Cloning, as of recent years, has become a very controversial issue. Society is firmly divided on the uses and ethics of cloning. Cloning can rang from producing copies of plants and animals to clones of humans and human organs. But cloning can have several positive effects for the well being of society. Cloning plants can have positive effects fo humans.
(Melo 263). When proponents dealing with helping infertility rates going down and helping battle genetic diseases are discussed, the opposing side also argues that cloning human beings could cause psychological harm to the clone, and harms to our society as well. But in the end the arguments tend to cancel each other out, leading to many failures. Works Cited Melo‐Martín, De. "On cloning human beings."
The negative impact would most likely prove to be greater than the positive impact because there is no way to be certain that it will completely work. Reasons like this have caused cloning to spark many topics of discussion. Through these discussions, many differen... ... middle of paper ... ...n the families of the ill patients. Knowing that their loved ones’ chance for survival is increased would help them to be more at ease. The consequences of cloning these vital organs, cells, and tissues would be that many things could go wrong during the cloning process, especially due to the fact that the technology isn’t completely developed properly yet.
Two main complaints against stem cell research define it as a violation of human rights through the destruction of embryos and a potential cause of inhuman practices in the future. However, the therapeutic potential of understanding stem cells and working with stem cells is undeniable, and several scientists aim to defend the purposes of stem cell researches and propose regulations and moral values that would meet the expectations of both sides of the stem cell research issue. While there are already some common ground where both sides can agree and define stem cell research as moral and useful, further improvements in regulations, defining clear ethical viewpoints for stem cell research, and alternative scientific methods for achieving the same goals could expand the common grounds and achieve a better agreement between two sides with opposite viewpoints on stem cell research. Although stem cell research promises immense progress in health care, there are two main moral objections to st... ... middle of paper ... ...er (SCNT) rather than finding appropriate methods of obtaining stem cells for therapeutic procedures. Although biological knowledge about cell development often seems as the most trivial benefit of stem cell research (Holm 496), SCNT research could clarify the genetic factors that cause diseases, so it would be possible to reprogram corrupt genes rather than look for morally acceptable methods and regulations of using embryos for the purpose of obtaining stem cells (McLaren 131).
By having this new option available in the medical world, everyone involved with this conflict-ridden topic must make a difficult ethical decision: whether or not saving existing lives and extend life expectancy for all is worth the termination of potential future lives. As in every other controversial topic, there are two sides to the Human Embryonic Stem Cell argument. One side is in favor of their use, and the other side is against it. However, another important part of the argument is the ethical concerns that it brings. Though it is high, the price of Human Embryonic Stem Cells is well worth the lives they can save.
Many people, even scientists, have raised strong questions concerning the issue. In his article Moore raises such questions as, "Could the technology get out of control and damage human health or the environment? Who will decide which of the many uses are safe and permissible, and which should be banned? How can we assess the safety of genetic engineering?" (SS1) These questions and similar ones raised by the opposition do hold valid moral and ethical considerations.
It not only provokes worry on the ethical issues and concerns of the use of biotechnology, but it also promotes the question is contemporary artificial cloning justifiable? Most people argue that human cloning is not morally and ethically acceptable due to both religious concerns and long-term health problems. The notion of cloning organisms has always been troublesome because of unpredictable consequences. “Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture” (C... ... middle of paper ... ...nce. It allows researchers and scientists to continue to conduct in-depth research which could lead to vast advancements with cloning methods.
Every scientific advancements is accompanied by a list of risks, and, many people feel that the benefits of genetic engineering are not worth the gamble. However, it is not hard to understand why some people feel this way. Genetic engineering strikes the question of ethics, will this diminish the meaning of being human? Many fear that we are putting our food chain at risk, or that we can cause a major threat to our health by creating a new disease organisms to which there is no available cure. It is true that there may be risks involved, nonetheless, it should be acknowledge that science has provided us with many beneficial advancement that at one poi... ... middle of paper ... ...st themselves have recognized the problems that it could bring to the environment, therefore created a method where the modified eggs could all be made sterile at one time.
Some advocates of cloning argue that allowing society to benefit from cloned organs, for example, will outweigh the detrimental consequences of that may result from the abuse of cloning technology by a few scientists. At the same time, those adamantly against cloning argue that denying some individuals their right to a cloned child or organ is necessary to protect society from the negative affects this technology will have on humanity in general. Another common ethical approach to cloning is based on Kant's principles of autonomy and self-determination. Those supporting this theory often believe that in many cases the indivi... ... middle of paper ... ... Kontorovich, E. V. "Clone Wars: Asexual Revolution." National Review.
There are opposing viewpoints on the incorporation of gene therapy into modern medicine. Many scientists and individuals from the public find genetic therapy to be unethical. In contrast, others see it as a revolutionizing technology that will change medicine and produce treatments and preventions to genetically inherited diseases. Reece briefly mentions the challenging decisions that accompany technological advancements. The ethical concerns that arise with gene therapy include; is the usage of DNA technology adequate to determine if people have genes for inherited diseases, should the tests be voluntary, should genetic testing be obligatory (Reece, et al.