Human Cloning

On July 5, 1997, the most famous sheep in modern history was born. Ian Wilmut and a group of Scottish scientists announced that they had successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly. If you stood Dolly beside a naturally conceived sheep, you wouldn't notice any differences between the two. Today, after more than a decade after cloning Dolly, human cloning is still not being done. The topic of cloning humans is very controversial. Human reproductive cloning is an assisted reproductive technology that would be done to create a genetically identical human being. The method used to clone humans is called either nuclear transplantation or somatic cell nuclear transfer. Many people against human cloning say that it would lessen the worth of individuals and diminish respect for human life. Human life would be seen as replaceable. If something happened to a person, like if they were killed, another clone could replace it. It would create a different child and could never replace the one that is lost. Human cloning may violate moral or human rights. It is seen that every human has a right to have a unique identity. This could be argued because of identical twins. They share the exact same genome but have different lives and futures. The right to an open future is a separate problem. There already exists another version of the clone and they already know certain things about themselves and the future they have to live up to. They will lose the sense of freely creating their own future. Human cloning procedures would carry great risks to the clone. The procedure is far from perfected and many trials were run before the first cloned animal, Dolly, was ever created. This causes the death of many clones before it. There are many risks involved including risk to an ovum donor, a nucleus donor, and a woman who receives the embryo for implantations, along with all the risks to the clone in this experimental procedure. There is also the problem with chronological age versus biological age. The clone has already gained many years by the time it was born because it was taken from adult cells. This means the clone does not have as long of a life expectancy. This is an intrusion of the clone’s right to live a long and wholesome life. Human cloning used on a global basis would have disastrous effects on the human gene pool by reducing genetic diversity and our ability to adapt to new conditions. Like many cloned plants, humans may face extinction if evolution is not allowed to follow its normal course. According to The Washington Post, “The U.N. General Assembly adopted a declaration Tuesday that calls on governments to ban all forms of human cloning that are ‘incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.’” The thing is, the “United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning” is not legally binding. Though it is not legally binding, it still sends a powerful message that the international community opposes human cloning for any purpose. There are many downsides to cloning humans. Most people are opposed to human cloning because of their ethical standpoints. 523

Evita Peron, Saint or Devil?

Maria Eva Duarte de Peron (Evita) is possibly the most famous woman to come out of Latin America. Looking at Evita's life, it is clear that she was a woman driven by the desire to increase her wealth and power. She also became very interested in her wish to improve the position of the "descamisados"(the shirtless ones), who were the poor workers of Argentina. To do this she would have to damage the position of the oligarchs whom she had long detested. She was portrayed as an illegitimate child born out of wedlock, uneducated, and used her looks to make a living. Photos that would seem harmless today were scandalous to the Argentinean elite then. She had a determined personality and took advantage of what life gave her. ''There are some oligarchs who make me want to bite them just as one crunches into a carrot or a radish,'' Evita said. Many Argentineans worship her as a saint, while others think of her as devilish.
Eva Peron, depending on who you ask, was either a saint or a devil. To the oligarchs and bourgeois she was so detested that they referred to her as "that woman". On the other hand, to the poor Argentineans, she was the embodiment of all of their hopes and dreams. Many events in Evita's life show her as a humorless and ruthless tyrant with a single-minded quest for power. However, there are also many incidents where she shows her tireless efforts to help the poor, to gain some freedom for Argentinean women, and her efforts at international charity.
Eva met a man named Colonel Juan Domingo Peron. When they met she was 24 and he was 48. After Eva involved herself with Peron and his political events, she became an important woman but politically and socially. They got married and she convinced him to retire from the Army and run for office. At this point, Peron got arrested by his ex-mates and put in jail. She maneuvered large protests and got him freed. They went to the elections and won in October 1944. She had successfully reached her goal to become someone important. Eva and Juan Peron did not have an intimate relationship. An important part of their relationship was their shared ideas and politics. They seemed to understand and complement each other well. This relationship was an important part of their image as the leaders of the country.
Was Eva a saint or devil? I think that even though Eva fought her way from poverty to being the president’s wife, she had good intentions. She took advantage of people to get what she wanted, but it was for the good of the people of the country. She wanted to donate to the poor and start charities across the country. She was against the oligarchs and took care of the poor people. Eva designated much of her day to helping distribute funds and services to the poor. She individually met with needy families and treated them with as much or more respect than her own peers. 511

