Argument Against Human Cloning
The idea of cloning humans has always stirred debate, raising moral andethical issues. As research and experiments continue delve into thefrontiers of technology and science, we inch closer to the possibility ofcloning becoming a reality. In fact, it is unrealistic to assume it willnever happen. To deal with the implications of cloning, we should hesitateto consider the cost cloning would have on society as a whole. Humancloning is unethical because we cannot know the results, because alterssocietal roles, and because it degrades humanity. As we move forward intothe millennium, the cloned animal, Dolly, had already died prematurely.Efforts are made across the globe to create the first cloned human beingwithout first considering the consequences. This paper will focus on theethical and moral dilemmas surrounding the science of cloning and why it We should first understand our own limits and balance them with logicalthinking. Ethics involves doing the right thing. In theory, cloningsounds like a great idea. However, in practice, it presents more problemsthan it can solve. Part of being a human being in a functioning societyinvolves responsibility. Part of thinking a
Allowing cloningwould be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beingsare grown for spare body parts, and children are engineered to customspecifications; and that's not acceptable" (White House). Because we cannot know how it will effect the individual,we should refrain from human cloning because once it has been done, wecannot take it back. Kass argues that a cloned individual would have a distorted identityas well as an "issues" concerning his or her individuality. He argues that pop culture has "turned againstscience" in this way of thinking. If we look atcloning through the liberal lens, we observe cloning in the context offreedoms, rights, and empowerment. He argues thatsociety already harms children with its "high rate of divorce . In his view, cloning is an act thatdeliberately creates a being that technically has no parents. "Every change in medicine at firstworries people, as people worried when physicians first transplanted heartsor when human genome therapy was first tried" (Pence 123). Leon Kass, leader of the President's Council on Bioethics,claims cloning put scientists and doctors into the "godlike role ofcreator, judge, and savior" (McKibben 43). Certainly, sciencehas evolved to the point of brilliant discovery, but we still struggle withsimilar ethical dilemmas that Mary Shelley considered so long ago. Heclaims that most of the most arguments against cloning amount to littlemore than a reformation of the old familiar refrain of Luddites everywhere:'If God had meant for man to fly, he would have given us wings. "Lifeis a creation, not a commodity. He claims that science fiction is the cause forsociety's fears as a whole and "we cannot allow such unreflected emotion torule our lives" (Pence 5). In conclusion, human cloning is not something that should be rushedinto.
Common topics in this essay:
John O'Connor,
,
Council Bioethics,
Martin Marty,
Ronald Bailey,
Doe Jr,
Robert Wachbroit,
Magazine Dolly,
Aldous Huxley,
Gilbert Meilaender,
human cloning,
qtd winters,
winters 10,
cloned individual,
lens cloning seen,
cloning society,
society human,
cloning unethical,
mary shelley,
view cloning,
o'connor qtd,
kilner qtd winters,
change neither nor,
qtd winters 10,
o'connor qtd winters,
|
Acceptance Essays
