Human Cloning

Human Cloning

The other day when I was at tutor, we were doing some english work on letter to the editor. Well, you might have guessed it by now but the topic was about 'Human Cloning'. I don't know about others, but I am compeltely against human cloning. It kills the whole point of being humans, and if you ever do have any GOOD REASONS FOR HUMAN CLONING, then please do tell me somehow and I would like to consider it.

There were eight letters to the editor that we looked at at tutor and of them, about 3 are FOR human cloning. The reason I'm posting up some of these letters is because you may agree upon it, but I'd like to point out the serious flaws of these letters. Nevertheless, this topic is, undeniably, interesting. All names of thse letters are unknown and it's from Part Two: Reading Texts. 24 Human Cloning.

First letter of the three.

'What's all the fuss? There is no good reason not to clone. Most arguments against it are based on wishy-washy feelings that it is in some way unnatural, or ridiculous fears that will lead to another Hitler taking over the world with an army of identical super-beings. What rubbish! Cloning technology will open up tremendous opportunities for the sick and for those unfortunate people who cannot have children by normal means. Let's not allow stupid fears and anxieties to stop progress.'

I've gotta say to this one, anything touched by humans is classified as unnatural. As for fears, Hitler attempted to take over the world once and at that time that was hard to believe. What makes it any harder to believe now, especially if cloning humans would be possible. As for 'Cloning technology will open up tremendous opportunities for the sick and for those unforunate people who cannot have children by normal means.', when this person was talking abot the sick and the unfortunate, did he/she ever thought about the sick and the unfortunate? I'm talking about the poor people out there in the third world countries etc. How will human cloning really benefit society? I'm not so sure myself of the costs, but I can imagine it to be quite dear.
As for the unfortunate people who can't have children, how can't they have children? Need to be specific. It's quite vague for me at the moment.

Next letter

'It took a lot of time for the world to get used to the idea of a cloned animal, and despite Dolly's cute and appealing looks, we did not immediately accept her. We saw her as a freak. Now we are sad she is gone. But at the same time we are having trouble getting used to the idea that someone might have cloned a human being. In a couple of years we will have accepted that too. We treat new things with suspicion at first. But eventually we adjust. It's time we accepted cloning, and let the scientists get on with finding out its potential for the human race.'

Well, this letter is quite correct at some points. The whole letter surrounds the idea that we slowly accept and adjust new things such as a new person to school, and realise his/her potential. At the same time, this is the flaw there. Using the example of a new person coming to school, we adjust and accept that person slowly only to finally realise his/her true potential i.e. some sick bastard etc. What I'm really saying is, adjust and accept something and it could turn its back on us and stab us. So really, we're playing by chances but I'd still go against human cloning.

Last letter and possibly the most stupid one.

'Most arguments against cloning are weak. For example, people say it is unnatural, but nature creates clones all the time - as identical twins. They also say that cloning will be used for the wrong reasons - e.g. to create a child with movie-star looks or the musical talent of a Beethoven. But this is highly unlikely. Most parents would only consider cloning for extreme situations, for example, to replace a child who dies or to avoid a disease. We must not let these silly arguments dominate discussion. It is time to get serious, and examine how and when we might make use of cloning for the good of humankind.'

Alright most stupid letter, how the hell does 'for example, people say it is unnatural, but nature creates clones all the time' work? The person states unnatural and nature at the same time, and I guess he/she told him/herself off. There's the big bloody difference. Identical twins made by nature is natural. Clones/whatever made by humans is unnatural. Get the idea?

'They also say that cloning will be used for the wrong reasons - e.g. to ceate a child with movie-star looks or the musical talent of a Beethoven'. Well who knows? Who really asked this person to speak for the whole world. Soon, we'll be seeing clones in McDonald's doing work. Why? Cos it's cheaper :). Over the century, humans have tried to find cheap alternatives, so why not now? There goes millions of jobs (if cloning ever comes into society).

'Most parents would only consider cloning for extreme situations, for example, to replace a child who dies or to avoid a disease.'. I cannot completely agree with this. The avoiding the disease is agreeable, cos hereditary diseases can be a curse for generations of the family. But the first part of what this person said is utterly stupid. 'replace a child who dies'. How can you REPLACE a child who dies? What are they? Toys? Cards? Get what I'm saying? You could clone a child, but you know, deep down YOU WILL KNOW that it wasn't the child that first came up, and that sort of guilty feeling WILL hang around.

That's enough of my ranting. Like I said before, if you do have ano Pros for human cloning, please do state it. Otherwise, I believe that the cons of human cloning overweighs that of the pros about 1million times :).