Human cloning is it ethical? I think that human cloning should be banned. The president's stand on human cloning is the same, he believes that all forms of cloning should be banned. Sure cloning has its benefits, but it is not our job to "play God." Human cloning is unethical there are also health risks, emotional risks, risks of abuse of the technology, and over population which leads to global warming. Human cloning is immoral, we know little about it which makes it dangerous with lots of risks. First of all there are health risks, which is the biggest disadvantage with human cloning. People who agree with human cloning agree with it because of the benefits that could do on people?s health, but they should consider the health risks. There …show more content…
How will a child be able to distinguish between her mother, and her sister? For example baby Eve was born by caesarian section in Miami on Thursday, weighs 3.1kg and is the exact genetic duplicate of her 31-year-old US mother, according to Clonaid head Brigitte Boisselier. If a father sees his wife's clone grow up into the exact replica of the individual he fell in love with, would a sexual relationship with his wife's twin be wrong? How would they feel if they knew they were a replacement for another? Cloning denies an individual to their own identity. Cloning simply re-creates the genes of the person, not their memories or personality. It is not easy to lose one loved one, but the thought of losing several would be …show more content…
If cloning is not ban and becomes legal people are going to want to clone celebrities, inventors, and athletes from the past. Nature chose them to be born and die during a certain time. No doctor, scientist, or geneticist has or should be given the power to create life by means of genetic technology. Such power is dangerous and could be abused. What would Hitler have done with cloning technology had it been invented in the 1940s? Human cloning would not only lack individuality but could produce a new race of individuals who could be easily manipulated. Leaders today would use this to create clone soldiers and use them to take over the
There are many questions surrounding the concept of cloning. Is it morally correct? Are clones
Long after Shelley wrote her classic masterpiece Frankenstein and Huxley wrote Brave New World, the ethical controversy of cloning conflicts with modern artificial intelligence research. The question that challenges the idea of negative or positive behavior in a replicated machine relies on its similarity to the source of the clone, whether it emulates human behavior or acts as a “superintelligence” with supernatural characteristics void of human error. Humanity will not know the absolute answers concerning behavioral outcome without creating a physical being, an idea portrayed in Shelley’s Frankenstein in which the creation of a monster emulates from his creator’s attempts to generate life. At the time of the novel’s publication, the idea of replicating a soul portrayed a nightmarish theme with little consideration for the potential scientific advancements to facilitate in reality. It lead the genetic idea of manmade intelligence and its ethics emerging from the relativity of space, time, and original life on the planet. The debate of the existing possibility of sentient machines continues to progress, but the consideration of ethical questions such as “Should we create these artificial people?” and “How does this enactment define the soul and mind?” warranted from primitive questions about machine learning within the last century. After the initial proof of possibility for sentient machines, the perfection of cloning will generate “good” behavior at its perfect state several generations from now. The perfect machine portrays the potential for sensible human behaviors including compassion, mentality, empathy, alertness, and love. Humanity of the twenty-first century possesses the knowledge to fantasize the idea of artificial ...
successful clones often have problems with their body and are subject to a short lifespan ridden with health problems. This hurts the person or animal cloned rather than to help them, making cloning an immoral
The idea of creating life has intrigued people since the beginning of time. Mary Shelly in her novel Frankenstein brought this idea to life. In this novel, Victor Frankenstein created life by using advanced science and spare body parts. The idea of creating life is a current controversy. Technology now allows for the cloning of sheep. Certainly, the ability to clone humans cannot be far away. It is necessary to place restrictions on cloning research and to ban humans cloning because human cloning is immoral. Furthermore, the expectations placed on a cloned creature by society would be unbearable for the creature, and would lead to its psychological demise.
Wouldn’t it be weird if a child were to grow up knowing that her mother is her sister, her grandmother is her mother, and her father was her brother-in-law? This can cause several emotional risks although this type of genetic selection may cause many sever risks. Every time her mother is to look at her, what she sees is herself growing up. There is a lot of emotional pressure on a teenager who is trying to establish his/her identity. What if everyone was to clone? What would happen to our individuality?. Cloning limits your genetic base because there are not enough individuals that would be the base of inherited material for the population. It would also stop the genetic progress since there is no combining of the genetic material and thus no opportunity to produce an animal that is superior to the parent. What if the child knows that he/she is the clone and now the identical twin of a dead sister/brother? What kind of pressure do you think that would put on the child, knowing they were made as a direct replacement for another? This child will not be the same in all ways as the other was, regardless of what the parents were hoping. One important concern is because this child will be brought up in an unusual household where unhappiness has been diverted into making a clone of the dead brother/sister instead of just adjusting to their loss. Now this child will be going through great pressures on his/her emotional...
