Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Human cloning cons
Argument About Human Cloning
Ethical implications of artificial insemination
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Human cloning cons
While human cloning has been a matter of science fiction for centuries, the prospect that it could actually happen is a recent development. On February 23, 1997, the birth of the first cloned sheep, Dolly, was announced. Since then, it seems that science has progressed faster than moral understanding. Each breakthrough in genetics presents us with both a promise and a dilemma. The promise is that we may soon be able to treat and prevent diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s. The dilemma is that we will have the power to manipulate our very nature-- to choose the sex and other genetic qualities of our next generation in attempts to make ourselves perfect. Despite the possible benefits, cloning will require unacceptable risks and does not consider the basic concepts of human dignity, liberty and identity. Considering our role in the world, it is society’s place to dictate moral boundaries to ban all human cloning, including that done in the name of medical progress.
Human cloning is a serious issue and a frightening prospect of what the future may hold. It has been proven neither effective, nor safe. Before this minimum requirement is met, cloning should be avoided and not attempted on humans. Despite this, advocates argue that cloning can improve human genetics, and can prevent genetically transmitted diseases. The truth is that cloning will not improve genetic make up of the human race. According to Darwin’s famous theory, nature adapts its species and no one should interfere in the process. A radical change in nature, such as creating a society of clones, will diminish the human diversity resulting from the various mixings of genes. Another problem says Lane Lester who earned his Ph.D in genetics is that “everyone possesse...
... middle of paper ...
... cloning is necessary or useful for any purpose. Banning cloning far outweighs the potential curing of genetically transmitted diseases, it crosses an ethical line in the creation of human beings. As a moral society, we should strive to enforce moral boundaries and create rather then destroy.
Works Cited
"Gene Mutation" The Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed. 2007. Print.
Leone, Paul. Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Google Books. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
Masci, Margaret O., and John F. Setaro. Medicine's Brave New World: Bioengineering and the New Genetics. Brookfield: Twenty-First Century, 2001. Print.
Winters, Paul A. Cloning. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1998. Print.
Gallup Poll: Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research $ Dropping. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
http://www.lifenews.com/2005/08/16/bio-1111/
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.
Fackelmann, Kathy. “Cloning Human Embryos.” Society for Science & the Public (1994): 92-93. JSTOR. Web.
“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.
Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another. Every single bit of DNA is the same. There are three different types of cloning. Gene cloning produces copies of genes or fragments of DNA, reproductive cloning creates copies of whole animals, and therapeutic cloning builds embryonic stem cells for experiments aimed at creating tissues to replace injured or diseased tissues. In 1997 scientists in Scotland announced the birth of a clone. Its name was Dolly; after the American country singer. She was the clone of an adult female sheep, and the first mammal to ever be cloned successfully. As Dolly matured, she mated with a ram, and gave birth to a lamb showing that clones have the ability to reproduce. Dolly died at the age of six. According to Sheep 101, the life expectancy for a sheep is 10-12 years, but some sheep can live up to 20 years.
The idea of creating life has intrigued people since the beginning of time. Mary Shelly in her novel Frankenstein brought this idea to life. In this novel, Victor Frankenstein created life by using advanced science and spare body parts. The idea of creating life is a current controversy. Technology now allows for the cloning of sheep. Certainly, the ability to clone humans cannot be far away. It is necessary to place restrictions on cloning research and to ban humans cloning because human cloning is immoral. Furthermore, the expectations placed on a cloned creature by society would be unbearable for the creature, and would lead to its psychological demise.
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.
Dolly, woolly, innocent, and sweet, strongly contrasts with the severity of the issues that she has raised. Ever since the news surfaced that Dr. Ian Wilmut had succeeded in cloning a sheep, people around the world have been participating in a frenzied debate over the morality of cloning animals, and more importantly human beings. The cloning of animals and humans could help the world in unprecedented ways, but could also give rise to unforeseen problems. It raises moral, ethical, and regulatory issues which must be considered during with the formation of cloning legislation. While I believe animal cloning is useful on a restricted level, I feel that human cloning is unnecessary and I advocate its full prohibition.
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.
Brannigan, C. Michael. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, Chatham House Publishers, 2001.
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.
8. Pellegrino, Edmund D., “Human Cloning and Human Dignity.” The President’s Council on Bioethics. 22 July 2007
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.
John A. Robertson’s article “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation” raises three important reasons on why there shouldn’t be a ban on Human Cloning but that it should be regulated. Couples who are infertile might choose to clone one of the partners instead of using sperm, eggs, or embryo’s from anonymous donors. In conventional in vitro fertilization, doctors attempt to start with many ova, fertilize each with sperm and implant all of them in the woman's womb in the hope that one will result in pregnancy. (Robertson) But some women can only supply a single egg. Through the use of embryo cloning, that egg might be divisible into, say 8 zygotes for implanting. The chance of those women becoming pregnant would be much greater. (Kassirer) Secondly, it would benefit a couple at high risk of having offspring with a genetic disease choose weather to risk the birth of an affected child. (Robertson) Parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic defect to a child could make use of cloning. A fertilized ovum could be cloned, and the duplicate tested for the disease or disorder. If the clone were free of genetic defects, then the other clone would be as well. Then this could be implanted in the woman and allowed to mature to term. (Heyd) Thirdly, it would be used to obtain tissue or organs...
Imagine a world in which a clone is created only for its organs to be transplanted into a sick person’s body. Human cloning has many possible benefits, but it comes with concerns. Over the past few decades, researchers have made several significant discoveries involving the cloning of human cells (ProQuest Staff). These discoveries have led to beneficial medical technologies to help treat disease (Aldridge). The idea of cloning an entire human body could possibly revolutionize the medical world (Aldridge). However, many people are concerned that these advancements would degrade self-worth and dignity (Hyde and Setaro 89). Even though human cloning brings about questions of bioethics, it has the potential to save and recreate the lives of humans and to cure various diseases without the use of medication (Aldridge, Hyde and Setaro).