D#12, HW#2, Revision Steps (Large Scale)

Draft #2 (green topic sentence/blue key terms)

Cloning Eradicates Existing Life

Once upon a time, cloning was a element of science fiction stories; Today, it is closer than one may believe. Whilst one pioneers an field of discovery boundary lines and rules must be created to benefit not only the discovery but also all those it relates to currently and in the future. Human cloning has the potential and if not banned will harm traditional human ways of life, cause massive public outcry of morals and lastly allow corporations to "follow the yellow brick road," gaining access to create humanoids for specialized task. On this note, the global scientific community and Legislature of the U.S. need to manifest enforce strict rules and complete ban of human cloning.

[BLOCK 1] If allowed to persist in a non restricted environment, cloning will ruin traditional life. The reasoning is that currently only methods of cloning destroy life. In order to perform either therapeutic or destructive cloning one must start with an embryo from a human female and then extract stem cells; which in turn results in killing the embryo (Best). Author Megan Best, states that “…it is not ethical to sacrifice one human life for the real or potential benefit of others.” This is a prime false reasoning in logical that in order to increase experimental life, life must be killed. For example, for the most part throughout the world it is against multiple countries laws to murder another human without significant cause. Since earliest of times of human society, it has been instinctively programmed into the brain to save lives. This is still evident in today’s society through hundreds of volunteer search and rescue crews; in addition to the publication of multiple stories in which lives are saved by “plain Joe” citizens. Another example in direct relationship of harming humans is the exploiting and damaging effects upon women that are results from research cloning (Best). In destructive, also called full-body, cloning success rates currently are at un-motivating lows of one to two percent of animal subjects succeeding in a living embryo (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). In order to produce clones in any manner greater than one or two specimens a large donor base must be established; causing exploration of women strictly to harvest eggs from participants (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). Donors would be constantly in demand and must deal with the procedure of harvesting eggs which can lead to reproductive harm and exposing procedures (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). In objection, others argue that benefits from donating are worth the side effects due that donors are pioneering an expanding research field. In contrast to individuals push to deal with side effects of donating “…the National Academies recommend that ‘Human reproductive cloning should not…be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail’” (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee 16). Like most research cloning his its risk, but to remove chances of life from embryos and causing reproductive harm to humans should not be a risk that needs to be accepted.

[BLOCK 2]Another topic of issue is the global scientific community needing to restrict and set in order the fine lines of cloning research in order to prevent possible massive public outcry of morals. The principle leading this declaration is rules are needed in order to draw the line between ethics and experimentation of human embryos in cloning research. In response to this opposition claims that if ban or more restrictive ruling is put in place for widespread use of cloning, it will inhibit future potential discovery of other aspects in the field of genetics that perhaps would be ethical accepted and beneficial to life; however, if a moratorium, halt of activity to determine all aspects, is imposed, in a several years information on safety and success rate of human cloning will be significantly greater. Thus, giving the scientific medical board more time to understand and examine the legislature. After the process of examination occurs then it would be plausible if new methods in the field of cloning could be amended into legislature. One example of damaging decisions is the hidden consequences that often occur within quick unreasoned decisions. In this year, 2007, the United States House of Representatives turned down a cloning bill, H.R. 2560 (“U.S. House Turns Back”). The bill was “…carefully constructed to encourage the creation of any number of cloned human embryos” (“U.S. House Turns Back”). In addition, the created embryos would be grown for a number of days ”…so that in order, they can be killed…to harvest their stem cells or used in other research that [would] kill them a practice opposed by about 75% of the public” (“U.S. House Turns Back”). The goal of the bill was to create a pathway that could be taken by research teams in order to continue progress at unregulated rates.

[BLOCK 3] The last reasoning addressed is the allowance of biotechnology corporations to gain control of many aspects of life due to relaxed or nonexistent legislature. In normal practice an inventor or investment group completes a request for a patent once a product is designed and prototype is created. This is the case of “…life science companies [having] leaped…by patenting both human embryos and stem cells” (Gerdes). With human embryos and stem cells already claimed in patents human life would slowly be reduced to a product (Ethical Issues in Human Cloning). Imagine walking by the puppy store in the mall, seeing kids adoring over baby puppies; pressuring the parents to buy the cutest one. Then, in the next store window down seeing cloned human babies in viewing units dressed to sell, much in the same fashion as pets. The true push for life science companies to obtain a patent is to gain an advantage on the retail market. While some state that companies are needed to aid in the covering cost of development and funding for programs, it can be seen that the goal of most companies is to product the most perfect produce while maintaining profit. Companies would strive to produce the genetically perfect human body (Gerdes). Of course it can be conceived that no company would risk creating a “bad” ugly faulty clone, because it would never sell. Also, creating a defective clone would defeat the purpose of taking control and playing “God” through selective breeding. Other evidence points towards the potential that specialized clones could be created with programmed task and missions. It would be of no issue for the government or powerful companies to create mass armies of soldiers or highly trained groups of clones designed to wreck havoc such as creating a marketing protest or simply a riot (Ethical Issues in Human Cloning 127). Through mass training with special environment upbringing human clones could create large scale genocide and in wrong hands kill off races considered to be of lesser quality. In short on large scale one could use human clones as weapon of mass destruction.

