In the world of science there is only one reason for a celebration, a scientific breakthrough. July 5, 1996 is a date in many scientists’ eyes where a party is indeed called for. A star was created, Dolly, a sheep who was successfully cloned in the hands of science. In the website article, “How Human Cloning Will Work,” the authors Cristen Conger and Kevin Bonsor use rhetoric appeals to illustrate the possible downfalls and achievements of human cloning. A detailed assessment of how the authors use logos, pathos and ethos to explain a “how to” on cloning to their audience will be analyzed.
One element the authors used in this article to persuade the readers was reasoning or logos. The author used history and statistics as a basis for his logos. One of the scientists mentioned was Zavous ands Antinori who hoped to help infertile parents to have children with the use of cloning. Zavous has a PhD in reproductive physiology, biochemistry and statistics. He has written articles that have been published worldwide. Antinori is a gynecologists and an embryologists who claimed to have used cloning to induce pregnancy in three women. However, he would not give out names and many colleagues were skeptical.
The authors give a step-by-step detail account how cloning works starting from the human egg donor to the birth of the clone and also about what therapeutic cloning is and how it could help the future of humans. To further their logical appeal, the authors show the readers that they know and understand the detail accounts of cloning starting from the beginning of creation to how it could help humans.
Also on the front page the authors write that Dolly was born on July 5 1996, but under the Time Magazine cover it says Dolly was cloned i...
... middle of paper ...
...in his research.
The persuasiveness of “How Human Cloning Will Work” utilized reasoning, some emotion and little credibility. Cristen and Kevin wrote an article to explain in more depth to an audience who contain little knowledge on human cloning. The article starts of strong with the explanation of cloning and how it works, along with famous scientists in the world of cloning. However, from there, the article’s standing diminishes through logical reasoning, emotional appeal and credibility. The article’s contains two different dates with the cloning of Dolly, uses heartstrings to grab the reader to take certain sides on the issue and mentions a scientist who has been shamed for false information. “How Human Cloning Will Work” is suppose to be an unbiased article that is a how to on cloning, however the rhetorical appeals made depletes the article and the authors.
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.
"(261)". We can not undo what has been discovered and we must ensure that all countries involved with cloning form a committee to monitor the uses of this technology to ensure that it is used in the best interest of mankind. Works Cited Bishop, Michael J. - "The 'Bishop'" The "Enemies of Promise" The Presence of Others. C Comp. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz.
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.
With the increased rate of integrating In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), there has been a steep inclination within the associated needs of specifications. Observably, the development of babies using scientific measures was initially formulated and specified for developing the diverse range of development associated with the same (Turriziani, 2014). However, these developments are noted to be creating an adverse impact on the natural course of events and subsequently, resulting with an adverse impact on the natural process of the development of babies. The initial integrations within the system of IVF for developing babies have further been initiated with the effective use of science to develop a healthy baby. Hence, the use of such progressions can be argued as not hampering the ethical needs associated with the same. Conversely, the initial progression within the same and the changes in the use of such practices are identified as unethical, as it has been acting as a threat in the natural course of development of embryos and altering the natural course of events, suspected to be imposing significant influence on infant mortality (Turriziani,
In arguing against cloning, the central debate is derived from the fact that this unnatural process is simply unethical. The alleged
Cloning is vital in American society because it will help us further our knowledge in genetics. Also cloning will make us realize how much scientists can actually accomplish knowing how to clone. Scientists were able to clone an animal in 1997. That accomplishment made all the scientist’s theories about cloning possible. It gave the scientists hope that one day they will maybe be able to clone a human because they were able to clone a mammal. Eugenics is also vital to American society. Eugenics is the practice of improving human’s genetic quality of the human population as a whole. Cloning plays a huge role in science. It’s all about genetics and DNA and what humans can do to further our knowledge with the human anatomy. Not all people agree with cloning and eugenics like some scientists do which causes a lot of controversy.
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.
The addition of a child into a family’s home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents. Instead of waiting to see if the child had the mother’s eyes, the father’s hair or Grandma’s heart problem, the parents and doctors can select the best eggs and the best sperm to create the perfect child. Many see the rise of in vitro fertilization as the second coming of the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. A process that is able to bring joy to so many parents is also seen as deciding who is able to reproduce and what child is worthy of birthing.
Cloning, a topic that has recently caused mayhem all over the world, is possible, but will it be here to stay? The astonishing news that scientists had cloned a sheep a couple of years ago sent people into panic at the thought that humans might be next. "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity" (Macklin 64). Since most of the opposition is coming from the pure disgust of actually being able to clone species, it makes it difficult for people to get away from the emotional side of the issue and analyze the major implications cloning would have for society. To better understand this controversial issue, the pros and cons of cloning will be discussed.
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.
Lauritzen, Paul. Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Google Books. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. source 12 (google books)
Cloning has existed for ages as a form of reproduction in nature. Now humans have harnessed the power to clone at will. This evokes an argument between those that support and those that do not support cloning. Among the population, there are fewer supporters than opponents. It might just be a gut reaction of humans to fear and suspect new technology, or it could be a well-founded fear. In the animal world, cloning could be used to save endangered species and increase production of livestock. In time, this relatively new technology may become a powerful and useful tool This study examines the many supporting arguments for cloning, including objectives, among them starting families, organ transplants, and medical research.
Lee Silver’s article “Reprogenetics: A Glimpse of things to Come” explores the future possibility of human cloning. Silver describes a theoretical situation of an expectant mother who is carrying her own clone. This ‘sci-fi’ plot is a looming possibility with the numerous medical advancements. As the Bible does not directly condemn human cloning Christians must infer whether this is right or wrong. Wayne Joseph’s, an author for the Christian Courier, wrote “The Ethics of Human Cloning” he describes a series of the moral implications of cloning. He asks why scientists want to clone human beings. He answers this question by writing, “…they are anxious to create a brand of create a brand of humans with whom they can experiment.” He compares their actions as being similar to Adolf Hitler during the cold war. He describes scientists’ actions as being similar to slavery. That clones would be destroyed in the misguided notion, that is purportedly to improve the quality of life.