“Cloning is great if God made the original then making copies should be fine” (Doug Coupland).But many religious don't consider cloning just fine like Doug those. Cloning is the act of making a person thought genetic engineered instead of a natural process. The debate whether scientists are “playing God” has probably never been more real than now. Scientist advances have shaken religious beliefs to their roots repeatedly through the ages, but as much as religious leaders want to push scientists to think more about the morality of their work, scientists are pushing religious leaders back to the basic tenets of
their faiths. Religion beliefs are the main reason for their opposition against cloning . many americans pride themselves on developing their own opinions rather than consulting religious dogma “ key decisions on cloning are much more likely to be made in the house of representatives than in the house, “religion is among the more powerful offspring that shape attitudes toward human cloning ” . As science moves forward the challenge to religion increases. “human cloning threats human being as products “ O'Malley said on behalf of the bishops . “manufactured to order to suit other peoples wishes, a technical advanced in human cloning is not progress for humanity but its opposite ”. Many Christian experts specially Catholic bioethicists who believe life begins at conception object to the destruction of human embryos for many purposes . God created man and woman he instituted marriage for their mutual benefit and for the procreation of children God told adam and eve to “be fruitful and increase in number fill the earth and subdue it.” This evidence is explaining that cloning has developed stronger over the years ma...
... middle of paper ...
... making society have a different view than they do now.Cloning has a big impact in society.
s Cited
"The Christian Institute." The Christian Institute RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
"InstaGrok.com." InstaGrok.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
"Journal of Evolution and Technology." Journal of Evolution and Technology. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
"National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) - Homepage." National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) - Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
"Physics Forums." Physics Forums RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
"Cloning and Catholic Ethics." Cloning and Catholic Ethics. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2014.
"How Does the Catholic Church View Human Cloning?" Victor Villasenor. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2014.
"Library : Why Human Cloning Is Immoral." - Catholic Culture. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2014.
According to Silver, William Safire, columnist of The New York Times, views cloning as a way of taking someone’s identicality away. The uniqueness of the cloned person would be lacking, thus evolution would be restricted. Silver says that Safire is wrong because evolution and the progress of mankind don’t intertwine, and is unpredictable. Safire, along with almost everyone, cannot prove arguments of religion because religion is simply not provable. Silver thinks that some religious people are concerned that clonin...
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 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.
.... Until a successful attempt of creating life emerges in upcoming history, the possibility of cloning may never reveal its truth. Matters of opinion judge the positive and negative outcomes of artificial animal reproduction, and numerous instances prove its everlasting positive outlook for world community, science, and theology.
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.
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.
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.
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
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?
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).
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
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>.