Imagine a world where everyone looked like you and was related to you as a sibling, cousin, or any form of relation, wouldn’t that be freaky? Although cloning is not an important issue presently, it could potentially replace sexual reproduction as our method of producing children. Cloning is a dangerous possibility because it could lead to an over-emphasis on the importance of the genotype, no guaranteed live births, and present risks to both the cloned child and surrogate mother. It also violates the biological parent-child relationship and can cause the destruction of the normal structure of a family. The cloning of the deceased is another problem with cloning because it displays the inability of the parents to accept the child’s death and does not ensure a successful procedure. Along with the risks, there are benefits to Human Reproductive Cloning. It allows couples who cannot have a baby otherwise to enjoy parenthood and have a child who is directly related to them. It also limits the risk of transmitting genetic diseases to the cloned child and the risk of genetic defects in the cloned child. Although the government has banned Human Reproductive Cloning, the issue will eventually come to the surface and force us to consider the 1st commandment of God, all men are equal in the eyes of god, but does this also include clones? That is the question that we must answer in the near future in order to resolve a controversy that has plagued us for many years.
In the world today, issues such as Global Warming and the War in Iraq take the front cover on any newspaper, but in the world tomorrow, the concept of cloning will become an ever-more pressing issue. How do you define the term cloning? Well, in the words of Jac...
... middle of paper ...
...e pressing issue that will question our morals, ethics, and view on human dignity. As a society, we must come to a decision regarding Human Cloning and stand by it, whether it is the right decision or not. Our actions will have a profound impact on the methods of reproduction used by future generations.
Works Cited Page
Cibelli, Jose, et al. Principles of Cloning.
San Diego: Academic Press (AP), 2002.
Brannigan, C. Michael. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, Chatham House Publishers, 2001.
"Arguments for "Reproductive Cloning." The Presidents Council on Bioethics. Vers. 3a. 7/12/07. http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/background/workpaper3a.html
“Arguments against “Reproductive Cloning.” The Presidents Council on Bioethics. Vers. 3b. 7/12/07. http://www.bioethics.gov/background/workpaper3b.html
Silver’s argument illustrates to his audience that reproductive cloning deems permissible, but most people of today’s society frown upon reproductive cloning and don’t accept it. He believes that each individual has the right to whether or not they would want to participate in reproductive cloning because it is their reproductive right. However, those who participate in cloning run the risk of other’s imposing on their reproductive rights, but the risk would be worth it to have their own child.
Farrell, Courtney. "Cloning: An Overview. By: Farrell, Courtney, Carson-Dewitt, Rosalyn, Points of View: Cloning, 2013." Ebscohost.com. Mackinvia.com, 2013. Web. 21
The objective of this essay is to inform the reader(s) about human cloning. I believe that human cloning is morally wrong because one should not have the right to avoid daily responsibilities by getting someone else to handle them. There will be four sections of this paper that will be discussed. Firstly, there is an argumentative section, which will have premises along with a conclusion for an argument made against human cloning. Secondly, an explanation section, which explains how the argument against human cloning obeys the rules for a good argument. Thirdly, an objection section to where there are arguments that violates mine in order to demonstrate how objectors might object to the argument. Lastly, there will be a conclusion where I discuss
“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” (Kass) The concept of cloning continues to evoke debate, raising extensive ethical and moral controversy. As humans delve into the fields of science and technology, cloning, although once considered infeasible, could now become a reality. Although many see this advancement as the perfect solution to our modern dilemmas, from offering a potential cure for cancer, AIDS, and other irremediable diseases, its effects are easily forgotten. Cloning, especially when concerning humans, is not the direction we must pursue in enhancing our lives. It is impossible for us to predict its effects, it exhausts monetary funds, and it harshly abases humanity.
Technology is radically changing and improving every single year, with new advances and inventions all the time. However, with all these changes and developments in technology, there are also a series of problems and ethical issues that it may impose on society. In the scientific fiction novel written by Nancy Farmer, The House of the Scorpion, Farmer introduces the idea of a society where technology is used incorrectly and to a person’s own advantage. The House of the Scorpion brings up a variety of moral and ethical issues, mainly cloning and technology used for all the immoral purposes. In an article written by Elizabeth Landau, "Cloning Used to Make Stem Cells from Adult Humans," she explores how our modern day world and scientists have finally developed a method of deriving stem cells from a person’s own cloned cells. In the future, with greater technology and research, it may be possible to create a complete clone of a person. Technology may be very useful and efficient, but if used incorrectly, it can cause drastic effects and problems for all of mankind. Farmer’s novel The House of the Scorpion and Landau’s article, "Cloning Used to Make Stem Cells from Adult Humans," explains the future in cloning with newer technologies, and possible concerns that may arise from it.
In conclusion, it is clear to see that cloning is not the taboo it has been made out to be. It is a new boundary that humanity has never encountered before and so it is understandable that people have qualms about ‘playing God’ by shaping a life. Although some might argue that it is immoral to clone human beings, the truth is that it is unethical not to. Given that such technology has the potential to save millions upon millions of lives, not tapping into that industry would have dire consequences on the future. In this case, the ends more certainly justify the means.
The matter of human reproductive cloning is a complex topic, in which there are many issues that must be addressed before any actions take place. Any decision based on reproductive cloning will not be clear-cut, and instead will host a multitude of ideas. In this paper, I will determine, through philosophical thinking, if human reproductive cloning is morally appropriate.
In the essay, Cloning Reality: Brave New World by Wesley J. Smith, a skewed view of the effects of cloning is presented. Wesley feels that cloning will end the perception of human life as sacred and ruin the great diversity that exists today. He feels that cloning may in fact, end human society as we know it, and create a horrible place where humans are simply a resource. I disagree with Wesley because I think that the positive effects of controlled human cloning can greatly improve the quality of life for humans today, and that these benefits far outweigh the potential drawbacks that could occur if cloning was misused.
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
It is understood that using forms of genetic manipulations has great potential, if the usage is based on the idea that it will be used to improve agricultural production, medicine technology, and the like. To use cloning as a coping device for those who mourn loved ones, or simply cannot deal with nature's life and death process, however, is simply wrong. It is not only idealistically wrong, but ethically, morally, and even lawfully unjust. If cloning human beings becomes a reality, it will be the process that will slowly deteriorate the diversity of the world, and the ability for people to deal with negative occurrences in their life.
In recent years our world has undergone many changes and advancements, cloning is a primary example of this new modernism. On July 5th, 1995, Dolly, the first cloned animal, was created. She was cloned from a six-year-old sheep, making her cells genetically six years old at her creation. However, scientists were amazed to see Dolly live for another six years, until she died early 2005 from a common lung disease found in sheep. This discovery sparked a curiosity for cloning all over the world, however, mankind must answer a question, should cloning be allowed? To answer this question some issues need to be explored. Is cloning morally correct, is it a reliable way to produce life, and should human experimentation be allowed?
Cloning is defined as the process of asexually producing a group of cells, all genetically identical, from a single ancestor (College Library, 2006).” Cloning should be banned all around the world for many reasons, including the risks to the thing that is being cloned, cloning reduces genetic differences and finally it is not ethical. Almost every clone has mysteriously died even before they are born.
In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of “Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?” John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjustified and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the flip side of this issue Attorney and medical ethicist George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be implemented upon it. Both express valid points and I will critique the articles to better understand their points.
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
Robinson, Bruce. “Human Cloning: Comments by political groups, religious authorities, and individuals.” 3 August 2001. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 1 October 2001 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/clo_reac.htm>.