The essay, “Cloning Reality: Brave New World” by Wesley J. Smith, provides a somewhat distorted view of the effects of cloning. He feels that cloning will prevent human life from being seen as sacred and will ruin the great diversity that exists today. He feels that cloning in fact, could be the end of society, and create a world where people are just resources. I somewhat agree with Wesley because I think that the cloning of humans would be greatly over used. Because of this, human life would be greatly alike meaning that fewer jobs will be filled. For example, if you clone a person 100 times then you would have 100 clones that are only good in one skill area. Human cloning is a very controversial subject. Some supporters say that cloning people could be a great advance in science and can …show more content…
Smith explains how eugenicists want to create homogeneity among humans, valuing traits such as intellect and appearance instead of creativity and humour. He feels that this would create an abnormal society of humans, creating disarray among humanity. Currently, cloning is in its very basic stages, and most research being done is for medical purposes. By improving our understanding of cloning and genetic engineering, scientists can eliminate genetic diseases and so called “unwanted” traits. But who would want to live in a world without humour or creativity. Would you? These “unwanted” traits and diseases make us unique. The only good part about cloning is getting rid of disease which can be achieved by vaccines. Wesley states in his argument: “Eugenics, as awful as it is, is only the beginning of the threat posed to the natural order by human cloning.”. Science is about learning about the world around us and creating it, but not by cloning. We should be striving to make new people not the same person over and over again. Cloning will prevent us from acquiring further knowledge of medicine and life itself because we would just be seeing the same thing over and over
Silver’s argument illustrates to his audience that reproductive cloning is permissible, but most people in 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.
When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1959, they could not have known that their discovery would one day lead to the possibility of a human factory that is equipped with the capabilities to mass produce perfectly designed, immortal human beings on a laboratory assembly line. Of course, this human factory is not yet possible; genetic technology is still in its infancy, and scientists are forced to spend their days unlocking the secret of human genetics in hopes of uncovering cures for diseases, alleviating suffering, and prolonging life. In the midst of their noble work, scientists still dream of a world—a utopia—inhabited by flawless individuals who have forgotten death and never known suffering. What would become of society if such a utopia existed? How will human life be altered? Leon Kass, in Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, acknowledges genetics technology’s greatness, and applauds it for its invaluable, benevolent contributions to mankind. However, Kass argues that if left to their devises and ambitions, geneticists—with the power of their technology—will steal away society’s most precious asset; genetic technology will rob society of its humanity. Genetic technology can, and will, achieve great things, but unless it is regulated and controlled, the losses will be catastrophic and the costs will far exceed the benefits.
In The Case Against Perfection, Sandel warns us of the dangers that genetic engineering, steroids, and hormones poses to society and the natural order. According to Sandel, this type of control, especially in non-medical settings, violates a respect for life that should be ingrained in all of us. Life is something difficult to predict, something that shouldn’t bend to our every single will and desire. Genetic engineering, and the like, presents an egregious violation of this respect. According to Sandel, this violation serves only to reverse the human march of progress. Sandel weaves a well-balanced argument in his book. The issue of eugenic technology is most definitely not black or white. According to him, the aspects of modification can be applied selectively, so long as it doesn’t violate the respect for life society should hold closely.
Automatically when people talk about human cloning that tend to be negative. Most reaction is people shouldn't play god or interfere with nature. Of course there are negative consequences that could come from cloning. On the other hand there is so many positive things that could save more lives than it would cost. Yes Cloning involves risky techniques that could result in premature babies and some deaths. That is why public policy needs to be changed on cloning. The medical possibilities are endless if federal money is given to research and develop cloning techniques.
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.
Jerry L. Hall, then a researcher at the George Washington University Medical Center, presented the results of his in-vitro fertilization experiment at the 1993 meeting of the American Fertility Society in Montreal. Dr. Hall gave an interesting speech and the comments on his speech consisted of "nice job" and other positive remarks. On his return to George Washington University, Dr. Hall expected the same feedback, and he was shocked when the October 26, 1993 cover of the New York Times announced, "Scientist clones human embryos, and creates an ethical challenge."
...hics for the practice of cloning human beings to be considered a resplendent idea. Furthermore, not only does cloning a human being bring ethical problems, it brings societal, as well as environmental problem as well. As you can see for those who have a malevolent mindset, it could easily be used as a weapon. Even in the simple goal of prolonging one’s life with another’s, the use of integrity, moral, and ethics are slowly eradicated. The problems that would arise from the practice of cloning human beings highly outweigh the number of benefits that come with the practice of cloning human beings. Ultimately, I believe that we should just stop the idea of cloning human beings because, as was expressed by the character Ian Malcolm, in Jurassic Park so well, “… your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
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.
There are many questions surrounding the concept of cloning. Is it morally correct? Are 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.
Secondly, “the most the human race has to loose by playing around with cloning is that the genetic diversity would be lost (Andrea Castro, 2005).” Reducing the genetic differences will produce clones that are grossly overlarge, many animals will be born with genetic mutations, and there will be a higher “risk of disease transfer (Saskaschools, 2003). “A review of all the world's cloned animals suggests that every one of them is genetically and physically defective (Leake, 2002).” Mutations will be passed on to the younger generation because if a cloned species has a mutation in their DNA this mutation will be passed on. Cloning has been linked with diseases of ageing, arthritis and, cancer.
When created in 1923, the American Eugenics Society exemplified an air of reform with a seemingly positive purpose, however this cannot be further from the truth. In reality, the society polluted the air with myths of weeding out imperfections with the Galtonian ideal, the breeding of the fittest (Carison). The founder of the society, Charles Davensport , preached that those who are imperfect should be eliminated(Marks). From the school desk to the pulpit, the fallacies of the eugenics movement were forced into society. Preachers often encouraged the best to marry the best while biology professors would encourage DNA testing to find out ones fate (Selden). A...
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.
New technological advances are being mad every day, especially in genetics. With great innovations comes concerns whether it will have a good cause or be used for bad intentions. One of these is eugenics, the idea to improve genetic composition in humans most specifically in future fetuses. The idea started in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton who wanted to selectively breed humans using desired traits to create a perfect human race. This lead to many unethical moments in history such as the sterilization of unfit humans in the 19th century as well as Hitler’s use of eugenics during WWII. However, current use helps identify possible inherited diseases/conditions in unborn children and remove those traits from the DNA. Although eugenics has been used