Human Cloning Essay

people believe that it is too risky and unethical. Reproductive cloning has shown advantages and

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

There is also doubt whether a human conceived by cloning would be treated the same as others. In a present school situation where bullying is an everyday occurrence, the fact of being a clone may be a factor in being bullied. Cloning also diminishes the clone's possibility of living a life that is in a full sense his or her life. People are likely to always compare the cloned person's performances in life with that of his or her alter ego (Kass 33). Thus human cloning is an invasion of privacy for the human conceived by cloning. We do not have a right to take away the originality of any human - even a clone.

Human Cloning could be found as unethical to many people. In “The Question of Human Cloning.”, John A. Robertson addresses the hypothetical scenario of cloned human embryos being put up for sale (2). This would inevitably stop inherent uniqueness and dignity of individuals and create unrealistic parent expectations for their children; these embryos would be created and sold for genetic desirability. There is also the concern of cloned embryos used for future “spare parts” (Elmer-Dewitt, 3). Cloned embryos could be born just for the use of being used to give things needed by someone else; for example if someone was to need a heart transplant a cloned embryo could be born and they would use the heart of the clone, but if clones were to be seen as any other human would that be considered the murder of an innocent life. In “Cloning Where do we Draw the Line.” Phillip Elmer-Dewitt

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

Technology has changed our world for the better... or has it made our world worse? As technology changed(s), our ability to come up with new technological advances that we never thought possible, have become possible. At first the only cloning ever thought possible were the birth of twins, but now we can do more. Cloning has the potential to change the field of medicine, animal conservation and the meat and dairy industry, but even with all these beneficial achievements, some see cloning as a threat to the way we perceive the world. To understand the benefits of cloning, we must push aside their views and welcome a change in society.

Cloning has been one of the most widely discussed and controversial scientific topics in the past decade. Cloning has been applied in many fields including the creation of new breeds of plants and animals. However, the cloning of plants has been practiced for hundreds of years. Cloning can be done on a larger level in animals and has potential benefits. The general process of cloning is to take one cell from the parent making the offspring and parent genetically identical (Tsunoda and Kato, 158-161). In addition by making completely identical cells, we can apply different treatments to different clones to see if they react in different ways. The potential benefits of cloning out way the consequences of cloning. In this paper I will first elaborate on microorganisms. Then I will talk about plants, animal and human cloning, and the controversies in cloning.

First, the turnout of clones if the embryo is implanted into a uterus could end up producing clones with disabilities. This has only been proven with animals that have been cloned. “The results of stem cell research and cloning have also been shown to be dangerous. The animals that have been cloned so far suffer from genetic defects” (Arnold, 2015, p. 2). But once it is done to humans many of the same genes will be passed through making it much easier for the birth defects to become more and more common. Heimbach (1998) states that, “Cloning could also increase the risk of birth defects if cloned individuals begin marrying nearly identical genetic relatives, a danger that will be hard to avoid in second and third generations.” (p.636). Not only would the clones be in danger, but also the women giving birth to these clones could be in danger as well. The future fertility of women who are allowing their eggs to be harvested are at risk as well as their health. Stark (2015) state's, “Cloning also requires harvesting large number of eggs from women. This process poses risks to women’s health and can threaten their future fertility. And the offer of payment for eggs can lead to the exploitation of low-income women” (p. 1). A life could be lost or serious health conditions could be caused, due to the birth of these clones for the women giving birth to them. Another factor that needs to be put into

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

Even though cloning has been used to study animals and cells, cloning a human being is something quite different. What would happen is this new clone would be created from an already existing person and then live their lives as in ‘individual’ person, however this raises some difficult questions about how this cloned person will be treated or how they will act. Hypothetically, this clone was made in the image of its mother meaning that the mother's DNA was copied, placed in an embryo and that embryo was placed in her uterus and also hypothetically, this child was born without any of the medical issues that a cloned human would have. In this case, this clone would have genes older than its physical body, possibly making the clone not live as long as a normal life span. Cloning would cause so much strife in life today that the benefits would in no way beat the problems therefore making it more problematic than

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.

Many people have asked, "Why would anyone want to clone a human being?" There are at least two good reasons: to allow families to conceive twins of exceptional individuals, and to allow childless couples to reproduce. In a free society we must also ask, "Are the negative consequences sufficiently compelling that we must prohibit consenting adults from doing this?" We will see that in general they are not. Where specific abuses are anticipated, these can be avoided by targeted laws and regulations, which I will suggest below.

Human cloning is creating a genetically identical copy of a human, human cell, or tissue. In 1997, a sheep named Dolly was cloned successfully; unfortunately, that clone didn’t live long. It later then became a big controversy if scientists should continue the cloning experiments on animals. In 2004, South Korea ended up successfully cloning thirty embryos. Many people have argued that it’s the future and will benefit those who can’t have children. In spite of that, the cloning technology can cause complications and is hazardous. Human cloning should be banned because it’s an aspect of murder to the embryo, and it could produce abnormalities, and identity issues in the cloned individual.

Although the human cloning seems fairly beneficial and useful for human welfare, the possibility of human cloning has raised controversies. Concerning reproductive cloning, advocates believe that parents who cannot otherwise procreate should have access to the technology. Some opponents have concerns that technology is not yet developed enough to be safe while others emphasize that reproductive cloning could be prone to abuse (leading to the generation of humans whose organs and tissues would be harvested), and have concerns about how cloned individuals could integrate with families and with society at large.