More handpicked essays just for you.
Bad effects of human cloning should be banned
Moral issues arising from human cloning
Cloning and its effect on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bad effects of human cloning should be banned
It is essential that human cloning is outlawed. It is salacious to perform, research, and promote these experiments on human subjects; it is neglectful, and shrewd to make the presence of this objective technology legal, let alone obtainable. Not only is human cloning hazardous and illogical, but morally incorrect and greatly dishonorable. The most alarming thought referring to human cloning is that it has the power to alter the foundation, that we as a nation, are assembled upon. What occurs after we take things too far and lose control? What happens when we are no more satisfied in simply seeking education of the physical universe? We will cross the line between natural and synthetic. What will differentiate God from man? Do we have the authorization to change the evolution of life? Science has proven that we can reproduce humans both naturally and unnaturally, but that does not mean that mean we should stop questioning whether or not we should scientifically reproduce humans.
Cloning should be abolished for multiple reasons. One reason being its insufficiency and high failure r...
Kevin T. Fitzgerald divided potential scenarios for using cloning technology into three categories: "Producing a clone in order to save the life of an individual who requires a transplant; making available another reproductive option for people who wish to have genetically related children, but face physical or chr...
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.
When the novel “Frankenstein”, by Mary Shelley came out in 1831 the general public was introduced to the idea of man creating another man scientifically; without the use of reproduction. This idea is still very interesting today, however many ethical problems are implicated when scientists, like Victor Frankenstein, disrupt the moral and ethical standards like many modern day scientists have done today with cloning. The astronomical effects that followed after the creation of The Monster, demonstrates the horrid fact that creating a human was not natural or ethical.
Long after Shelley wrote her classic masterpiece Frankenstein and Huxley wrote Brave New World, the ethical controversy of cloning conflicts with modern artificial intelligence research. The question that challenges the idea of negative or positive behavior in a replicated machine relies on its similarity to the source of the clone, whether it emulates human behavior or acts as a “superintelligence” with supernatural characteristics void of human error. Humanity will not know the absolute answers concerning behavioral outcome without creating a physical being, an idea portrayed in Shelley’s Frankenstein in which the creation of a monster emulates from his creator’s attempts to generate life. At the time of the novel’s publication, the idea of replicating a soul portrayed a nightmarish theme with little consideration for the potential scientific advancements to facilitate in reality. It lead the genetic idea of manmade intelligence and its ethics emerging from the relativity of space, time, and original life on the planet. The debate of the existing possibility of sentient machines continues to progress, but the consideration of ethical questions such as “Should we create these artificial people?” and “How does this enactment define the soul and mind?” warranted from primitive questions about machine learning within the last century. After the initial proof of possibility for sentient machines, the perfection of cloning will generate “good” behavior at its perfect state several generations from now. The perfect machine portrays the potential for sensible human behaviors including compassion, mentality, empathy, alertness, and love. Humanity of the twenty-first century possesses the knowledge to fantasize the idea of artificial ...
In recent discussions of cloning, a controversial issue has been whether cloning is ethical. On the one hand, some argue that scientists “playing god” by playing creating life However, Scientists argue that cloning is not “playing god” it’s a way to understand and improve human life. They believe god gave them the tools to improve society and increase our chances of survival
Many people say that everyone in the world has a twin. Today, science and technology has the ability to make this myth reality through the process of cloning. I am strongly against cloning for many reasons. People should not utilize cloning because it would destroy individuality and uniqueness, cause overpopulation, animal cruelty, it is against morals and ethics, and it violates many religious beliefs.
With a scenario as presented above, cloning might seem like the answer to hundreds of lives taken at the expense of uncontrollable forces. But is there another side to the story? Isn't there always? Professor Kevin Williams of Georgetown University is still depicting the ambiguity of this topic when he states, "Like Adam and Eve, we want to be God, to be in control. The question is, what are the limits?" (U.S. News World Report). Making an identical copy of another human being is a rather drastic move, a move that in most people's eyes can only be carried through by God. Some deem that cloning would put us in the shoes of God. They believe that instead of God creating life, we would. Some professors beg to differ, like David Fletcher of Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL who argues, "It is still only God who creates life."
Scientists have no problem with the ethical issues cloning poses, as they claim the technological benefits of cloning clearly outweigh the possible social consequences, not to mention, help people with deadly diseases to find a cure. Jennifer Chan, a junior at the New York City Lab School, said, "?cloning body organs will help save many patients' lives," she said. "I think that cloning is an amazing medical breakthrough, and the process could stop at cloning organs--if we're accountable, it doesn't have to go any further." This argument seems to be an ethical presentation of the purpose of cloning. However, most, if not all scientists agree that human cloning won?t stop there. While cloning organs may seem ethical, cloning a human is dangerous. Still, scientists argue that the intentions of cloning are ethical. On the other hand, there are many who disagree with those claims. According to those from a religious standpoint, it is playing God, therefore, should be avoided. From a scientific standpoint it is also very dangerous, as scientists are playing with human cells which, if done wrong, can lead to genetic mutations that can either become fatal to the clone, or cause it severe disabilities. This information does, in fact, question the moral of the issue. If cloning is unsafe and harmful, what is the point?
The cloning of any species is wrong because it is experimental and very unpredictable. Cloning is a way to make exact copies of an animal or person. This can be done several ways. All of these ways require scientists to do the research, time for the procedures, and patience for the embryos to grow. This whole process is expensive and not without loss of life. Cloning can be the separating of cells from one embryo to grow as another embryo, creating a twin with the exact same DNA. Cloning can also be removing the nucleus and DNA from an egg and transferring it into a somatic cell (any other cell in the body that is not a sperm or egg). This will make the cell act like a fertilized egg or embryo. These embryos need to be put into surrogate mothers so that they can grow into living things. I do not believe in this process because I think it is disrupting the balance of nature.
Last of all, Cloning is not ethical, many religious groups look down upon cloning and think it’s not proper because they think it’s like playing God. Many scientists were mainly thinking about cloning animals and, most likely, humans in the future to harvest their organs and then kill them. “Who would actually like to be harvested and killed for their organs?” “Human cloning exploits human beings for our own self-gratification (Dodson, 2003).” A person paying enough money could get a corrupt scientist to clone anybody they wanted, like movie stars, music stars, athletes, etc (Andrea Castro 2005),” whether it be our desire for new medical treatments or our desire to have children on our own genetic terms (Dodson, 2003).
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.
Because of the many effects human cloning has on today’s world, I feel that it should be banned. Human cloning will arise of many things like the creation of new diseases and most importantly devalue human lives. (Signpost: Now that I stated a solution I will tell you how to go about getting human cloning banned.) IV. Main Point: Call to Action If we all work together as one we can convince others, specifically those who withhold greater power in the world, that human cloning is morally wrong and can have an unbeneficial contribution to society.
The Benefits of Human Cloning In recent years, many new breakthroughs in the areas of science and technology have been discovered. A lot of these discoveries have been beneficial to the scientific community and to the people of the world. One of the newest breakthroughs is the ability to clone. Ever since Ian Wilmut and his co-workers completed the successful cloning of an adult sheep named Dolly, there has been an ongoing debate on whether it is right or wrong to continue the research of cloning (Burley).
clone. Also, some clones without LOS have developed kidney or brain malformations and impaired immune system, which can cause serious problems later in life.