"Mary had a little lamb, it fleece was slightly gray. It did not have a father, just some borrowed DNA" (Pence xv, par. 1). According to the article ("Cloning Milestones"), Dr. Hans Spemann visualized cloning back, in 1938 (121). Historical events from 1938 to 2005, provides evidence, that cloning is no longer a vision. Cloning is today's reality. The medical evolution related to the technology of cloning has generated ethical, moral and religious debates for decades. Discussions regarding cloning have frequently failed to differentiate between the potential advantages of the technology and the possible misuses. The promising benefits that cloning may offer would be welcomed by those who suffer from immobilizing diseases. Instead of prohibiting cloning, the federal government should possible provide assistance to uncover the prospective applications of the technology. Therefore, as a society, an implied question should perhaps be: Is cloning actually worth it?
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.
In the essay, Cloning Reality: Brave New World by Wesley J. Smith, a skewed view of the effects of cloning is presented. Wesley feels that cloning will end the perception of human life as sacred and ruin the great diversity that exists today. He feels that cloning may in fact, end human society as we know it, and create a horrible place where humans are simply a resource. I disagree with Wesley because I think that the positive effects of controlled human cloning can greatly improve the quality of life for humans today, and that these benefits far outweigh the potential drawbacks that could occur if cloning was misused.
Cloning, a topic that has recently caused mayhem all over the world, is possible, but will it be here to stay? The astonishing news that scientists had cloned a sheep a couple of years ago sent people into panic at the thought that humans might be next. "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity" (Macklin 64). Since most of the opposition is coming from the pure disgust of actually being able to clone species, it makes it difficult for people to get away from the emotional side of the issue and analyze the major implications cloning would have for society. To better understand this controversial issue, the pros and cons of cloning will be discussed.
The term cloning evokes powerful emotions in the eyes of the American public. It has been a controversial subject that has caused international uproar on numerous occasions. The term cloning is defined as an individual formed by some asexual process so that it is genetically identical to an already existing or previously existing individual (Barnes). However, there are three different types of cloning: reproductive cloning, recombinant DNA cloning and therapeutic cloning. In this essay I will briefly describe the different types of cloning, why scientists pursue their research and why the public oppose cloning research. These issues have yet to be resolved and they raise public opinion on the morality of laboratory creation.
In the latter part of the twentieth century a Danish scientists quickly took science fiction ideology, and transformed it to reality in 1984. Embryologist, Steen Willadsen, successfully reproduces a cloned sheep, Dolly, by using embryonic cellular extraction. This quickly arose troubling questions following the Civil Rights movement. Some individuals value that creating life intervenes with the moral persona of society and feel it should not be in the hands of a team of scientist; others argue that eugenics is just another step in Sir Francis Galton’s theory of improving human genetics, contributing to cloning research making it a priority to modern day science.
For the first time the cloning of a whole human being seems really possible. It is absolutely necessary to consider the harm that can be done and move to curb abuses. Also, it is important to understand some of the theory underlying the desire to build a better human. The Ethical Downside of Cloning With recent developments in the cloning of the first whole mammal with Dolly the Sheep, for the first time the cloning a whole human being seems really possible. For years, clones have been the subject of popular fiction, but the technology was lacking. Now the ethics of doing so must be carefully considered.
Dr. Leon Eisenberg defines cloning as "the aggregate of the asexually produced progeny of an individual organism" (Eisenberg, 471). Human cloning is dangerous to society two for very important reasons. It has serious moral implications. Furthermore, the cloning of human beings could have serious psychological and ramifications toward clones and their progenitors.
Cloning in today’s modern society has evolved into a very sophisticated practice of making identical copies of an organism. Scientists are able to clone different animals and plants exceptionally better than they were years ago, which leads many to wonder if humans will be next. Cloning has tremendous medical and economic pros; however, the morality of cloning does raise many conflicts on whether or not it should be performed throughout the world.