Cloning Right or Wrong? Essay

     As soon as you mention the word cloning, you are most likely to ignite a debate. This is because people are greatly divided on whether it's good or bad. A way to reach a conclusion is to look at cloning from ethical, risk, and religious perspectives. The reality is, cloning is unethical, very risky, and irreligious. The arguments I will make will hopefully convince you that cloning is not good for the future.

The vast majority of Americans object to human cloning, and on multiple moral grounds, among them the following. It constitutes unethical experimentation on the child-to-be, subjecting him or her to enormous risks

The most talk about topic today is cloning and if it really matters to us or if we shouldn't do it because there is no meaning to it. Well there is two different types of cloning there is therapeutic that one is when you create a clone outside of a embryo. The other which is reproductive cloning that type of cloning is the one I'm really against for because a lot comes with it. For example in the Article “ Here Kitty-Kitty-Kitty-Kitty” by Carolyn Said in San Francisco Chronicle, April 15, 2004 it quotes that “ It took 87 tries to produce CC, for example, Kraemer said”. It took 87 tries thats a lot of tries and either the test tube did not carry the egg correctly or the implantation wasn't as strong. My point is that cloning is a big

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

Cloning is very unpredictable. Because of this, the results are unclear. Therefore, it is likely that people are apprehensive towards this technology in that there is a fifty percent chance the outcome will result negatively. There is no way to understand how human cloning will affect us as a species since the technology to do so has not yet been developed and used (‘Human Cloning”). Not only does human cloning stretch beyond our understanding but also it has a negative connotation in society. As stated in “Human Cloning”, “Expressing the popular distaste for cloning, Clinton stated that it undermines the uniqueness and sacredness of human life” (“Cloning”). It is evident that cloning provides for a negative connotation. If the technology and science behind human cloning were to be stable and provide for a predictable outcome, it would be a less controversial topic in society. Undeniably the unpredictable nature of human cloning proves that the science behind it is far too advanced for our wisdom to use it

I do not think that cloning should not be allowed in the United States let alone in the rest of the world. It can be done on people and animals after they are dead. People think that cloning will ease the pain of the dead when the clone is not the same person. The person or animal is gone and the clone is not going to ease the pain. You just have to deal with the pain and you will slowly get through it cloning will never get rid of it.

A majority of people who have strong disagreements about the thought of human cloning. They feel that it devalues the human and doesn't make the individual unique. It may cause a form of segregation by people

While some believe cloning to be acceptable others feel equally strongly that human cloning is completely wrong. With the state of the science as it is at the moment it would involve hundreds of damaged pregnancies to achieve one single live cloned baby. What is more, all the evidence suggests that clones are unhealthy and often have a number of built-in genetic defects, which lead to premature ageing and death. It would be completely wrong to bring a child into the world knowing that it was extremely likely to be affected by problems like these. The dignity of human life and the genetic uniqueness we all have would be attacked if cloning became commonplace. People might be

The earliest that the science of cloning was discovered was in 1885 and the thing being clones was a simple sea urchin. Today, when most people hear of cloning, they can only think of one thing and that is Dolly the sheep. Dolly, a sheep from the United Kingdom, was the first mammal created by cloning from another sheep. She was created by two biologists by the name of Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell. Dolly was not necessarily the first living thing cloned, but she was quite a big deal because she was actually an exact clone from another sheep and this really caught the attention of people all over the world. Cloning is a very interesting type of science considering it takes just one strand of DNA and creating an exact creature, however not all people agree that cloning is safe and some think it goes beyond a good christian religion. Many people would agree that cloning is very unnatural and if it gets in the wrong hands, then catastrophic things can happen however there is two viewpoints on cloning. Lots of people would agree that cloning could be a great thing because it could help people with disease by reproducing damaged tissue or diseased organs. There are pros and Cons to the science of cloning, but what about the emotional aspect of it. Scientists that use cloning often play the role

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

The poll taken by CNN1 seemed to focus wholly on the morality of cloning, and why shouldn’t it. When asked the question, “Is it morally unacceptable to clone humans,” 89% of the people said, “Yes, it is morally unacceptable to clone humans.” This seems to me to be a good outcome, but it also tells me that 11% of the people need to be “turned around.” I believe one of the most important factors in the population’s reasoning on the issue of cloning is their religion or lack of religion. Being a Catholic, I believe that we were created by God and that God should be the only one who should have the power to make a human. It would almost be a spit in the face of my religion to see some fallible human creating a person. What good will this knowledge be in the future. I can see no logical use for the cloning of a human. I am not willing to sacrifice my values and morals for worthless knowledge. During the same poll, the question was asked, “Is cloning humans against God’s will?” 74% of the people answered “Yes” to this question. Because this percentage is less than the one before, this tells us that 15% of the poll defines morals differently from their religion or that they do not believe in or understand God’s will. Nonetheless, this shows us that the majority of the population does see what is morally and ethically wrong with meddling

Since I began doing this project I have heard countless arguments against human cloning, however