In “Jennifer and Rachel,” Lee M. Silver argues that reproductive cloning deems permissible to those who encourage it, as opposed to those who reject it and don’t want to run the risk of how they’ll look in the eyes of society. Jennifer, an independent career driven woman, believes that the best way to have a baby of her own at her age is by cloning. Silver’s description of the cloning procedure is done by retrieving cells from the willing adult; prepare the cells for merging to unfertilized eggs, and then the embryos that develop successfully will be introduced to the uterus of the willing adult. Jennifer partakes in the cloning procedure and it was successful. Nine months later on March 15, 2050, Rachel was born.
Silver believes that Rachel will grow up just like any other child, but she will be “special.” Until the day that reproductive cloning is accepted in society, Rachel will be known for being “special.” Genetically, Jennifer isn’t Rachel’s mother. Jennifer is in fact Rachel’s twin sister. Rachel’s grandparents not only have the title of grandparents, but of Rachel’s genetic parents as well. Therefore, when considering cloning, reconsideration of the roles of relatives should be taken into account.
According to Silver, William Safire, columnist of The New York Times, views cloning as a way of taking someone’s identicality away. The uniqueness of the cloned person would be lacking, thus evolution would be restricted. Silver says that Safire is wrong because evolution and the progress of mankind don’t intertwine, and is unpredictable. Safire, along with almost everyone, cannot prove arguments of religion because religion is simply not provable. Silver thinks that some religious people are concerned that clonin...
... middle of paper ...
... Silver’s motive behind surreptitious cloning is that most people will still look down upon it even if they accept other practices of the cloning procedures and technology. Those who will participate run the risk of intruding upon someone else’s reproductive rights. Silver thinks surreptitious cloning will occur, but the question is when and where that will take place.
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.
Therapeutic cloning is the process whereby parts of a human body are grown independently from a body from STEM cells collected from embryos for the purpose of using these parts to replace dysfunctional ones in living humans. Therapeutic Cloning is an important contemporary issue as the technology required to conduct Therapeutic Cloning is coming, with cloning having been successfully conducted on Dolly the sheep. This process is controversial as in the process of collecting STEM cells from an embryo, the embryo will be killed. Many groups, institutions and religions see this as completely unacceptable, as they see the embryo as a human life. Whereas other groups believe that this is acceptable as they do not believe that the embryo is a human life, as well as the fact that this process will greatly benefit a large number of people. In this essay I will compare the view of Christianity who are against Therapeutic Cloning with Utilitarianism who are in favour of Therapeutic Cloning.
In 2001 scientist attempted to create a cloned human embryo, they had consulted all the necessary sources before getting the “ok” to begin “creating”. Then they had to find a female subject to donate eggs. To start the process of cloning they need to use a very fine needle and get the genetic information from a mature egg. Then they inject it into the nucleus of a donor cell. The female donors were asked to take psychological and physical tests to screen for diseases and what not.
Cloning is an exciting and ongoing field of study with many great possibilities, and negative drawbacks; this leaves many Christians wrestling with the idea of cloning, trying to decide where to stand on, for or against it. To follow, in the paper is an explanation of what cloning is and the uses of cloning at the present and projected in the future. After that the focus will be on the problems with cloning from a non-ethical stance. Finally the issue of cloning and Christian’s views on it will be addressed.
.... Until a successful attempt of creating life emerges in upcoming history, the possibility of cloning may never reveal its truth. Matters of opinion judge the positive and negative outcomes of artificial animal reproduction, and numerous instances prove its everlasting positive outlook for world community, science, and theology.
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 the essay, Cloning Reality: Brave New World by Wesley J. Smith, a skewed view of the effects of cloning is presented. Wesley feels that cloning will end the perception of human life as sacred and ruin the great diversity that exists today. He feels that cloning may in fact, end human society as we know it, and create a horrible place where humans are simply a resource. I disagree with Wesley because I think that the positive effects of controlled human cloning can greatly improve the quality of life for humans today, and that these benefits far outweigh the potential drawbacks that could occur if cloning was misused.
“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.
There are rivals of human cloning that believe it goes against the morals they were raised with. Some think reproductive cloning can be considered unethical and against god’s “wishes” since the clones were created by man and their conception does not occur naturally. Viewing from the social aspects, organizations like The Americans to Ban Cloning (ABC) coalition reason that the creation of genetically superior beings will only further divide society. The genetically greater humans will be, theoretically, more intelligent and more attractive compared to normally conceived beings. Thus, the thought of normal means of reproduction becomes impractical. Others believe that genetically engineering a human would get rid of the concept of diversity since the same “perfect” genes would be used repeatedly. Subsequently, the creation of the “perfect” gene will require an extensive amount of time and experimentation. This will create an understanding that children are designed and replicated for certain
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
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.
Following the successful cloning of a lamb to produce Dolly, a genetically identical twin of its mother lamb, controversy has arose over the frightening prospects of cloning technology. Although undeniable that the ability to clone livestock and even humans is a leap in medical advancement, such technology must be utilized with careful considerations to the issue of ethics.
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>.
Although the purpose of therapeutic cloning is not to manufacture a new individual, there are still debates on whether it is morally acceptable. There are different perspectives on all matter of this subject. Most contrasting are a fetalist and a feminist perspective. The details are extremely complex in the way both assess the topic of instrumental use of embryos, but the opinion on research is still debatable. Our generation is facing heavy involvement in this dispute as the future
Cloning involves the process of producing a cell, tissue, or even a complete organism from a single cell. The DNA sequence is replicated from the original biological unit. There are two types of cloning, natural and somatic cell transfer. Cloning of plants or bacteria is natural. Plants have been duplicated for many years by replicating itself and growing. Bacteria are cloned through the process of mitosis, division of a single cell. Somatic cell transfer cloning is completed when cells are copied and transferred. Genes maintain genetic codes that hold our inherited information. Gene mapping is used to establish order.
This dialogue is between two students at the university. Steve is a little uncomfortable about cloning, while Sally presents many valid arguments in favor of it. Steve presents many moral questions that Sally answers.