The discovery of cells in 1665 brought a huge development in science and also led to another striking discovery: copying cells; in other words, cloning. It did not take a long time for scientists to understand that same qualified organisms could be created by using and copying cells. After the first successful mammal cloning, Dolly the sheep in 1997, science world was proud, but not satisfied yet. Curiosity and enthusiasm manipulated scientists to reach the climax of the cloning history with an astonishing and risky discovery: the first successful stem cell cloning in 2013 which declares the possibility of human cloning. On one hand, supporters think human cloning is like a miracle and a masterpiece of science. On the other hand, considering the cons of human cloning, opponents think human cloning should be illegitimate; hence, it is illegal in countries such as Canada, India, Romania, Germany, Serbia, USA, and Australia. Human cloning should remain illegal because of ethical, economic, social and health reasons.
To begin with, human cloning should be considered illegal because human cloning is against ethics due to religion conflict, possibility of excluding cloned humans and usage for evil aims. Initially, according to majority of religions, reproducing offspring within unnatural ways means to intervene in the God’s business; in other words, to rebel against the God. To demonstrate, considering the belief that the God created the human beings and is the only one who can create human beings, it is completely unacceptable and unethical to clone humans. Secondly, cloned humans would be excluded from the society and exposed to a strict discrimination which causes a global chaos in the world. For instance, according to “Cloning” by...
... middle of paper ...
...bout human cloning’s legality still continues and also generates a great chaos in the science world. Nevertheless, Greg Jaffe’s quote concludes the controversy of human cloning: “One of the issues I've had all along with cloning is that just because we can do something scientifically doesn't mean we should do it.”
Works Cited
Devolder, Katrien. "Cloning." Stanford University. Stanford University: 17 Sept. 2008. Web. 14
Mar. 2014.
“The Implications of Cloning.” Thinkquest. N.p., n.d. Web.
"TIME Magazine Cover: Human Cloning - Feb. 19, 2001." Time. Time Inc., n.d. Web. 16 Mar.
2014.
"PCBE: Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry -- Full Report." PCBE: Human
Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry -- Full Report. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.
"What Are the Risks of Cloning?" What Are the Risks of Cloning? N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.
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.
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
In the summer of 1996, an animal unlike any other was born unto the world. Roughly three feet high and covered in an insulating material, there were countless others that looked nearly identical freely roaming the countryside. But this animal was special; it was precisely identical to one of its brethren. Dolly the sheep was the first ever manmade clone, an exact copy of its genetic donor. In the fifteen years since the birth of Dolly cloning technology has been improving at a steady pace, and now humanity as a whole is at an impasse: human clones. Scientists are very close to being able to clone a human being, but should they? A ban on human cloning issued by the World Health Organization is in place (World Health Organization 1) but it is non-binding in nature, and individual governments must come up with their own cloning policies. For the United States, the choice is obvious: the federal government should not place a ban on human reproductive cloning. There are numerous reasons for this, such as the notion of cloning as an alternative to adoption, the elimination of disease, the possibility of continuing life after death, and the possibility of an improved quality of life for the clones themselves. At the same time, there are arguments against human cloning, mostly centering on moral issues, that must also be addressed.
“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.
...cloning can be divided into two broad category: potential safety risk and moral problems, and these concerns overweigh its achievement.
In conclusion, it is clear to see that cloning is not the taboo it has been made out to be. It is a new boundary that humanity has never encountered before and so it is understandable that people have qualms about ‘playing God’ by shaping a life. Although some might argue that it is immoral to clone human beings, the truth is that it is unethical not to. Given that such technology has the potential to save millions upon millions of lives, not tapping into that industry would have dire consequences on the future. In this case, the ends more certainly justify the means.
Finally, our course of action should be to legally ban human reproductive cloning. This decision will not be detrimental to anyone, nor will it abuse or exploit anyone. This action will be indicative of moral standards that we should wish everyone would follow. Ultimately, ethics is far greater than law. Ethical reflections are more significant than legal ideas because it is likely that laws themselves can show to be corrupt and inconsistent with honorable ethics. Therefore, we as a society must analyze the law in an ethical point of view, such as the case of reproductive cloning.
It's been three years since the birth of Dolly, the world's first successfully cloned animal. The announcement of her birth brought about much ado and sparked many debates concerning the morality of cloning. In the three years since Dolly was created, the debate over cloning has swelled and receded, but has never been put to rest. A compelling issue that has come into focus in the past several years is the idea of human cloning. Many scientists believe that it is inevitable because the technology is there, and anything that can be done eventually will be done. They preach the value of human clones, dropping phrases like 'cure for disease' and 'prolonged life' to entice the public into supporting their cause. Though these concepts seem beguiling, the notion of human cloning, when looked at as a whole, has serious repercussions and should not be entertained lightly.
In earlier times the subject of cloning human beings has been no more than just a fantastic idea to play around with in science-fiction books and movies. As time progresses though, more and more fantasies become realities. Such is the case with cloning. What has only been dreamt up before by artists on pen and paper can now be performed by scientists in laboratories. With the ability to clone humans now possible the question of whether such an act should even be carried out is raised. How far should cloning be allowed to go if it should even be allowed at all? The answer is that cloning should be allowed, but only in moderation.
Most people argue that human cloning is not morally and ethically acceptable due to both religious concerns and long-term health problems. The notion of cloning organisms has always been troublesome because of unpredictable consequences. “Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture” (C...
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.
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 and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
Imagine a world in which a clone is created only for its organs to be transplanted into a sick person’s body. Human cloning has many possible benefits, but it comes with concerns. Over the past few decades, researchers have made several significant discoveries involving the cloning of human cells (ProQuest Staff). These discoveries have led to beneficial medical technologies to help treat disease (Aldridge). The idea of cloning an entire human body could possibly revolutionize the medical world (Aldridge). However, many people are concerned that these advancements would degrade self-worth and dignity (Hyde and Setaro 89). Even though human cloning brings about questions of bioethics, it has the potential to save and recreate the lives of humans and to cure various diseases without the use of medication (Aldridge, Hyde and Setaro).
Human Cloning Foundation. “The Benefits of Human Cloning.” 1998. Human Cloning Foundation. 1 October 2001 <http://www.humancloning.org/benefits.htm>.