While the saying goes "rules were meant to be broken," it is rules that establish the worlds opinion as a hole. If you disagree with an issue, speak out in peaceful manner. Many such as those opposing a cloning ban due to the restriction of research, they do not realize that it allows anyone with good or ban morals to effectively create mayhem at free will. An enforced and proficient ban would produce a stable grasp on government and corporation cloning research, prevent widespread outcry, and secure the traditional respect to human birth and life. There are already new birth defects everyday being discovered, imagine if more were lab created.

<<>>

Draft #1

If allowed to persist in a non restricted environment, cloning will ruin traditional life. The reasoning is that currently only methods of cloning destroy life. In order to perform either therapeutic or destructive cloning one must start with an embryo from a human female and then extract stem cells; which in turn results in killing the embryo (Best). Author Megan Best, states that “…it is not ethical to sacrifice one human life for the real or potential benefit of others.” This is a prime false reasoning in logical that in order to increase experimental life, life must be killed. For example, for the most part throughout the world it is against multiple countries laws to murder another human without significant cause. Since earliest of times of human society, it has been instinctively programmed into the brain to save lives. This is still evident in today’s society through hundreds of volunteer search and rescue crews; in addition to the publication of multiple stories in which lives are saved by “plain Joe” citizens. Another example in direct relationship of harming humans is the exploiting and damaging effects upon women that are results from research cloning (Best). In destructive, also called full-body, cloning success rates currently are at un-motivating lows of one to two percent of animal subjects succeeding in a living embryo (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). In order to produce clones in any manner greater than one or two specimens a large donor base must be established; causing exploration of women strictly to harvest eggs from participants (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). Donors would be constantly in demand and must deal with the procedure of harvesting eggs which can lead to reproductive harm and exposing procedures (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). In objection, others argue that benefits from donating are worth the side effects due that donors are pioneering an expanding research field. In contrast to individuals push to deal with side effects of donating “…the National Academies recommend that ‘Human reproductive cloning should not…be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail’” (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee 16). Like most research cloning his its risk, but to remove chances of life from embryos and causing reproductive harm to humans should not be a risk that needs to be accepted. Another topic of issue is the global scientific community needing to restrict and set in order the fine lines of cloning research in order to prevent possible massive public outcry of morals. The principle leading this declaration is rules are needed in order to draw the line between ethics and experimentation of human embryos in cloning research. In response to this opposition claims that if ban or more restrictive ruling is put in place for widespread use of cloning, it will inhibit future potential discovery of other aspects in the field of genetics that perhaps would be ethical accepted and beneficial to life; however, if a moratorium, halt of activity to determine all aspects, is imposed, in a several years information on safety and success rate of human cloning will be significantly greater. Thus, giving the scientific medical board more time to understand and examine the legislature. After the process of examination occurs then it would be plausible if new methods in the field of cloning could be amended into legislature. One example of damaging decisions is the hidden consequences that often occur within quick unreasoned decisions. In this year, 2007, the United States House of Representatives turned down a cloning bill, H.R. 2560 (“U.S. House Turns Back”). The bill was “…carefully constructed to encourage the creation of any number of cloned human embryos” (“U.S. House Turns Back”). In addition, the created embryos would be grown for a number of days ”…so that in order, they can be killed…to harvest their stem cells or used in other research that [would] kill them a practice opposed by about 75% of the public” (“U.S. House Turns Back”). The goal of the bill was to create a pathway that could be taken by research teams in order to continue progress at uninterruptable rates. The last reasoning addressed is the allowance of biotechnology corporations to gain control of many aspects of life due to relaxed or nonexistent legislature. In normal practice an inventor or investment group completes a request for a patent once a product is designed and prototype is created. This is the case of “…life science companies [having] leaped…by patenting both human embryos and stem cells” (Gerdes). With human embryos and stem cells already claimed in patents human life would slowly be reduced to a product (Ethical Issues in Human Cloning). Imagine walking by the puppy store in the mall, seeing kids adoring over baby puppies; pressuring the parents to buy the cutest one. Then, in the next store window down seeing cloned human babies in viewing units dressed to sell, much in the same fashion as pets. The true push for life science companies to obtain a patent is to gain an advantage on the retail market. While some state that companies are needed to aid in the covering cost of development and funding for programs, it can be seen that the goal of most companies is to product the most perfect produce while maintaining profit. Companies would strive to produce the genetically perfect human body (Gerdes). Of course it can be conceived that no company would risk creating a “bad” ugly faulty clone, because it would never sell. Also, creating a defective clone would defeat the purpose of taking control and playing “God” through selective breeding. Other evidence points towards the potential that specialized clones could be created with programmed task and missions. It would be of no issue for the government or powerful companies to create mass armies of soldiers or highly trained groups of clones designed to wreck havoc such as creating a marketing protest or simply a riot (Ethical Issues in Human Cloning 127). Through mass training with special environment upbringing human clones could create large scale genocide and in wrong hands kill off races considered to be of lesser quality. In short on large scale one could use human clones as weapon of mass destruction.