Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments on human cloning
Theological issues with human cloning
What are the different views on cloning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments on human cloning
Both Liberals and Conservatives Oppose Human Cloning
The reporting of the debate over human cloning is usually portrayed as a contest between religious opponents of abortion and medical researchers striving to benefit humankind. The stereotype was epitomized in a January 17, 2002, Washington Post story by science reporter Rick Weiss. Implying that opponents of human cloning are the moral equivalent of the Taliban, Weiss wrote:
"In November, researchers announced that they had made the first human embryo clones, giving immediacy to warnings by religious conservatives and others that science is no longer serving the nation's moral will. At the same time, the United States was fighting a war to free a faraway nation from the grip of religious conservatives who were denounced for imposing their moral code on others."(Washington)
The Post ombudsman gently rebuked Weiss for his "real or perceived bias," but the fact that he made the comparison, and that no editor removed it, is revealing.
In reality, the opponents of human cloning are not so easily categorized. For one thing, they include many secular activists associated with the pro-choice left. Last year, in a lopsided bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives passed the Weldon bill (H.2505), which would outlaw both research and reproductive human cloning. Among those supporting the ban were 21 House members whose voting records on abortion were at least 75 percent pro-choice as scored by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).
Now, 68 leftist activists have signed a "Statement in Support of Legislation to Prohibit Cloning." Among them are such notables as activist Jeremy Rifkin, New York University professor Todd Gitlin, novelist Norman Mailer, Commonweal editor Margaret O'Brien, Abortion Access Project director Susan Yanow, New Age spiritual leader Matthew Fox, and Judy Norsigian, author of the feminist manifesto "Our Bodies, Ourselves."
Among arguments against the cloning of human life, these leftists stress the "commercial eugenics" that the new technologies threaten to unleash. They write:
"We are also concerned about the increasing bio-industrialization of life by the scientific community and life science companies and shocked and dismayed that clonal human embryos have been patented and declared to be human "inventions." We oppose efforts to reduce human life and its various parts and processes to the status of mere research tools, manufactured products, commodities, and utilities."(Prepared)
These are points that conservative opponents of cloning have been making for a long time, with limited effect thanks to the media's obsession with the politics of abortion.
Silver’s argument illustrates to his audience that reproductive cloning deems permissible, but most people of today’s society frown upon reproductive cloning and don’t accept it. He believes that each individual has the right to whether or not they would want to participate in reproductive cloning because it is their reproductive right. However, those who participate in cloning run the risk of other’s imposing on their reproductive rights, but the risk would be worth it to have their own child.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
Opposing Viewpoints offers unbiased opinions on the future of embryonic research as well as how they have currently been used to cure many diseases. In addition, the article specifies how developing ethical standards to ensure that the use of embryos remains moral, allows for science to remain ethical. Many of the topics mentioned in this viewpoint consider bioethics and remain consistent throughout. Essentially, the purpose of this article was to establish a middle ground between ethics and science.
1989 came with a boom as it molded the course of history – The Galileo Spacecraft launched by NASA flew up, the Berlin Wall tumbled down, and the massacre of Tiananmen Square left the city of Beijing in turmoil. Interestingly, a lesser known event swung the world of science in a complete 180. Scientists used embryonic stem cells to fabricate the first mice ever to lack assigned genes (Making). Just over a decade later, and following numerous embryonic stem cell discoveries, former U.S. president George W. Bush, authorized the use of federal funds for limited human embryonic stem cell research (Human). So, aiming for progress, mankind launched this new and exciting expedition. Nonetheless, in a culture that so readily promotes whatever promises a brighter future without weighing the means, we need to recognize the immorality of HESC testing. By exploiting these tiny humans in their foremost stages of development, the scientists behind this commit a heinous crime –
...ns of a morally questionable nature. It is necessary that our practices remain ethical and that we uphold the value of a human life, as this is the cornerstone of human society. Embryonic stem cell research is one such operation that forces scientists, policy makers, and the larger society to define what constitutes a human life and to find an answer to the crucial question: Is it morally acceptable to violate the rights of a human life for the for the sake of medical progress?
If we are not responsible for biotechnology and cloning, human nature can be altered into a new type of “human” or rather we will create something inhuman. Modern day biotechnology and cloning are advancing so quickly that it brings concern to human nature. With the rapid advancements, life may be able to be prolonged for eternity. Some argue that because cloning stem cells is beneficial to humanity, it is ethical.
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
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.
Due to public awareness of science, people started realise that the stem cells have the potential in developing cell-based therapies for many uncured diseases. Objectors claimed that it is morally wrong for the government to advocate stem cell research because the research demands embryos’ destruction (National Bioethics Advisory Committee [NBAC], 1999, as cited in Nisbet, 2004).’’It’s immoral that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded yearly instead of used to research cures for human suffering.” (Gilbert, 2008).In 2001, President George W. Bush made his stand to oppose the stem cell research by l...
Scientist clones human embryos, and creates an ethical challenge. New York Times. October 26, 1993: A1.
The cloning of human embryos for biomedical research has be an ethical issue ever since the opportunity presented itself. To get a better grasp of the issue, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry was read to see what the moral issues were involved with the cloning of human embryos. The paper discusses two main points: the cloning of human embryos should be used for biomedical research and the cloning of human embryos should not be used for biomedical research. The paper has broken the section for the use of cloning embryos into two positions, so there are really three positions provided in reading. I have chosen to agree with position one in the paper.
In arguing against cloning, the central debate is derived from the fact that this unnatural process is simply unethical. The alleged
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.
The concepts of human enhancement and biotechnology are fairly new terms in the world of ethics and medicine. These words, although far from being unfamiliar, are not often heard in the medical field except in special cases. However, in the past few years, the research and use of biotechnology is on the rise and becoming more prevalent under certain situations. This week’s reading focuses on the issues of biotechnology in a historical and modern context, yet also addresses the pros and cons of such developments.
The. “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>.