Cloning from the grave
IT’S ALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!!
Okay, let me explain. This is my first reaction to reading about how scientists have made several clones of a mouse that had been frozen for 16 years. That’s right, scientists were able to clone an animal that had been dead for sixteen years.
Now, let’s look at this reasonably: out of over 1,100 attempts, only 7 clones came to fruition. It’s still impressive that this was at all possible, however.
My own thoughts are that this is amazing, and yet I’m a bit scared for our future. While a clone may be an exact genetic copy, it isn’t the same as the original as far as personality and thought go–they may have the same biological makeup, but they have different experiences who shape who they are. While I don’t want to get into a debate about nature vs. nurture, we cannot expect a clone to be exactly the same as its original. Both nature and nurture have an impact on how a person becomes who they are–certain people may be more susceptible to conditions such as depression from their genetic makeup, but this doesn’t necessarily mean they will be depressed.
Overall, this brings me to my personal stance on cloning: it is an amazing thing that scientists can do, but we really shouldn’t be trying to make cloning something accessible to everyone. I also think of what a human clone would have to go through, living their life under the metaphorical microscope of the scientific community. Come on, people–hasn’t science fiction taught us that creating a sentient being for the purpose of studying it always ends tragically?
At a certain point, I have to wonder when we are considered “playing God” in an extreme form. While modern medicine is a form of “playing God,” modern medicine merely preserves life, while cloning creates it. Where do you draw the line, and what is considered “too far”? In the end it comes down to personal taste, which is something that differs from person to person.
I’m reminded of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, where Victor Frankenstein plays God and creates a “monster” from dead flesh. The monster is viewed with disgust (almost reminiscent of the uncanny valley hypothesis), and is cast out from society. The monster ultimately rebels, and the question is raised: even though we can, should we? The people treated Frankenstein’s monster with loathing, and as a result it grew to dislike humanity. Is this a realistic possibility that may result from cloning?
As I stated before, I believe cloning is amazing but should be limited to scientific research only. I can only hope I never live to see a day when we are so afraid of death, the most natural occurrence, that we clone ourselves to live forever.
WAT.
Well, here’s a quote I never thought I’d see:
“There’s just no excuse for using aborted babies in skin-care products.”
Well, besides the fact that I’m endlessly amused that a pro-lifer compared using aborted fetuses in skin products to the plot of Soylent Green, I’m a bit torn on this. First of all, I’m pro-choice, so the fact that an abortion happened doesn’t bother me. It’s the fact that they’re using the product of the abortion for skin care products.
Now, maybe I’d understand more if it were a serious medical breakthrough like a way to grow new body parts–but anti-aging creams? I mean, yeah, I guess you can’t get much younger than a fetus, but it seems like it crossed a moral line somewhere. I suppose that if you want to put aborted fetuses on your skin, you should be able to. But I feel like that piece of fetal skin could have been better spent in a laboratory doing research on medical breakthroughs that could save lives, not on the faces of vain, leathery middle aged women who want to attract guys with huge credit card limits or guys half their age.
I also have to point out just how creepy it is that the company was “inspired by fetal skin’s unique properties.” Maybe I’m missing something, but how do they know what fetal skin feels like? Is there some county fair petting zoo exhibit where you get to touch fetuses that I’ve never heard of?
Overall, the pro-choice viewpoint has received some blows recently, such as the abortion addicted woman who is publishing her life story, which includes 15 abortions in 17 years. I mean, how do you respond to that? I think it’s unfortunate that this happened to her, but even more unfortunate that she’s sharing her story so it can be used by right wing evangelical pro-lifers who are screaming about how God hates abortions and fags in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade and save the fetuses (but not the whales).
