Is Human Cloning Another Frankenstein?
The creation of life by unnatural method is a question that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein addresses. Through the events that result from Victor's attempt to bestow life to the inanimate, Shelley concludes that it is inappropriate for man to play god. With the advent of the science of creation, cloning, scientists now face the same problem that Shelley raised years ago. The applications of such research are numerous, all varying in severity. In what way the users for cloning are developed and performed is of much debate. Unfortunately, there is no absolute answer for the issue.
A popular suggestion is to develop cloning technology for medical use on humans. The creation of animals for use at man's discretion, such as livestock for food, is an ancient and generally accepted practice. However, when creating a human clone, for its organs, can it be said that such an act is murder? Aldous Huxley illustrates another vision of cloning in Brave New World. The novel depicts people created from basic templates to fit in a given level of society. Should people have the ability to design the type of child they get? The implications of creating custom humans raise many moral problems. In Shelley's Frankenstein, the act of creation resulted in an abhorred being. Using cloning, there is the potentiality for someone to develop a genetically enhanced being for malicious purposes. The question of how to regulate potential uses and misuses of the aforementioned ideals is of much debate. Several acceptable answers have been suggested, but each has its own weaknesses and group of detractors.
As an answer to the moral questions that the advent of cloning has raised, several coun...
... middle of paper ...
... will be formulated.
With the exploration of various solutions and issues that arise when dealing with these approaches to the moral dilemma faced, one can only conclude that the best solution is already being developed. The human race is not ready to control the formation of life, for there are too many potential abuses and no way to control them. A peremptory ban on human cloning research should not be necessary with the current level of cloning technology possessed. However, the strict limiting of which areas of this research are pursued, and who pursues the research is most critical. As new ideas appear confusion arises, and understanding of all aspects of the new ideas cause rise to necessary changes in society. The popular approval of the idea of human cloning is indispensable to the efforts of those who wish to advance the science of human cloning.
When the novel “Frankenstein”, by Mary Shelley came out in 1831 the general public was introduced to the idea of man creating another man, scientifically without the use of reproduction. The disasters that followed, in the novel, demonstrated the horrid fact that creating humans was not natural. That was in 1831, when the knowledge of science had not yet evolved enough to act on such an idea. Now as the start of a new millenium approaches, having the capability to scientifically produce one human who is genetically identical to another, or cloning a human, has a lot of people questioning weather or not it is our moral right to do such a thing. It is a classic debate between principles of science and principles of religion.
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.
Cloning is an exciting and ongoing field of study with many great possibilities, and negative drawbacks; this leaves many Christians wrestling with the idea of cloning, trying to decide where to stand on, for or against it. To follow, in the paper is an explanation of what cloning is and the uses of cloning at the present and projected in the future. After that the focus will be on the problems with cloning from a non-ethical stance. Finally the issue of cloning and Christian’s views on it will be addressed.
The objective of this essay is to inform the reader(s) about human cloning. I believe that human cloning is morally wrong because one should not have the right to avoid daily responsibilities by getting someone else to handle them. There will be four sections of this paper that will be discussed. Firstly, there is an argumentative section, which will have premises along with a conclusion for an argument made against human cloning. Secondly, an explanation section, which explains how the argument against human cloning obeys the rules for a good argument. Thirdly, an objection section to where there are arguments that violates mine in order to demonstrate how objectors might object to the argument. Lastly, there will be a conclusion where I discuss
In essence, the long-term effects of cloning are completely unknown. When studying cloning, we may see its desirable effects, but we neglect its many unknown effects. At the mention of cloning, many may contemplate Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein. Although fictional, the novel does show some truth. In the novel, Shelley warns of the dangers that come as a repercussion of knowledge, with Victor Frankenstein’s dialogue “seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries.” (Shelley) Today, we find ourselves debating similar ethical issues that Mary Shelley considered long ago. With so many incredible discoveries that lie in our future, we must also consider the responsibilities that come with these discoveries. If not, we may suffer the same fate as Victor Frankenstein had in the novel
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.
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.
priests also walk past him but the one person who stops to help him is
The matter of human reproductive cloning is a complex topic, in which there are many issues that must be addressed before any actions take place. Any decision based on reproductive cloning will not be clear-cut, and instead will host a multitude of ideas. In this paper, I will determine, through philosophical thinking, if human reproductive cloning is morally appropriate.
Cloning is, and always has been an extremely contentious topic. To some, the ethical complications surrounding it, are far more promiscuous than what scientists and medical experts currently acknowledge. Cloning is a general term that refers to the process in which an organism, or discrete cells and genes, undergo genetic duplication, in order to produce an identical copy of the original biological matter. There are two main types of artificial cloning; reproductive and therapeutic, both of which present their respective benefits and constraints. This essay aims to discuss the various differences between the two processes, as well as the ethical issues associated with it.
Cloning has been a controversial topic since the time it was introduced, prompting questions of ethics. Although it has been unintentionally in use for thousands of years, it was first brought about in the 1960’s. As more and more discoveries have been gained since then, numerous uncertainties continue to be raised among scientists, politicians, and anyone interested in the issue. While the idea of cloning is intriguing and polarizing, there is a fine like that defines what is and isn’t ethical; it is moral to clone cells for research development and plants for agricultural desires, but it is in no way acceptable to clone humans and animals for reproductive reasons.
How should we think about cloning as philosophers and feminists? Reproducing by cloning is not, in itself, morally inferior to reproducing by human sexual reproduction. Moral criticism of cloning in itself rests on condemnation of cloning's "unnaturalness" or "impiety," but this kind of criticism should not persuade non-believers. In this paper, cloning is evaluated in two phases. First, some hypothetical situations involving private choices about cloning are examined within a liberal framework. From this individualistic perspective, cloning appears no more morally problematic than is sexual reproduction. A liberal feminist may welcome the possibility of human cloning, as expanding the range of reproductive options open to women. The second phase argues for a shift in framework of analysis to get a more complete evaluation of the ethical implications of human cloning, including questions of distributive justice and the ideology of reproduction.
For years, the prospect of human cloning was fodder for outrageous science-fiction stories and nothing more. However, in more recent times, human cloning has moved significantly closer to becoming a reality. Accordingly, the issue has evoked a number of strong reactions, both praising and condemning the procedure. The fact that human cloning not just affects human lives indirectly but actually involves tinkering with human creation has forced human cloning into a position of controversy. The progress of the issue of human cloning, then, has been shaped not only by the abilities and resources of scientists but by public opinion and by governmental regulation that has resulted from public pressure.
a few of these high status jobs and it is lawyers that I am going to
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.