Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The significance of human cloning
Why cloning should be pursued
The significance of human cloning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The significance of human cloning
Human Cloning
Science fiction authors have for many years instilled in us the fantastic idea of great armies of cloned men and women, fighting mindless battles for the betterment of human kind. Perfect beings created under the microscope of fantasy to accelerate the evolutionary process, a brave new world, of disease free and identical people. But is there truly an application for human cloning in our 21st century society?
Some scientists argue that one could use the cloning process to grow a twin sister for a dying child to allow for an organ donor, a perfect match. A noble idea, if one values a human life as highly as cattle headed for a slaughter house. And what of the dangers involved? A few years ago the world’s eyes turned to the scientific presses, hot with the new discovery that cloning was possible. Dolly the sheep was born, the first successful case of cloning the scientific world had seen. But what we didn’t see is that there were 276 failures before the successful case was achieved. Are we willing to gamble 276 human lives for the research of a non – applicable science?
The thought of a perfect being is intriguing. The model child with the blue eyes you never had and the perfectly straight – without having spent three hours in a salon – blond hair that everyone thinks you have. It seems a popular notion that once one genetic modification has been achieved, others will follow. And even if the technology for a bouncing blue eyed catalogue selection is only a gleam in the scientific eye, the possibility of having a three year old Britney Spears is conceivable. The excitement of this sentiment unfortunately masks the reality of it, in that creating a homogeneous race poses a real threat to freedom, the very essence of humanity.
At this stage in the development of the cloning process, each cloned Being is viewed as a subject. Dolly was a media spectacle, a lost lamb under the millions of gawking eyes. If a human is cloned, it is highly unlikely that he or she will not be swept up into a similar fate. And under the eyes of the media, not to mention the person who funded the “subject”, that child will be forced to grow up under a rock of obligatory expectations. Every action and emotion could indeed be shaped and cultivated to suit the perceptions of an idealised person.
To choose for their children, the world’s wealthy class will soon have options such as tall, pretty, athletic, intelligent, blue eyes, and blonde hair. Occasionally referred to as similar to “the eugenics of Hitler’s Third Reich” (“Designer Babies” n.p.), the new genetics technology is causing differences in people’s opinions, despite altering DNA before implantation is “just around the corner.” (Thadani n.p.). A recent advance in genetically altering embryos coined “designer babies” produces controversy about the morality of this process.
Music censorship has been debated since the beginning of recording history. The censoring of music is the practice of restricting free access to musical works. Songs with strong language, racist views, or harmful references will have warning labels on them. There are currently no laws regarding the censorship of music. Censorship originated from a wide variety of motivations, including moral, political, military or religious reasons. The censoring of music is incorrect and should be eradicated. Music has been prominent in culture for thousands of years; it is a big contributing factor to moral compositions, for some it is a personal refuge, for others it is enjoyment, music is an important aspect and to censor music would be racially discriminative, insensitive, and detrimental towards society.
The court argued that the case was not about whether Miranda was guilty of the charges or not (he obviously confessed). Rather they argued that the case was about the way in which the interrogation was derived. The court’s ruling was meant to deal with the mistreatment of suspects by policemen during interrogation. Policemen are notorious for mistreating interrogents (alovardohistory). Prior to this case a possible witness was beaten, kicked, and was burned on the back with lighted cigarette butts just in order to extract a testimony. The Supreme Court determined that the accused must be read the following rights: “You have the right to remain silent. Any...
Censorship in music has been a major problem plaguing America since the early nineteen forties. It came to a head during the nineteen sixties with the Vietnam War and the hippie movement. During the nineteen seventies and eighties heavy metal and hard rock were getting the brunt of the censorship heat. Now in the nineteen nineties the major focus of censorship is rap; primarily gangster rap. Some of the main factors of music in general that cause legal ramifications are sexual content, suggestive violence and obscene language. Censorship is an attack against our first amendment right guaranteeing the freedom of speech. However if a song or album is deemed obscene the first amendment does not protect this.
Flushing has and will be changing for many years to come just like any other neighborhood but at a higher and faster rate. This will squeeze out the lower to middle income families further away from downtown Flushing. Most of these families will be the Chinese families that are changing the landscape right now in Flushing. The landscape and the demographic will continue to change in Flushing.
Miranda came about in 1966, when a 23-year-old, name Miranda, was arrested and transported from his home to the police station for questioning in connections with a kidnapping and a rape case. Miranda was kind of poor and uneducated. At the station the police questioned him for two hours. After this two hours of questioning the police obtained a written confession that in turn was used in court against him. Miranda was undoubtedly found guilty.
