Cloning Humans: The Key to Everlasting Life

Technology is growing very fast from days to days and now, even cloning is possible in our generation by the improvement of technology. It is not a new concept for cloning; the idea of cloning has been exist for quite a long time ago. According to biology online dictionary, cloning is the process of creating an exact copy of a biological unit (e.g. a DNA sequence, cell, or organism) from which it was derived, especially by way of biotechnological methods. Cloning humans was ban by the law since 1997, even though, some people are opposed with this law as they think that cloning humans is the key to everlasting life. In other word to this opinion, the process of cloning people is a means of access to life endless existence interrupted by death. There are a lot of discussions about cloning humans whether it should be allowed or not. Below, I will summarize all the facts and opinions that support cloning and then the same against cloning. Finally, I will share about my personal’s view about human cloning.    

To begin with the supportive side, firstly, cloning human allows lesbians and gay men to have the possibility to produce their own children. Normally, lesbians need to use donor sperm in order to have a child, while gay man need genes derived from an egg donor too. Gay men and lesbians have expressed a special interest in reproductive cloning because of the discrimination which they have experienced in their efforts to have and rear children ("Reproductive Human Cloning," 2011). These two groups of people will be very happy if cloning humans is allowed as they can have their own children without the need of help from other people. The opponents to cloning humans encounter with this point by saying that it would be impossible to allow reproductive cloning for lesbians and gay men as this will lead to increase the amount of lesbians and gay men in our society largely ("Reproductive Human Cloning," 2011).  In this way, there will be more and more of lesbians and gay men in our society due to the reason that lesbians and gay men will likely to clone their children to be lesbian or gay as well. It is better for us to keep the amount of lesbians and gay men in a low rate; even we do not mean to discriminate for lesbians or gay men.   Supporters also claimed that cloning humans could allow parents of a child who has died to have their lost one again ("Reproductive Human Cloning," 2011). People usually want their loves back and cloning is maybe the only way that can bring their loves one back into this world again. Cloning baby will discharge the suffering that the parents had after the death of their child and the feeling of losing their loves one will soon recover. Opponents opposed to this idea by suggesting that replacing the deceased child by cloning will degrades and dehumanizes the child ("Reproductive Human Cloning," 2011). Throughout history, the parents who have lost the child usually grieve and sympathy for their lost child. It seems that the parents will not be able to give the real sadness to their love ones as he/she had passed away if human cloning is allowed. In this respect, the cloning child will come to replace them and soon after, they will forget the real thing about what happened to their real child who actually already passed away. It is also considered to look down the real children because his/her parents seem to not giving the real grieving for their death at all. Followers of human cloning explain that people have the right to choose whether to clone or not; we should not harm people to clone as equal right is given to everyone. Some people are not satisfied with cloning humans; they are very happy with the cloning human laws, whereas, others are not happy with this law. As stated in law, everybody have equal right, so to harm cloning humans is not showing that everybody have equal right to do what they wants. In contrast, proponent stated that rights are socially negotiated, and no right to clone has ever been established ("Reproductive cloning arguments," 2006). People are the ones who create the law which includes the law of right; thus, they usually composed the laws which supported by the majorities of people. Human cloning is opposed by the majorities of people, so the legislation had passed the law to ban human cloning and everybody must follow it. Life is sometimes unfair; we should deal with it. The last comment that human cloning fan made is that cloning can provide genetically related children for people who cannot be helped by other fertility treatments ("Scientist prepares for," 1998). The ones who cannot produce eggs or sperm would be beneficial from human cloning as they can produce their own genetically related children as they wish. Professor Severino Antinori, the world's leading fertility experts, suggested that cloning is a good idea as it could help infertile couples to have a child ("Scientist prepares for," 1998). The anti-cloning humans pointed out that the number of men and women who do not produce eggs or sperm at all is very small, and modern assisted-reproduction techniques has been introduced to help those kind of people already ("Reproductive cloning arguments," 2006). As a result, this kind of people had been greatly reduced. To sum up, the opinions and facts support human cloning seem to be very reasonable, but the counter arguments to those points seem to be prove correct too.

