More handpicked essays just for you.
Human cloning for reproduction benefits
Human cloning pros and cons essays scientific
Do the advantages of cloning outweigh the disadvantages
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Reproductive cloning is term which often brings up quarrel among individuals. Currently, reproductive cloning is forbidden across the county; however, more and more people try to argue that it should be legalized. Do we really understand the concept of the term, and we know what the potential outcomes may be if reproductive cloning were to be legalized? Granted, the idea of cloning may seem like a big step toward improving biotechnology in the world; but, despite this fact, many individuals argue against it. This paper will argue that the legalization of reproductive cloning may potentially result in social, moral and economic problems.
For those who are new to what reproductive cloning is, it is a method in which a professional takes an egg and removes the nucleus. In its place is transferred a somatic cell nucleus with all the desired genetic material. This presents the opportunity for potential parents to choose desirable characteristics of their offspring like eye color, height, and even intellect. As ideal as this may sound, reproductive cloning should not be legalized because it ultimately objects human dignity, poses a serious threat to the survival of humanity and individuality, and can segregate people’s preferences because of monetary advantages.
First, reproductive cloning is incompatible with human dignity and individuality. Cloned people lack originality and are merely copies of what we already have. This would result in a society with people who are essentially the same or extremely alike. Can we feel safe and free knowing that somewhere in the world, there is a person who is your copy? Probably not because feelings like uncertainty and anxiety may start to show. Humans are meant to be unique with his or her own o...
... middle of paper ...
...an. But how can we make the assumptions if you do not have the rights to even try to clone humans.
In conclusion, I think that reproductive cloning should not be legalized because it will bring new social, moral and economic problems. It ultimately objects human dignity, threatens the survival of humanity and individuality, and goes against humans playing God. Sevanthinathan says that reproductive cloning is powerful and has some advantages and disadvantages. One of the main disadvantages which Nordgren claims is that in the ethical presupposition, abnormalities may cause suffering to the cloned being, which is entirely unethical. On the other hand, Van den Berg, M.E.S says that to be sure that reproductive cloning is safe, cloning needs to be tested on humans, but it contradicts all factors that would even in the slightest support the idea of reproductive cloning.
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.
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.
Proponents of cloning humans today should remind themselves of the lesson of Victor Frankenstein before they have to deal with the products of their research and learn the hard way. & nbsp;
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
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.
...e pressing issue that will question our morals, ethics, and view on human dignity. As a society, we must come to a decision regarding Human Cloning and stand by it, whether it is the right decision or not. Our actions will have a profound impact on the methods of reproduction used by future generations.
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.
As mentioned before there are three positions that are involved in this debate. The first two positions state that the cloning of embryos should be allowed. However, position one puts limitations on the cloning while position two has does not. As I had stated earlier, I believe position one to be morally ethical. The last position or the third position...
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.
“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.
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
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).
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.
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.