Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics concepts in genetic engineering
Argument About Human Cloning
Ethics concepts in genetic engineering
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics concepts in genetic engineering
Cloning: Choice is Ethical
Thousands of people a year are placed on the organ donor's list. Thousands of people a year are diagnosed with diseases that are dubbed fatal unless a transplant or transfusion is given. This has created a large demand for some alternative method to the present donor practice. Research in the "taboo" science of cloning seems to provide a viable method in which to aid the problem aforementioned and many others as well. But is it ethical?
Cloning technology is expected to aid the result in several medical breakthroughs. It is thought that there may one day be a cure for cancer. This is because the cloning process helps us understand the process of cell differentiation. Theories exist that if a cure for cancer can be found, then further testing may lead to a cure for heart attacks and cloning organs for organ transplantation. Scientists believe that they may be able to treat heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged (Smith). The cloning of organs would eliminate individuals waiting on a list for an organ transplant. Skin for burn victims, brain cells for the brain damaged, spinal cord cells for quadriplegics and paraplegics, hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys could be produced or regenerated. This could provide a means for suffering patients in desperate need of a transplant, which also eliminates the risk of rejection, for these new organs will be compose of their own tissue (Garg).
Human cloning though, has always been an issue of controversy, be it in terms of its ethics or religious reasoning, and there are many who will counter these ideas at any means to see it not happen. They would argue that it is not our right to dabble in such research, but why not? In a science where the possibilities for good are endless and many lives can be saved why not? Others counterarguments may include the worry that there would be no line drawn, cloning would go too far. For example, in this war, would it be ethical to clone "soldiers"? Creating an army to win a war, using these "soldiers" as a type of disposable robot to fight and help win. This can also be called the 10,000 Hitler objection, since it is most commonly stated as fear that someone would use the technology to create an army of Hitlers. It's a fear generated from to...
... middle of paper ...
...r cloned, it will not be the same person you knew before (Dr. Prentice).
Freedom sometimes means having tolerance for others and their beliefs. In our society today, some people believe there should be gun control while others do not. Everyone is free to decide what faith, or religion they will follow. Pro-cloning individuals feel that in a free society we know that we must tolerate some views that we do not agree with, this is what make our freedom so valuable, we have the right to choose. So when it comes back to that same question, is it ethical, in my opinion, choice is ethical.
Work Cited:
Bonsor, Kevin. “How Human Cloning Will Work.” How Stuff Works. May 8, 2005
Dr. Prentice, David A. “Cloning Humans Unethical, Unsafe and Unnecessary." The Solidarity Institute. May 8, 2005
Garg, Naveen. "Why not Clone?" Clone Rights United Front Feb 3, 2003. May 8, 2005
Hume. “Why an infertile woman with no viable eggs wants human cloning as explained by her husband.” HumanCloning.org. May 8, 2005
Roslin Institute.
Smith, Simon. “All the Reasons to Clone Human Beings." Human Cloning Foundation. May 8, 2005
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.
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
If a random individual were asked twenty years ago if he/she believed that science could clone an animal, most would have given a weird look and responded, “Are you kidding me?” However, that once crazy idea has now become a reality, and with this reality, has come debate after debate about the ethics and morality of cloning. Yet technology has not stopped with just the cloning of animals, but now many scientists are contemplating and are trying to find successful ways to clone human individuals. This idea of human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. I believe that it is not morally and ethically right to clone humans. Even though technology is constantly advancing, it is not reasonable to believe that human cloning is morally and ethically correct, due to the killing of human embryos, the unsafe process of cloning, and the resulting consequences of having deformed clones.
“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” (Kass) The concept of cloning continues to evoke debate, raising extensive ethical and moral controversy. As humans delve into the fields of science and technology, cloning, although once considered infeasible, could now become a reality. Although many see this advancement as the perfect solution to our modern dilemmas, from offering a potential cure for cancer, AIDS, and other irremediable diseases, its effects are easily forgotten. Cloning, especially when concerning humans, is not the direction we must pursue in enhancing our lives. It is impossible for us to predict its effects, it exhausts monetary funds, and it harshly abases humanity.
