Sure, there are downsides to cloning, and yes it can be dangerous if it is used for the wrong purposes. This is true with almost any new technology. From gunpowder to cars to airplanes to computers to the Internet; any one of these technologies can be harnessed for negative purposes. Despite the risks involved however, all of these technologies have improved our standard of living and quality of life, and I feel cloning will do the same. Wesley J. Smith goes on and on about how eugenicists would want to create homogeneity among Humans, valuing traits such as intelligence and looks instead of love, compassion, and empathy.
For years, clones have been the subject of popular fiction, but the technology was lacking. Now the ethics of doing so must be carefully considered. While almost all world health and religious bodies are coming out in opposition to the idea, it must be accepted that someone somewhere will try it. Thus, it is absolutely necessary to consider the harm that can be done and move to curb abuses. What immediately springs to mind for most people with the possibility of cloning whole people is the ideas of creating supermen or a master race which dominated the Nazis.
The uninformed also look to popular culture instead of facts to argue against cloning. Jurassic Park, Frankenstein and The Island of Doctor Moreau have shown to the majority of American the dark, evil side of cloning, which is not the aim of scientists and at present not technologically possible. It is obvious that we must act now and set guidelines, both ethical and legislative, but we should not ban cloning completely without further research. The picture of an amazingly rich person cloning the perfect army of soldiers or breeding a nation of subservient clones has been fed to the people through newspapers and the nightly news. What most people do not realize is that clones are not grown in a petri dish.
Bans Against Cloning Cloning, a very controversial debate, is it right or wrong? Most Americans automatically assume cloning should be outlawed due to their moral standards. At first, I condemned cloning, on pure ignorance of what cloning really is. Most people have this science fiction view upon what cloning could produce. Many misconceptions about human cloning come from science fiction.
Others argue that the positive effects of cloning will outweigh the negative. The issue over whether cloning humans is ethical is receiving more and more attention as scientists successfully experiment with cloning and gene therapy, coming closer to making human clones a reality. An ethical basis for the rejection or acceptance of cloning in science can be based around several different theories of morality. Interestingly, those supporting a Utilitarian approach, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, can be found on both sides of the issue. 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.
Scientists have made in-vitro fertilization possible, allowing thousands of infertile couples to have biological children. When in-vitro fertilization was introduced it was seen as completely unnatural and going against all religions. I am sure there are still people who view in-virto fertilization as wrong, but the vast majority of the world can see it for its benefits at this point. Although it must be said that it did take a while for people on a whole to accept this method of conceiving a child. Today, we as a society world wide have a new issue to deal with.
Opponents of cloning believe that the procedure of cloning has not been proven safe at all, while those who support cloning believe the cloning of humans could be used to solve human diseases and infertility. However, both sides may agree that human cloning may help in our new era. Human cloning has been successful and has had failure at times as well. The proponents of human cloning could be broken down into two arguments. The first argument being the way cloning can help by using certain technology to make sure the infertility rate goes down by helping to produce a genetic offspring.
The call for the ban of human cloning has been premature in the development of the procedure. The benefits of cloning are innumerable to the medical field and could revolutionize potentially fatal procedures. Humankind could benefit greatly from this new technology, and it should not be banned. If God was the original "cloner" when he created Eve from Adam's rib, and Jesus was a clone of god. If we are wrong in cloning, would not God also be?
In modern science, three types of cloning exists, positional cloning (genes), Jurassic Park cloning (nucleus), and blastomere separation (human embryos). According to Conley, "The recent experiment in human cloning in Washington, D.C. has provoked moral unease in the public. Both specialists and lay persons sense that this new technology is fraught with ethical and political peril," (2). Well, in such protests there is a hint of hypocrisy. Society has already embraced in-vitro fertilization, which is a form of human gen... ... middle of paper ... ... Works Cited 1.
This technique would be useful if a person need plasma, blood, or possible organs. To attempt to transplant baby organs to an adult however; the baby would have to grow into an adult. So instead of raising clones to be killed for the original human, scientists have thought about trying to copy human organs. By using DNA of a person’s organs they could then make a copy of it before it was ill and transplant it into the patient, this is the more reasonable thing to do. The two sides of human cloning is the side who believes that human cloning is morally, ethically, and religiously wrong and the side that believes that cloning could save countless lives and bring happiness to countless families.