The Cloning Dilemma
Cloning is one of the most widely talked about topics in this world. It is one topic that evokes a great public response worldwide. The defenders of cloning believe that cloning and genetic engineering will be the answer to most of the diseases in the future. On the other hand, the people against cloning view it as ‘ playing God ’. Cloning is unethical because people will lose their identities if their clones come into this world. We are taking nature into our own hands by cloning animals or humans.
Cloning is the process of creating a cell, tissue line or even a complete organism from a single cell. The concept of cloning was introduced in 1903, and plants were the first living organisms to be cloned. Other examples of clones are trees sending up runners, worms dividing into smaller worms, populations of genetically identical bacteria and cells dividing into tissue. The word clone actually comes from the Greek root for “ twig ” ( klon ).
Human cloning is a prospect no longer left to the fantastic realm of science fiction novels; rather it is a modern possibility. In 1997, embryologists in Scotland cloned the first mammal, a sheep named Dolly. Shortly thereafter, scientists in the United States cloned a set of monkeys.
There are many advantages and disadvantages of cloning and a lot of ethical issues related to it. The entire realm of biotechnology is fraught with dangers and problems that require careful study and democratic debate of key ethical issues. In an era where everything depends on technology and where life can be created and redesigned in a Petri dish and genetic codes can be edited like a digital text, the distinction between ‘ natural ’ and ‘ artificial ’ have become very complex.
The defenders of biotechnology extol its potential to increase food production and quality and to cure diseases and prolong human life. Its critics, on the other hand, claim that genetic engineering of food would produce “ Frankenfoods ” (Best and Kellner 440) that would pollute
Both Paine and Henry tried to push for support against Great Britain and motivate the colonies and their residents to side with the revolutionaries. Both felt obligated to stand up for their unalienable rights and the good of the nation, and this is most evident when Henry declared that he had to speak up, or "[he] should consider [him]self as guilty of treason towards [his] country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven [...]" (Henry 232). Both agree that compromise with Great Britain is not a solution, for it had been ineffective in the past. Both believe that only war can solve the problems of the colonies, and "only in this way [...] we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country" (Henry 230). When Henry pronounces that through freedom, which can only be reached through winning a war, is the only way to accomplish the nation's goals, he sets an objective. Henry's logicality and straightforwardness hits the audience with ...
The distance between the colonies and England is what led to most of the political strife in 1776. Paine argued that having a government so far away trying to rule from was deplorable. He urged colonists to be outraged, as he was, that when any issue would arise it would take 3-4 months for the English government to find a solution and start working on fixing the problem. Paine called for independence to create a government that would be run by the people and for the people, not by one single tyrannical leader. He rallied for a government that was in America and that had representatives from every one of the colonies so that all the colonist’s voices would be heard. Paine urged the colonists to see “Our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and hath tended to convince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in Kings more than repeated petitioning”, and it was now time to fight for independence to create a government that would listen (Paine, Common Sense,
Paine believed that America needed to break free of the British clutches. He spoke out against slavery and joined the army to help fight the war. He did not agree with hereditary monarchy and wrote another paper to argue this point (Franklin 321). Paine was very aware of his criticizers, and worked very hard to persuade them toward his way of thinking. In his pamphlet Common Sense he writes: "I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished under her former connection with Great Britain, the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect"(Paine 323). Paine states the following argument: ."..for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and proba...
Paine had not entertained the idea of independence from Britain when he arrived in America. He thought it was “a kind of treason” to break away from Britain. It was not until the Battle of Lexington in 1775 that he considered “the compact between Britain and America to be broken” (Claeys). This idea of a broken compact allowed Thomas Paine to write a political pamphlet.
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.
Through showing colonists that the last resort to free themselves from Britain was important, Thomas Paine helped influence the revolution, while slightly influencing the Declaration of Independence. Only after Common Sense came out did the founding fathers realize they needed independence. Even they were not brave enough to stand against British rule. There are quite a few differences between the language used in the Declaration and Common Sense. While Common sense was written for common people to read, the Declaration was written in a way to get alliances with Europe. One of the alliances was with England, which Thomas Paine wanted to cut off all ties with England. The founding fathers did have more lose if they went down Paine’s route, the British could have them killed. “The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and
This paper will show how the facility will continue to stay abreast of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) standards. The paper will also take a look at the activities and the frequency of training and audits that the hospital will conduct throughout the year. This paper will address the possibility of the fines the hospital has received and what causes the fines. The OSHA is an organization that provides a safe work environment for all staff members.
