Outline For Brave New World

Another supplementary argument can be made on the topic of medical advancements made possible through the cloning process, mankind will be provided with organs and cells with which human’s lives will be saved. If a person needs an organ transplant the normal means of transplantation would involve the removal of an organ from another person. This organ could be rejected and many complications could arise, often with deadly repercussions. Human cloning would involve using the person’s own cells that could be cloned to produce a healthy, normal organ for use in the person. Through this process, there would be no

By definition, discovery implies uncertainty, but progress cannot exist without either. They are codependent upon each other. Whether the use of embryonic stem cells is truly the destruction of human life and whether the potential of human life is equal to the possible realization of that potential is also codependent. Neither of these questions can be answered without simultaneously answering the other. Arguments from both sides of this issue are extremely valid, which is why it has become such a difficult question for anyone with consideration of the opinions of others to answer. That being said, a rational stance on this issue must incorporate views from both sides, as well as logic to keep from becoming indifferent. A moderate policy should be adopted by the United States, one that allows the funding of research on spare embryos from IVF as opposed to their disposal, and one that allows for the use of Nuclear Transfer for the purpose of therapeutic cloning as long as the eggs are obtained from willing donors, though a policy that does not permit the production of human embryos strictly for research besides in the context of therapeutic cloning. This policy can be justified through the logic of Kantian Ethics, John Harris’s, “Stem Cells, Sex, and Procreation,” John P. Lizza’s, “Potentiality and Human Embryos,” and a public opinion expressed by Ian Wilmut.

With that comes the pros about cloning and why we should do it. There's a lot of reason why for example, it can help the LGBT community by providing a child without having to use a sperm donor. Which is crazy I know but makes a lot of sense because the LGBT community gives everything to have a child but they can't really have one together from the same parents. Well cloning came up with a idea that they should try to cloning a child for that lesbian couple and they did do it. Which that really gives everyone hope because we can grow together. In Article “Argument for and Against Creating Human Clones” in paragraph three on the third sentence it state that “Human cloning could allow parents of a child who died to seek redress for their loss”. That means that instead of just cry about your love ones who died you can just clone it. It really opens a big door for us and how we see and view things. It gives us hope about our future and what it might become. Did you notice that the quote said it “Could allow” it didnt really say it was already done or it can be done. Which leaves a huge cap there, Cloning is not good for anyone it take everything away from us humans as well as the meaning of us living.

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

Not only do Indigenous women face more frequent incidence of violence, the violence is also much more severe. A recent Statistics Canada report suggests that the national homicide rate for Indigenous women is at least seven times higher than for non-Indigenous women. British Columbia accounts for 160 of the cases Native Woman Association of Canada documented by March 2010, more than a quarter of the total, of which 63 percent are murder cases. With 49 percent of its murder cases unsolved, British Columbia has the highest percentage of unsolved murders of Aboriginal women and girls in Canada. (Golosky, 2013). As a result, there is a great deal of fear within the Aboriginal community. The problem haunts Aboriginal communities across the country because policy-makers have not made the changes necessary to deal with the epidemic of violence against Aboriginal women. In Saskatchewan alone, some 61 Aboriginal women and girls were counted as missing or murdered as of 2010. (Golosky, 2013) “For many Regina women, the murder of Pamela George in the late 1990s was a turning point in addressing racism and sexism. George, a 28-year-old mother of two, was sexually assaulted and beaten to death by two university students. During the trial, the judge referred to George as “only a prostitute.” (Leddy, L.2016).The two

At the beginning of the article Stock provides the reader with background information about his education and accomplishments. He states that he is a former director of the program on Medicine, Technology and Society at the University of California, Los Angeles and the best-selling author for his book Redesigning Humans. Providing this kind of information to his target audience makes his argument credible and suggests that he has done research related to this topic. Throughout the article Stock presents himself as a strong advocate of embryo engineering and how he wants others to be informed about the new change. All over the article the author points out his opinion and believes towards germinal choice technology and provides the audience with reasons why this method should become legal. An example of this, is when Stock mentions that germinal choice technology should not be compared to human cloning he argues that this method is wrong and should not be implemented based on his experience. This allows the audience to know how serious the situation is. The use of direct observations helps the reader to better understand the information

The subject in this article is about the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. The argument is about Research on human embryonic stem cells and the development of therapies for chronic and debilitating diseases. The question is should the federal government of the United States provide funding for the stem cell research? The thesis of the argument is “others worry that even if research on embryos is not wrong in itself, it will open the way to a slippery slope of dehumanizing practices, such as embryo farms, cloned babies, the use of fetuses for spare parts, and the commoditization of human life.”

