In this commentary, the writers put forth a number of objections against human reproductive cloning. They claim that reproduction should aim at giving birth to a new human being with rights that are identical to those of her/his parents and not simply at producing a child 'at all costs'(266). It is posited that the resulting child of reproductive cloning would be denied the basic human right to be born with diversity resulting from randomly inheriting the DNA of a man and a woman as he/she will only be the biological child of one parent (266). However, this argument is not entirely persuasive as one is led to question a fundamental assumption made by the writers. Is it truly a basic human right to have a genetic uniqueness? Why should so much emphasis be placed on genetic uniqueness, when it can be so easily demonstrated that genetic identity does not entail personal identity, simply by considering the world's identical twins? Because the writers have not supplied a further warrant to bolster this assumption, their argument is on shaky grounds. Kitcher presents to us the case of a lesbian couple devoted to each other for years who wish to produce a child that is biologically connected to each of them. Cloning would enable the devoted pair to have a child biologically related to them (62). There exists no issue of imposing a pre-determined plan on the newborn's life how to write a high school essays, only the wish to have a child who is biologically their own. Kitcher asserts that human cloning is only defensible in such contexts (62). However one may argue that the lesbian couples already have the option of producing a child who will be biologically related to both. If an egg from one of them is fertilized with a male donor's sperm and the resultant embryo is implanted in the womb of the woman who did not supply the egg, then both would have a biological connection. That method of reproduction might even be preferable, as it diminishes any sense of burden that the child might feel because of his/her special biological semblance to one of the mothers. While it must be conceded that cloning would create a closer biological connection than the above mentioned method, it may nevertheless still be contested if that extra degree of relationship should be assigned such a high value. In this commentary, Kitcher argues that human reproductive cloning should only be undertaken in scenarios in which it is the only reproductive option available and when the prospective parents are interested in having a child for his or her own sake, and not simply as a means to a particular end. He claims that if the cloning is undertaken with the aims of generating a specific type of person whose goals and necessities are imposed upon essay writing can money buy happiness, then it is morally repugnant, not because merely because the process involves human interference, but because it is consistent with other traditional ways of undermining human autonomy (61). He therefore believes that all morally permissible cases of cloning must necessarily entail the omission of this objectionable feature (61). In this publication, Gillon argues against the claim that human reproductive cloning undermines the autonomy and individuality of the clone. He contends that even if reproductive cloning were to produce a person genetically identical to the person from whom he or she was cloned, this is not necessarily morally unacceptable. His argument relies on two major premises. Firstly, reproductive cloning does not produce two identical people, only two people with identical sets of genes. Secondly, genetic identity neither means nor entails personal identity. This is demonstrated by the mere observation that genetically identical twins are clearly different people despite the identical nature of their genes (5). Another argument that has been put forth against reproductive cloning relates to the safety of the procedure. Namely, that there is no scientific basis for the assumption that reproductive cloning poses negligible concern to humans regarding the incidence of developmental abnormalities (267). In addition, it is asserted that a new human being should not be considered a 'commodity' to be created and disposed of if defective even if developmental errors can be identified through diagnostic tools prior to birth (267). However, it appears that the writers are merely addressing the technical aspects of the procedure but have failed to undermine the morality of the procedure in itself, in the event that its safety can be reliably confirmed. This is therefore a weak objection the human reproductive cloning. As people live longer and longer, the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality. The idea horrifies most people, yet it is no longer mere science fiction. Write about the following topic: You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. The essay is well-organized, with a clear introducion which introduces the topic: To conclude help on a thesis statement, I do not agree with this procedure due to the ethical issues and dilemmas it would create. Cloning animals has been a positive development, but this is where it should end. Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past. So the best way to answer this human cloning essay is probably to look at both sides of the issue as has been done in the model answer. To what extent do you agree with such a procedure? The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too. Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues. One supporter that stands for cloning, Simon Smith, states that it would be useful to produce clones for fertility reasons such as infertile couples and couples carrying a genetic disease. This seems reasonable; however, there are other options available that are better suitable. Adoption case study, artificial insemination, and other successful surgeries are more appropriate, currently available alternatives. It seems questionable as to whether a person wanting to produce a clone offspring of themselves would be corrupt or unprincipled in wanting to do so. Wanting to make a replica of yourself would be a shameless act. Smith, Simon. “HumanCloning.org.” 2002. Human Cloning Foundation. 