cloning 3215 words College Essay Example
cloning 3215 words College Essay Example

cloning 3215 words College Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 12 (3242 words)
  • Published: October 18, 2018
  • Type: Essay
View Entire Sample
Text preview

The next step was to clone actual human beings but before experiments could have been carried out pressure started build on the scientists because people started to doubt if cloning was ethical and morally correct. Governments began to introduce bans and constraints on cloning, as they felt cloning was not correct and because they represented the people of its country, it had to act on it. Cloning has its cons but its pros seem to overcome them greatly.

If cloning were allowed to be experimented scientists would come up of a way to clone body organs which are an exact replica of an individual body organ. This would prove very to be very beneficial to a person who may have lost a body organ such as a kidney, scientists could clone that particular organ for the individual, which, in the long run, would work better than a transpla

...

nt organ.

Cloning will certainly expand the scope of medicine greatly, thus enhance the possibilities of conquering diseases such as the Parkinson's disease, cancer and other diseases that were earlier considered incurable

Cloning could be used to increase the population of endangered species of animals and thus save them from total extinction. This would help maintain a natural balance on the earth and have a continuos natural life cycle.

Cloning could certainly benefit couples who are infertile and want to have a child of their own, thus they could use cloning to produce a baby with their similar characteristics. In fact they may be able to even choose the characteristics of their child. Equally important women who are single could have child, using cloning instead of artificial insemination. Cloning could also provid

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

a copy of a child for a couple whose child had died.

Another goal of cloning is to produce livestock with ideal characters for the agricultural industry and to be able to manufacture biological products such as proteins for humans.

Some people would suggest that cloning is unnatural and not ethically correct but so would be talking medicine when you fall sick. The whole of the modern medicine world in based on unnaturalness, so it seems cloning would be part of that modern medicine world. Some people also suggest that clones of human beings would behave in different ways than a normal human being would however this is also wrong as the clones will behave like any other human being would behave as it will have all the characteristics of a normal human being, as long as the individual who was cloned had human characteristics, it wont really matter.

In conclusion I would like to say that, as you've seen above, cloning could be used in various ways to benefit the lives of humans .It is inevitable that cloning, at some stage, will play an important, if not vital, part in our lives therefore it is about time that society accepts this fact and lifts all constraints upon cloning so that more research can be carried out and help eliminate any risks associated with cloning.

Cloning is Ethically and Morally Wrong

The question shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make them all human. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is ethically

and morally wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the implications of human and non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly. No direct conclusions have been drawn, but compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups. The following issues dealing with cloning and its ethical and moral implications will be addressed: cloning of human beings would result in severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human species subjects them to unethical or moral treatment for human needs.

The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Fact: Adler 1996). If those nuclei were human, "the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage" (Logic: Kluger 1997). Even Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, "the more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong" (Expert Opinion). The psychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but none the less, very plausible. In addition to physical harms, there! are worries about the psychological harms on cloned human

children. One of those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many argue that cloning crates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to consider the definition of self. Gilbert Meilaender commented on the importance of genetic uniqueness not only to the child but to the parent as well when he appeared before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on March 13, 1997. He states that "children begin with a kind of genetic independence of the parent. They replicate neither their father nor their mother. That is a reminder of the independence that the parent must eventually grant them...To lose even in principle this sense of the child as a gift will not be good for the children" (Expert Opinion). Others look souly at the child, like philosopher Hans Jonas. He suggests that humans have an inherent "right to ignorance" or a quality of "separateness." Hum! an cloning, in which there is a time gap between the beginning of the lives of the earlier and later twin, is fundamentally different from homozygous twins that are born at the same time and have a simultaneous beginning of their lives. Ignorance of the effect of one's genes on one's future is necessary for the spontaneous construction of life and self (Jonas 1974). Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family of and the cloned child. It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical, but it is just the same. The cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical treatment purely for human needs (Expert Opinion: Price 97). Western culture and tradition has long held the