The side against embryonic stem cell research claims that the current method of obtain stem cells is immoral because it requires the destruction of an embryo. People object to the research because it is based around eliminating the most basic form of human life. It says that one’s life would be more valuable than another 's. Most embryos used for research are the extra embryos that are created through in vitro fertilization(IVF). While most embryos made through IVF are used to help couples who can not become pregnant it is common practice to make more embryos than needed, the extra embryos are commonly donated to stem cell research. At the start of the research scientist said that IVF embryos would provide a more than sufficient quantity of stem cells. However private firms

Differing viewpoint on Therapeutic cloning is not just limited to the general public, even researcher and professor have their own distinct judgement on the topic. The first view point that is going to be discussed is an opinion that supports therapeutic cloning. Shane Ham is a senior policy analyst for the Progressive Policy Institute, an education and research institute that promotes progressive politics geared to the informational age. Hams believes that Therapeutic cloning should be tolerated because it aids organ transplant, it’s an ethical form of cloning, and an embryo doesn’t have the same moral status as a human (Hams, 2007). Since Therapeutic cloning is very different from reproductive cloning, he believes it is a ethical form of

Think back when you first learned not to touch a stove when it is still on. Even though your parents tell you not to touch it and says what will happen, you do it anyway. When you touch it, you scream out in pain. Your parents come and help you and ice the wound. You knew what was going to happen but you had to try it anyway. Which is exactly like “The Economist” says in the article “Reproductive Cloning Is Immoral”. He says “Although mammals have been cloned successfully, the process is still mysterious and riddled with problems. Attempts to clone humans would certainly involve stillbirths and sudden deaths.” The scientists know that cloning will cause deaths but they still want to try it anyway. Just like a child touching a stove, the scientists know little about cloning and the process is still mysterious. People are saying what will happen but the scientists want to try, no matter the consequences. By cloning, it will also mean bringing in identical genes which will weaken our power to adapt to different circumstances, which could put us at a threat of getting a serious disease (Rawat). Through the ages, humans have adapted to survive in different circumstances but by cloning we will no longer have that ability and if we don’t we will not be able to survive different diseases. Cloning is not as simple as it sounds. It takes several clones to be produced until one

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.

The opponents of embryonic stem cells stick to the belief that destroying one human’s life to save and cure others is not worth it because it makes you wonder, where will the line be drawn? Can the killing and experimentation of homeless people, for example, be justified by the possibility of saving a few Alzheimer’s patients’ lives? Will the world allow the destruction of the elderly just to save the younger generation? The opponents of embryonic stem cells realize that if the world begins using embryonic stem cells to make everyone healthier, than there is no telling what the world is willing to sacrifice in order for them to survive and if the world does go down that path, who gets to decide who deserves to live or die? (“Using Embryos is Immoral”). The destructive view that the world has towards embryonic stem cells is made evident not only by the ongoing debate about whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used but also by the restriction placed on embryonic

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.

There Dr. Jerry Hall experimented with the possibility of human cloning and began this moral and ethical debate. There it was concluded that cloning is not something that can be done as of now, but it is quite a possibility for the future. These scientists experimented eagerly in aims of learning how to clone humans. Ruth Macklin of U.S. News & World Report writes, "Hall and other scientists split single humans embryos into identical copies, a technology that opens a Pandora's box of ethical questions and has sparked a storm of controversy around the world" (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/). They attempted to create seventeen human embryos in a laboratory dish and when it had grown enough, separated them into forty-eight individual cells. Two of the separated cells survived for a few days in the lab developed into new human embryos smaller than the head of a pin and consisting of thirty-two cells each. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/) Although we cannot clone a human yet, this experiment occurred almost two years ago and triggered almost an ethical emergency. Evidence from these experiments received strange reactions from the public. Ruth Macklin states, "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity. Yet much of the ethical

No one knows why these attempts failed and why one succeeded.” (Kolehmainen, 2017) To see something as valuable as an embryo carelessly destroyed in the process of reproductive cloning is a travesty, in numerous ways, not only does it further prove that cloning unable to safely provided a stable live product, but more so destroys a multitude of potential lives to create one possible abominate one. In accordance to Dr. Tanja Dominko’s reports, in the New York Time article “In cloning, Failure far exceeds success”, her three years of experimenting, and going through 300 attempts with monkeys, the only result she has come up with are some of the most grotesquely abnormal embryos containing cells that have little to none chromosomes whatsoever. Some even bare resemblance to that of cancerous cells as opposed to animals with healthy cells. (Kolata, 2001) But, the most promenade one, which has been over looked the most by far, would be the indefinite hazardous consequences cloning would have on our gene pools. “The process of cloning would inevitably invite the use of other genetic technologies, specifically genetic manipulation of cloned embryos, and this could result in permanent, heritable changes to the human gene pool.” (Kolehmainen, 2017) Such practices of artificially creating a human being only spills disaster in the laboratory, in more ways than one. Materials and funds go to waste with each failure, and those clones that do indeed exist do not last