Happenings such as this are occurring all over America today. The constant question remains the same. Music censorship, is it necessary? Censoring music is no different than censoring any other art form. Not only is censorship unethical, but also in directly disobeying the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional. By telling a musician not to use certain words you are taking away from his art. Imagine if the sculptor who created the statue of David had been told to put clothes on his work. Music, much the same as any other art form, can not be altered or changed and receive the same respect or meaning.
Music censorship has been a major problem plaguing America for over fifty years. In 1957, Elvis Pressley was only allowed to be filmed from the waist up on the Ed Sullivan show (Nuzum 1). Plenty of controversy has taken places between then and now, but more recently it has become much more prominent in the media, and people and organizations are beginning to actually take a stand. For example, Island Records (owned by Disney) dropped the Insane Clown Posse just after their release of The Great Milenko and MTV actually refused to play Madonna's video for Justify My Love because it was considered too sexually explicit (Nuzum 1).
“We favor music censorship? No, that’s not true,” says Wendy Wright of an organization, Concerned Women for America, on the enemy list of virtually all other anti-censorship supporters. “Censorship means that the government restrains speech. We are in favor of those in the music industry using common sense: In essence, that they don’t promote behavior or activities that they wouldn’t want committed against their wife or children.” CWFA sees music the music in question as having potential to cultivate certain ideas in the minds of the youth.“The argument that it does not affect kids, that it does not promote similar behavior, is ridiculous. If that were true, they would not advertise or rely on marketing – both fields depend on the fact that humans can be enticed into doing something that they wouldn’t have thought up on their own.”
Miranda and his lawyers argued that his fifth and sixth amendment was violated. Within the fifth and sixth amendment they argued that Miranda testified against himself and also that he asked for a lawyer. In a pace law review they state that “The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his right against self-incrimination nor
Music has always been a basic form of expression. From Antonin Dvorak, to Eminem, to even ancient, tribal music, it has been a medium through which individuals convey their thoughts and expressions. Today this medium is under attack. Everywhere we turn, everything we do and say is being scrutinized. We are being told what to say. We are being spoon-fed our emotions. No longer are we allowed to think freely, openly. All the censors out there are on the prowl for another piece to rip to shreds because it doesn't fit their description of what is decent and moral. What they fail to realize is that we don't make the music for them... We do it for release.
1) Robertson, John A. “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 119-122.
The case of AZ v Mauro, a necessary precursor to the case analysis is defining the application of Miranda Rights (Miranda v. Arizona) and the difference between an unlawful or lawful interrogation within the Miranda Rights. The most commonly misinterpreted actions that prompt the need for Miranda, which is only necessary if a formal custody and an interrogation will coincide. When Mirandized or given a Miranda warning informing an individual of their rights against self-incrimination, protected under the Fifth Amendment. These rights advise that the individual being arrested and taken into custody may choose to not answer any incriminating questions (which excludes standard identity or booking questions) without an attorney present. Otherwise
Long regarded as the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) lives on today as an incredibly influential and powerful figure in the applied discipline of psychology. For Freud, it was his intense study of dialogue and interplay of involuntary human communication that ultimately led to his conclusions concerning the human unconscious. In contemporary studies, these conclusions have evolved into many of the distinguished, and more importantly controversial theories we associate with his name: the Oedipus complex; castration anxiety; penis envy; repetition compulsion; repression; etc. Much of the contention surrounding Freud is grounded in the belief that his works instituted notions that cannot be proven scientifically, such as personality development in infantile stages; sexuality in unconscious desire; and the unconscious drives behind human mannerism. Yet, despite the fact that many of Freud’s theories have not withstood the test of scientific scrutiny, few can argue against the fact that Freudianism is still impactful and has permeated other branches of modern theory. To prove this point, we can bring to attention the names of two modern theorists that have not only built upon Freud’s ideas in their work, but have consequently expanded his influence into other realms of literature, and other spheres of study. Harold Bloom (1930 – present) and Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) are only two notable thinkers that extend Freud’s ideas and have gained far-reaching influence in intellectual life. In response to this revival however, new opponents of Freud have found the opportunity to retaliate with their concerns and arguments. Nevertheless, the presentation of human identity and unconscious by Freud’s opponents and successors c...
Starting from the previous couple decades, labels such as ‘Parental Discretion’ and ‘PG Ratings’ have emerged. All of this is an effort to challenge the content that roams free in the media around us. Music is a universal ‘language’ that has spread and mostly effects each and everybody’s life simultaneously. Artists create music for their listeners but it goes through all the censorship regulations implied to ‘protect our society’. Is it really working? I don’t think so. Today, people themselves choose to be offended as artists and performers have worked their way around saying what cannot be said.