Advocate For Therapeutic And Reproductive Cloning example essay topic

One Head is Better Than Two The question of cloning has been one of the most recently controversial issues of the past decade. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make them all human... Scientists have debated the implication of human and non-human cloning since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly. Compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects.

In 'Cloning Is Moral' Alex (Something else) comes across as an advocate for therapeutic and reproductive cloning and argues that it is immoral to be against it, which I disagree. The cloning of any species whether they are human or non-human is morally wrong no matter how beneficial to humanity as it may be. (Something else) begins his argument stating that therapeutic cloning is pro-life technology, saying an embryo which is used in therapeutic cloning is not a human being, but has the potential become human. Considering myself pro-life I believe that life begins at the moment of conception and with that said destroying an embryo is the complete opposite of pro-life. How is destroying an innocent, defenseless form of life to aid another pro-life? It simply is not.

It is understandable that this new break-through could have a huge impact in the world in which we live, but when you begin to meddle with the most delicate structure of life that is where it should stop. (Something else) does go on to say that he does believe in one anti-cloning position. He states cloning represents 'the desire to exert our will over every aspect of our surroundings. ' I believe we were put on the earth to be stewards and keep the earth, not to dominate every aspect of it. (Something else) then disputes the idea as he sees every advance in human history as part of a 'technological project', and asks the reader where would we be without the men who 'exerted their will' over surroundings? Yes, that is a valid argument, but tampering with life is not something I want scientists interfering with.

It is not our place as humans to create and destroy life. It is understood that advances in technology have made man's life happier, longer, and healthier, and I am all for advancing but destroying life to create life is unjustified. With the results of cloning possibly curing Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and heart disease who could possibly be against it? I believe that if we were capable of pro-longing everyone's life we would then overcrowd the earth because as bad as it may sound we need people to pass on as a form of population control.

(Something else) then makes an argument for reproductive cloning saying when it becomes safe to perform that it will prevent the transmission of genetic diseases. When it becomes safe? How many possible lives will have to be lost before reproductive cloning is considered safe? What if scientists can not find a safe way to perform it? There is absolutely no argument I can find against preventing children from being born mentally disabled for example, but then there comes the abuse of genetic engineering. Parents will begin to basically 'build' their children, giving them specific physical characteristics, or prolonging their lifespan.

He concludes his argument saying 'You should have such rights just as you have the right to vaccinate your children or fit them with braces. ' At this point, (Something else) is now beginning to make comparisons with contrasting ideas. Getting braces on your teeth and altering genes and DNA to give your child green eyes for example is incomparable. (Something else) refuses to address the major aspects of reproductive cloning. The aspects so severe as psychologically damaging a child as their uniqueness and knowledge of self is no longer there. Soon enough we will look at these genetically engineered individuals as objects and not human beings.

I only see cloning justifiable if it is used to only clone organs, not humans and animals. That is the only way we will be really saving and not creating life. Science is an amazing and dangerous world that man seeks to control. Genetic engineering was never intended for man to discover. Now that he has, should he used it for his benefit?

There are many advantages as well as disadvantages in genetically changing a being. The arguments of both sides seem to balance evenly. If man decides to make clones of the perfect man and woman, then the true natural man will cease to exist, for he chose to make an artificial copy of himself. There's only one question left to debate, is the perfect world worth the destruction of the true human being?