Moving into the opponents’ idea over human cloning, first, the opponents mentioned that cloning humans would diminish the sense of uniqueness of an individual. People will not get the beauty of individualism if we allowed human cloning ("Reproductive cloning arguments," 2006). In nature, people are born with different personalities and traits; cloning will diminish some of the personalities and traits of the human that created by the nature. We should preserve something that happen naturally and should not make a major change what is god mad to human at all.  Fr. Stanley Samuel Harakas said that "mixing human DNA with animal DNA would be something more than ‘Playing God.’ It would be ‘Playing the Devil’.” (Logston, 1999). The fan of cloning humans responded to this point by saying that cloning could allow people to choose their desire personalities and traits; only the good ones were likely to be choosen. A lot of people in this world do not want to have something which is bad in their lives. If we had some information about ourselves, perhaps we could sooner or better discovery who we are (Smith, 1998).  For example, if we know that our children can copy the genes that cause diabetes from us, we can protect them to avoid having diabetes like us in the future through using cloning technology to substitute the genes of diabetes with the normal or good gene. Another point that oppose with human cloning is that cloned children would unavoidably be raised "in the shadow" of their nuclear donor, in a way that would strongly tend to constrain individual psychological and social development ("Reproductive cloning arguments," 2006). Some parents will not treat the clone child in the same way as normal child and additionally, some parents will even not paying attention to the clone child at all. It is hard to be adapted psychologically with the cloning children. Supporters reacted with this point by thinking that parents will learn to communicate and gradually start to provide the real love to their clone children. Even though, there are some of the nature children who were not love their parents as well, so cloning children can be somewhat the same as nature children. Another main argument from opponents is that human cloning is unsafe. Dr Harry Griffin, who worked on the Dolly project, warned any attempt to clone a human would be inefficient and unsafe ("Scientist prepares for," 1998). He continued that “Inefficient because in Dolly's case we used 277 reconstructed eggs to produce one successful pregnancy, collecting eggs from perhaps 40 donor ewes, and unsafe because a good proportion of our pregnancies fail late in pregnancy and we have had lambs that die soon after birth ("Scientist prepares for," 1998).” Human cloning will likely to meet a lot of failures before it gets successful in one day, so it is not good idea at all to try with it. However, supporters claimed that Cloning techniques will eventually be perfected in mammals and will then be suitable for human trials ("Reproductive cloning arguments," 2006). A lot of mammals have been cloned successful, even the failure results do exist often. Supporters believe that people will develop the technology of cloning humans if it is allowed and all of the cloning will be successful in the future.  Human cloning has been ban by the law, so there is no chance for the development of human cloning technology. Thus, supporters also requested the law to allow human cloning in order to develop this technology. The last remarkable opinion made by opponents is if human cloning is permitted to happen and becomes accepted, it is difficult to see how any other dangerous applications of genetic engineering technology could be proscribed ("Reproductive cloning arguments," 2006). There will be a lot of problems with genetic if we allowed cloning humans as we could see cloning is very conflict as it mixes together all the human genes by manmade. We do not really know whether there are any effects or not by mixing human genes together by man-made which could lead to create a new type of diseases or any other problems. On the other hand, Human society can accept or reject any proposed technology on its own merits ("Reproductive cloning arguments," 2006).  People can diminish any technology which harms to human and similarly, they have their own choice to choose to practice any new type of technology again or not. If any technology does not work really well, scientists will stop that kind of technology by themselves. All of the arguments, which made by opponents, seem to be acceptable. However, the opinions against those arguments were reasonable too. Both opinions and facts that the opponents made are hard to judge whether it is right or wrong like the supporters’ opinions and faces above too. 

Cloning humans displays the development and advancement of technology that we have nowadays. Even though, it is really great to the majorities of us that the technology is improving up to the level like nowadays, I am still oppose with the idea of cloning humans as the key to everlasting life since I think that people should be borne by nature and we should not have tried any other ways to bring life into this world. We must obey to the natural law and by changing something that created by nature can lead us to face with many problems. Furthermore, cloning human will cost a lot of money before the technology can clone human successfully without any failure results; thus, by banning human cloning is also a good idea for me as it prevents people to spend millions of dollars in doing research on cloning humans before the technology can do it successfully on humans and it also erased all of arguments within the society about this issue in the past. People should enjoy with the beauty that they got from nature or god made.

To sum up, human cloning gives both advantages and disadvantages to us. We do not really know whether it affects us seriously or not if we allowed cloning humans. Nevertheless, it was ban by the law since 1997. The beauty of human cloning includes allowing lesbians and gay men to have the ability to produce their own children, parents of a child who has died to have their lost one again, giving people the right to choose whether to clone or not, and provide genetically related children for people who cannot be helped by other fertility treatments. In contrary, proponents be aware of human cloning by arguing that cloning would diminish the sense of uniqueness of an individual, cloned children would unavoidably be raised "in the shadow" of their nuclear donor, it is unsafe for cloning humans, and it is difficult to see how any other dangerous applications of genetic engineering technology could be proscribed if human cloning is permitted or accepted. All the arguments made by both sides seem to be acceptable and it is hard for us to judge whether which one is better. It is up to each individual to decide whether cloning humans is the key to everlasting life or not. Before making decision, you should ask yourself that is human cloning which is manmade is better than god made and you are ware of any outcomes which could create by cloning humans or not.

