"Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," written by Ruth Macklin, a professor of Bioethics, discusses the negative responses people have regarding human cloning. As the title says: "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," Macklin believes that cloning deserves a chance to be developed in humans. Though there may not be any substantial benefits to human cloning, nobody has presented a persuasive case that cloning is harmful either.
One of the points mentioned in the essay is about a violation to human dignity. Theologians have said that cloning would be a violation to dignity and that cloned humans would be treated with less respect than other human beings. Macklin contends that clones would share the same rights and dignities as the rest of us. She states that a lawyer-ethicist once said cloning is a violation of the "right to genetic identity" (603). Macklin doubts the existence of this right. She explains that adults should not be cloned without their voluntary consent, however, with such consent; the concept of genetic identity is not violated.
Another issue discussed is that human clones could be used as human farms or organ donors. Unthinkable as it may be, there is a fear that parents may clone their children for "spare parts." Such a theory is ludicrous because parents of twins do not view one child as a spare part should the other break. She reasons that a clone would be looked upon as equally as a twin.
Macklin also mentions cloning being used for eugenics, which studies ways to improve a race or breed through selective mating and other means. She finds such ideas repulsive. She states that there are geniuses already frozen in sperm banks, but that women in general aren't concerned with creating a master race. Therefore, cloning wouldn't be used for "selective breeding."
Macklin gives many examples of cases where human cloning could be considered acceptable. For mothers who cannot have children, families with children who are sick or dying,...
...In the past few years, humancloning has gone from a laboratory fantasy to a global debate. There are many arguments supporting both negative and positive effects of humancloning. Humancloning raises a lot of challenging questions about human liberty, dignity, and identity. Will humancloning be a great step for man, or will it lead to moral abyss? This question is asked all the time. With great research one would realize that with the implementation of humancloning, there would be a huge medical and non-medical advancement. People with superior or mental attributes would be cloned, large armies could be created, single and infertile parents could have children, and certain species could be saved from extinction. In contrast to all the positives of humancloning, there are more negatives related to the subject, mostly moral and ethical negatives coming from ethicists, psychologists, theologians and the church, as well as many mandated laws against the cloning of humans.
Cloning could also cause a serious overpopulation crisis. The first major point in favor of humancloning is that cancer patients would be able to have bone marrow transplants together with other organ transplants. The treatment for leukemia could be...
...that Robert E. Lee might not have been the greatest commander who he was made out to be. Many people believe that it is Longstreet gave the order at Gettysburg for Pickett’s charge even though Robert E. Lee gave the order to Longstreet. Longstreet disapproved but because of Lee’s higher rank Lee’s decision was what was going to happen, no matter what Longstreet said. Longstreet wanted to flank the Union and if Robert E. Lee was not so stubborn then many lives could have been spared. Longstreet disapproved of Gettysburg from the start and even after the first days victory wanted to fall back because of the position of the Union army. You can see in many articles, books, and movies that Robert E. Lee was tired and it almost appeared that Lee just wanted the war to be over. To start, Lee did not even join because of the Confederate cause, he joined because of he did not want to fight against his own state. Lee also did not wear General stars but wore Colonel Stars, his last rank in the Union army, which appears to me like he was still loyal to the United States. In most cases you should blame the highest ranking officer for a loss or failure; even Lee blamed himself. Lee was Longstreet’s superior and Longstreet could not make his own non-influenced calls.
Longstreet’s reputation was tarnished even more after the war by the Lee Cult, as it was nicknamed, or as it is most commonly known as the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. The leader after the Civil war was...
...NAME- LASTNAME: EMİNE MERİÇ
Probably, one of the most important advancement technique is cloning in a field of medicine in new century .Firs of all, scientists and genetic bioengineering intend by helping save some animal species from extinction. Animals which are endangered destroy due to not variety.I mean that species which can survive have common gene in their DNA. Genetic disorders can be transferred passing down and any disorder in DNA can easily spread among the all animal species.In this condition, genetic diseases can be seen because of heredity. The best example of this is cheetah or “hunting leopard”. In the past cheetah can live almost everywhere on the world- North America, Asia, Europe and Africa regions.Ten thousands years ago,unknown event have been happened. Not oly the number of cheetahes were decrased but also other species have been destroyed. Just 10 cheetahes could survive and they reproduced each other. Therefore, genetically identical cheetahes have been born. That is why, if environmental pollutıon effects a cheetah, actually it effects all type of cheetahes . Scientist cannot help them but genetic engineers can protect endangered animals by cloning techniques. For example, if an old animal which lives in a zoo is endangered and even it is different from wild life, then genetic engineers can be cloning it and they provide variety...
