Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
arguments against cloning
arguments against cloning
argument against human cloning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: arguments against cloning
Cloning
For hundreds of years man has wondered what it would be like to clone human beings. With the idea of cloning comes many different opinions and positions. The idea of creating an army of "super humans" has long been a dream of many people. Others have feared what would happen to the world if cloning were possible and if cloning is morally correct. Overall, religion and ethics play a vital role in the both of these viewpoints and greatly effect many positions on the topic of cloning.
In February of 1997 Dr. Ian Wilmut, a 52-year-old embryologist at the Roslin Institute in dinburgh announced the cloning of a lamb named Dolly 1. He had replaced the genetic material of sheep's egg with the DNA from an adult sheep. The findings of Dr. Wilmut immediately created many new controversial questions. None were as controversial as: Will they apply this to humans as well? According to Dr. Wilmut, the answer was "there is no reason in principle why you couldn't do it"(clone humans), but he added, "All of us would find that offensive."2
From the viewpoint of those in favor of cloning human beings do not see it as morally, or ethically wrong. Many see it as an opportunity to have children, or possibly to "re-create" a child who is dying from a terminal illness. Many infertile couples are worried that they would never have the chance to someday have children through new technology that would be brought about through cloning. Others believe that it is an invasion of personal freedoms because the government may try to dictate what a person can do to their body.
Anita Manning, a writer for USA TODAY revealed another argument in favor ...
... middle of paper ...
...n, Daniel. "A Step Too Far." 23.
3 Manning, Anita. "Pressing a 'Right' to Clone Humans." p1D.
4 Glassman, James. "Should we Fear Dolly?" Sec A p17.
5 Anyonomous. "World Wide: Clinton Proposed" Sec A p1.
Works Cited:
- Anonymous, "Trials and Triumphs in the History of Cloning," Successful Farming 97
(1999) S28 - S30.
- Anonymous. "World Wide: Clinton Proposed" Wall Street Journal 10 Jun 1997: Sec A
p1.
- Callahan, Daniel. "A Step Too Far," New York Times 26 Feb 1997: Sec A, p23.
- Chase, Chevy. "Dealing with Dolly: Inside the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission," Health Affairs 17 (1998): 264 - 267.
- Glassman, James K. "Should we Fear Dolly?" The Washington Post. 25 Feb 1997: Sec A
p17.
- Manning, Anita. "Pressing a 'Right' to Clone Humans." USA Today. 6 Mar 1997: p01 D.
Cloning is an exciting and ongoing field of study with many great possibilities, and negative drawbacks; this leaves many Christians wrestling with the idea of cloning, trying to decide where to stand on, for or against it. To follow, in the paper is an explanation of what cloning is and the uses of cloning at the present and projected in the future. After that the focus will be on the problems with cloning from a non-ethical stance. Finally the issue of cloning and Christian’s views on it will be addressed.
“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 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.
It's been three years since the birth of Dolly, the world's first successfully cloned animal. The announcement of her birth brought about much ado and sparked many debates concerning the morality of cloning. In the three years since Dolly was created, the debate over cloning has swelled and receded, but has never been put to rest. A compelling issue that has come into focus in the past several years is the idea of human cloning. Many scientists believe that it is inevitable because the technology is there, and anything that can be done eventually will be done. They preach the value of human clones, dropping phrases like 'cure for disease' and 'prolonged life' to entice the public into supporting their cause. Though these concepts seem beguiling, the notion of human cloning, when looked at as a whole, has serious repercussions and should not be entertained lightly.
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.
Smith, Shannon H. “Ignorance is Not Bliss: Why a Ban on Human Cloning is Unacceptable” Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine. Summer 1999. Vol. 9 issue 2. p311. web. 4 Apr. 2011
For years, the prospect of human cloning was fodder for outrageous science-fiction stories and nothing more. However, in more recent times, human cloning has moved significantly closer to becoming a reality. Accordingly, the issue has evoked a number of strong reactions, both praising and condemning the procedure. The fact that human cloning not just affects human lives indirectly but actually involves tinkering with human creation has forced human cloning into a position of controversy. The progress of the issue of human cloning, then, has been shaped not only by the abilities and resources of scientists but by public opinion and by governmental regulation that has resulted from public pressure.
In earlier times the subject of cloning human beings has been no more than just a fantastic idea to play around with in science-fiction books and movies. As time progresses though, more and more fantasies become realities. Such is the case with cloning. What has only been dreamt up before by artists on pen and paper can now be performed by scientists in laboratories. With the ability to clone humans now possible the question of whether such an act should even be carried out is raised. How far should cloning be allowed to go if it should even be allowed at all? The answer is that cloning should be allowed, but only in moderation.
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.
Broadway, Bill. "A RUSH TO JUDGMENT ON HUMAN CLONING? - U-VA. SCHOLAR WARNS NOT ENOUGH IS KNOWN TO BAN PROCEDURE PERMANENTLY." NewsBank. 7 Feb. 1998. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
Most people argue that human cloning is not morally and ethically acceptable due to both religious concerns and long-term health problems. The notion of cloning organisms has always been troublesome because of unpredictable consequences. “Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture” (C...
There are many opinions on the topic of cloning, particularly on the controversy of human cloning. Lots of people have many fears over if we should continue this form of study, whereas others think that this technology should be pushed forward with high hopes. However, no side should rule out the other, but instead, should compliment one another. Both arguments should be heard and acknowledged before any decision is made towards this new area of study. For example, many people think that their fears are unanswerable and should cause the absolute ban on cloning.
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.
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>.