The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. ” He later talks about how down the road we end up having to pick one over the other in order to keep the peace. We end up choosing the government because over time the society as a whole wants a common goal and want others to be accountable for their actions. The only way most see this being obtained is by having some sort of a leader to be able to uphold the overall beliefs of his people. Although Paine does beat it into the heads of others that Britain is horrible for America to stay connected to so closely, he does state that their constitution was good for them at the time but is now pretty much obsolete and absurd. “To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions. To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things. First.- That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly.- That the commons, by being
Paine questioned British parliament and monarchy and also shared that “of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of god than all crowned ruffians that ever lived” (Paine, 1776). Colonies where under the rule of one king where liberty and honesty were very unlikely. When Paine wrote Common sense, he gave
Thomas Paine is undoubtedly one of the most prolific founding fathers of the United States, albeit not in the manner most would expect from a founding father. Paine was not a drafter of the constitution, nor was he an early member of Congress or President of the United States. However, Paine did have a profound impact on society, not only in America, but also abroad. Often remembered for helping spur the American Revolution, yet not as often remembered for the other revolution in France. Two of the more famous writings from Paine are, of course, Common Sense and The Rights of Man, both of which were written during revolutionary times in separate countries. It goes without saying that when a revolution is taking place there will be many on both sides of the war; in both of these instances, Paine was the voice of the people and stood up for what was right regardless of the consequences. I posit Thomas Paine was the most influential man for revolution in America and France despite fear of backlash or imprisonment. In fact, near the end of his life Paine was not only imprisoned, but somehow evaded being beheaded as well. Thomas Paine was even more influential as a result of his extreme lack of self-interest and ability to stay true to the cause of his writings rather than wither away in fear.
In conclusion, Jefferson and Paine show some similar views and intentions in their respective documents. Both writers argue that the new States would be better off without the ties to Great Britain, and both offer very valid points as to why this should occur. However, the differences can be seen in the writing styles and overall tone of the work. Paine becomes more of a salesman, trying to sell his readers to his thoughts on the government of Great Britain, though not completely becoming a force on the matter. Jefferson maintains a very up-front approach, simply overwhelming his readers with numerous examples and energetic voice, concluding with the 'final word' on the matter. However much the style differs, though, the two documents were equally compelling and served to motivate a nation into fighting for their independence.
In recent years our world has undergone many changes and advancements, cloning is a primary example of this new modernism. On July 5th, 1995, Dolly, the first cloned animal, was created. She was cloned from a six-year-old sheep, making her cells genetically six years old at her creation. However, scientists were amazed to see Dolly live for another six years, until she died early 2005 from a common lung disease found in sheep. This discovery sparked a curiosity for cloning all over the world, however, mankind must answer a question, should cloning be allowed? To answer this question some issues need to be explored. Is cloning morally correct, is it a reliable way to produce life, and should human experimentation be allowed?
His exceptional writing and simple style reached many receptive ears across the Colonies. He also spoke plainly as was with de Crevecoeur yet tended away in his writing from the rural and the pleasant and more towards politics and the ugly truths that were part of colonial life. Consider his most famous work “Common Sense” it is an agitation against the crown of England, this would become a pattern with the man. In its most basic form “Common Sense” is a call to arms and revolution. It is also a great if very lengthy argument for what should happen after the war is won establishing a republic. “The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ’Tis not the affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom; but of a continent—of at least one-eighth part of the habitable globe. ’Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected even to the end of time by the proceedings now” (Paine 136). This is Paine’s original thoughts on the matter and his beginning argument. He continues with “We have boasted the protection of Great Britain without considering that her motive was interest, not attachment; and that she did not protect us from our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies on the same account.” (Paine 137). It seems a pretty simple argument to the author that Americans are only entangled in foreign wars because of the association with Great Britain. He makes another assertion that “America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.” (Paine 137). Paine’s call to a republic
Cloning is defined as the process of asexually producing a group of cells, all genetically identical, from a single ancestor (College Library, 2006).” Cloning should be banned all around the world for many reasons, including the risks to the thing that is being cloned, cloning reduces genetic differences and finally it is not ethical. Almost every clone has mysteriously died even before they are born.
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.