Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religious view on cloning
Morally aspect of cloning individuals
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: Religious view on cloning
When people think of the word cloning they think of evil scientist in a dark laboratory’s full of dangerous and scary instruments of science for conducting experiments, when actually the word clone means, “a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived (Dictionary.com).” In the past 50 years the science community has made many discoveries such as the cures for different life threatening diseases, different techniques of approaching different types of cancer, and different uses for the practice of cloning. Different people have many opinions about cloning. Some people in the medical field support the practice of cloning, because they believe it can help cure certain diseases by watching how they develop during the cloning process. But some people in the medical field do not support the practice of cloning, because they feel as if it is just a waste of time, and waste of money. Other people do not support the practice of cloning for religious reasons; because they feel as if things are suppose to live once and if a once living organism is artificially reproduced then it is defying the divine grace of God.
Sir Isaac Newton says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and just as some people of the science community support the practice of cloning, other people of the science community reject the practice of cloning for science. Some people of the science community reject the practice for reasons; such controlling sexual orientation for a baby, creating a race of sub humans that could be used for slavery or cheap labor, and killing embryos. When it comes to having children most expecting parents are excited to know that they will be...
... middle of paper ...
... believe that you, "Honor your father and mother (Ephesians 6:2)”, but since clones are bioengineered, they will not be able to follow the written word of God. Some religious communities believe that scientists shouldn't receive government funding to satisfy their own god-complexes and that humans should never become more powerful than God. They feel as if, “Our Lord has made it very clear that only He can create human life. He is very upset with scientists' efforts with regard to stem cell research and cloning (Bainbridge)”, and that the scientist should put an end to the effort of cloning, to put more effort towards the research and development of medicine. When it comes to family religious groups believe that family is the most important in their life followed by God, and they feel as if cloning could somehow corrupt traditional family relationships and lineage.
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.
...eir own image of a human and defying the Bible’s moral standards. Scientists are becoming more knowledgeable and taking the place of God and taking away the use of sexually reproducing. There is no guarantee that cloned humans will be normal, they may have diseases that are unknown to scientists now. Cloned humans may have half the life of a normal human, and there is no guarantee that the clone will have the same personality as the original person, for example, if Abraham Lincoln was cloned there is no way to know if he will become a serial killer, or be pro slavery.
His act of science would question if cloning was a practical and morally acceptable thing to do. Firstly, even attempting to clone insults God's role as a creator. Showing full determination, Aldona says, "Christian, however, feel that we have no right to play the role of God, because He is the only one Creator and act of creation depends on Him." (Zbikowska 13-16). We know God's role is to create men, women, animals and nature in his image in the way he sees perfect, not the way we see ourselves as perfect. God has the intention of making us, and when others try to mimic him it deteriorates his role in the world. Aside from the idea that cloning is insulting to God, it can also hurt others. Even though cloning has been developing for the past few decades, it is still a fairly unsuccessful procedure. In most cases, cloning is successful only less than one percent of the time. Moreover,
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.
Genetic cloning has become an issue in these past years, and many questions have arisen due to this scientific breakthrough. As with any new technology, ethical and moral ideals have clashed between those who support it and those who favor the opposing side. The dispute involves what to do with our ability to clone and manipulate DNA of human beings, plants, and animals, and whether it is ethical for us to pursue research and experiments with genetics or whether it is people just playing "God". Genetic cloning is a problem because it splits the country and for many of its questionable natures causing people not to trust it. Yes, it is a proven fact that people are scared of what they do not know about, and with genetic cloning, they have a very good reason to be both scared and relieved.
Cloning is, and always has been an extremely contentious topic. To some, the ethical complications surrounding it, are far more promiscuous than what scientists and medical experts currently acknowledge. Cloning is a general term that refers to the process in which an organism, or discrete cells and genes, undergo genetic duplication, in order to produce an identical copy of the original biological matter. There are two main types of artificial cloning; reproductive and therapeutic, both of which present their respective benefits and constraints. This essay aims to discuss the various differences between the two processes, as well as the ethical issues associated with it.
In order to strongly argue against cloning, there must be an understanding of its process and what exactly it is. Simply stated, a clone is a duplicate just like a photocopy. A good example of such “copies” that occur are identical twins, which are duplicates of each other. “The first step of DNA cloning is to isolate a complete gene and is to chromosomal sequences and then to gradually begin flaking the chromosomal sequences of a single DAN molecule. Then the DNA clone can be electronically labeled and used as a probe to isolate the chromosomal sequences from a collection of different types of genes, which should contain cloned sequences that would represent the whole gene. This action will produce new sets of cloned cells identical to the mother cell. The new set of cells are isolated and likewise the simplified process is repeated all over again until the cells form a complete organ. In order to produce a complete organism the DNA must be altered in a variety of way to come out with the finished product to be the complete organism.” In simple terms, a cell is taken from a donor woman. Then an unfertilized egg is taken from a second woman. The DNA from the cell is removed and transferred to the egg. The egg is then implanted into a surrogate mother. The resulting baby is genetically identical to the original donor.
Perhaps cloning is not the answer and our society should leave reproduction up to the natural ways. But then one must ask themselves the question of 'why not'. Is there some horrible outcome that will back fire due to the aberrant ways of creating a child? Is bring...
“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.
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.
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...
Recent discoveries involving cloning have sparked ideas of cloning an entire human body (ProQuest Staff). Cloning is “the production of an organism with genetic material identical to that of another organism” (Seidel). Therapeutic cloning is used to repair the body when something isn’t working right, and it involves the production of new cells from a somatic cell (Aldridge). Reproductive cloning involves letting a created embryo develop without interference (Aldridge). Stem cells, if isolated, will continue to divide infinitely (Belval 6). Thoughts of cloning date back to the beginning of the twentieth century (ProQuest Staff). In 1938, a man decided that something more complex than a salamander should be cloned (ProQuest Staff). A sheep named Dolly was cloned from an udder cell in 1997, and this proved that human cloning may be possible (Aldridge). In 1998, two separate organizations decl...
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>.
Recently cloning has become a popular practice to bring back pets. The thought that people can, “play god” isn’t liked by popular groups. Mainly christians protest againsit.would anyone like to bring bring back a dog or cat that you lost?Many other people would love do bring back a loved pet.