Cloning - Just Another Field of Science
One can imagine lying in bed with the knowledge that they have only
a week to live. This prognosis is brought on because the person needs a
new heart, liver, kidney, or any other life saving organ. Now that the
realization of what has transpired hits this person it is time to find an
organ donor. It could be the next car crash victim or someone from the
immediate family. However, the odds of finding a donor grim. Wouldn't it
be nice if the technology to clone a perfectly matching organ to replace
the faulty one existed? This is the problem with today's society. Too
many people are afraid of the future. Cloning, like any other science is
hindered by the general public's fear of the unknown. Whether it is a
single cell to a full human, cloning research is a major next step in
scientific development. It is easy to understand why people fear the
unknown, but it is hard to figure out why they can't take a step back and
realize that cloning is basically an extension of current and accepted prac
tices. Also, the general public's fear shows up in the nation's
congress and even the president. Who knows the real opinions of the
individuals in congress, but as long as the general public is against
cloning, politicians will be too, so they can gain support from voters.
Even with all these setbacks, there are still major uses for cloning
research. Uses that will never present themselves unless people put down
their moral, ethical, and religious shields and allow the research to take
its course. Regardless...
... middle of paper ...
...nbsp; Cloning is just another science. It is almost redundant in that
fashion. Its only uniqueness is that it has such a controversy around it
caused by fear and misconception. Any science is too valuable to be
brushed aside. People must look past the politics and the morals to see
that cloning is an extension of current practices and could prove to be
better then those practices. There are too many conceivable uses for
cloning to let the technology die. No one knows what the future holds, but
the technology must be permitted to go on. Like it or not, sciences like
cloning are here and here to stay. It is up to society to put aside its
fears and stop trying to control the rate at which scientific development
advances because it is the only thing that is going to make a better
tomorrow.
When being questioned on the identity of her child’s father, Hester unflinchingly refuses to give him up, shouting “I will not speak!…my child must seek a heavenly Father; she shall never know an earthly one!” (47). Hester takes on the full brunt of adultery, allowing Dimmesdale to continue on with his life and frees him from the public ridicule the magistrates force upon her. She then stands on the scaffold for three hours, subject to the townspeople’s disdain and condescending remarks. However, Hester bears it all “with glazed eyed, and an air of weary indifference.” (48). Hester does not break down and cry, or wail, or beg for forgiveness, or confess who she sinned with; she stands defiantly strong in the face of the harsh Puritan law and answers to her crime. After, when Hester must put the pieces of her life back together, she continues to show her iron backbone and sheer determination by using her marvelous talent with needle work “to supply food for her thriving infant and herself.” (56). Some of her clients relish in making snide remarks and lewd commends towards Hester while she works, yet Hester never gives them the satisfaction of her reaction.
Imagine living in society,where people are not cherished, and life is not valuable. Also all of your opinions are taken as a grain of salt. The story Fahrenheit 451, takes place in a society where there are conflicting ideas because of the censorship of the government. In this society they are not allowed to read any books that could possibly produce hate. If someone gets caught reading books then the ‘firemen’ will come and burn all the books and once they are finished burning them, they will arrest the person. Also in this society there is little to no interpersonal relationships. The main reason for this is because of technology. The society in Fahrenheit 451, does not display the meaning of a life richly lived because
Two of the most prominent poets during the 19th century were Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson. Although both poets are extremely renowned for their widely known poems, they had distinctively different writing styles. Both wrote about different topics and led almost opposite lifestyles. To understand the reason behind the differences in themes of the two writer’s poems I will first compare their backgrounds and motives, then directly examine the similarities and differences in themes and ideas. Lastly, I will analyze the similarities and differences in the writing itself.
Fahrenheit 451 is a dystopian novel, by Ray Bradbury, where individuality and knowledge is frowned upon, and books are illegal. Although, the protagonists, Montag, starts to question why these things are considered horrific in their despotic society. On Montag’s journey, he becomes close to several people who assist him in pondering the true reason books are banned and how it leads to society's low standards of knowledge. Readers can use the author’s tone to infer his purpose. By analyzing his diction, the purpose can be seen, and related back to our society today.
In today’s modern view, poetry has become more than just paragraphs that rhyme at the end of each sentence. If the reader has an open mind and the ability to read in between the lines, they discover more than they have bargained for. Some poems might have stories of suffering or abuse, while others contain happy times and great joy. Regardless of what the poems contains, all poems display an expression. That very moment when the writer begins his mental journey with that pen and paper is where all feelings are let out. As poetry is continues to be written, the reader begins to see patterns within each poem. On the other hand, poems have nothing at all in common with one another. A good example of this is in two poems by a famous writer by the name of Langston Hughes. A well-known writer that still gets credit today for pomes like “ Theme for English B” and “Let American be American Again.”
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.
Cloning, a topic that has recently caused mayhem all over the world, is possible, but will it be here to stay? The astonishing news that scientists had cloned a sheep a couple of years ago sent people into panic at the thought that humans might be next. "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity" (Macklin 64). Since most of the opposition is coming from the pure disgust of actually being able to clone species, it makes it difficult for people to get away from the emotional side of the issue and analyze the major implications cloning would have for society. To better understand this controversial issue, the pros and cons of cloning will be discussed.
Both poets captured the romantic period essentials and combined their works to create masterpieces. Th...
The points of comparison these two writers share are that they were both iconic poets of their day and that they wrote in what is referred to as “black dialect.” The differences between them are their cultural and educational backgrounds.
In conclusion these poets have both proved to be dedicated to changing our society, but in opposite ways. Hughes takes the angry resentful view and Dylan takes the reconstructing positive one. The individual styles work for these remarkable artists.
Both poems inspire their reader to look at their own life. In addition, they treat the reader to a full serving of historic literature that not only entertains, but also teaches valuable lesson in the form of morals and principles.
I am going to start by comparing the form of each poem. The souls of
When considering the term management, there has always been a common miss conception that this automatically makes an individual a leader. Leadership is only a single element of the management role. Many times managers are more comfortable utilizing a particular leadership style. While this may work well the majority of the time, certain employees or situations may require a different approach. Good leadership requires that the individual recognize the need for change to motivate their employees to accomplish the task at hand or to reach common goals. Understanding the importance of leadership is essential. However, the key element to focus on is what steps can be taken to improve one’s leadership capabilities. For many individuals this may be a difficult question to answer and may only be possible through self-assessment and reflection.
Plato and Sidney had some of the same ideas but yet different ideas for poetry at the same time. They may not have the same ideas because of the times that they each lived in. If you think about it, Plato’s time of living was 427-347 B.C. and Sidney lived in the 1500’s. Therefore, each philosopher had a different view of poetry and what it could possible do for their community. Neither one is right nor wrong but, if we, as people, took both of their perceptions to heart, we would probably live in a world that wasn’t so tainted and corruptive.
Is cloning ethical? That is a question that will be with us for a long