Others are afraid that cloning could me misused by governments and corporations creating clones to serve as slaves or soldiers to fight endless wars. I think that fear is the main argument against human cloning due to the fact that this is a newer branch in science and people are not very educated with the core concept of cloning. I believe that cloning is acceptable only if it is for the right reasons. My opinion is cloning should be allowed due to the countless possibilities we could gain in the health care field and human well being. For years, researchers have been working on finding a way to cure genetic diseases and save lives by cloning genes and organs.
Cloning is a social sin because it damages society and violates the dignity of human life. People began speculating whether it was possible to clone a human and whether that would be ethical after the cloning of Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned, in 1996. “Many opponents of a ban on human-cloning research point out that the technology used to clone Dolly is not nearly advanced enough to be used to clone humans” (“Cloning”). The successful cloning of Dolly announced to the world that it was possible to clone adult mammals. This raised the possibility that human cloning was still imminent.
Although cloning has its benefits it also has its downfalls and because of this it is a very controversial topic in today’s society. I believe genetic engineering has more benefits than disadvantages because it will eliminate diseases, especially those that are known to cause premature death. First off, it is understandable that genetic engineering seems to be unethical and because of this people have different thoughts and opinions based on this subject. Taking an embryo stem cell would cause destruction of the embryo to save the other person’s life, and some people see this as religiously and morally incorrect. However the big picture isn’t seen by many, and by allowing genetic engineering we will be able to save so many people’s lives that we never thought could be possible.
Embryonic stem cell research is so controversial because society is judging whether or not taking stem cells from days old embryos is immoral, or if doctors should look past the cons and do what is necessary to eventually preserve many lives. While stem cell research has received an abundance of support from people who believe it has the potential to treat and remedy disease, many others oppose embryonic stem cell research because it ultimately causes the destruction of an embryo, what they consider to be a human life. Which brings on the question, when does life begin. The answer is opinionated. Many people disagree on when life begins; some people believe that an embryo is a human and some believe that they are not human until the first heartbeat.
Many arguments can be made for and against human cloning, but since it is unethical and would take away individuality and disrupt social values, the practice of cloning humans is one that government should ban and society should not accept. Proponents of human cloning may argue that it is just a logical and inevitable advance in science research and technology. It is, however, too risky for human subjects. At the present time, the general consensus of the public is against human cloning. (Fitzgerald 37) Within a few years' time, however, the medical possibilities of human cloning may be attractive enough to change public opinion.
Now think of a loved one suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or paralysis. Would you deny them a life without suffering if the cure for the disease could be obtained by performing research on an aborted fetus already destined for destruction? It is my belief that scientists should be able to do stem cell research within carefully defined moral parameters because this research is so promising to cure so many diseases and teach us so much about how our bodies work. However, embryos destined for destruction should be used for stem cell research rather than created embryos because there are several thousands of embryos that will be destroyed so it is not necessary to create more embryos and destroy them. Stem cell research remains highly promising in that “Animal research suggests stem cells may some day provide a way to repair or replace diseased tissues and organs” and it holds immense possibilities for cures of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, paralysis, Parkinson’s disease, and diabetes (The Lancet par.
Even though scientists have been able to successfully cure and treat many genetic diseases, many experts focus on the possible unknown effects of genetic engineering in humans. When testing genetic engineering in plants, scientists are able to discard all of the defective plant samples, when doing so with a human that has been genetically altered would be considered highly unethical (Clapper). The use of genetic engineering in our society today could lead to changes in our society’s view of social status. People fear that the use of genetic manipulation in children might encourage the undesirable attitude that children are to be valued according to how closely they meet their parental expectations rather than loved for their own individual talents and personality (Commission 28). If parents want to genetically engineer their children to be exceptionally smart or athletic, there is possibility for our society to start loving their children only for the talents that they were chosen to have.
To many, it seems like a waste for scientists to create stem cells only to do experiments on them, and then get rid of them when they are done, "in effect, these humanistic apologists have created an entire group of throw-away people, whose lives only have meaning in how they can serve the rest of humanity" (Sullenger). This is one issue that won’t be easily resolved, and it may never come down to being able to order a miracle cure over the tv. We live in an age of scientific discovery, and with that, anything is possible. There might even be a way for people to agree on the moral issues of the subject in the future.
This technology, according to scientists, could foster the ability to cure any disease, illness, or injury, but at what cost? Opponents of stem cell research believe that the practice of embryonic study and culture is immoral, while proponents suggest that this technology is necessary for the advancement of medical research. In 2001, then President George W. Bush quickly sided with those believing the research to be immoral. During his primetime address, he advocated only to allow research on cell lines already in existence. Much of this side of the argument is based on the idea that human eggs are fertilized with sperm to create an embryo, and then destroyed to harvest the stem cells within the blastocyst.
Through advancing our knowledge in cloning and genetic engineering, we can eliminate unwanted traits and genetic diseases. Wesley may then try to argue that these unwanted traits and diseases make us unique, but I doubt he will get much support, especially from somebody who suffers from some horrible genetic disease or deformity. Wesley then uses nature itself in his arguments by stating: “Eugenics, as awful as it is, is only the beginning of the threat posed to the natural order by human cloning”.