Early in 1997, Scottish scientist Dr. Ian Wilmot revealed to the world that he had successfully cloned an adult sheep, Dolly. With this “invention”, the world understood that cloning was no longer an element of a science fiction movie, but rather at the for estep of tommorow. Since then, human cloning has become one of the most debated topics in the world.
Human clonings far reaching global impact has produced billions in reaserch costs and numerous congressional debates. Although certain moral questions arise, human cloning presents a vast amount of medical benefits and therefor should continue in its reaserch stages. Even the advocates for human cloning wont be able to argue that human cloning technology is relatively new and untested for human use. One can go further by also stating that certain strict religous fundamentilsts will always be against the idea because through cloning, people could infer humans are acting like gd, which the bible is solely against. However these points are minimal in the comparissan to cloning’s benefits. First of all, before one can debate weather or not human cloning is an overall beneficial process, one needs to understand the general science behind human cloning.
The Essay on Genetic Cloning Human Technology World
... sense and reasonable regulation, human cloning is not something to be feared. Human beings are the world s greatest treasures. Human cloning will allow us to ... years, the topic of genetic cloning has been under heated debate by people all over the world. This debate began when Scottish scientists cloned ...
It is not simply enough to state that it is the creation of another person. In several recent polls by TIME magazine (The ethics of cloning) and it was shown that 75 percent of the responding population thought that cloning wasn’t a good idea. Furthermore, 74 percent of the respondents believed that cloning was against God’s will, and when asked if they would clone themselves, if presented with the opportunity, 91 percent responded with a “no.” However, when asked to define human cloning, an estimated 95 percent of them couldn’t describe it correctly. Although, there have been many proposed methods for cloning, only one of them has been successful and is usually the sole process refered to when mentioning human cloning. This technique is called “Nuclear Transfer” or “Nuclear Substitution.” In the operation, the nucleus, which is part of every cell and contains the DNA molecules from an unfertilized female egg cell, is carefully removed and then replaced with the nucleus from a cell of another person. Then, “the cell is manipulated into believing that it has been fertilized and is then implanted into the womb of the mother, just as is done in the process of in-vitro fertilization.
Afterwards, the embryo develops into a fetus and is born after nine months, just like any other baby” (Shapiro 1997).
This means that a cloned baby only differs from other babies in that they share the same exact DNA with another person, just like identical twins, only the clone is much younger than its twin. The child will grow up to be no more like this twin than natural identical twins are alike. Human clones would be carried and delivered after nine months by a human mother. Reaserchers are also working on processes that could clone parts of humans and not the whole person. A common fear expressed by the skeptics is that put in the wrong hands, this technology could be used for the wrong reasons.
Specifically if human cloning was abused by foreign governments or dictatorships such as Saddam Hussein’s. Peoples fears being that dictators of this such would create a cloned army of thousands set on violence. However, such allegations are however totally fictitious for the simple fact that the government would need 10, 000 women who are willing to carry an “evil” clone for nine months. Even then, it would take years for the babies to be raised to maturity” (Hume 1997).
The Term Paper on Cloning Human Clone
Cloning. Many people associate it with science-fiction novels, not with real life, but animal cloning is a process that is being attempted today all over the world, and human cloning might be next. But should cloning be made illegal? According to the Washington Post, cloning should be made illegal because all nursery rhymes would have to be rewritten: Mary didn't have a lamb, she had two lambs and ...
Moreover, it could be argued that being “violent” in such a way, is a learned behavior based on the environment one grows up in, just as much as genes do in shaping this. Other arguments along these lines are that human clones would be used as slaves for organ banks, to be chopped up whenever a part is needed. This is also a rediculous claim against cloning. It would be very unlikely for society to be that usympatchetic, Some of the most commonly cited ethical and moral arguments against human clonings seem to come from religous perspectives of people.
Many believe that if human cloning were to become a reality, many religous protests would occur and their would be a huge backlash against the technology soley based from religous perspectives. Religous Views on cloning is still a rather open ended question. In respect to christianity, Bob Sulliven elaborates when he writes Back in 1987, the church became the leading voice against human cloning of any kind. In a document called “Do num Vitae,” Roman Catholics were told that cloning was “considered contrary to the moral law, since (it is in) opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union.” The church still holds that position, which is also supported by conservative Christians such as Southern Baptists. However, there is great diversity of opinion among other Christian denominations, and even within those denominations. Oregon State’s Campbell compiled the most comprehensive look at religious perspectives in 1997, for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission appointed by then-President Bill Clinton.
Campbell used a simple traffic-light system to classify the religious points of view: Catholics and Southern Baptists issue clear red lights on both therapeutic and human cloning. But among “mainline” Protestants such as the Lutheran and Episcopal faiths, Campbell found some green and yellow lights. “Some traditions and leading figures in conservative Protestantism who were opposed to human cloning for reproductive reasons have come to see that given the ambiguity about their own views about the status of embryonic life, and given the potential for health benefits, they could be opposed to reproductive cloning, but affirm therapeutic cloning,” Campbell said. The main reason, Campbell says, is the tradition of emphasizing individual choice over central dogma. In respect to Judi asm, Bob Sulliven points out its support for human cloning when he writes, “Jewish law is squarely on the side of medical research that has potential to save and preserve life, Rabbi Reich man, assistant professor of philosophy and history at Yeshiva University Einstein College of Medicine.
The Essay on An Argument For Cloning
In February of 1997 the biotechnology firm PPL Therapeutics in association with the Roslin Institute of Edinburgh, Scotland announced the first successful fully cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep. While the majority of people have come to terms with the emotional and philosophical dilemmas triggered by the birth of Dolly, the world was ridden with panic by the Raelian claim of cloning the first human ...
said. As a result, Jewish scholars are generally among the most vocal religious leaders in support of therapeutic cloning” (Sulliven 2003).
According to these statements judeo-christian values are still open-ended towards cloning. Furthermore the United States is a secular country with many religous teachings now a days not taken as literally and strictly especially with the gradual acceptance of homosexuals, which most religous teachings are bluntly opposed too.