...wasn’t, there was a sea urchin that was cloned over a century ago in 1885. Maybe because Dolly is a mammal, her successful cloning seemed to open the Pandora’s Box of the potential for humancloning, especially when a scientific breakthrough occurred in 2004 when a team of South Korean and American scientists successfully cloned some human tissue.
We, as people are much divided on the issue of humancloning. Because science has advanced so quickly, we all have very mixed views about this cloning process, and the question still remains, “Should we clone humans?” You can’t play God! Some of us say. Others see it as an incredible breakthrough in medical science. Many are still waiting to see how the pros and cons of humancloning play out before they take a firm stance on the issue. Cloning and especially humancloning could make or break our society if it is carried out.
Scientists see cloning as a new way of farming animals for our benefit. Instead of waiting for animals to reproduce normally, they believe they could clone animals to have sufficient livestock.
Scientists have already cloned many animals, but they all show signs of untreatable life threatening problems, they die at a younger age because the cells are older and develop incorrectly, and actually...
...Controversial Issues Paper
Issue # 5
John A. Robertson, "HumanCloning and the Challenge of Regulation," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 119-122.
George J. Annas, "Why We Should Ban HumanCloning," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 118-125.
In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of "Should HumanCloning 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 "HumanCloning and the Challenge of Regulation" raises three important reasons on why there shouldn't be a ban on HumanCloning but that it should be regulated. Couples who are infertile might choose to clone one of the partners instead of...
HumanCloning, is it Ethical?
Heaven L Collins
Bryant & Stratton College
Eng101: Research and Writing
December 15, 2015
HumanCloning, is it Ethical?
Some people wonder what it would be like to have a second one of them. In order to have a copy of someone humancloning would have to take place. Cloning means to produce a genetically identical copy of an individual. There are many questions and concerns that arise when it comes to cloning, and one big question is, is it ethical?
How Cloning is done?
When cloning an individual a scientist would take that individuals DNA from a skin cell, put their DNA into a woman’s egg, where the DNA has been removed. Then a zap of electricity would make the egg divide and after a few days there would be an embryo identical to that individual (2002, HumanCloning). There are
It is argued that humancloning should be permitted because of one of the most fundamental elements of personal freedom, the right to reproductive freedom. Individuals have the right to reproduce as they choose as long as they do not violate other right or moral injunctions. Dan Brock, a philosopher, defines the right to reproductive freedom as:
A right to reproductive freedom is properly under-stood to include the right to use various assisted reproductive...
...The first animal cloning started around the early 1950s. During this time, the first thing to be cloned was a northern leopard frog by Robert Briggs and Thomas King. This experiment was to learn how the cells would activate and deactivate during the cell development. His tadpole that he cloned didn’t survive into adult hood, but it helped future cloning be more successful. Now in my opinion isn’t so bad. Cloning a frog to learn a simple cell development may actually help us more in the future. It could teaches how disorders or disease may be created and show us how to reverse them before conditions get worse.
Another animal was cloned around the late 1990s. The lamb named Dolly was the first vertebrate animal to be cloned. She was the most the most famous because instead of using an embryo, they used an adult cell to clone Dolly. This experiment was to help research into producing medicines in the milk of farm animals. While this was one of the most significant achievements, it started too raised up ethnical concerns. After Dolly was cloned by scientist, other animal such as mice, rabbis, horses, donkeys, pigs, goats and cattle started to be clone. This is was a good experiment in my opinion. Knowing that we can clone animals helps us be able produce more animals that we need for food purposes. Having more animal’s means we can never really have a food shortage. This would be a good way to help world hunger become less of a...
...To consider the cloning of another human being forces me to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make us all human.
<br>Until the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be successfully cloned, it was thought that the ability to clone an adult human was impossible or would only be possible somewhere in the distant future! But that has all changed with the birth of Dolly and the explosion of advances in the field of Embryology and genetic screening. These advances are leading the way forward for the cloning of an adult human, which brings up many new ethical and complicated questions that I feel must be addressed by the scientific community and the public, before these advances can reach there full potential.
<br>As with any scientific or technological advance, it brings around questions that I feel must be answered: Do the pros out weight the advantages, and more importantly; is it right? Will HumanCloning become a brave new step in fighting disease and improving the quality of life, or will it lead to dehumanisation and a new genetic underclass?
<br>People say and strongly believe that biologists are cloninghuman embryos only to see how far they can push the scientific barriers. However not all things are corrupt, I believe, as do the leaders of Great Britain, that it is possible...