Imagine a world where everyone looked like you and was related to you as a sibling, cousin, or any form of relation, wouldn’t that be freaky? Although cloning is not an important issue presently, it could potentially replace sexual reproduction as our method of producing children. Cloning is a dangerous possibility because it could lead to an over-emphasis on the importance of the genotype, no guaranteed live births, and present risks to both the cloned child and surrogate mother. It also violates the biological parent-child relationship and can cause the destruction of the normal structure of a family. The cloning of the deceased is another problem with cloning because it displays the inability of the parents to accept the child’s death and does not ensure a successful procedure. Along with the risks, there are benefits to Human Reproductive Cloning. It allows couples who cannot have a baby otherwise to enjoy parenthood and have a child who is directly related to them. It also limits the risk of transmitting genetic diseases to the cloned child and the risk of genetic defects in the cloned child. Although the government has banned Human Reproductive Cloning, the issue will eventually come to the surface and force us to consider the 1st commandment of God, all men are equal in the eyes of god, but does this also include clones? That is the question that we must answer in the near future in order to resolve a controversy that has plagued us for many years.
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.
... the clone lives and if clones got to be very widespread they could potentially impact the gene pool. Needless to say, the cons definitely outweigh the pros and the impact clones would have on the everyday life of society would not be our greatest worry.
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...
Many people say that everyone in the world has a twin. Today, science and technology has the ability to make this myth reality through the process of cloning. I am strongly against cloning for many reasons. People should not utilize cloning because it would destroy individuality and uniqueness, cause overpopulation, animal cruelty, it is against morals and ethics, and it violates many religious beliefs.
Scientists have no problem with the ethical issues cloning poses, as they claim the technological benefits of cloning clearly outweigh the possible social consequences, not to mention, help people with deadly diseases to find a cure. Jennifer Chan, a junior at the New York City Lab School, said, "?cloning body organs will help save many patients' lives," she said. "I think that cloning is an amazing medical breakthrough, and the process could stop at cloning organs--if we're accountable, it doesn't have to go any further." This argument seems to be an ethical presentation of the purpose of cloning. However, most, if not all scientists agree that human cloning won?t stop there. While cloning organs may seem ethical, cloning a human is dangerous. Still, scientists argue that the intentions of cloning are ethical. On the other hand, there are many who disagree with those claims. According to those from a religious standpoint, it is playing God, therefore, should be avoided. From a scientific standpoint it is also very dangerous, as scientists are playing with human cells which, if done wrong, can lead to genetic mutations that can either become fatal to the clone, or cause it severe disabilities. This information does, in fact, question the moral of the issue. If cloning is unsafe and harmful, what is the point?
...cloning can be divided into two broad category: potential safety risk and moral problems, and these concerns overweigh its achievement.
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).
John A. Robertson’s article “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation” raises three important reasons on why there shouldn’t be a ban on Human Cloning but that it should be regulated. Couples who are infertile might choose to clone one of the partners instead of using sperm, eggs, or embryo’s from anonymous donors. In conventional in vitro fertilization, doctors attempt to start with many ova, fertilize each with sperm and implant all of them in the woman's womb in the hope that one will result in pregnancy. (Robertson) But some women can only supply a single egg. Through the use of embryo cloning, that egg might be divisible into, say 8 zygotes for implanting. The chance of those women becoming pregnant would be much greater. (Kassirer) Secondly, it would benefit a couple at high risk of having offspring with a genetic disease choose weather to risk the birth of an affected child. (Robertson) Parents who are known to be at risk of passing a genetic defect to a child could make use of cloning. A fertilized ovum could be cloned, and the duplicate tested for the disease or disorder. If the clone were free of genetic defects, then the other clone would be as well. Then this could be implanted in the woman and allowed to mature to term. (Heyd) Thirdly, it would be used to obtain tissue or organs...
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.