Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against the cloning
Cloning and its effects on society
Arguments against the cloning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments against the cloning
The novel Brave New World presents us with a vision of a future where human beings are no longer born the “natural” way but are rather manufactured in identical batches to certain specifications. Where concepts like “mother” and “father” are scatological and children are taught only to keep the order and complete their predetermined occupations. By the end of the novel Mr. Huxley has us thankful that such a world is beyond our grasp. However, with the successful cloning of a Scottish sheep named Dolly, images of a Brave New World became so much closer to reality. Even just the word clone can summon dark images of lines of identical individuals with bar codes tattooed on their necks walking in lock-step fashion and it is due in no small part to the creative minds behind works of science fiction that cloning is imagined as being a harbinger of a copacetic and unfeeling society where people are manufactured and common morals have been replaced with machine interpreted laws. It is no surprise then that cloning, having been realized in the present, has been met with fear, discrimination, and repugnance.
Leon Kass argues that our initial repugnance at cloning is due to an intrinsic want to preserve natural law. Kass explains that repugnance and fear are the natural reactions to transgression of the natural order and contain wisdom beyond our immediate understanding. Kass even goes so far as to conclude that only children born from sex could be considered fully human as any other genesis for a human being is wholly unnatural and wrong. According to Kass all children are born from a loving couple who have no motivations in having a child other than the joy of children though merely the fact that children have been born from rape or bec...
... middle of paper ...
...ssue of cloning and thus it is a preprogrammed prejudice which highlights the real problem with cloning, society.
Cloning offers not only a chance for abuse but also for great advances. Even just the knowledge gained from cloning so advances our understanding of genetic information that in the future diseases such as Alzheimer's could become as polio is today. Many of the advances in science which have seen their abuses have also had their glorious triumphs; where IVF can be abused it also has allowed couples to bear children when they could not in the usual way. In conclusion I feel that cloning as it matures will have the potential to let people, who can not otherwise, reproduce as well as many other yet to be seen applications so long as we as society can come to terms with our own prejudices and learn to accept that genetics do not wholly determine our futures.
Silver’s argument illustrates to his audience that reproductive cloning is permissible, but most people in today’s society frown upon reproductive cloning and don’t accept it. He believes that each individual has the right to whether or not they would want to participate in reproductive cloning because it is their reproductive right. However, those who participate in cloning run the risk of other’s imposing on their reproductive rights, but the risk would be worth it to have their own child.
At first sight, there may not seem to be any similarities between the contemporary novel Never Let Me Go and the time-worn classic Frankenstein; but while Mary Shelly chooses to highlight the consequences of impetuous action in a harrowing tale about a hideous monster, Kazuo Ishiguro exemplifies the same principles in a heart wrenching tale about human clones. As a result of advancing societies, there is a common drive to create the “next best thing” whether it be monsters or clones; but the issue with this does not lie in the fact that scientists are pushing harder; but, that often there is little to no forethought regarding the consequences of creating a living thing, especially if it is created to be as human-like as possible. And, to worsen
Cloning is an exciting and ongoing field of study with many great possibilities, and negative drawbacks; this leaves many Christians wrestling with the idea of cloning, trying to decide where to stand on, for or against it. To follow, in the paper is an explanation of what cloning is and the uses of cloning at the present and projected in the future. After that the focus will be on the problems with cloning from a non-ethical stance. Finally the issue of cloning and Christian’s views on it will be addressed.
“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.
Long after Shelley wrote her classic masterpiece Frankenstein and Huxley wrote Brave New World, the ethical controversy of cloning conflicts with modern artificial intelligence research. The question that challenges the idea of negative or positive behavior in a replicated machine relies on its similarity to the source of the clone, whether it emulates human behavior or acts as a “superintelligence” with supernatural characteristics void of human error. Humanity will not know the absolute answers concerning behavioral outcome without creating a physical being, an idea portrayed in Shelley’s Frankenstein in which the creation of a monster emulates from his creator’s attempts to generate life. At the time of the novel’s publication, the idea of replicating a soul portrayed a nightmarish theme with little consideration for the potential scientific advancements to facilitate in reality. It lead the genetic idea of manmade intelligence and its ethics emerging from the relativity of space, time, and original life on the planet. The debate of the existing possibility of sentient machines continues to progress, but the consideration of ethical questions such as “Should we create these artificial people?” and “How does this enactment define the soul and mind?” warranted from primitive questions about machine learning within the last century. After the initial proof of possibility for sentient machines, the perfection of cloning will generate “good” behavior at its perfect state several generations from now. The perfect machine portrays the potential for sensible human behaviors including compassion, mentality, empathy, alertness, and love. Humanity of the twenty-first century possesses the knowledge to fantasize the idea of artificial ...
...f marriage and parenthood. Cloning is yet another blow to the unity which should exist in Christian marriage. Cloning subjects a human person to being treated as a thing. Cloning a child is an expensive technological project, prone to "quality control." Treating persons as things has become commonplace in our society, but the practice is always destructive and immoral (All.org).
In conclusion, it is clear to see that cloning is not the taboo it has been made out to be. It is a new boundary that humanity has never encountered before and so it is understandable that people have qualms about ‘playing God’ by shaping a life. Although some might argue that it is immoral to clone human beings, the truth is that it is unethical not to. Given that such technology has the potential to save millions upon millions of lives, not tapping into that industry would have dire consequences on the future. In this case, the ends more certainly justify the means.
Genetic cloning has become an issue in these past years, and many questions have arisen due to this scientific breakthrough. As with any new technology, ethical and moral ideals have clashed between those who support it and those who favor the opposing side. The dispute involves what to do with our ability to clone and manipulate DNA of human beings, plants, and animals, and whether it is ethical for us to pursue research and experiments with genetics or whether it is people just playing "God". Genetic cloning is a problem because it splits the country and for many of its questionable natures causing people not to trust it. Yes, it is a proven fact that people are scared of what they do not know about, and with genetic cloning, they have a very good reason to be both scared and relieved.
Cloning is, and always has been an extremely contentious topic. To some, the ethical complications surrounding it, are far more promiscuous than what scientists and medical experts currently acknowledge. Cloning is a general term that refers to the process in which an organism, or discrete cells and genes, undergo genetic duplication, in order to produce an identical copy of the original biological matter. There are two main types of artificial cloning; reproductive and therapeutic, both of which present their respective benefits and constraints. This essay aims to discuss the various differences between the two processes, as well as the ethical issues associated with it.
In the essay, Cloning Reality: Brave New World by Wesley J. Smith, a skewed view of the effects of cloning is presented. Wesley feels that cloning will end the perception of human life as sacred and ruin the great diversity that exists today. He feels that cloning may in fact, end human society as we know it, and create a horrible place where humans are simply a resource. I disagree with Wesley because I think that the positive effects of controlled human cloning can greatly improve the quality of life for humans today, and that these benefits far outweigh the potential drawbacks that could occur if cloning was misused.
Perhaps cloning is not the answer and our society should leave reproduction up to the natural ways. But then one must ask themselves the question of 'why not'. Is there some horrible outcome that will back fire due to the aberrant ways of creating a child? Is bring...
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?
...cloning can be divided into two broad category: potential safety risk and moral problems, and these concerns overweigh its achievement.
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.