Arguments Against Human Cloning

I am writing to address the problem I have with cloning. Therapeutic and Reproductive cloning is a waste of money and time. Why would you pay fifty thousand american dollars to clone something or someone that won’t be an exact copy? Every person or animal in the world is made for a reason, so why make a clone if you’re one of a kind.

Secondly, cloning kills another animal. Cloning takes chromosomes from an egg and destroys them. That cell was going to be a new animal. Take Dolly it took 277 tries, that is 277 baby sheep killed to make another already existing sheep. If we were to clone humans any scientist who clones is technically a murderer. Other examples is the dog Snuppy they used 97 eggs to get 3 puppies. That means 97 individual puppies dead to make a clone’s clones. This is another, more grim, reason why cloning is not a good thing.

Animal cloning is happening in today's society, people are split on either side that it is a big step into human race future, or if it is a part of science that humans shouldn’t be a part of. Cloning is done by removing a cell, then transfer the DNA into the egg of a donor, the animal would then grow up to look like the original. Cloning by humans is not the only way to clone, asexual reproduction is considered cloning used by bacteria. Humans consider the fact that you have a twin means that you have clone. So there are the facts to take in that cloning has been happening for a long time and that it is also done naturally. The big issue on animal cloning is more on the fact that many birth defects can happen to the cloned animal because it is such a high percentage. Clones that have defects such as two heads or extra body parts do have a small chance to live to the adult age. On the other side humans see cloning as a way of survival, with testing done on animals we could look back into the past and bring extinct animals from it. Many home pets have been cloned properly to look like an exact replica of the original, but the personality is the key difference between both. With experiments we now know cloning can be beneficial in some ways, but there is always a draw back. Another con to cloning is that it reduces the diversity in genetics, since cloning is using exact genes it has the potential to limit diversity in the species, there may be a time where organisms will no longer breed naturally. But the con that most people think of is that one day, humans would be able to clone themselves. This scenario is more of a moral dilemma because it is not natural and goes against many people and what they believe in, the fear comes from the movies and books because no human has ever been cloned, and then the wars will start because the fear of death would no longer be there. This is all just one side of the issue, the pro side looks for advancements to benefit humans. Cloning can help produce the best animal population with healthy genes. This could mean that humans can keep endangered animals from becoming extinct, this also means that with the raw material

The topic of cloning has brought much debate in science and also in society. Many

The recovery period after large scale injuries could be shortened. The effects are analyzed in an article that states, “True healing could occur thanks to the cloning of their own cells to help the recovery process” (“Pros and Cons” 5). Basically, the process of cloning healthy cells could be used as an aid in replenishing damage of unhealthy cells. This process, if it were to be actualized, could help recovery progress in anything from pulled muscles to the paralysis of an entire limb. In theory, the same research can be applied in other areas. If this technology is paired with stem cell research, it could result in a method of repairing physical damage. An article that focused on advances in biotechnology stated that “Another use of cloned stem cells could be the growth of replacement tissues in the laboratory” (LaPensee 15). Necrosis, apoptosis, and lymphocyte diapedesis all cause tissue damage or death. These tissues could be replaced by cloned cells of healthy tissues. This shortens recovery periods and leads to healthier tissue growth.

There are many arguments against cloning. Leon R. Kass bases his argument on repugnance in his article The Wisdom of Repugnance. He is a well-known physician, educator and scientist. Kass perceives cloning as offensive, grotesque revolting, repulsive and wrong. To establish his argument he states, “Most people recoil from the prospect of mass production or human being, with large clones of look-alikes, compromised in their individuality.”1 His rationale is cloning is unnatural, because it is asexual and requires only one parent. Kass believes that cloning turns natural procreation into a manufactured process, which is not natural or moral. In his essay he also points out that cloning will also change the way we see ourselves through our

For many years there has been a large controversy over the use of cloning for therapeutic and reproductive purposes. The argument against therapeutic cloning is that creating an exact replica of one's self all for the use of harvesting its parts is considered killing another human being. However, some people are for this use so that they can survive as long as they can, and use the clones materials as a way to cure disease or heal injuries. On the other hand, reductive cloning also has two sides, for and against. People who believe that reproductive cloning is okay, want to create another version of themselves just to either have themselves as a baby or replace a loved one. But, people who are against reproductive cloning believe that it is a selfish or unreasonable act to have one birth a

While we have the state of the art technologies and the result of a successful cloning of the infamous lamb known as Dolly, should we take the next step and begin human cloning? If I were to carry the super DNA that scientists are wanting to explore in the lab, would I allow myself to be duplicated? Absolutely not! Replicating a human is not only wrong on ethical grounds but also a threat to our existence! The biggest concern is how far will humans attempt to control nature? Therefore, I do not believe that cloning should be allowed based on my teleological outlook.

There are two types of cloning, one of them is reproductive cloning which is when a whole organism is cloned and therapeutic cloning is the cloning of cells, organs or tissues. Cloning is when two cells decide or are forced to duplicate into two cells to replicate each other. Cloning can be done deliberately or naturally; and it results in two copies having identical cells, DNA, genes, organs and organisms. Cloning is a common, ongoing, debatable topic among society today. Many people argue about how future scientific advances in cloning will affect society. Most often people dislike the idea of cloning because it goes against their ethical beliefs, or because they are in fear of it ending up in the wrong hands. But sometimes when the

Although cloning can be seen in a very positive light when it comes to producing animals for research among other reasons, the disadvantages come hand in hand with the advantages and showcase how cloning can corrupt society and strip humans of many rights and liberties once promised to them.

The first problem that human cloning encounter is it is one of unethical processes because it involves the alteration of the human genetic and human may be harmed, either during experimentation or by expectations after birth. “Cloning, like all science, must be used responsibly. Cloning human is not desirable. But cloning sheep has its uses.”, as quoted by Mary Seller, a member of the Church of England’s Board of Social Responsibility (Amy Logston, 1999). Meaning behind this word are showing us that cloning have both advantages and disadvantages. The concept of cloning is hurting many human sentiments and human believes. “Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and that attempts to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical”, as quoted by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Since human cloning deals with human life, it said to be unethical if people are willing to killed embryo or infant to produce a cloned human and advancing on it. The probability of this process is successful is also small because the technology that being used in this process is still new and risky.

If a random individual were asked twenty years ago if he/she believed that science could clone an animal, most would have given a weird look and responded, “Are you kidding me?” However, that once crazy idea has now become a reality, and with this reality, has come debate after debate about the ethics and morality of cloning. Yet technology has not stopped with just the cloning of animals, but now many scientists are contemplating and are trying to find successful ways to clone human individuals. This idea of human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. I believe that it is not morally and ethically right

The cloning of humans is now very close to reality, thanks to the historic scientific breakthrough of Dr. Ian Wilmut and his colleagues in the UK. This possibility is one of incredible potential benefit for all of us. Unfortunately the initial debate on this issue has been dominated by misleading, sensationalized accounts in the news media and negative emotional reactions derived from inaccurate science fiction. Much of the negativity about human cloning is based simply on the breathtaking novelty of the concept rather than on any real undesirable consequences. On balance, human cloning would have overwhelming advantages if regulated in a reasonable way. A comprehensive ban on human cloning by a misinformed public would be a sorry

Many ethical and moral dilemmas arise when discussing human cloning, and one can have many positions for and against each. To understand the issues surrounding human cloning, one must have a basic

Essay Question (2): Explain in full the ‘life in the shadow’ argument against human reproductive cloning. How might the argument be objected to? Do you regard the argument to be morally decisive, in the sense that it establishes that human cloning for purely reproductive purposes must never be permitted? Explain and defend your answer.