraid of Human Cloning?
Disease Prevention and Treatment