Bombing of Nagasaki

Was the second bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki needed for the decision of Japan to surrender? On August 6th, 1945, the world entered the atomic age: The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima without warning. The explosion destroyed more than four square miles of the city center and killed more than 90,000 people immediately. Another 40,000 people were injured and many were killed from radiation sickness. Three days later, another atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. This bomb killed 37,000 people and injured 43,000. It is estimated that the bombs together killed over 200,000 Japanese civilians.
Before the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there had been thoughts in the Japanese government about trying to find a way to end the war. The US had been intercepting and decoding many Japanese diplomatic communications. The US learned that the Japanese would not surrender, but would try to work out a “negotiated peace” with many conditions. After twelve years of military aggression against China and over three and a half years of war with the US, begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, American leaders would settle for nothing less than surrender.
Were the bombings militarily necessary? Japan had already been defeated militarily by June 1945. There was almost nothing left of their Imperial Army and Japan’s air force was nearly destroyed. US warplanes kept dropping bombs on Japan, reducing cities to rubble. What was left of Japan’s factories were struggling to create weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. By July, nearly a quarter of all Japanese homes were destroyed, and Japan’s transportation system was falling. Food had become so scarce that many people were living off a sub-starvation diet.
The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Japanese generals would not accept defeat and were hoping that the US would not accept a million or more casualties while invading the home islands of Japan. The nuclear bombs showed that the US did not need invade Japan. Also, the US wanted to drop the bombs because they had spent so much money building the bomb with the Manhattan Project, that it was unheard of not to use it. The US did try several times to ask the Japanese to surrender, but they never did because of the militarists that led the country. After dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima, the Japanese government met and decided to try to hold out until the ground invasion of Japan started. The Japanese thought that if they could inflict so many casualties on the allies, that they may be able to negotiate some sort of “negotiated peace”. When the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, the military leaders met and decided that they would surrender. On August 10th, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies. If the US never dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the Japanese government would have waited for a ground invasion by the US. On August 12th, the US announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender.
Was the bombing of Nagasaki necessary for Japan to surrender? Yes, I believe that the Japanese government would never have surrendered if the bomb on Nagasaki was not dropped. The US did not want to start a ground invasion of Japan and have many casualties. Japan wanted to try to negotiate peace after the US invaded, but the Nagasaki bomb made the Japanese emperor surrender and accept defeat. 569

Benito Mussolini

Did Italian dictator Benito Mussolini really make "the trains run on time"? Mussolini was a fascist dictator that is often credited with shaping fascism into what it is today. He is also recognized for the many atrocities that he and his supporters inflicted on Italians, Africans, and many innocent human beings. Mussolini created a police state in which citizens were tortured and women and children were held hostage, all in the name of order and control. Mussolini was a ruthless leader who demanded others to address him as "Il Duce," and was not afraid to show his brutality, by sentencing those who question his ideology and decisions to death. He even ordered a mass extinction in Libya and Ethiopia. Still, despite these atrocities, many people point out that Mussolini "Got things done," by transforming Italy from a country filled with instability and chaos into a strict, but efficient nation. The statement "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time," means that Mussolini's leadership in Italy was based on the "ends justifies the means." He did whatever it took to get power and to achieve his goals. It did not matter how many people got killed, as long has the job got done. Mussolini may have been a brutal tyrant, but at least he provided Italians with some protection from the instability of their previous governments. The saying "Mussolini made the trains run on time" promotes fascist Italy as stable and efficient while not showing the terrible things Mussolini has done. Mussolini tried to gain broad public support, because the greater his support, the greater his power. The Italian railway system had fallen into a sad state during World War I, and it did improve during the 1920's, but Mussolini was crafty in taking credit for the railroads. Much of the repair work had been done before Mussolini and the fascists had come into power in 1922. Mussolini himself actually never claims to have fixed the railroads in any of his books, but has still managed to take credit for stabilizing the railroad system. The myth of fascist efficiency had begun with Mussolini's railroad system, with the train as its symbol. The word was spread and Mussolini's railroad system became the envy of all of Europe; it was both dependable and punctual. Even though Benito Mussolini did not literally make the trains run on time, he got things done in the government. The "security" Mussolini provided to the Italian people justified the loss of liberties and human rights that took place during his years of leadership. Montagu and Darling wrote, "Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but 'one had to admit' one thing about the Dictator: he 'made the trains run on time.'" I agree with this because he got things done in the government, and even though he was a brutal tyrant, the "ends justify the means." 503