Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Benefits of cloning to society
Cloning and its effects on society
Ethical and moral issues of cloning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Benefits of cloning to society
“It kills me sometimes, how people die.” A quote from Markus Zusak from his novel, The Book Thief. This quote encapsulates how the general population feels about death; afraid; pitiful; and questioning. For millennia humans have worried about death, the fear beginning as conscious thought did. People have tried crazy ways to live forever and in result created a branch of science called Alchemy. Some example of tonics and potions for immortality are distilled urine, and liquid mercury. We now know that neither of those aren’t effective in producing longer life or an eternal life. But a new possibility has emerged: human genome cloning. Human cloning should remain illegal to prevent the abuse of those cloned. The limitation or banning of human cloning is significant because cloning, if legalized, would take place in everyone’s lives. People would look over the ballots for election year after year, the slips filled with the same names due to the rich affording to create clones of themselves, using technicalities to allow clones to hold offices year after year. The rich would have a monopoly over power, and the poor wouldn’t be able to afford such a luxury. …show more content…
In addition, they would be unusually at risk of genetic defects” (Ahlberg). Cloning has become possible in theory for humans, though looking at animal cases we see more eruptions of mutations, disease, and shortened life spans; making scientists pose the question, “is it ethical?”. Suppose that human cloning had begun, what would it be used
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.
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
There are concerns that the legalization of this will bring forth deaths for the wrong reason. It’s not that people don’t deserve the right to die, it’s that people don’t deserve to feel like they have to die. Everyone deserves the right to make a decision on his or her own, and no one should have to suffer; with that though, no one should have to feel like this is the easy way out. This is about the fact that making physician assisted suicide legal could put unneeded pressure on these patients. We have to think about the less fortunate, the lonesome, and the outcasts. Assisted suicide isn’t the answer to financial struggles or burdens. Rather than offering up this idea of physician-assisted suicide, shouldn’t we be making these patients comfortable? The healthcare system should focus on making terminally ill patients comfortable and
“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.
As the years go by our society advances in all fields. As a result, we as a society have come to question many elements in our lives by comparing them to longstanding morals and traditions. The medical fields has always, and probably will always, raise many controversial issues. The latest concerns whether euthanasia or physician assisted suicide should be universally legalized in the U.S. Those opposed see that there are other alternatives other than taking a person’s own life, with the help of a doctor. Not only are they essential to incorporate into the options for people experiencing terminal illnesses, legalization would allow an overall upgrade in combating abuse with this treatment, at the same time, people are thoroughly against the
If we are not responsible for biotechnology and cloning, human nature can be altered into a new type of “human” or rather we will create something inhuman. Modern day biotechnology and cloning are advancing so quickly that it brings concern to human nature. With the rapid advancements, life may be able to be prolonged for eternity. Some argue that because cloning stem cells is beneficial to humanity, it is ethical.
Death remains one of the greatest mysteries today. Even though dying is a natural part of existence, American culture is unique in the extent to which death is viewed as a taboo topic. Rather than having open discussions, we tend to view death as a feared enemy that can and should be defeated by modern medicine and machines. Many people fear their end of life care, dying, and what will come after death. Society has become institutionalized, therefore most people die in a place with many health professionals.
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.
People die each and everyday. Some are by sickness, murder, or self induced. Death is a topic in which the person and his/her family pay an emotional toll for. Legalizing euthanization will induce people to come to terms with how they feel. An estimated 30,000 Americans die each year by suicide(“Bullying and Cyberbullying become a national concern”). This will cause people to talk to one another about their feelings about this strong subject will either end with them coming to an agreement and understanding, or talked out of this life altering choice.
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.
Brannigan, C. Michael. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, Chatham House Publishers, 2001.
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
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).
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).
By contrast, I argue that euthanasia is fundamentally wrong because it involves killing. It arbitrarily takes life and denies natural dying process. Therefore, euthanasia violates the belief that human being has intrinsic value until arriving at death. In practical term, we have no right over our death, as over birth itself. Our right for choice is only available between birth and death.