|
Saturday, January 19, 2002 Cloning obviously has clear ethical and social implications, and although I have fairly clear opinions about the subject, I'm sort of glad that I'm not one of those people who are currently deciding the policy on this technology. But for this particular issue on NPR, I whole-heartedly agree that cloning should not be used as a tool for reproduction. I don't doubt that somebody will attempt this (and perhaps succeed) but cloning for reproduction is wrong. Of course, you would argue, how about in vitro fertilization? Isn't that another technology subverted for a use that supposed to be happening naturally? Well, yes, but the babies that result from this process are still original. Besides, I'm not an absolutely staunch defender of in vitro fertilization anyway--it has been done--but there are still a lot of naturally born chidren out there who don't even have parents to look after them. This gets into the arena of adoption, but in a way it's a totally different subject and I won't get into it here. Well, you may ask, aren't you even concerned about not propetuating your own genes? Yeah, in theory, but you've got to remember, our species is naturally a society. It's more important to be remembered for your ideas than your procreative fitness. And in case you don't get it, read Huxley's Brave New World. Or maybe we humans should have followed the evolutionary track of yeasts by budding instead of relying on sex. [posted by S. Y. Affolee on 11:24 AM : ]
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post: |
