Have you ever thought that you are a human clone? Think about someday you realize that you are human clone and you are designed for real person’s health care. You might shock with the truth and could not accept the truth. Following the research, VCU Life Sciences Surveys, in 2002, research into human cloning is just 23%. In 2010, research into human cloning is about 35%. If human cloning be allowed, these researches will happen more frequently. Although some scientists and ethicists agree with human cloning, there are more evidence that human cloning yields negative results.
Opponents of banned human cloning claim that human have the right to clone themselves. They insist that human cloning is problem of individual choice and individual choice should be guaranteed if individual choice do not damage to other people. (Kerry, 2006) Also, they claim that human have right to choose the ways of breeding like the right to choose the ways of cure of contraception and sterility. However, human cloning is not way of breeding. Human cloning is means of manufacture. Also, human cloning infringes on having own identity rights. This means that human cloning infringes a right to ask that there is only me in the world. So, people do not allow cloning themselves because there should be only they in the world.
Opponents also maintain that human cloning contribute to the advanced medical science. For example, in America, chemists sold medicine after animal testing but, it did not work well and after taking medicine, deformed children were born. Therefore, for numerous lives, some human cloning’s sacrifice is needed. However, human cloning could not be justified for selfish purposes. For instance, think about that one human clone is born to cure someone’s disease. After the cure, “he will be treated as a freak, set apart from others, the object of tiring scientific and public curiosity, and exposed to unending physical and psychological testing.” (Thomas) In addition, does the human clone’s goal of life disappeared? Who are born for someone in the world? Is there anything like this inhumane act except human cloning?
The final argument advanced by opponents of banned human cloning is that human cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another, so it will cure diseases as quickly as possible. However, the research said differently. According to Andelino, the potential side effects include infection, loss of fertility, stroke, and in rare cases death.
“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.
It is essential that human cloning is outlawed. It is salacious to perform, research, and promote these experiments on human subjects; it is neglectful, and shrewd to make the presence of this objective technology legal, let alone obtainable. Not only is human cloning hazardous and illogical, but morally incorrect and greatly dishonorable. The most alarming thought referring to human cloning is that it has the power to alter the foundation, that we as a nation, are assembled upon. What occurs after we take things too far and lose control? What happens when we are no more satisfied in simply seeking education of the physical universe? We will cross the line between natural and synthetic. What will differentiate God from man? Do we have the authorization to change the evolution of life? Science has proven that we can reproduce humans both naturally and unnaturally, but that does not mean that mean we should stop questioning whether or not we should scientifically reproduce humans.
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.
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.
Currently Congress is debating on a bill on whether or not cloning should be banned outright. If this bill were to pass then the scientific community will have a huge blow dealt against it. Human cloning techniques should not be completely banned because they have the potential of revealing new ways to cure currently incurable diseases and ailments. In the article ?Human Cloning is good for All of Us,? Patrick Stephens writes that ?regulations will delay the availability of medical technologies that cloning and genetic research are bound to bring.? Even though Stephens presents a true possibility he only sees one side of the argument and fails to examine what unchecked cloning could result in.
In "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," Ruth Macklin states that while human cloning might not offer any benefits, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm either.
It is normal to think cloning is something out of a science fiction orb. For many years, scientists have been telling the world that it’s impossible to clone humans, but they were all wrong. The technology of cloning humans is already here, as evidenced by Dolly the sheep, but it called forth questions about the role of God in society, the soul and even the quality of life a cloned individual would have (“16 important pros and cons”). Cloning technologies can prove helpful to researchers in genetics. With the history of cloning, one difference to help in mind, with dealing with cloning, is the reproductive cloning or therapeutic cloning.
Secondly, “the most the human race has to loose by playing around with cloning is that the genetic diversity would be lost (Andrea Castro, 2005).” Reducing the genetic differences will produce clones that are grossly overlarge, many animals will be born with genetic mutations, and there will be a higher “risk of disease transfer (Saskaschools, 2003). “A review of all the world's cloned animals suggests that every one of them is genetically and physically defective (Leake, 2002).” Mutations will be passed on to the younger generation because if a cloned species has a mutation in their DNA this mutation will be passed on. Cloning has been linked with diseases of ageing, arthritis and, cancer.
People that have opposing views discredit cloning to be unnatural and that scientists are playing god, cloning is criticized without thinking about how productive cloning can be and the reasons it should be used. Some say that cloning could end up being an awful thing that is abused with no moral boundaries with “the prospect of people creating a clone that could be killed for its organs if they were in need of a transplant,”... ”The numerous possibilities offered by human cloning mandate discussions about where the boundaries lie. Currently, human reproductive cloning is outlawed in countries that have legislated cloning science, whereas research on therapeutic cloning is allowed in some countries (Aldridge).” There is an unnecessary fear of what cloning can do, even though it has already been established that mass cloning organisms to create organ farms are impractical and foolish. Currently, cloning is no more harmful than selective breeding within mere household pets. While it seems cloning is completely humane and legitimate, moral dilemmas such as using hundreds of eggs just to clone a few organisms gives problems to having several women give eggs for the process, as “there are also practical and safety issues to be considered. For instance, the embryo would need to be implanted in the womb of a so-called surrogate, or host mother. A woman would have to consent to have her womb used in this way
Human cloning is dangerous. It is estimated that between 95 and 98 percent of cloning experiments have failed (Genetics and Society). These downfalls to cloning are in the form of miscarriages and stillbirths (Genetics and Society). Cloned human beings also run the risk of having severe genetic abnormalities. Children cloned from adult DNA would, in a sense, already have “old” genes. These children’s main problem would be developing and growing old too quickly. This includes arthritis, appearance, and organ function. Since the chance of having a child with mental and physical problems is so much higher than that of a normally conceived child, cloning should be illegal.
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).
As I stated and as we all know there are pros and cons to almost everything. Cloning is not exempt from this. In the eyes of some cloning is perfectly acceptable. Some people argue that cloning is the logical next step in reproductive technology. Identical twins are natural clones, so reproductive cloning can be regarded as a technological version of a natural process. If couples are infertile, why shouldn’t they be able to produce clones of themselves? If a couple lost a child, why shouldn’t they...
Human cloning is a new biological technology developed at an astonishing rate in past thirty years. The debates about human cloning draw much attention, as its development will affect the entire future of human beings. Cloning technology is just on the starting stage and still has done experiments on animals. Also, this technology has been pushed forward or held back by economic, political, military and moral factors. Human cloning in this essay only represents therapeutic cloning and children reproductive cloning. To be specific, this essay will discuss two benefits of human cloning about therapeutic cloning in disease cure and reproductive cloning in creating new children and two challenges about health risk and social value risk.
A few years ago, a group of scientists from Philippine Islands thought and wanted to clone Jesus by using a cell from the existing relics. They then recognized their plan as a hoax because the DNA would be too old, and therefore practically worthless. Yet, as impossible as it might sound, cloning is a reality in the immense world of science. Soon, armies of clones could be produced just like in Star Wars-Attack of the Clones because fiction and science are starting to merge together. Human cloning is the asexual reproduction of an identical copy of an original. It is one of the most controversial issues of scientific research causing considerable public debates on the ethical side as well as on the scientific front. Under no circumstances should human cloning be legalized in the world.