Do you ever wish you could see yourself for what you truly are? To be able to meet yourself, see how you act, see how you communicate, or maybe simply just what type of person you are? Now think, what if you could actually do that? Science has now come to a revolutionary state in which we are able to clone organisms, but we aren’t advanced enough to clone humans yet. However, there is no question that we will be able to clone humans one day, the only problem is, would we want to? Despite how wonderful it seems to meet and be able to get to know you, the practice of cloning human beings has many ethical, societal, and environmental drawbacks.
Human nature is built on the foundation of morals, integrity and ethics, therefore we must protect the last shred of innocence us humans possess using strict guidelines called “Human Rights”. If we were able to clone human beings, would our clones be considered human beings? Considering the fact that the clones will possess every quality of a human being, they should be subjected to human rights as well. However, though they contain the qualities of a human being, they also contain genetic information that came from one specific person. If that genetic information belongs to that one specific person, the clone would belong to that one specific person. If the clone belongs to another human being, that would directly conflict with human rights because the clones no longer have the right to be free. To state it in a simpler form, they are simply slaves to their genetic owners. Being under one’s ownership would decrease the value of ones life. Given that the clones would be put under ownership, they no longer practice the right of freedom, and they are no longer equal to any other human being. C...
... middle of paper ...
...hics for the practice of cloning human beings to be considered a resplendent idea. Furthermore, not only does cloning a human being bring ethical problems, it brings societal, as well as environmental problem as well. As you can see for those who have a malevolent mindset, it could easily be used as a weapon. Even in the simple goal of prolonging one’s life with another’s, the use of integrity, moral, and ethics are slowly eradicated. The problems that would arise from the practice of cloning human beings highly outweigh the number of benefits that come with the practice of cloning human beings. Ultimately, I believe that we should just stop the idea of cloning human beings because, as was expressed by the character Ian Malcolm, in Jurassic Park so well, “… your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Silver’s argument illustrates to his audience that reproductive cloning is permissible, but most people in today’s society frown upon reproductive cloning and don’t accept it. He believes that each individual has the right to whether or not they would want to participate in reproductive cloning because it is their reproductive right. However, those who participate in cloning run the risk of other’s imposing on their reproductive rights, but the risk would be worth it to have their own child.
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 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.
This representation of cloning as a means of bringing about the loss of individuality reflects two widespread ideas. The first is...
Opponents of banned human cloning claim that human have the right to clone themselves. They insist that human cloning is problem of individual choice and individual choice should be guaranteed if individual choice do not damage to other people. (Kerry, 2006) Also, they claim that human have right to choose the ways of breeding like the right to choose the ways of cure of contraception and sterility. However, human cloning is not way of breeding. Human cloning is means of manufacture. Also, human cloning infringes on having own identity rights. This means that human cloning infringes a right to ask that there is only me in the world. So, people do not allow cloning themselves because there should be only they in the world.
Proponents of cloning humans today should remind themselves of the lesson of Victor Frankenstein before they have to deal with the products of their research and learn the hard way. & nbsp;
In this case, this will be the beginning of human degradation because clones will be treated as commodities or purchased products. Although couples commonly have babies for purposes such as improving a marriage or continuing a family name, human clones can possibly serve as savior siblings or replacements. Savior siblings will only function as spare parts, while a replacement child stands in a shadow of their deceased clone. They represent means to an end by being forced into existence for a sole purpose to alleviate pain and misery from the preexisting. In my opinion, reproductive cloning will turn into a game for the countless number of egotistical people that our society obtains. As irrational as this may be, human cells will eventually be sold, so other people can produce babies that resemble past legends, or current superstars, and even dead geniuses. From the article by Philip Kitcher in the Science, Ethics, and Public Policy of Human Cloning book, the author recognized how prevalent cloning will become when commenters ventured how legitimate it would be to clone Einstein. He indicated, “Polls showed that Mother Teresa was the most popular choice for person-to-be-cloned, although a film star (Michelle Pfeiffer) was not far behind, and Bill and Hilary Clinton obtained some support〖."〗^7The quote signifies how cloning will eventually convert into a luxury to please peoples’ irrational means, increasing the chances for people to be equated to their genetic determinism. Kant identifies humans as authors to the moral law because of our possession of human dignity. According to Devolder’s article, “UNESCO's Universal
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.
Imagine a world where everyone looked like you and was related to you as a sibling, cousin, or any form of relation, wouldn’t that be freaky? Although cloning is not an important issue presently, it could potentially replace sexual reproduction as our method of producing children. Cloning is a dangerous possibility because it could lead to an over-emphasis on the importance of the genotype, no guaranteed live births, and present risks to both the cloned child and surrogate mother. It also violates the biological parent-child relationship and can cause the destruction of the normal structure of a family. The cloning of the deceased is another problem with cloning because it displays the inability of the parents to accept the child’s death and does not ensure a successful procedure. Along with the risks, there are benefits to Human Reproductive Cloning. It allows couples who cannot have a baby otherwise to enjoy parenthood and have a child who is directly related to them. It also limits the risk of transmitting genetic diseases to the cloned child and the risk of genetic defects in the cloned child. Although the government has banned Human Reproductive Cloning, the issue will eventually come to the surface and force us to consider the 1st commandment of God, all men are equal in the eyes of god, but does this also include clones? That is the question that we must answer in the near future in order to resolve a controversy that has plagued us for many years.
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.
Human cloning research has once been the subject of terrifying science-fiction films and novels, science experiments gone wrong, accomplished only by the evil scientists twirling their moustaches. However, ideas presented on page and screen are rarely accurate. The possibility of cloning an exact copy of another human with one already fully developed is almost impossible, but through meticulous research, scientists have discovered the numerous benefits of cloning humans, either with individual cells or an embryo.
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).
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).