Cloning in today’s modern society has evolved into a very sophisticated practice of making identical copies of an organism. Scientists are able to clone different animals and plants exceptionally better than they were years ago, which leads many to wonder if humans will be next. Cloning has tremendous medical and economic pros; however, the morality of cloning does raise many conflicts on whether or not it should be performed throughout the world.
First, cloning has a long history dating back thousands of years, which has allowed the process of cloning to evolve to more complex organisms. Cloning was first experimented with different plant offspring (“Cloning” n.p.). The cloning process of plants in the past was very simple and only required parts of the plant such as roots, stems, and leaves to be cut and planted, which would grow into an exact copy of the initial plant (“Cloning” n.p.). In the 1950s, scientists were able to successfully clone frogs in a more complex manner by transferring the nucleus from a tadpole cell to a frog egg that had already had its nucleus (“Cloning” n.p.). Scientists later discovered that their cloning procedure was a success when the frog that grew from the egg experimented on had the same genetic makeup as the tadpole that donated a nucleus from one of its cells (“Cloning” n.p.). Dolly the sheep is the product of the first successful cloning of a mammal (“Cloning” n.p.). “In 1997 Scottish scientist Ian Wilmut and his colleagues announced the birth of a clone of an adult mammal” (“Cloning” n.p.). Dolly was created from a cell of a breast gland from an adult sheep was put in an embryo and placed inside a sheep able to give birth (“Cloning” n.p.). Dolly was born looking identical to the shee...
... middle of paper ...
... Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
"Introduction to The Ethics of Human Cloning: At Issue." The Ethics of Human Cloning. Ed. John
Woodward. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue.Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
Economist, The. "Reproductive Cloning Is Immoral." The Ethics of Human Cloning. Ed. John
Woodward. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 1 May 2014.
Kass, Leon R. "The United States Should Ban Reproductive Cloning and Place a Moratorium on
Research Cloning." Cloning. Ed. Jacqueline Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Defending Life and Dignity: How, Finally, to Ban Human Cloning." The Weekly Standard 13.23 (25 Feb. 2008). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
Postrel, Virginia. “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress.” In Dynamic Argument. Ed. Robert Lamm and Justin Everett. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 420-23.
Kass, Leon, and James Q. Wilson, eds. The ethics of human cloning. American Enterprise Institute, 1998.
Brown, Alistair. "Therapeutic Cloning: The Ethical Road To Regulation Part I: Arguments For And Against & Regulations." Human Reproduction & Genetic Ethics 15.2 (2009): 75-86. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
Human cloning is the process by which genetic material from one person would be artificially transferred into a human or animal egg cell, thereby beginning the life of a new human individual who has only one parent and who is genetically identical to that parent. The once impossible idea of cloning became a reality in 1997 when Scottish embryologist Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced that a cloned sheep named Dolly was born. Dolly was created by removing the nucleus from a sheep egg cell and replacing it in the nucleus of a cell taken from the udder of another sheep. This said might sound good, but there are other pieces of information that need to be known about this process. ...
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
Cloning has been in nature for thousands of years, a clone is a living thing made from another consisting of the same DNA. For example identical twins are clones because they have the same DNA but the differ because the twins begin after conception when a zygote, a totipotent stem cell, divides into two, some plants self-pollinate and produce a seed, which in turn, makes plants with the same genetic code (Hyde). According to the Human Genome Project there are three types of cloning, DNA, therapeutic and reproductive; DNA cloning involves transferring DNA from a donor to another organism, therapeutic cloning, known as embryo cloning, involves harvesting stem cells from human embryos to grow new organs for transplant, and last is reproductive cloning which creates a copy of the host (Conger). One of the earliest cloned animals was a sea urchin by Hans Dreisch in the late 1800’s. Unlike Victor Frankenstein, Dreisch’s goal was to prove that genetic material is not lost in cell division, not to create another being, (History of Cloning) stated by Frankenstein “that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet.” There are many ways an animal...
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
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 is a recent innovative technique the National Institute of Health defines as a process employed to produce genetically identical copies of a biological entity. Depending on the purpose for the clone, human health or even human life can be improved or designed respectively. “Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the most common cloning technique. SCNT involves putting the nucleus of a body cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed."^1 From this technique, an embryonic cell is activated to produce an animal that is genetically identical to the donor. Today, human cloning still remains as a vision, but because of the success of Dolly, the lamb, researchers are becoming more confident in the ability to produce a genuine
Brannigan, C. Michael. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, Chatham House Publishers, 2001.
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.
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?
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>.