belief that the treatment of animals should be guided by different ethical standards than the treatment of humans. Animals have been seen as non feeling and savage beasts since time began. Humans in general have no problem with seeing animals as objects to be used whenever it becomes necessary. But what would happen if humans started to use animals as body for growing human organs? Where is the line drawn between human and non human? If a primate was cloned so that it grew human lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart., what would it then be? What if we were to learn how to clone functioning brains and have them grow inside of chimps? Would non-human primates, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes via transgenic technology, be defined as still a chimp, a human, a subhuman, or something else? If defined as human, would we have to give it rights of citizenship? And if humans were to carry non-human transgenic genes, would that alter our definitions and treatment of them(Deductive Logic: Kluger 1997)? Also, if the technology were to be so that scientists could transfer human genes into animals and vice-versa, that would heighten the danger of developing zoonoses, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans. It could create a world wide catastrophe that no one would be able to stop (Potential Risks). In conclusion, the ethical and moral implications of cloning are such that it would be wrong for the human race to support or advocate it. The sheer loss of life in both humans and non-humans is enough to prove that cloning would be a foolish endeavor, whatever

the cause.

Cloning: Why we shouldn't be against it

You have been told that you are unique. The belief that there is no one else like you in the whole world made you feel special and proud. This belief may not be true in the future.

The world was stunned by the news in late February 1997 that a British embryologist named Ian Wilmut and his research team had successfully cloned a lamb named Dolly from an adult sheep. Dolly was created by replacing the DNA of one sheep's egg with the DNA of another sheep's udder. While plants and lower forms of animal life have been successfully cloned for many years now, before Wilmut's announcement it had been thought by many to be unlikely that such a procedure could be performed on higher mammals. The world media was immediately filled with heated discussions about the ethical implications of cloning.

Some of the most powerful people in the world have felt compelled to act against this threat. President Clinton swiftly imposed a ban on federal funding for human-cloning research. Bills are in the works in both houses of Congress to outlaw human cloning which it taken to be a fundamentally evil thing that must be stopped. But what is exactly bad about it? From an ethical point of view , it is difficult to see exactly what is wrong with cloning human beings. The people who are afraid of cloning tend to think that someone will break into Napoleon's Tomb, steal some DNA and make 2000 emperors. In reality, cloning would be probably used by infertile people who now use donated sperm, eggs, or embryos. Do

the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits of cloning? From what we know now, they don't. Therefore, we should not rush to ban a potentially useful method of helping infertile, genetically at-risk, or single people to become parents.

We can start by asking whether human beings have a right to reproduce. I say " Yes". I have no moral right to tell other people they shouldn't be able to have children, and I don't see that Bill Clinton has that right either. If humans have a right to reproduce, what right does society have to limit the means? Essentially all reproduction is done these days with medical help- at delivery, and even before. Truly natural human reproduction would make pregnancy-related death the number.1 killer of adult women.

OF course, some forms of medical help are more invasive than others. With in vitro fertilization, the sperm and egg are combined in the lab and surgically implanted in the womb. Less than two decades ago, a similar concern was raised over the ethical issues involved in " test-tube babies". Today, nearly 30,000 such babies have been born in the United States alone. Many parents have been made happy. So what low or principle says that one combination of genetic material in a flask is Ok, but another is not?

Nature clones people all the time, and rather frequently. Approximately 1 in 1000 birth is of identical twins. However, despite how many or how few individual characteristics twins have in common, they are different people. They have their own identities, their own thoughts, and their own rights. They enter different occupations, get different diseases, have different experiences with marriage,

alcohol, community leadership, and etc. They have different souls as would cloned individuals. Even if somebody did clone 2,000 Napoleons, they would be even more different from their parents than twins are from each other because the cloned child would be raised in a different historical period. The argument that cloning robs individuals of their individuality therefore doesn't hold.

Perhaps the strongest ethical argument against cloning is that it could lead to a new , unfamiliar type of family relationship. We have no idea what it would be like to grow up as the child of a parent who seems to know you from inside. Some psychological characteristics may be biologically based and the parent will know in advance what crises a cloned teenager will go through and how he or she will respond. It may produce a good and loving relationship, because the parent may understand, to greater degree than most parents, what the child is going through. ON the other hand, most children want to have their own space. Still, just because a family relationship is new and untried, is not a reason to condemn it automatically. IN the past . ,many types of family relationships were considered harmful but later showed to cause no harm to the children. Among these are joint custody after divorce, gay and lesbian parenting, and interracial adoption. As with adoption, in-vitro fertilization, and use of donor sperm, how the child will react to the news about his /her arrival in the world will depend to a large extent on how the parents themselves feel about this mode of reproduction. Parents and children may adjust to cloning far

more easily than we might think, just as it happened with in-vitro fertilization.

