Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is human cloning morally acceptable
Morality of human cloning
Is human cloning morally acceptable
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is human cloning morally acceptable
Is human cloning wrong? Many people over the years and today have been asking themselves that question. In my opinion cloning would be playing God. Since the beginning of time God has devised a good and proper plan to make babies. Why mess with it? The process of cloning scientifically means to genetically copy an organism and create a “replica” that has the same DNA, whose cells time have been turned back, yet the two are not exactly the same. Over the past decades many cloning experiences had failed. Cloning was first tried in 1938 by a German embryologist, Han Spemann, yet it failed. It was not until 1970 when cloning became possible. The first animals to be cloned were frogs, and over time, cows, pigs, a sheep (only Dolly), and monkeys have been successful. For example, Dolly, born July 5, 1995, was the first mammal to be successfully cloned out of 200 embryos, at Roslin institute in Scotland. The team that created her, led by Scotsman Ian Wilmut, hoped to create an animal whose cells were genetically young again, rather than prematurely adult, but on February14, 2006, six years later after she was born, they had put her to sleep. She was diagnosed with lung disease, however it’s a fairly common disease in sheep, she also had premature arthritis. Nobody knows if her death has anything to do with being cloned. Over 200 sheep failed embryos were thrown away, so if the failure rate was that high when we start to clone humans more than 200 embryos/200 human beings would die for just one embryo that would have the same DNA as someone else… think about it. The ones that may survive may die later, catch infections that’s soon leads to death, or have abnormities and many more Studies shown that 4 outta 12 cow birth mothers died. Just imagine human birth mothers, we would be killing many innocent lives. However the cloning of any species whether they are human or not its morally wrong no matter how beneficial to humanity as it may be.
People should be aware on the negatives of cloning, it’s unethical, very risky, and irreligious...in my eyes just plain wrong. In addition, cloning involves killing a great number of embryos. Therefore, out of many of animals that were cloned, very few have survived and the ones that have cant live on their own and have become dependant on scientists for everything down to oxygen.
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
The idea of creating life has intrigued people since the beginning of time. Mary Shelly in her novel Frankenstein brought this idea to life. In this novel, Victor Frankenstein created life by using advanced science and spare body parts. The idea of creating life is a current controversy. Technology now allows for the cloning of sheep. Certainly, the ability to clone humans cannot be far away. It is necessary to place restrictions on cloning research and to ban humans cloning because human cloning is immoral. Furthermore, the expectations placed on a cloned creature by society would be unbearable for the creature, and would lead to its psychological demise.
One of the biggest problems with the use of cloning is the decline in genetic diversity, continued use of cloning would lead to inbreeding, wide scale, conformity. Humans would be taking nature into their own hands.
How should we think about cloning as philosophers and feminists? Reproduction by cloning is not, in itself, morally inferior to human sexual reproduction. Moral criticism of cloning rests on condemnation of its "unnaturalness" or "impiety," but this kind of criticism should not persuade non-believers. I evaluate cloning in two phases. First, some hypothetical situations involving private choices about cloning are examined within a liberal framework. From this individualistic perspective, cloning appears no more morally problematic than sexual reproduction. A liberal feminist may welcome the possibility of human cloning as an expansion of the range of reproductive options open to women. The second phase argues for a shift in the framework of analysis in order to get a more complete evaluation of the ethical implications of human cloning, including questions of distributive justice and the ideology of reproduction.
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.
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.
Human cloning would certainly lead to social harm. If an individual led a distraught or irresponsible life, would the clone be inclined to follow in his footsteps? Because of negative publicity, this clone's life may already be in the road to destruction prior to even becoming a clone. Would you want to be the clone of Hannibal, who devoured his victims after he murdered them?
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).
1) Robertson, John A. “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 119-122.
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?
Human cloning is dangerous. It is estimated that between 95 and 98 percent of cloning experiments have failed (Genetics and Society). These downfalls to cloning are in the form of miscarriages and stillbirths (Genetics and Society). Cloned human beings also run the risk of having severe genetic abnormalities. Children cloned from adult DNA would, in a sense, already have “old” genes. These children’s main problem would be developing and growing old too quickly. This includes arthritis, appearance, and organ function. Since the chance of having a child with mental and physical problems is so much higher than that of a normally conceived child, cloning should be illegal.
Cloning can be recognized as the creation of a duplicate of an organism that already exists. For example, a human clone would be generated through the growth of an embryo that has been retrieved from the cell of a human donor. The idea of cloning has been an ongoing controversy throughout the world since the advancements of science and technology have made this possible, but there are several factors that have been holding scientists back, such as security, religion, and health. The majority of society has only learned about cloning from major motion pictures, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, and Jurassic Park, and refuse to learn from other outside sources about the serious risks. They believe that these effects, as expressed in these movies,
Assignment Submitted By Yours Name here Submitted To Yours Instructor Name here To Meet the Needs of the Course Nov., 2015.
Cloning is a very good idea but with the lack of technology needed to make it a successful tool in science it should not be a main focus. Scientists should be putting their times and their energy into figuring out the reasons for the endangered animals population instead of trying to make more the non natural way. Alought it may be more accepted than the cloning of humans it is still a subject people do not mind avoiding.
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.