To be headless, or not to be

Essay by cakalusaUniversity, Bachelor'sA+, May 2004

download word file, 7 pages 5.0

Downloaded 30 times

Headless mice and tadpoles are one thing, but creating headless humans are another. Although creating a human mutant and disemboweling it at our pleasure for spare parts may seem immoral to some, I feel many of the advantages can expand, and help us in the end. Some may wonder, "Is this crazy? Supporting headless humans?" Well, I feel that going against the public majority will help illustrate a different perspective and bring to light both sides; outside the box. Charles Krauthammer points out varying opinions concerning "headless clones" which are debatable, concluding that it is too unethical and that there is no realistic reason to develop it. However, I feel that Charles Krauthammer only points out the negative outcomes of headless clones, which is why I'm here; to debate the benefits. Whether or not scientists should or shouldn't clone humans is still an ongoing debate. Scientists of today are finding new ways in progressing to new forms of cloning despite laws banning cloning.

Progression in varying types of human cloning including headless clones will continue as long as there are no laws banning headless humans.

Many claims against cloning exist, and each has at least one rebuttal. People often disapprove pertaining to the thought of exact copies of themselves running around. Charles Krauthammer is a prime example of such protesters saying technical hurdles along the way included: suppressing the "head" gene, incubating the baby to adult form, and recruiting sane women to carry headless fetuses to their birth/death. Some argue that cloning will replace old fashion reproduction. This reminds me of the movie "Judge Dredd" where we humans in the distant future are forced to have artificial insemination. Old fashion reproduction via womb will never go out of style because a clone would still have to be nurtured in a...