Satire On 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.

Instead of paying the thousands of dollars, why not go by one from a shelter? The article stated ( paragraph 10), “animal right groups point to the thousands of shelters overflowing with dogs and cats in need of homes. Why not adopt one of these pets instead of forking over the ten of thousands of dollars it can cause to clone one animal?’ The article evidence serves to prove that cloning is a high price. You could save many animals from death with ten of thousands of dollars.

Cloning is very unethical. It would be violating the human rights in many ways. It would be violating of the freedom of beliefs and thoughts (Peter Flaherty, and D. Lynn Moore. Civics. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2000) Cloning also reduces human dignity. Humans can be sold as manufactured products. If we allow

The creation of life through scientific experiments is not a new concept. The idea has been in existence as far back as two hundred years. Mary Shelley was far ahead of her time when she brought the human like creature to life in her writing of "Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus." The story of "Frankenstein" was written as a myth, yet it continues to leave the world intrigued today. The idea of creating human or animal life is now in the making, except there is a twist to creating this new life. It is known as cloning, bringing an exact replica of cells to life to create an animal or a human that is already in existence. Though human life has not yet been a part of cloning, the cloning of one lamb has

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

I believe that cloning really isn’t very ethical. I believe that cloning is almost like you are playing God. It is unnatural for a person to be able to clone an animal. I did some research online and found out that 95% of cloning attempts fail. This can give the new animal birth defects, physiological impairments, illness, and premature death. I believe that cloning animals is morally wrong and we shouldn’t be able to do it. Human cloning is illegal and animal cloning should be illegal also.

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

Cloning has interested the human race for some time. Knowing that a human could create another living creature, not to mention, a creature that looks and possibly acts exactly like the original seems to be very fascinating to them. However, by creating a creature using science, they are essentially playing God. We as humans are not perfect, although a handful of people like to think we are, we cannot go on throughout our lives without making at least one mistake. If we are not perfect, then our own creations will not be perfect either.

The moral code for religious people stands at cloning being unacceptable. Various religious followers believe that science is “playing God”. This also corresponds with laws of the United States as well as other countries. Laws have outlawed cloning in general or have research monitored, “the issue was first addressed by California legislature, which banned reproductive cloning, or cloning to initiate a pregnancy, in 1997. Since then Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia have enacted measures to prohibit reproductive cloning,” (NCLS 1).

Cloning is a controversial topic because new areas of science often raise questions about safety. Early experiment performed on animals showed potential dangers. For example, cloned cows developed faulty immune systems. In some studies, cloned animals seemed to grow old faster and die younger than normal members of the species. According to Encarta online

Cloning by definition taken from the Oxford Dictionary is a plant or an animal that produced naturally or artificially from the cells of another plant or animal and so the same as it. The first cloned adult mammal is a sheep named Dolly. The aim of research into human cloning has never been to clone people, or to make babies. The original aim of human cloning research is to get stem cell to cure a disease. It is inevitable that one day this knowledge of human cloning would be abused. As time goes by, the scientist started to think deeply and this is how the concept of cloned human being introduced. There are a few reasons why the human cloning is illegal by the laws. Human cloning research faces with many problems since it first announced

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

Human cloning is not always copying and creating a full organism; that is reproductive cloning. Cloning just an organ or tissue is called therapeutic cloning, and is a technology that is not possible yet but scientists feel that it is only a matter of time (Tierney). With that technology, many patients could be cured of previously life-long conditions such as paralysis, chronic heart attacks, and leukemia. A long-term “disease” such as infertility could be cured as well by creating a clone of the female and then transplanting that clone’s eggs into the female and then the children the couple has will be their biological children! Even amputees could have limbs regenerated in a lab and reattached (Smith). These medical advances seem like a cure-all, but they are not possible at the moment because we do not know enough about the human genome to see which genes code for certain proteins which shape the function of the cell. With our current technology, we cannot direct a cell to specialize into a kidney cell to transplant into a patient needing a new kidney. Current technology doesn’t allow for the creation of “spare parts” but it is possible to create fully functional humans (after many attempts), and then the human that was “created” could then be grown and disemboweled for “spare parts” (Dudley 30). The idea of creating a “Caliban” or a human specifically to act

Beginning with the moral argument, one must understand reproductive freedom. Most cloning activists say that reproduction, or the lack there of, is a natural freedom given to people (C). Restricting human cloning would be a violation of that right. Just as people can choose not to reproduce using contraception, abortion, or abstinence, people should be allowed to use all means possible within their ability to reproduce, such as through cloning and in vitro fertilization (C). Cloning is the application of this right specifically (C). Another benefit of cloning is the ability to clone someone who has died to console those who are grieving over their lost loved one or to clone the DNA of a person that was known for his of her greatness. Scientists would be able to recreate these people in a new environment (C). A clone's parent may have come from