Imagine a future where humans are manufactured, a future where humans are created by science, a future where humans are the new lab specimen. Human cloning is like opening Pandora's Box, unleashing a torrent of potential evils but at the same time bringing a small seed of hope. No matter how many potential medical and scientific benefits could be made possible by human cloning, it is unethical to clone humans.
Before the ethics of human cloning can be discussed, the mechanics of cloning must be understood first. Cloning is the process of making an exact genetic copy of an organism by a method called nuclear transplantation which is a process of removing a nucleus (the center of a cell which contains all of the biological information) from a cell and placing it into an already fertilized egg that had its nucleus removed (Dudley 6). That process creates an embryo which then can be “grown” in a lab or inside of a surrogate mother. However the process is not as easy as it sounds because the cells of an adult organism have mostly specialized to do a certain task. The cell specializes by turning “off” certain genes (sections of DNA that code for proteins) and when this specialized cell is transplanted into an egg, it is expected to turn into a whole new organism but with the same genetic makeup as the “donor” of the nucleus. That poses a problem because the specialized cell would not have all the necessary genes turned “on” for a new organism to create all the diverse organs and tissues that a new organism needs so there would be many failures before a functional and healthy clone is produced (Nusslein-Volhard). Even the first genetically cloned sheep named Dolly took 277 failures before it was actually created. If that was applied t...
... middle of paper ...
...ent options in healthcare. The medical and scientific benefits would be great but before science come humanity, and that humanity can be lost on the path of knowledge. Human Cloning isn’t a human miracle it is forever an ethical menace.
Works Cited
Dudley, William. The Ethics of Human Cloning. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, 2001. Print.
Nusslein-Volhard, Christiane. "Manipulating the human embryo." USA Today [Magazine] Jan. 2011: 30+. Student Edition. Web. 10 Feb. 2012.
Shea, John. "What's wrong with human cloning." Catholic Insight Apr. 2001: 15. Student Edition. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.
Smith, Simon. "The Benefits of Human Cloning." Human Cloning Foundation Home Page. Human Cloning Foundation. Web. 16 Feb. 2012. .
Tierney, John. "Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion." New York Times 20 Nov. 2007. Print.
The Christian viewpoint on therapeutic cloning is split into two – the view of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and
"(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.
Ballaro, Beverly. "Point: The Medical and Moral Advantages of Cloning. By: Ballaro, Beverly, Sprague, Nancy, Points of View: Cloning, 2013." Ebscohost.com. Mackinvia.com, n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.
If a random individual were asked twenty years ago if he/she believed that science could clone an animal, most would have given a weird look and responded, “Are you kidding me?” However, that once crazy idea has now become a reality, and with this reality, has come debate after debate about the ethics and morality of cloning. Yet technology has not stopped with just the cloning of animals, but now many scientists are contemplating and are trying to find successful ways to clone human individuals. This idea of human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. I believe that it is not morally and ethically right to clone humans. Even though technology is constantly advancing, it is not reasonable to believe that human cloning is morally and ethically correct, due to the killing of human embryos, the unsafe process of cloning, and the resulting consequences of having deformed 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.
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.
Postrel, Virginia. “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress.” In Dynamic Argument. Ed. Robert Lamm and Justin Everett. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 420-23.
Imagine this, it is a beautiful sunny afternoon so you decide to go for a walk, as you are walking, you see a woman holding the hand of her small daughter, but there seems to be something odd about the child. She’s a miniature version of her mother. You wonder how that could be, how can a child turn out to be just the same as her mother? The simple answer, you have just seen a clone. According to the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association, cloning is defined as, “the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer.” This, in simpler terms, means that cloning is the creation of identical organisms by taking the nucleus of an existing cell and placing it into another cell, one in which the nucleus has been removed. According to Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, scientists are currently cloning human embryos and using them to conduct tests and research, and eventually end up killing the embryo (answeresingenesis.org). This act of cloning humans is unethical and should not be done, for a variety of reasons.
Herbert, Wray. The World After Cloning. U.S. News and World Report. March 10, 1997: 59-64.
McCormick, Richard A. ¡§Should we clone humans?¡¨ Christian Century, November 17- 24, 1993: 1148-1149. P. J. ¡§The pros and cons of freedom of access to human genome data¡¨, Nature, Vol. 333 June 23, 1988: 692.
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?
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 also unethical. Cloning, especially therapeutic cloning, requires the use of human embryos. Using these embryos would mean killing unborn children. Therapeutic cloning begins by removing the stem cells from an embryo (Human Cloning). The stem cells are used to grow bone, nerve, and muscle tissue. In the process of therapeutic cloning, an embryo, or a baby in the early stages of development, is taken and parts of it are grown to develop parts of the body including organs and limbs (Human Cloning). Removing these stem cells would kill the embryo. The embryo, which would result in a child if left in the mother’s womb, is separated into parts, which are used for science.
Human Cloning Foundation. “The Benefits of Human Cloning.” 1998. Human Cloning Foundation. 1 October 2001 <http://www.humancloning.org/benefits.htm>.