Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cons of animal cloning
Cloning animals ethical debate
Issues with cloning animals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cons of animal cloning
Pet Cloning
The debate on whether to clone pets or not has been on the rise internationally. Pet cloning is different from animal cloning. This is because pets attract emotional attachment to their owners hence the feud whether it is morally and practical to clone a pet. Pet cloning begun few years ago and many pet owners have found it an alternative to their loss. Autumn Feistier and Hillary Bok argue their different views about pet cloning.
In her argument for supporting pet cloning, Autumn Feistier insist that pet cloning is ethically and morally justified (Stephen, 132). She poses the idea that it is an ideal way to stretch the experience the owner of the pets has. Considering how expensive veterinary care is, cloning seems to be the ideal way to save money and have variety of the same pet. In her argument, Autumn believes that some pets are very valuable and hence it would be difficult to replace them with new pets. Also in consideration is how emotionally attached some pet
…show more content…
A cloned pet can never be the same as the original because of different upbringing, environment and experiences. Trying to continue where you stopped with the dead pet may be hard for the owner and so a replica of the pet may only give solace to the grieving owner. Hillary says it’s immoral to clone pets and try to take advantage of grieving owners. Pet cloning also causes great harm to animals. The animal being cloned is more likely to have defects than the original animal. He argues that the whole process is harmful to animal and does not guarantee that the owners will get the same pet. Cloning animals for commercial benefit is better than pet cloning which is just used to give the owner some consolation. Companies that do pet cloning are accused of taking advantage of the pet owner’s grief. The originality and dignity of a pet can never be replaced so by cloning the pet you reduce
Even though natural born animals present a higher survival rate, cloned sheep and cows show different results. Even if the cloned cows and sheep show a positive sign of survival, most of the cloned animals’ die either in the womb or after the clone exits the womb. (Anthes 63). Through this example, death dominates the choices of these cloned animals, and scientists continue the experiments for the benefits of humans. By focusing on human needs, the scientists pretend that animal welfare means absolutely nothing, but animals deserve safety just like humans. If scientists truly believe that cloning meets moral standards, than how come scientists cannot find a more effective way to decrease the failure rate of
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.
If a random individual were asked twenty years ago if he/she believed that science could clone an animal, most would have given a weird look and responded, “Are you kidding me?” However, that once crazy idea has now become a reality, and with this reality, has come debate after debate about the ethics and morality of cloning. Yet technology has not stopped with just the cloning of animals, but now many scientists are contemplating and are trying to find successful ways to clone human individuals. This idea of human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. I believe that it is not morally and ethically right to clone humans. Even though technology is constantly advancing, it is not reasonable to believe that human cloning is morally and ethically correct, due to the killing of human embryos, the unsafe process of cloning, and the resulting consequences of having deformed clones.
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
In the summer of 1996, an animal unlike any other was born unto the world. Roughly three feet high and covered in an insulating material, there were countless others that looked nearly identical freely roaming the countryside. But this animal was special; it was precisely identical to one of its brethren. Dolly the sheep was the first ever manmade clone, an exact copy of its genetic donor. In the fifteen years since the birth of Dolly cloning technology has been improving at a steady pace, and now humanity as a whole is at an impasse: human clones. Scientists are very close to being able to clone a human being, but should they? A ban on human cloning issued by the World Health Organization is in place (World Health Organization 1) but it is non-binding in nature, and individual governments must come up with their own cloning policies. For the United States, the choice is obvious: the federal government should not place a ban on human reproductive cloning. There are numerous reasons for this, such as the notion of cloning as an alternative to adoption, the elimination of disease, the possibility of continuing life after death, and the possibility of an improved quality of life for the clones themselves. At the same time, there are arguments against human cloning, mostly centering on moral issues, that must also be addressed.
Human and animal cloning is still a debatable issue. People believe that cloning is playing God, just as Victor Frankenstein did when he created the Monster. While Victor Frankenstein’s creation ended in catastrophe, cloning’s seemly innocent side effects can still disrupt and alter the entire world.
...cloning can be divided into two broad category: potential safety risk and moral problems, and these concerns overweigh its achievement.
successful clones often have problems with their body and are subject to a short lifespan ridden with health problems. This hurts the person or animal cloned rather than to help them, making cloning an immoral
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.
Cloning has been a controversial topic since the time it was introduced, prompting questions of ethics. Although it has been unintentionally in use for thousands of years, it was first brought about in the 1960’s. As more and more discoveries have been gained since then, numerous uncertainties continue to be raised among scientists, politicians, and anyone interested in the issue. While the idea of cloning is intriguing and polarizing, there is a fine like that defines what is and isn’t ethical; it is moral to clone cells for research development and plants for agricultural desires, but it is in no way acceptable to clone humans and animals for reproductive reasons.
Not so far in the future, a young boy of the age of six, dying a heart-wrenching death, will only be able survive with a bone marrow transplant. His parents will have searched near and far for a match, but none will come to their aid. The only possible way that they can produce a perfect match for their son's bone marrow is to clone their son. Unfortunately, at this time this topic is still being discussed and debated upon with the government. Their only child that has been their treasure for six years might die. A clone of their son becomes their apple of aspiration to keep the treasure from being buried.
“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.
First of all, “Australia’s first cloned sheep appeared to be healthy and energetic the day she died, during the autopsy they could not find the cause (Castro, 2005).” There are many risks to cloning and you are seldom able to identify the cause of their death. “More than 90% of cloning attempts fail (Human Genome Program, 2006).” Most cloned animals died mysteriously even before they were born or when they were very young, so there is hardly any information on how clones age. Clones may be born with a normal looking body but may have internal functioning problems. “Cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders (Human Genome Program, 2006).” There are many risks of cloning and a major factor is genetic differences.
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.
In recent years our world has undergone many changes and advancements, cloning is a primary example of this new modernism. On July 5th, 1995, Dolly, the first cloned animal, was created. She was cloned from a six-year-old sheep, making her cells genetically six years old at her creation. However, scientists were amazed to see Dolly live for another six years, until she died early 2005 from a common lung disease found in sheep. This discovery sparked a curiosity for cloning all over the world, however, mankind must answer a question, should cloning be allowed? To answer this question some issues need to be explored. Is cloning morally correct, is it a reliable way to produce life, and should human experimentation be allowed?