Cloning has been a controversial topic since the time it was introduced, prompting questions of ethics. Although it has been unintentionally in use for thousands of years, it was first brought about in the 1960’s. As more and more discoveries have been gained since then, numerous uncertainties continue to be raised among scientists, politicians, and anyone interested in the issue. While the idea of cloning is intriguing and polarizing, there is a fine like that defines what is and isn’t ethical; it is moral to clone cells for research development and plants for agricultural desires, but it is in no way acceptable to clone humans and animals for reproductive reasons.
Brannigan, C. Michael. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, Chatham House Publishers, 2001.
Scientists have no problem with the ethical issues cloning poses, as they claim the technological benefits of cloning clearly outweigh the possible social consequences, not to mention, help people with deadly diseases to find a cure. Jennifer Chan, a junior at the New York City Lab School, said, "?cloning body organs will help save many patients' lives," she said. "I think that cloning is an amazing medical breakthrough, and the process could stop at cloning organs--if we're accountable, it doesn't have to go any further." This argument seems to be an ethical presentation of the purpose of cloning. However, most, if not all scientists agree that human cloning won?t stop there. While cloning organs may seem ethical, cloning a human is dangerous. Still, scientists argue that the intentions of cloning are ethical. On the other hand, there are many who disagree with those claims. According to those from a religious standpoint, it is playing God, therefore, should be avoided. From a scientific standpoint it is also very dangerous, as scientists are playing with human cells which, if done wrong, can lead to genetic mutations that can either become fatal to the clone, or cause it severe disabilities. This information does, in fact, question the moral of the issue. If cloning is unsafe and harmful, what is the point?
Cloning is defined by Webster is “a cell, cell product, or organism that is identical to the unit or individual it was asexually derived” (Webster 150). The actual process of cloning is considerably easier because of trial and error. This process can be helpful and can be deadly in the right hands. In this light, the ethics of cloning has, is, and will be one of the hottest topics of all time.
Last of all, Cloning is not ethical, many religious groups look down upon cloning and think it’s not proper because they think it’s like playing God. Many scientists were mainly thinking about cloning animals and, most likely, humans in the future to harvest their organs and then kill them. “Who would actually like to be harvested and killed for their organs?” “Human cloning exploits human beings for our own self-gratification (Dodson, 2003).” A person paying enough money could get a corrupt scientist to clone anybody they wanted, like movie stars, music stars, athletes, etc (Andrea Castro 2005),” whether it be our desire for new medical treatments or our desire to have children on our own genetic terms (Dodson, 2003).
John A. Robertson, “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 119-122.
Rosen, Gary. "What Would A Clone Say?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2005. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
Recent discoveries involving cloning have sparked ideas of cloning an entire human body (ProQuest Staff). Cloning is “the production of an organism with genetic material identical to that of another organism” (Seidel). Therapeutic cloning is used to repair the body when something isn’t working right, and it involves the production of new cells from a somatic cell (Aldridge). Reproductive cloning involves letting a created embryo develop without interference (Aldridge). Stem cells, if isolated, will continue to divide infinitely (Belval 6). Thoughts of cloning date back to the beginning of the twentieth century (ProQuest Staff). In 1938, a man decided that something more complex than a salamander should be cloned (ProQuest Staff). A sheep named Dolly was cloned from an udder cell in 1997, and this proved that human cloning may be possible (Aldridge). In 1998, two separate organizations decl...
Human cloning is also unethical. Cloning, especially therapeutic cloning, requires the use of human embryos. Using these embryos would mean killing unborn children. Therapeutic cloning begins by removing the stem cells from an embryo (Human Cloning). The stem cells are used to grow bone, nerve, and muscle tissue. In the process of therapeutic cloning, an embryo, or a baby in the early stages of development, is taken and parts of it are grown to develop parts of the body including organs and limbs (Human Cloning). Removing these stem cells would kill the embryo. The embryo, which would result in a child if left in the mother’s womb, is separated into parts, which are used for science.
Wachbroit, Robert. The. “Human Cloning Isn’t as Scary as it Sounds.” The Washington Post, 2 March 1997.
These procedures hold infinite possibilities in the practice of healing the sick. Of all of the procedures mentioned, cloning is the only method that has been given any amount of serious research. Cloning could do away with the need for organ transplants. Instead of a transplant, a new organ could be cloned, thus removing any chance that the body might reject the organs. Nano-robotics can be used to fight off foreign infections and repair internal wounds.