Pros and Cons of Cloning Today Essay example

The concept or idea behind cloning has been a controversial topic since it was introduced in the late 19th century. Although this concept did not come to life until 1996 when the first animal was cloned ethical debates where already in the works. These debates highlighted issues like public policy, human rights, and loss of uniqueness. Scientist, Religious organization and International Governments ethically the argued both the consequences and the benefits that derive from this situation. Part of the science community as well as Religious organizations argues against cloning as it is ethically wrong as this discovery was not God’s intent when creating life. Whereas the other part of the science community, as well as international government institutions, argue that cloning is beneficial to the advancement of humanity. In retrospect, religious organizations argument could be supported by both Natural Law ethics and Divine Law of Command. Where Government institution claim for a progression in society is supported by Cultural relativism and evolutionary ethics.

There have been recent studies on animals where the scientist cloned the animals. Cloning is something many people are split on. Some say it is bad some say it is good. I think cloning is a bad thing. Cloning can be a bad thing in many ways. I will be covering some of those ways in this paper.

     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.

into an early stage embryo while still in a test tube. Scientists place the early stage embryo into

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

The majority of the process of keeping an embryo alive for an extended period of time is the same as in-vitro fertilization. “One day after retrieval (Day 1), the embryologist begins their day with the assessment of fertilization and by separating out the normally fertilized eggs. Cell division or cleavage will occur after the intermingling of the chromosomes overnight. By Day 2, normally dividing embryos should have four cells. Embryos will be further assessed on Days 2 and 3 for transfer or placement into more advanced blastocyst growth media until day 5 or 6”(AZFertility). However, in order to continue the growth, once the embryos are placed into the culture, they are placed into incubator. The majority of the difficulty is keeping the embryo alive within the

The tissue culture lets scientists modify the characteristics of the cells. They took the nucleus from the mammary cell into the oocyte and used a small spark of electricity to fuse the nucleus to the cytoplasm. The electricity is to help it divide. Then the cell is put into the reproductive chamber of the blackface ewe. The egg combination was stimulated with electricity to fuse the two and to stimulate cell division. The new cell divided and was placed in the uterus to develop. Dolly was born 148 days later, this is normal time for a sheep to be born. It took them 276 attempts before the experiment was successful.

Increase in genetic knowledge has created challenges in our society. Daniel Callahan focuses on these challenges and expresses his worry about the society (soil) on which this genetic knowledge is growing. Callahan asks the question of what kind of society (soil) is most likely be hazardous and introduces three patterns: 1) societies that demonize death and illness; 2) those societies that want to find biological solutions to social problems; and 3) societies with postmodern theory that there is no common social good, only a plurality of individual goods. In his essay Callahan is concerned about what kind of society we out to be and become before genetic technology can be used. I will use Callahans argument

The idea of cloning has been widely debated on whether it should be legal or ethical a multitude of times and still hasn’t reached a definite conclusion yet. Cloning organs and stem cells though, can make, and has made, a dramatic impact on how we treat medicine today in a very good way. This is why we must end the debates and questions on this topic and admit that cloning is legal and ethical because the amount of positives that come from this far outway the negatives that could happen.

As soon as you mention the word cloning, you are most likely engendering a cyclopean debate. The reason for this is because people are immensely divided on whether or not cloning is a positive technological advance or a negative one. One way to come to any type of conclusion when it comes to this controversial topic of discussion is to visually examine cloning from an ethical, jeopardy, and religious perspective. The rigorous authenticity people need to realize as well as accept is, cloning is unethical, very precarious, and irreligious.

Recently there has been a bill that would allow the use of taxpayers money to fund both therapeutic and reproductive cloning research of all humans and animals. Many people have suffered accidental medical tragedies during their lifetime. Read about a girl who needs a kidney, a burn victim, a man who lost his leg due to cancer. All of these victims favor cloning and want science to proceed. This is why I want you, Andy Vidak to vote yes on the bill for cloning. Cloning really does help those people who suffered from medical tragedies. Cloning can change many lives, if we do proceed, cloning may be able to cure cancer if cloning if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Rumors say cloning may also lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives. Many can benefit from this bill and will save many lives. In result people are willing to let cloning continue for those who really need it.

I am Jacob Navarro, I am reaching out to you because I disapprove about cloning. Cloning is something that should be stopped ,before it goes too far.Cloning someone or something can go really wrong there are some defects to it.Why would i pay for something that doesn't benefit me in any way?I don't believe in cloning , I would just like many people out there would want it original.Everything should be organic in the human race not to be cloned or messed with.

The thought of cloning human beings can be exciting for some but scary for others. Some people find cloning to be one the most spectacular invention while others think it is not a great idea to clone themselves. Another issue here is that some people feel that we if we are cloning human beings, we will be taking the role of God. What exactly does this means? Well, people who have a religious background feel that this can be stepping out of religion boundaries because it’s scientists that will be involved in the process instead of God and this is not done naturally. People have viewed cloning is just making another human being but what about artificial insemination? “Artificial insemination have been used to create children who would not have existed without help or interference of modern science”

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

Have you ever heard of cloning before? Well it has a lot of ups and its downs, many people are against it and many are for it? In my paper you will hear and of the good things and the bad things that happen in cloning and you can decide if you think it is right or wrong.