Wednesday, January 8, 2003
|
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 |
|
Attack of the talk about clones By MICHAEL
BOYLAN The year 2003 started with a word on the tips of everyone's tongues cloning. A strange religious group, the Raelians, has come forward and said that the first cloned human was born recently and that five more clones around the world will be born before the end of the month. I say the Raelians are strange because they believe the human race was created by aliens 25,000 years ago through the use of cloning. I guess all creation stories are a little odd but I have a hard time believing the alien thing. If this is true, how come Rael, the founder guy, was the first one to come forward with this info and he only got it in the 1970s at a volcano in France? But I digress. The column this week isn't about weirdo religious groups but rather about cloning. Is it good or is it bad? I did some research about cloning and found out some rather interesting things. For instance, according to the Web site, New Scientist, snails and shrimp reproduce through cloning. That's right, the next time you dip some shrimp into some butter sauce and then pop it in your mouth, you can say, "Mmmm, that was clonicious." One species of shrimp, the Artemia perthenogenetica, has survived over 30 million years thanks to cloning. That's 29 million, 975 thousand years before the aliens came and created humanity. New Scientist had a frequently-asked-questions section about cloning that would help assuage people of their cloning fears. One person asked if some madman could clone Hitler and was told that yes, theoretically, it would be possible. However, the cloned Hitler would be in a different womb environment than the real Hitler was and would also have a different upbringing so he would most likely not be a genocidal maniac. You see, cloned Hitler would not flunk out of art school (you ever hear of an art student flunking out these days?), nor would he blame the Jews for his misfortunes. If anything, cloned Hitler would strike back against the people who made him. Imagine, cloned Hitler destroying the neo-Nazis. By the way, this column is copyrighted and I will sue if anyone turns that idea into a movie. Another person asked if clones had souls or if the soul of a clone was less than that of a natural baby. New Scientist answered that identical twins and test tube babies have normal souls, so why should a clone be any different? Gregory E. Pence, a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also feels that clones would have regular souls because children of mixed race, surrogate, and unmarried parents as well as parents that used in vitro fertilization do not have soulless children. Pence went on to dispel more hurtful myths about cloning, including one that feels that clones from the same genotype would share a secret empathy and/or communication, like the children in "Village of the Damned." He also said that scientists that are working on cloning are not evil and are not interested in the science to clone armies. He also went on to say that if cloning is defined as a new form of reproduction, it is constitutionally protected. All forms of reproduction, including the right to not reproduce, can't be abridged by the government. Humancloning.org also had a list of reasons why they felt cloning was a good thing. They feel that if the science is allowed to develop it may lead to medical breakthroughs, including a cure for cancer, as well as a cure for infertility and a way to save endangered species. Now, not everyone is so keen on cloning. On the Web site Bioethics.com, there was a lot of debate. Author Glenn McGee called for a short term ban on cloning because everyone needsed to know more about cloning before informed decisions could be made. He stated that 80 percent of Americans don't approve of cloning because of what he calls the "yuck factor." He feels that after a time the ban could be lifted, as all bans are. Other sites did not share McGee's accepting but cautious view. Globalchange.com stressed that with cloning there would be genetic deformities and monsterism. They are afraid that babies will be born with 30-year-old genes in them. More distressing was this example concerning a couple raising a clone of the wife. The clone grows up, struggling with her identity (unlike every other child growing up) and when she turns 18, her father, seeing the woman that he fell in love with so many years ago, can't help but want to make love to her and because she is just a clone (and not a child he has raised since birth), it is not incest. Methinks they are worried about a 90 year old Woody Allen wanting Soon-Yi's clone. Another group, CATCH, the Coalition Against The Cloning of Humans, is worried that evildoers will want to be cloned and then would force the clone to follow in his or her evil footsteps. They ask the reader, "Would you want to be Hannibal Lecter's clone?" So, to clone or not to clone, that is the question. Well, Clonaid says they have a list of 2,000 people around the world willing to pay $200,000 to clone themselves or a loved one. I say let them. They want a baby, this is a way to get a baby and the world can't have enough parents who are ready to love and care for a child. One can't tell the difference between a natural baby and a test tube baby and I assume that determining a clone baby from a normal baby won't be any easier, so people should just relax and treat all children the same. As of right now, there is no proof that these babies are actually clones and there is also no proof that they are in physical danger from genetic deformities or pain. Let them live with their parents and grow up like you were allowed to do. Clones aren't coming to take over the world and nobody is going to clone you in your sleep without you knowing it. Our alien forefathers would never allow that. |
