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?
It is also one of the top controversial issues of the 20th century (Epstein 1). Many believe that continuing to provide genetically constructed inventions in this world is ethical, which means that these inventions conform to one’s moral standards (Epstein 5). Others argue that such inventions as human clones, which are genetically constructed humans, and other genetically created figures, are wrong and should be stopped (Epstein 5). Overwhelming textual evidence proves that genetic engineering is not beneficial to society. Accordingly, genetic engineering is unethical and therefore should be stopped.
Meaning the world we live in would lose it’s diversity and could change the order of life and society, as we know it today. Dalai Lama recognizes how the medicinal advancement of genetic modification is able to affect the world, “ But now, or at any rate soon, genetics can tell individuals and families that they have genes which may kill or maim them in childhood, youth, or middle age. This knowledge could radically alter our definition of health and sickness” (134). This quote reflects the idea that there is no boundaries on how scientist can modify the human body in regard to diseases or illnesses. Ultimately, creating a “ super race” has it’s pros and cons, but at the end of the day the outcome of altering human genetics is still unknown to us and should not be altered with for the sake of creating a perfect society.
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.
The second is that prenatal testing will become limited to the upper class, leaving the lower class with fewer options, creating biologically driven social barriers. Furthermore the decay of disability support systems due to prenatal testing can lead to an increased pressure to eliminate those unfit for society (4,Kitcher, 214). Kitcher introduces Utopian eugenics, as a solution that improves the quality of an embryonic life. He envisions a world where education is used to enlighten peoples understanding of molecular genetics and allows t... ... middle of paper ... ...of eugenics to create tailored humans with customized characteristics. The eugenic decision-making that drives all aspects of life in Gattaca strays from the basic principles of determinism.
Many citizens strive to make our society a better one for everyone. By attempting to filter out genetic inferiorities, many believed there were positive effects to the idea of eugenics. Many historic eugenicists thought society would be better by preventing the births of people afflicted with these inheritable diseases. This sterilization movement was very flawed in the early 20th century. Much of the data collected and methods used by eugenicists determined why certain individuals were malleable to a society.
If somebody makes a mistake, it could end up affecting the next few generations of humans. In conclusion and my personal opinion, genetic engineering could lead to a technically better and more advanced world despite the fact that it suffers from deep moral downfalls. The main issue that causes debate seems to be if artificial superiority is a viable alternative to nature. It could work in society if people only used it for things such as evading cancer, but if a new social class is formed or people start creating super humans, it’s unquestionably a problem.
Such primitive impulses can have devastating consequences on not only us, but others as well. This holds true when it comes to genetic engineering; the acquisition of such influence over nature can potentially devastate the human race. Eugenics, the theory of selective breeding applied to humans, is bound to grow in popularity as genetic engineering advances. This could be particularly debilitating to us, because it unifies the gene pool, which allows disease to quickly consume the population. These results are not set in stone and may thus be avoided if the proper boundaries are implemented.
Needless to say, society placing such value on improving oneself is often associated with superficial humans, in fact, with genetic enhancement being more accessible, our society will become an artificial world. The uprising of this particular behavior will change societies demographically by first the abuse of genetic enhancements and even further pursing in other extremities, such as creating a new world with the new creation of modified human species. Our society need to understand that improvements aren’t necessary beneficial, it can cause future problems in which society must undo. Our society cannot manipulate the process of nature; the life of nature is to be unchanged and if nature is to be changed then the undesirable consequences are near.