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. To start, it is important to understand what cloning is and the process that makes it possible. As defined by Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, cloning is “one that appears to be a copy of an original form” (233). In layman’s terms, human cloning is using medical procedures to make an exact genetic copy of an already existing or previously existing person. The process for cloning entails a method called Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. According to The University of Utah’s Genetic Science Learning Center the way SCNT is performed is “an egg cell's single set of chromosomes is removed. It is replaced by the nucleus from a somatic cell, which already contains two complete sets of chromosomes” (Genetic). Now that the egg has a complete DNA configuration, it is allowed to grow and the being that is engendered is a clone. Though the original human and the clone will have the same genome, they will not be exactly the same person. As Wray Herbert points out, there will be differences in personality an... ... middle of paper ... ... by cloning (Therapeutic 104). Be it a natural home birth, an abortion, or creating a clone, it is the choice of and only of the people involved. No one else should be given the right force another human being into having a kid or stopping them if it’s what they so choose, no matter the manner of it. 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.
... anyone has the right in such a case to decide how the embryo is to be used but the owners of the genetic material involved in its creation.
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.
“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 the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another. Every single bit of DNA is the same. There are three different types of cloning. Gene cloning produces copies of genes or fragments of DNA, reproductive cloning creates copies of whole animals, and therapeutic cloning builds embryonic stem cells for experiments aimed at creating tissues to replace injured or diseased tissues. In 1997 scientists in Scotland announced the birth of a clone. Its name was Dolly; after the American country singer. She was the clone of an adult female sheep, and the first mammal to ever be cloned successfully. As Dolly matured, she mated with a ram, and gave birth to a lamb showing that clones have the ability to reproduce. Dolly died at the age of six. According to Sheep 101, the life expectancy for a sheep is 10-12 years, but some sheep can live up to 20 years.
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.
For child conceived through In Vitro Fertilization and/or egg donation, in some cases, the feelings are harder to explain. Questions get more difficult, and explaining their conception becomes a science presentation. Bioengineering through egg donation and/or IVF should be made totally illegal in the United States because of the violation to the natural rights of both donors and their children, unethical handling and disposal of fertilized embryos, negative impacts
First and foremost, it is important to discuss what human cloning is. It is the conception of in vitro embryos that produces “individuals that are exact genetic copies of the donor from whom the DNA was obtained” (Munson 366). In Laymen’s terms, cells are inserted from the donor host into an unfertilized egg from another host (meaning it is asexual) and the new egg is transferred into the surrogate mother where it will foster into an embryo, if effective.
Imagine yourself walking down the street, forty or fifty years from now. Everything is normal, there people walking to their destinations. You continue to walk your way, minding your own business, when all of a sudden you realize you are see a lot of the same people more than once. You just take it to mean that there are a lot of people walking in circles. As your day continues you see more and more of the same people. Meeting up with one of your friends you asks, "hey, lately, have you noticed that everyone looks like everyone else?" Your friend looks at you with disbelief, "haven't you been paying attention to the news, and the papers? Everyone, that can afford it, is getting cloned."
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.
Human cloning destroys individuality and uniqueness. “What makes people unique is the fact that we have different genes and cloning would lose these important parts of our bodies makeup.” There would be less of a variety of people and everyone would be the same. This would not only be the good qualities, but also the bad that would pass on. Since clones and the original donor will look alike and have the same DNA, it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference. Overtime, they would lose their individuality and uniqueness. For example, say a crime was committed.
At first glance, assisted procreation practices do not necessarily violate a child’s right to identity. The violation lies in the fact that the state is not taking a serious enough stance on regulating the issues that emerge from assisted procreation technologies. The state is voluntarily removing its responsibilities in regulating this field by allowing cases of donor confusion, the implantation of too many embryos and the disorganization of donor files. Instead of imposing criminal sanctions or punishments, the state is too often turning a blind eye.
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...
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).
The creation of Dolly revolutionized the scientific world and sparked a flaming debate of what might one day become reality. Humans now had the power to intentionally create what is essentially a copy of another organism. One day humans might also be able to create a copy of other humans as well. The question that loomed over our heads since then is whether human cloning is ethical. Furthermore, would the cloning of larger, more complex animals such as livestock and pets be ethical? Supporters of this cutting edge technology often found, and still find themselves outnumbered by those who strongly oppose cloning. The minority is by no means wrong; their arguments are just as well grounded as their opponents’, sometimes better. Likewise, the other side is also well reasoned. Cloning has many assets, despite obvious faults. It is prudent to investigate the affirmative arguments for cloning rather than just looking at faults.