Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should human reproductive and therapeutic cloning be illegal
Repercussions of cloning
Therapeutic vs reproductive cloning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Imagine living in a society where performing a certain process, a perfect genetically identical copy of a biological entity could be produced (Cloning Fact Sheet, 1). This process is called cloning, and essentially it takes from one’s own genetic makeup to produce an exact replica. These exact replicas, known as clones, can benefit our society in many different ways; however, these benefits are not without great controversy and concerns. Proponents of cloning suggest that through cloning, humans can experience a greater quality of life with fewer health concerns including hunger and reproduction. Cloning consist of three different types. Gene, Reproductive, and Therapeutic cloning are equally valuable in their own rights (Cloning Fact Sheet, 1). Depending on the purpose for the clone, any of these three types of cloning methods can produce the same intended outcome.
Those who are opposed to cloning base their concerns on ethical, social, and religious viewpoints. Opponents raise the question for the value of humanism and the uniqueness of a clone. In the cloning aspect, opponents question man’s intent to exert their power to produce something so unnatural compared to a higher power’s plan for creation. On February 24, 1997, man expressed his power by successfully creating the first cloned adult mammal, and she became known worldwide as Dolly (McCuen, 10). Dolly became the gateway for many new discoveries to come as the thought of cloning humans began to surface publicly. In the human body there are 31,000 genes organized in 46 chromosomes (Wong, 3). Within these 31,000 genes, scientists claim that only one gene is needed to replicate a desired and intended purpose when cloning a human being. With this claim, human cloning is wit...
... middle of paper ...
...s may become an ordinary practice in the near future and have its place in history, it may never truly be considered a victory for humanity.
Works Cited
Caulfield, Timothy. “Human Cloning Laws, Human Dignity and the
Poverty of the Policy Making Dialogue.” BMC Medical Ethics
4 (2003): 1-10.
“Cloning Fact Sheet”. National Human Genome Research Institute.
(2011): 1-4.
Klotzko, Arlene. A Clone of Your Own. Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
McCuen, Gary. Cloning Science & Society. Hudson, Wisconsin: Gary
E. McCuen Publications Inc., 1998.
Sweat, Rebecca.”Dolly: Send in the Clones”. Vision News Summer
Issue (2000): 1-2.
“Therapeutic Cloning vs. Reproductive Cloning”. www.pregnancy-
info.net 2011. 4 May. 2011.
Wong, Dominic. The ABCs of Gene Cloning. New York, New York:
Spring Science & Business Media Inc., 2006.
...m these advancements that are from human body parts. Instead, it is imperative to honor and preserve those who have made these interventions possible
....S. Public Health Service advanced medical technology, it came at a high cost. A high cost that resulted in many African-Americans dead and a breach of trust for medical professionals. In the notable experiments of Henrietta Lacks, The Tuskegee Syphilis Men, and The Pellagra Incident, medical professions in no way protected the lives of these individuals. In fact, they used the medical advances discovered as a result of the human experimentations as a shield to mask the unethical decisions. Medical professionals targeted the African-American population and used their ignorance as a means to advance medical technologies. This in no way upholds the ethics that medical professionals should display. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks vividly exhibits the how the United States Public Health Service used, abused, and ultimately destroyed the African-American community.
...ns and the ethical and moral beliefs behind the issue will again challenge the control of many governments in their role in human reproduction.
Children grow up watching movies such as Star Wars as well as Gattaca that contain the idea of cloning which usually depicts that society is on the brink of war or something awful is in the midsts but, with todays technology the sci-fi nature of cloning is actually possible. The science of cloning obligates the scientific community to boil the subject down into the basic category of morality pertaining towards cloning both humans as well as animals. While therapeutic cloning does have its moral disagreements towards the use of using the stem cells of humans to medically benefit those with “incomplete” sets of DNA, the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the disagreements indubitably due to the fact that it extends the quality of life for humans.
Indeed, continued use of various reproductive technologies may be best left for individual choices but will sure to continue to be a matter of ongoing personal, professional and political debates.
“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.
In the words of Nick Bostrom, Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University Chair, who is one of this views main advocate says, this: Historically, we find that many a great medical breakthrough, now rightly seen as a blessing, was in its own time condemned by bio conservative moralists. Such was the case with anesthesia during surgery and childbirth. People argued that it was unnatural and that it would weaken our moral fiber. Such was also the case with heart transplantation. How yucky to take ...
In the past, cloning always seemed like a faraway scientific fantasy that could never really happen, but sometimes reality catches up to human ingenuity and people discover that a fictional science is all too real. Such was the fate of cloning when Dolly, a cloned sheep, came into existence during 1997, as Beth Baker explains (Baker 45). In addition to opening the eyes of millions of people, the breakthrough raised many questions about the morality of cloning humans. The greatest moral question is, when considering the pros against the cons, if human cloning is an ethical practice. There are two different types of cloning and both entail completely different processes and both are completely justifiable at the end of the day.
Cloning is, and always has been an extremely contentious topic. To some, the ethical complications surrounding it, are far more promiscuous than what scientists and medical experts currently acknowledge. Cloning is a general term that refers to the process in which an organism, or discrete cells and genes, undergo genetic duplication, in order to produce an identical copy of the original biological matter. There are two main types of artificial cloning; reproductive and therapeutic, both of which present their respective benefits and constraints. This essay aims to discuss the various differences between the two processes, as well as the ethical issues associated with it.
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 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.
The two controversial topics discussed below share a single goal: to enhance the quality of life of a human individual. The first topic, transhumanism, is a largely theoretical movement that involves the advancement of the human body through scientific augmentations of existing human systems. This includes a wide variety of applications, such as neuropharmacology to enhance the function of the human brain, biomechanical interfaces to allow the human muscles to vastly out-perform their unmodified colleagues, and numerous attempts to greatly extend, perhaps indefinitely, the human lifespan. While transhumanist discussion is predominantly a thinking exercise, it brings up many important ethical dilemmas that may face human society much sooner than the advancements transhumanism desires to bring into reality. The second topic, elective removal of healthy limbs at the request of the patient, carries much more immediate gravity. Sufferers of a mental condition known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder seek to put to rest the disturbing disconnect between their internal body image and their external body composition. This issue is often clouded by sensationalism and controversy in the media, and is therefore rarely discussed in a productive manner (Bridy). This lack of discussion halts progress and potentially limits citizens' rights, as legislation is enacted without sufficient research. The primary arguments against each topic are surprisingly similar; an expansion on both transhumanism and elective amputation follows, along with a discussion of the merit of those arguments. The reader will see how limits placed on both transhumanism and elective amputation cause more harm to whole of human society than good.
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?
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.
Advances in modern medical science in the near future are dependent upon the advances in methods and procedures that, by today’s standards, are considered to be taboo and dangerous. These methods will not only revolutionize the field of medicine, but they will be the forerunners to a whole new way of treating people. For these advances to take place, several key steps need to be taken both medically and politically. In this paper I will attempt to explain what methods and procedures will be the future of modern medicine, how these methods and procedures can benefit mankind, and finally what changes will be needed in the fields of medicine and politics. First, I’ll attempt to explain which methods and procedures will be the future of modern medicine.