One recurring image in anti-cloning propaganda is of some evil dictator raising an army of cloned warriors. But who is going to raise such an army. Clones start out life as babies. It is much easier to recruit young adults than to take care of babies for 20 years. Remember that cloning isn't the same as genetic engineering. We can't make supermen-we have to find him first and his bravery might- or might not - be genetically determined.

Some of you might think that cloning is playing God. However, can you really say that you know God's intentions. There is substantial disagreement as to what is God' s will. But what I find interesting in this argument is something I read in article "Cloning: Will They Soon Clone Human Beings?" by Garner Ted Armstrong who wrote: " Anyone who has truly proved God exists; that God isn't only Creator, but Lifegiver, Designer, Sustainer, and Ruler over all his creation, knows that the human family began with one man, and that a wife, miraculously created form his own body and as unique and original a creation as Adam himself, formed the first family. Though God's miraculous creation of Eve was far from cloning, it is interesting to note in passing that God's own Word says He used Adam's rib-physical bone and tissue - to create Eve."

Another argument against cloning is that it would be available only to the wealthy and therefore would increase social inequality. What else is new? This is the story of American health care. We need a better health

care system, no a ban on new technologies.

To summarize, human cloning and cloning research shouldn't be made illegal by the U.S. Federal Government because it may provide a way for completely sterile individuals to reproduce, it may provide a way for homosexual couples to reproduce themselves, it probably will provide a valuable basic research and possible spin off technologies related to reproduction and development, our society has respected general right to control ones body in regard to reproduction, and finally prohibiting it would violate the fundamental freedom of scientific inquiring.

Will human cloning be done? Undoubtedly. The technique used in sheep cloning does not require a highly sophisticated laboratory. Since the United States government doesn't support research on the human cloning, and the United Kingdom, France , and Germany have banned cloning, the research making cloning possible may take place in Asia, Eastern Europe, or the Near East. Much of it may take place in secret, and it will occur regardless of any United States policy. According to the ˆ.. approximately 80 % of Americans feel that cloning is wrong. However, the vast majority of people, including those who rail against cloning research , owe their very lives to previous medical discoveries. Don't let the forces of ignorance and fear turn us back from the research, and at this point, do not worry about Napolion's Tomb . Only living cells can be cloned.

http://noairtogo.tripod.com/lostcity.htm

I have heard reports of a city, a city that disappears each year. It is not a large city but rather a smaller sized one of about 5000 people. This disappearing city doesn't just leave us like Brigadoon, the mythic Scottish town,

but it vanishes one person at a time and is never to be seen again. The borders of our town are vast as the United States of America for such a small town it covers a lot of territory. Being small in numbers doesn't hinder its influence for it spans the ethnic borders of race. Gender and economic borders make no difference for this killer has no heart. Age is not given a thought as young and old are both taken, for this malignancy is no respecter of persons.

The death of a city is a serious thing yet each year a city dies. Each year around 5000 people disappear never to be seen again. These people are as diverse in their background as the population of the United States and die needlessly. They are the people that perish while on the national organ waiting list.

Each year the organ transplant list gets longer and the organs available for transplant become more scarce. Every 16 minutes a new name is added to the national patient transplant list whereas every day 12 people are taken off due to death. As of December, 25 1999 the UNOS national patient waiting list had 67,077 people on it. The total number of transplants according to the same source were 21,197 and the total removed from the waiting list due to death was 4,855. This is the small city which vanishes each year.

It is estimated that 75-85 % of the people in the United States believe that organ donation is good and right. The problem is that a lot of good and honest people, for some reason, never get around to making

a decision to fill out their organ donor card and talk to their families about their important decision. So this is not only a plea to you who read this article but also to those that are touched by you. Yes you can make a difference to the lives of many people. Not only as an organ donor but also as one that will spread the word of organ donation to your friends and family.

Remember the city that dies each year and know that there is only one way that it can be saved. That is by each one of us caring and telling people that surround us about the gift of life. Organ donation is truly the gift of life for those who wait for transplantation. Whether it be a heart, lung or any of the other organs, those on the waiting list are counting on you. There are two dates that a person cannot control in their lives -- the date of one's birth and the date of one's death. Through organ donation we can give life to those who would otherwise perish. Let us be the ones to give back life to the thousands who are counting on the all important gift of life.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New