Opponents of cloning believe that the procedure of cloning has not been proven safe at all, while those who support cloning believe the cloning of humans could be used to solve human diseases and infertility. However, both sides may agree that human cloning may help in our new era. Human cloning has been successful and has had failure at times as well. The proponents of human cloning could be broken down into two arguments. The first argument being the way cloning can help by using certain technology to make sure the infertility rate goes down by helping to produce a genetic offspring.
Web. Oct. 5, 2013. Pray, Leslie. “DTC Genetic Testing: 23andMe, DNA Direct and Genelex.” 2008. Web.
Two, scientists could be creating new inventions; helping with saving money and building new technologies. There is no good possible outcome about this ethical idea of cloning but, yet we do have the negative results of the animal cloning’s that were done since scientist wants to clone human because they've done it to animals before. Which can also be double times harder than animal cloning which such an idea shouldn’t haven’t come to the surface, but it exists in our world. The impact that it will have in our world is more likely to be dangerous and we must be aware of this because it will influence how we live. There's nothing superior that could practically come out of cloning a human being, NOTHING!
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). Recent discoveries involving cloning have sparked ideas of cloning an entire human body (ProQuest Staff). Cloning is “the production of an organism with genetic material identical to that of another organism” (Seidel).
This technology, according to scientists, could foster the ability to cure any disease, illness, or injury, but at what cost? Opponents of stem cell research believe that the practice of embryonic study and culture is immoral, while proponents suggest that this technology is necessary for the advancement of medical research. In 2001, then President George W. Bush quickly sided with those believing the research to be immoral. During his primetime address, he advocated only to allow research on cell lines already in existence. Much of this side of the argument is based on the idea that human eggs are fertilized with sperm to create an embryo, and then destroyed to harvest the stem cells within the blastocyst.
The goal of this process is not to create cloned humans, but to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and to treat disease. Stem cells are important to b... ... middle of paper ... ...tainly improve the standards of living, simplify existing procedures, and possibly save lives. Since the common arguments against cloning can easily be refuted, the only reason why some people might oppose cloning is because they are afraid of a new technology, as stated before. Since the time Dolly the sheep was cloned there still have been few major advancements, once we are able to make a major medical breakthrough I believe that the minds of the unbelievers will change. Just like we cannot uninvent the atom bomb, we cannot forget about the technology of cloning.
Those in favor of cloning argue that the technology will eventually lead to a number of benefits for human lives, benefits such as assisting reproductively challenged couples in having children genetically related to them, the growing and healing of wounded or diseased tissues and organs, and the curing of diseases such as cancer and leukemia. Conversely, opponents of cloning state that it is immoral and unethical to clone for religious reasons. Their arguments also include very thoughtful and concerned ideas, such as the fear that cloning will lead to the "10,000 Hitlers¡¨ scenario, and also the belief that the clone will suffer some sort of trauma because they will not have a unique identity of their own. All of these arguments are valid concerns, but when held to close examination do they really hold up as adequate reasons to put a ban on all types of cloning, some of which may help to save the lives of others? It is not enough to say that cloning is the creation of something, which is an exact copy of something else.
“ Clone the sick individual, not for reproduction but for therapy.” This is a quote from the article, “ Fighting for the Right to Clone” written by Pamela Weintraub. The technology is here being able to save the lives of those who are in critical condition and with therapeutic cloning it can be done, by which a person 's cells is clone which is then grown to use their stem cells to heal themselves. There is also reproductive cloning which is being done to clone animals and studies are showing if scientists should move on to humans, However there are many people who are against this and think that it shouldn 't be done. This new technology will be easier to save individuals. Why it 's possible that children can be born without any genetic diseases