References

Answers to all your biology questions . (n.d.). Retrieved from:

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Cloning

Logston, A. (1999). The ethics of human cloning. (Master's thesis, Saint Vincent

College)Retrieved from:   http://facweb.stvincent.edu/academics/religiousstu/writings/logston1.html

Reproductive cloning arguments pro and con. (2006, may 15). Retrieved from:

http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=282

Scientist prepares for human cloning. (1998, November 17). BBC. Retrieved from:  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/216034.stm

Smith, S. (1998, Febraury 26). All the reasons to clone human beings. Retrieved from:

http://www.humancloning.org/allthe.php             

Word counted: 2255

Mizuno Thay

Should animals be used for medical research?

A lot of medicines have been produced after the successful test on animals. If the animals will not exist for testing, we would be testing in humans and killings unnecessarily. Animals nowadays play an important role in medical research; however there are many arguments about whether animals should be used for medical research or not. Some people agree with the idea that animals should be used for medical research, while others oppose with this idea.

            The opponents claim that animals should have the same right as humans; there should not be any experiment for medical research on animals for the use of humans. It seems unfair for them to be used or killed for the beneficial of humans since they have lives like human and can get suffer the same as humans do when something hurt them.  Animals have senses and they can feel pain; it is really distressing that animals are inflicted pain and suffering in such a brutal way (Greathub, 2009, internet). On the other hand, the supporters suggest that human beings are more important than animals. If we do not use animals for testing, there is no other alternative ways rather than test on humans ourselves. Without our animal counterparts in research, we would all be at a loss (Alicia, 2007, internet). It would kill millions of people if the medical experiment is on human. As a matter of fact, lots of animals have been killed every day during the medical testing procedure.

            There are also those who claim that animal models cannot predict human response. Some of the medicines have been found and work effectively on animals; however, when it comes to be tested on humans, it failed. Therefore, a lot of animals died during this failure research are useless. On contrary, scientists argue that they do not kill lots of animals for every experiment and some of the experiments also cause no death of the animals as well. According to Melissa scientists do not blindly squander the lives of more animals if suitable models do not exist (Melissa, 2007, internet). However, animals would be invaluable resource for researchers if the experiment works successfully on humans.

            In conclusion, the usage of animals for medical research is still on the way nowadays. It is unlikely for scientists now to find any other objects to do experiment on, except humans ourselves. I support with the idea to use animals for medical research as I could see that animals and people get the same illnesses and most of the medicines we use now are very effective and safety because of the successful experiment on animals before those medicines have right to produce.

Reflection over CS 101 course

I really enjoy studying computer science in this semester. All the lessons that I have learnt seem very interesting and provided me a lot of knowledge about computer science. I did not know anything much related to computer science before I started to study in this semester. Also, I did not think that there is much to learn about computer science at first, but it was really different from what I thought after I entered in this course.   There are many new things that I have learnt and it seems to be very beneficial for me in the future which I will describe below.

            The first most interesting knowledge that I got from this course is that I could know what the components of a computer are. For example, I clearly understand what are the output devices and storage devices. It facilitates me to be able divided different components of the computer as I have never known it before. The second most useful knowledge that I learnt from this semester is to choose a best quality LCD monitor or LCD screen. Before, when I bought an LCD screen I just known that the higher price the best quality. However, I was wrong since choosing a best quality LCD screen or monitor, buyers should consider about its  resolution, response time, brightness, dot pitch, and contrast ratio. I have created my own personal video in this semester and it was the first time in my life that I create a video. It is an unforgettable experience for me and I was really exciting when I can create my own video. Similarly, I could learn about how to use Microsoft Word, Excel, and Power point much better than before from the lab activity. It really helps me to memorize about how to use those programs again. These three programs will be really useful for me in the future for my work as they are seem to be the popular program for official works.

            In conclusion, this course is really useful for me as it provided me a lot of knowledge about computer science and I really enjoy learning those stuffs. However, I need to follow the all updates of technology as well because the improvement of technology in our generation is really fast if I just use the knowledge from what I have learnt in this semester, it would be pass away in the near future. It would be better if the exam for this course is not too difficult, and some lab activities are really misunderstanding   which took me a lot of time.

Cause and Effect of Cheating

Cheating is one of the most concern behaviors at school all over the world. There are many different ways of cheating such as copying homework, looking at another individual paper during exam, plagiarizing, and so on. It has been considered to be the worst behavior since it causes a lot of bad effects to the cheaters in the future. In this way, cheaters do not have their own ability to do their own works, so in the future when they get a job, they will lack of ability to do their jobs too which may cause them to get unemployment. There are many reasons why students like cheating, but according to some researchers, there are top three reasons why students are likely to cheat: lack of effort, external pressures and opportunity.