22 March2007. Everything happens for a purpose and for that reason alone cloning is wrong and should not be legalized. The saying goes, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it. This saying should apply to cloning just as well. The vast majority of humans are perfectly capable of reproducing offspring; therefore there is no reason to clone. Along with the scientific accomplishments it would bring to man kind many down falls would follow only shortly behind. It may seem like many advantages could take place in the scientific community if cloning were to be legalized example of a good essay paper, but only resulting in having only a few benefits and many downfalls. The possible outcomes that would exist in its legalization does not make it being performed morally right. Cons of Human Cloning This Biology and Medicine Essay was donated to you by students like you who want to improve your writing style and abilities. This essay or term paper is intended for reading purposes only. As it is written by other students it can serve as a valuable example of how essays or term papers should be written. To get a professionally written, high quality, authentic paper, please use our Custom Writing Services . If you have an essay to donate please read our submission details here . Concern has been raised that a black market for embryos would arise. Infertile couples could buy a cloned embryo that was stolen or was to be discarded in order to have a child. Such black market cloning activity would certainly contribute to the societal disturbances and social reformation, which may not necessarily be a rather positive thing for individual families which certainly speaks against cloning. In the world of technological advances that exists today, the issue of cloning is ever present as a debate of morals and human rights. People are asking if humans have the right to clone ourselves and other animals. Cloning, the process of taking a cell from one organism, taking a donor womb cell from another organism of the same species (which will not affect the clone’s genetic identity), inserting the original cell in the donor cell, and placing the newly developed embryo inside a surrogate mother, is an inhumane violation of human rights and an obscene act against the natural balance of life. There are those who think that cloning is a wonderful idea and that it is acceptable to make life, from and identical to that which already exists. Those in support of cloning have various reasons for their opinion. They say that clones and cloning can be used for medical and research purposes how to write phd proposals, that clones can do “dirty jobs” and populate our militaries. Another reason for cloning is to replace a deceased child or pet, or to enable infertile couples to have children. But these people in support of cloning seem to ignore one key factor that makes this act a violation of nature. All people have feelings and thoughts. This would include clones. Cloning trivializes the individualities each person and animal has, and many others view it an ethical injustice. A more pressing issue is that of the nature of cloning. Cloning, essentially how i do my homework, is the fabrication of life from that life which already exists. Some would use the phrase “playing God”. In the Christian and Catholic faiths essay on the french revolution, it is believed that the soul is created at the moment of conception, and therefore that cloning is therefore against God’s will, referencing the fact that there is no moment of conception in the cloning process—no sperm and egg. Buddhist responses to cloning have been less opposed to cloning itself, but to the way clones will—not would—be treated once they became prominent. Says Ronald Y. Nakasone, a Buddhist priest and Professor of Buddhist Art and Culture sample essay of process essay, “The Buddhist response to the possibility of cloning human beings is not if, but when. Would we accord a cloned person the benefits enjoyed by those who are born naturally?”. Nakasone is asking a key question here. We do not know how human clones will or would be treated in the future. Although it may be promised that clones will not be undermined or abused in any way, people do not always stay set in their ways, or keep their promises. One religion, a UFO religion called Raëlism, claims to have successfully cloned human beings, with help via its medical arm Clonaid. It is their belief that cloning is the first step towards immortality. Raëlians also believe that the human race was scientifically created by an extraterrestrial species called the Elohim. Although in no way is this religion to be belittled, in the matter of cloning, it seems to fail to ask the ethical and moral question: Is it our right to take the place of a divine being or creator? Essay on The Failed Case against Cloning - Humans have used cloning techniques for thousands of years. We have taken plant stems or part of its root and developed those parts into separate but genetically identical plants. These methods of cloning are not seen as strange because its simple and widespread usage. In fact my essay in 2 hours, many vegetables and fruits are grown using these cloning methods to produce an offspring identical to an exceptional plant. However, cloning, which started as a farming method, has now become a major source of debate due to breakthroughs in genetics. [tags: Genetic Defects, Reproduction]
An Argument Against Cloning Essay - An Argument Against Cloning Increase in genetic knowledge has created challenges in our society. Daniel Callahan focuses on these challenges and expresses his worry about the society (soil) on which this genetic knowledge is growing. Callahan asks the question of what kind of society (soil) is most likely be hazardous and introduces three patterns: 1) societies that demonize death and illness; 2) those societies that want to find biological solutions to social problems; and 3) societies with postmodern theory that there is no common social good, only a plurality of individual goods. [tags: Argumentative Essays what is the definition of critical thinking, Persuasive Essays] 1144 words 1195 words Essay on Human Cloning: Is it Ethical or Not? - Reproductive human cloning is a form of asexual reproduction done in a lab, not by a sperm fertilizing an egg. This issue has been a hot topic for the past decade after Dolly the sheep was cloning in Scotland. Dolly was the first cloned mammal, whose very existence created much heat in the general public (Hansen, 2004). Many people believe that cloning is ethically immoral and should never be done, but others think that scientific advances can greatly cure diseases. Michael Soules, a professor and director of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of Washington, concurs with the idea that reproductive human cloning is unethical. [tags: Cloning] 1417 words Human cloning does not respect nature Posted by Ardent Editor on February 18th, 2009 Human cloning does not ensure diversity and ecosystem survival
0 Reacties
Laat een antwoord achter. |
ArchievenCategorieën |