Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
why should human cloning be banned
why should human cloning be banned
ethical issues of cloning animals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: why should human cloning be banned
Human Cloning is Against God's Will
When I first began this essay, I held no stance on the subject of human cloning. After my initial research, I came to the conclusion that there was no real evidence that human cloning should be illegal. My first draft however lacked good arguments. I’ve since returned to the library and took a new look at the problem. And, after more research my stance was changed. Human cloning, while bringing some good, is not God’s will, and any God fearing human should consider human cloning wrong.
There are many good reasons why human cloning should not be outlawed. Parents unable to have children could clone themselves. “If and when human cloning becomes possible, it will represent little more than another step in reproductive technology and one that individuals would be free to choose if they desire” (Hines). The children, being genetic replicas of the parents, would be true offspring. This would comfort the parents in the fact that they truly lived on through their children. This technology could also bring great things to the medical world. “The technology of cloning may well allow biotechnologists to develop animals which will grow human-compatible organs for transplant. Cloning is likely to be first used to create animals that produce valuable therapeutic hormones, enzymes, and proteins” (Bailey 2). These advances could save many human lives, all through cloning. The cloning of humans could also be applied to endangered animals. “Cloning something as extinct as the stars of Jurassic Park remains fiction, but Lanza has just received permission from Spain to clone the bucardo, a mountain goat that became extinct when a tree fell on ‘Celia,’ the last of its kind. The tissue was frozen; if it can be cloned in the egg of a common ibex, the bucardo would live again. ‘We hope to have live bucardo kids by early summer,’ says Lanza” (Begley 3). We could take action against the deaths of whole species. This technology could turn the world on its head. However, just like test tube babies were denounced in the sixty’s, we now do the same with cloning. Before the technology has even entered the door, we ask it to leave by not only banning the idea but any research on it. Nevertheless, with enough research these things could be a reality in the future.
The objective of this essay is to inform the reader(s) about human cloning. I believe that human cloning is morally wrong because one should not have the right to avoid daily responsibilities by getting someone else to handle them. There will be four sections of this paper that will be discussed. Firstly, there is an argumentative section, which will have premises along with a conclusion for an argument made against human cloning. Secondly, an explanation section, which explains how the argument against human cloning obeys the rules for a good argument. Thirdly, an objection section to where there are arguments that violates mine in order to demonstrate how objectors might object to the argument. Lastly, there will be a conclusion where I discuss
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.
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.
One of the biggest problems with the use of cloning is the decline in genetic diversity, continued use of cloning would lead to inbreeding, wide scale, conformity. Humans would be taking nature into their own hands.
It's a good idea to ban cloning for a certain amount of time to take more precautions before continuing. There should be some rules set up to create boundaries of cloning to protect society so people don't abuse it. If rules are set up to minimize the amount of cloning, then there would be less of a worry among people. However, cloning should still be legal. Eventually, cloning can be corrected until its fully understood and it can be then be used to benefit mankind. Human and animal cloning can cure many diseases if it's finally perfected and then there won't be any more concerns or disadvantages in the future.
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.
With the successful cloning of animals, many people have reacted with frightening and usually uninformed ideas about what cloning is and what researchers hope to achieve through it. Many wish to ban all cloning without even looking at the positive things that cloning will be able to provide for us in the future and with continued research. Like any new technology, people are at first afraid, but this is no excuse to abandon research that could one day save millions of people through cloned organs or give an alternative and safe means of reproduction to sterile couples. This fear has only been furthered by the media sensationalizing the advancement and tossing "Brave New World" into every headline. The uninformed also look to popular culture instead of facts to argue against cloning. Jurassic Park, Frankenstein and The Island of Doctor Moreau have shown to the majority of American the dark, evil side of cloning, which is not the aim of scientists and at present not technologically possible. It is obvious that we must act now and set guidelines, both ethical and legislative, but we should not ban cloning completely without further research.
In order to have a legitimate argument for the reasoning why cloning is or is not acceptable it is important first to be understand what exactly the topic is about. The first thing that must be understood is that there are actually different types of cloning that serve different purposes because each type focuses on a specific goal. The first area of cloning is DNA cloning which is the copying of genes to better understand how they work and find cures for genetic malfunctions. DNA cloning is, perhaps, the oldest of the three types of cloning with it being around since the 1970’s (Cloning Fact Sheet, 2009). This form of cloning is the most widely accepted form since it does not cross into the realm of human cloning which is one of the largest debates that exists. One of the things that DNA cloning can accomplish is curing genetic malfunctions, by placing a cloned copy of the correct gene into the body via a virus that will replicate in the body and there for take the place of the faulty genes. H...
The cloning of animals and humans disregards the common ethics of the creation of humanity. Three types of cloning currently exist. There is therapeutic cloning, DNA cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning does not actually make a clone, it just makes stem cells. Stem cells are capable of becoming any type of cell that they are introduced to. For example, when a stem cell is introduced to a damaged heart, it transforms itself into a healthy heart cell. Even though stem cells might be very good for helping alleviate the pain of some diseases, the best use of stem cells is making embryos. This is the main reason why many people disagree with this kind of cloning. Courtney Farell and Rosalyn Carson-Dewitt wrote an article in which they stated “Some pro-life activists believe that such embryos represent human life, and do not approve of their use in the cloning process” (Farell and Carson-Dewitt 1). Reproductive cloning is creating an animal from only one parent. This type of cloning creates the most controversy because it completely disregards the whole idea of natural conception. The other very risky thing about this kind of cloning is that it has an extremely low success rate. Humans are so focused on the thought of making clones that they are unaware of the risk factors. Cloning makes life seem as though humans are the individuals who were meant to create. In the words of Eric Badertscher, “The cloning of human beings is particularly distasteful, and shows humans’ desire to ‘play God’ regardless to the risks of people born in this manner” (Badertscher 6). The controversy of cloning was born when the first successfully cloned animal was created in 1997. Dolly the Sheep became a focal point of...
The scientific arguments against human cloning were based on the results of animal trials in which mice, the infamous cloned sheep Dolly, and other mammals developed all kinds of unpredictable genetic defects. The potential represented by cloning does not automatically outweighs the risk of unseen con-sequences. There are enough people in this world without "making" more. Maybe they should be more interested in cloning needed things like food. If cloning is completely outlawed then there will probably be no hope for finding the cures for those fore-mentioned diseases.
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.
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...
"He is nowhere near being in the position he says he is of being able