To begin with, cheating is likely to be occurring on students who are lack of effort in their studying. Students who did not attend class or did not study are considered to be lack of effort students.  Those students are rare to get passed by themselves; thus, cheating is a good way for them to get passed. Exams are usually extracted from the lessons that the students have learnt, so it is essential for the students to attend every class and keep their concentrating while studying in order to do well on the exams without cheating. According to

External pressures are other main causes of cheating. There are two kind of external pressures: academic and nonacademic pressure. For the academic pressure, there are too many tests for the students on one day, so they need cheating in order to facilitate them to do the test. In this respect, people are easily making mistakes when they have done a lot of works; hence, they need other people to check for them. Similarly, while there is a lot of tests for the students in one dayduring the exam, students who have done their exams are likely to check with other students in order to make sure and correct any mistakes. This habit too is considered cheating since exams do not allow students to check each other works. Another possibility for academic pressure on cheating is that the majority does it. If everybody does it,  

            Moving onto the first effect of cheating is that it makes the students to lose their responsibility for their own works. Students who are copying other people’s works feel that they do not need to do anything to pass their exams; all they need is just turn in the paper to their teachers and get the passing grade. Earl quotes, “Information cannot replace education” (Earl, 2002).  Losing one’s responsibility could create a lot of problems for individuals. In the real world, it is essential for everybody to responsible for what they have done. If everyone does not take any responsibility for something that they have done wrong, so there will be no correction for now and in the future. Therefore, the mistakes will remain last forever. Furthermore, many companies today are likely to hire only employees who are responsible to do their own work for the company. Due to all these reasons, it is crucial for the students to start to take responsibility for their own works since they are at school as it is a good place to start and practice.

            Losing creativity is another main effect of cheating. Students who are cheating do not put any effort to their works at all which will lead them to gradually lose their creativity level every time they copy other’s works or have someone to do their works instead themselves. The more times the students do their own work, the more times that they gain their thinking creativity and successfully ability. The ability to think creativity and successfully plays an important role for the world in the future. In this way, when the world has a lot of creativity people, the development of the world will becomes more and more faster and vice versa. . Thus, we should do something to get rid out of cheating at school in order to gain more creativity people in the future for the benefits of both people and the world since students are the ones who are partly held the world in the future.

Reference

1.      Earl, K. (2002, 10 25). The really big list of education quotes & links. Retrieved from:

http://drwilliampmartin.tripod.com/bigedlist.htm

The ends justify the means

Everything around the world usually comes to the end, nothing can stay last forever. When it is time for one thing to end, we can judge whether the ends justify the means or not.  In politic, it is also commonly to encounter with the phrase “The ends justify the means”. According to oxford dictionary, this phrase means about a situation in which the final aim is so important that any way of achieving it is acceptable. In this context, I want to describe this phrase as the satisfaction of everybody can get when decisions are made. In this way, I will discuss about the real situation that happened in Cambodia nowadays which is the conflict between the people living in Borei Keila community which situated in Phnom Penh, Cambodia with a private company named “Phanimex” which plan to chase them out from that area and make a development over that area.

            According to CamNews newspaper, “In early 2003, a land-sharing deal was proposed in which Borei Keila would allow Phanimex to develop part of the community for commercial purposes while providing housing for the residents on the remaining land” (Uon, 2012). However, this company does not follow their promise with the resident that leads to have conflict between the villagers and the company. Recently, the Cambodia government supports this company by sending the police force and alongside with the company employees to diminish the villager’s house and chase them out of that area directly without providing them any restitution money or substitution houses. A dozen people have been injured from the clash between the force and villagers and the government has also arrested eleven villagers who clashed with local officials and security guards. From this aspect, I could learn that developing is not always good as it could leave many families to become homeless or sometimes, it is not satisfied by the residents. Therefore, I think that the ends do not always justify the meaning. There are also many other aspects or real examples in our life that shown the ends do not justify the mean. On the other hand, the ends can also justify the meaning for sometimes as well. An example from our life, when someone hungry and he/she got no money with him/her; therefore, it is suitable for us to help him/her. We do not expect him/her to help us back one day. But, at least we can save one life. For this aspect, I really think that the ends do justify the means. Thus, it is hard to judge whether the ends justify the meaning or not.

            In conclusion, it is depending on the situations that we can judge whether the ends justify the means or not. Additionally, the ends justify the means or not are different from ones to another’s. In this way, people have different perspectives toward something. Hence, the ends justify the means is really complicated for me and I think everybody do think like me too.         

References

1)      Retrieved from: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/end?q=the+end+justifies+the+means#end__42

2)      Oun, C. (2012, 01 19). Retrieved from:

http://www.camnews.org/2012/01/06/villagers-arrested-following-land-clash/. CamNEWS Newspaper. Retrieved from http://www.camnews.org/2012/01/06/villagers-arrested-following-land-clash/