Can they really clone people? : . : Cloning : . : How can genetics help me?



: . : It seems to be a very hot topic of discussion lately. Even more lately, it is becoming a cool topic of discussion. There is little doubt now that cloning will happen, and is happening, and that it is benifiting the medical sciences. Is it? So quick we are to grasp on to that which we do not understand to solve our problems. What is it that I'm getting at? You'll find out soon enough, don't worry.

: . : Now, most of you have probably heard of Dolly, the sheep, if not her name, just of her existence. She was the first mammal to be cloned. Now, I think that there needs to be a little bit of light shed on this issue. Dolly was one of about 140 embrios that they attempted to clone, and the only one that made it through the cloning process. At the same time, many would argue that the method used in cloning Dolly wasn't even true cloning in the first place. I'm not going to get into the specifics of all of this, but it wasn't exactly duplication.

: . : Did Dolly look like her "mother"? Not all that much. Dolly was just another sheep. It took years before Dolly even started looking like her. I find it odd that some people have this misconceptions that clones grow faster than normal cellular structures. If they did, they wouldn't be clones, they would have to have some wierd and funky other DNA command that made them do that. Clones grow at the same speed regular things do, because they are just like "regular" things. Just a little more like some than others.

: . : Cloning technology is getting better, and soon it will be possible to clone something with a nearly 100% success rate. So, does that mean that we can clone humans? Of course it does. Humans really aren't all that much more difficult to clone than sheep. There arises another question: Is it wrong to clone humans? That indeed is a tough one. What would make it wrong? Is it a copying of our souls that makes it wrong? Is it wrong or immoral to have two of the same person? Is it robbing one of their identity? Those are all tough questions that some of which we'll never be able to answer.

: . : A clone doesn't have to be the same as it's originator. A person's personality, as far as any developmental psychology can tell, is made up primarily in one's childhood, and is very dependant on every little thing. Identical twins have very very nearly the exact same DNA structures, but when they have finally acheived adulthood, they tend to look a little different, and most of all, have very different personalities, after having the same upbringing. Now, does this make sense? To psychologists it does, and I don't care to try to explain it, but what I'm saying is, it's not are genes that make up who we are inside, "There is no gene for the human spirit." -Gattaca. So, does all of this point to something spiritual? Maybe not, but I had hoped it would.

: . : If you believe that we all have indepentent souls, then we wouldn't be stealing someone's identity by cloning them, now would we? Now here's a clincher, would clones have souls? Since God, who creates us, by the Christian doctrine, gives us our souls, then if we create ourselves, then would we still have God-given souls? Now obviously we can't make our own souls, since we still have little or no true understanding of their composition (which I don't think we ever will), so would clones have souls? Now, it would be an aweful thing for someone to not have a soul just because of the way someone else created them. Could God punish someone in that way for the sins of their "fathers"? I really don't know.

: . : So, is it wrong? I think that it is likely that that question has already been bypassed. It really doesn't take all that much to clone a person right now, with the right people and money. The United States and Canada, and the UN all have laws against cloning human beings now, but what about the rest of the world? There are many hospitable places left on this little ball of rock where people can clone other people. We probably wouldn't know, because they would be surpressed by the UN if they went public. There is actually a group (or two or three) out there who are trying to clone Jesus. They believe that this is the proper time for Jesus to return, and because the technology is available, it is their responsibility to clone Christ. Now, can they really do that?

: . : This isn't exactly Jurassic Park, but it is a similar premise. Now, there wouldn't be nearly as much cellular degredation after only 2,000 years (I say only, because it is a pretty small number in comparison to 20,000,000), but the problem is finding these cells. Obviously you're probably going to have a hard time finding a mosquito trapped in amber (petrified sap), that had had a drink or two from the Christ. It's just not all that likely. So how would you do it? There are many old Catholic churches that claim to have artifacts with pieces of Christ's blood on them. Like clothes, burial garments, splinters of wood, nails, and even things as preposterous as entire vials full of it. Obviously Christ didn't have time to give a blood sample before his crusifixion, and obviously none of the disciples present had 18th century scientific glass vials on them at the time. In any case, any group that has allowed their artifact to be tested by professionals have been proven to be false, whether the blood wasn't actually blood, or the blood was only a few decades old (which is easily found). So what if, beyond all odds, they do clone Christ? Well, I really don't know. If it does happen, it won't be Jesus, it will Just be some really nice guy that will give us a pretty good idea of what he really looked like, and probably nothing else. Like I said, I really don't know.

: . : Okay, all of this stuff is dark and grim. Now, there must be a good side to all of this genetics mumbo jumbo, right? Well, that's yet to be seen. So, you may have read or heard that with advanced genetic technology, we will be able to weed out all hereditary and genetic diseases - everything from ms to predispositions to cancer. Now, why would you want to stop there? Why don't we just get rid of obesity, mental imbalances, growth disorders, male pattern baldness, tendencies to lower intelligence, aggressive tendencies . . . how far do we go before we draw the line? I don't know. How do you draw a line on something like that? Beats me.

: . : So what do you get when you have advanced everyone like this, when you have taken away all of the "imperfections" and redesigned your offspring to be exactly what you want them to be? Is this human evolution? We are bettering ourselves, but it's not for survival in any way. What about those who cannot afford to "alter" their children before birth? Their children, once genetic improvements become standard, will become considered subhuman, for being more human than their peers. Is this what we want in our society? What if it is absolutely open to everyone as a human right? However unlikely this is, would it actually be moral or even wise to do this? No one can really know this. It is impossible to predict. These choices will come up, I guarantee you, and I also guarantee that it will start happening before you think it will.

: . : This new technological era that merges technology with biology has changed so many things, faster than we can learn to understand the total moral and social implications. Is our society advanced enough morally, to make these decisions in a helpful way, before it blows up in our faces? That's not for you to decide, or me. It's simply beyond our control this time.