Man becoming too much like Gods
“On 27th December, 2002, Dr. Brigitte Boissilier, scientific director of Clonaid, claimed the birth of the first cloned human being. (Grace Yim, director of Science Creative Quarterly)
The announcement was greeted with revulsion from the general public and skepticism among the scientific community. Although the world still awaits scientific verification of this procedure, the claim intensified the ongoing public debate regarding this technology and its potential uses. Cloning has been hypothesized to have the potential to revolutionize at least two aspects of human life. This was an article from the Science Creative Quarterly, by Grace Yim.
The push for human cloning continues around the world. Most people say they do not want to see humans cloned, but they do want to see cloned embryos for research purposes. Yet as people must keep reiterating, the two processes therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning are exactly the same, for the most part. Both utilize the exact same process and both end up with the same result; a newly cloned human being. It is just that in so-called therapeutic cloning the human is killed very early on so that the stem cells can be extracted for testing, research, and other scientific tests. In reproductive cloning, this new embryo would be allowed to develop, be implanted, and eventually born.
It is vital the people understand these facts, as there is a lot of hype and misrepresentation about the two sorts of cloning. In this regard, an older October 8, 2004 article put out by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in Chicago is worth revisiting. It nicely lays out the case as to why cloning must be opposed. (John Kilner)
Written by John Kilner, titled “Human Cloning: What’s at Stake,” this article makes the case for a complete ban on all forms of human cloning. The author’s being by noting what the cloning process will make; “A human individual brought into existence by cloning would be a member of the species homo sapiens. He or She would possess a human genetic structure and a ration nature. There is no reason to suppose that such a person would not possess the same basic dignity and be endowed with the same fundamental right as everybody else. At the deepest level, cloning should be prohibited because it turns procreation into a species of manufacture. It treats a child-to-be as an object of production, in the words of Dr. Leon Kass, Chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics, “Cloning threatens the dignity of human procreation, giving one generation unprecedented genetic control over the next. It is the first step toward a eugenic world in which children become objects of manipulation and products of will.”
It continues to go on about how cloning could have higher risks of harm to a child’s body. The creation of life itself is crossing a line of Gods. People should not be messing with power out of their control; they should not bring back the dead, or create new life with science of Alchemy. Some say cloning itself is a sin, and in fact a taboo, which is something forbidden to be used, mentioned, or approached. Roman Catholics believe that human cloning is bad, never right. “Humans are responsible for nature and what it has created.” They believe that each human was made especially in God’s image. When cloning another person, they are being made in that person’s image, not in God’s. They think that each person’s soul is unique. Clones may also not be treated with respect, instead; they might be looked down on as less than a person, and used to the benefit of the creator when transplants are needed. The debated about it can be written from pages upon pages.
Victor Baron Von Frankenstein created life himself. Victor created the monster “for the betterment of humankind” (Shelly 139) He just wanted to become more of a God in the eyes of the public; he wanted to test the will of God and see just how far he could cross the line and just for how long. He created the monster for pure glory, to impress a group of people at a college. He had become consumed by his quest for greatness, a mission to have his name passed through generations as the man who has created life.
When Victor finally created his monster Victor was astonished that it worked, but then the monster began to ‘work’ and Victor was quite terrified, and he fled the scene immediately. Upon return, the monster had escaped the lab. The monster was not complete, not one hundred percent complete. It did not have a soul, and it would never have one; and it knew this. After figuring there was something missing, the monster went to find Victor and demand he make the monster a mate. Victor at first was hesitant and said ‘no’ but the monster was persistent and demeaned he makes him a mate. Victor, at last, agrees to make the monster his mate, but at the very last moment before completion he destroyed the mate. He could not bring himself to make another monster.
Cloning of any kind should be left in the hands of the Gods. It is a line that should never be crossed; Victor went insane with his creation. This may just be a science fiction horror novel but no one knows what would really happen if anyone attempts to actually clone a human being or bring back somebody from the grave. It should be left alone, locked up in a chest and forgotten about.


Let me know what you think.

coda57 : It's well-written, lucid, and you have decent grammar. I like the tie-in with Dr. Frankenstein's Monster and you make points and support them.

I would make a few changes. Let us know right away what you're going to be discussing. You brought out the original claim of life but lead off with a question. "Should humans clone humanity? This doctor claimed to have done it in 2002 and there is still discussion on whether or not he did... etc etc. It took me half the paper to realize where you were going. If you focus with a question or statement, I can read for that statement and understand what you're discussing.

Also, you made the comment that cloning is a power out of humans' hands. If we've done it, I'd say we have that power right now. Just a thought.

Good paper. Lead off with a question or a statement and it's perfect.

warmaker : Thanks so much for your opinion

Oops, posted this in the wrong thread. Sorry, please disregard this.

The paper is really good. I'm not good at criticizing other people's work but the best I can say is to lead off with a question.