10-16-00 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. John A. Robertson’s article “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation” raises three important reasons on why there shouldn’t be a ban on Human Cloning but that it should be regulated. Couples who are infertile might choose to clone one of the partners instead of using sperm, eggs, or embryo’s from anonymous donors.
However, the issue of morality has taken center stage on this topic. A Gallup poll taken in 1997 revealed eighty-eight percent of Americans stated, "cloning human beings would be morally wrong" (Dudley 10). Some people, such as scientists in this field and certain infertile couples, are arguing against banning cloning. However, human cloning should be banned as it has the possibility to reduce the value of our life, to take away individuality in our society, and to destroy the moral and social systems humans have long cultivated. Richard Seed, a physicist who supports human cloning, revealed in an interview he wants to open profitable clinics offering human cloning for infertile people (Opposition).
The case against cloning, including therapeutic cloning, has mainly been argued on grounds of morality. Opponents have warned that creating embryos through cloning for the purpose of research (with the full intention of destroying them later) is a breathtakingly radical enterprise. For the first time in history, human lives will be created for the explicit purpose of exploitation. Such considerations have led activist Jeremy Rifkin to opine that the cloning debate is to the 21st century what the slavery debate was to the 19th. Unfortunately, we live in a time of widespread and extreme non-judgmentalism, an era when many Americans simply do not respond to moral arguments in public policy debates.
The main point is not the price that an eye, a brain or heart is sold for, but that a helpless child had to be killed in order to obtain these parts. Thus legalizing abortions would not mean giving the opponents a right to privacy and choice, but would in turn give a boost to their multimillion dollar biotechnology industry (Crutcher,M). I’m the defender of the right to life in America and an issue like abortion should light a fire in the hearts of all who respect this nation’s founding principles. The strength of the pro-life position is not because of some clever definition of life. Rather the facts force us to admit that this is a unique individual human life, whose helplessness in the womb can either motivate us to compassion, nurturing and protection or be used as an excuse and opportunity to exercise our deadly power and earn millions.
The latest U.N Resolution on November 8, 2002, passed unanimously, required a full disarmament but Hussein still evaded and refused the requirements. Time and time again Hussein barred entrance to suspect sites, delayed inspections, and eventually threw all U.N. inspectors out of Iraq. A prolonged effort of the U.N. had come to a failure. Possession and attempts for possession of WMD are always a great concern to be had. Iraq has possessed WMD before, both biological and chemical, violating a cease-fire treaty signed when Iraq lost the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Also he has stated that marriage is only for one... ... middle of paper ... ...e more different than all the candidates on some views. With that said I wish Robert Sarvis would have won and not Terry McAuliffe. To me his plans will only harm our already struggling economy. With all that said many of the candidates had many good ideas and views but it seems Virginia choose to go with McAuliffe. I do agree with some of his views about drug reform and civil liberties but when it comes to healthcare I lean more to Sarvis.
If marijuana were legalized, they would lose millions of dollars in research grants intended to prove the detrimental effects of the substance. Two other unrelated and very influential groups are the liquor lobby and phar... ... middle of paper ... ...ions and penalties against drug trafficking, and oppose attempts to weaken international drug policies and laws. Support adherence to scientific research standards and ethics that are prescribed by the world scientific community and professional associations in conducting studies and review on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. Support efforts to prevent availability and use of drugs, and oppose policies and programs that accept drug use based erroneously on reduction or minimization of harm. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel, I. L. Marihuana : The First Twelve Thousand Years.
Behind this organization there are facts that they don’t want Americans to know which shows a whole different view of Planned Parenthood, like how there is a high abortion rate which the tax dollars generate and goes to the clinics revenue and also that this is a criminal organization. Conservatives argue that selling unborn baby parts for profit is a crime and can result is imprisonment. But the conservatives see that there should be a stop to funding Planned Parenthood, so now Congress has the chance to end government financing for Planned Parenthood. A voice of
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.