Human cloning is a rising issue that questions our ethics and moralities. The recent ethical issues with cloning has led to the creation of a moratorium on cloning. The debate between allowing human cloning and banning it is still ongoing. Human cloning has many negative moral issues and could harm earth by causing over population, but human cloning has many positive impacts such as lengthening the human lifespan and cloning organs that could save the lives of patients dying from organ failure. Both sides of the argument have a substantial amount of reasoning and examples that explain each side of the debate. Most sources explain how the positive aspect of cloning in humans can help scientific research advance in various ways, where as the negative aspect explains how its morally wrong and could potentially harm humankind.
Although the morality behind cloning can be seen in a positive way some religions openly oppose cloning. Catholics and Christians oppose cloning seeing it as a threat to their religious beliefs and values, some religions like Judaism have both positive and negative beliefs on cloning, but most religions aren’t affected by the cloning debate. The morality of cloning can be interpreted in different ways where both the pros and cons have strong reasoning. Cloning can be seen as morally wrong when it threatens religious beliefs and when cloning can cause the suffering of human through experimentation. The morality of cloning can be seen mostly in a positive way where it can be used to prolong the existence of the human race as well as creating stable food sources for humans, for example through the cloning of cattle. Cloning can extend the lives of loved ones, for example the number of accidental orphaned children could be reduced by cloning their parent or guardian, this shows that the morality of cloning has many positive
The Christian viewpoint on therapeutic cloning is split into two – the view of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Automatically when people talk about human cloning that tend to be negative. Most reaction is people shouldn't play god or interfere with nature. Of course there are negative consequences that could come from cloning. On the other hand there is so many positive things that could save more lives than it would cost. Yes Cloning involves risky techniques that could result in premature babies and some deaths. That is why public policy needs to be changed on cloning. The medical possibilities are endless if federal money is given to research and develop cloning techniques.
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.
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.
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?
Cloning, especially human cloning attracts increasingly more attention after the first mammal cloning animal Dolly born in 1997. Cloning is divided into two categories: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning is more related to tissue level cloning to transplant healthy cells and reproductive cloning is individual level cloning. Thus, the term cloning in this essay is used to describe both individual level and tissue level cloning. Public have different views. Some people support it because of its medical value, yet some people argue that it may bring many safety risks and moral problems. Hence, decisions ought to be made to identify the extent of cloning. Therefore, this essay introduces two major benefits of human cloning on disease therapy and analysis two arguments against it on safety and ethical issues.
Many people believe cloning is unethical and unusful. They believe that it should not be practiced, because it infringes upon their beliefs. They see cloning as a last resort and do not trust the science of cloning. “Several governments have considered or enacted legislation to slow down, limit or ban cloning experiments outright” (Freudenrich 5). Many people think that cloning a species is a very unideal situation. However the many benefits of cloning far outway the few disadvantages. Cloning endangered species is beneficial to saving most species around the world, in countries like the United States and China, from extinction.
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>.