Should Cloning Be Allowed In The United States

Now that we are advancing in technology very rapidly, people are starting to wonder if it would be beneficial to clone humans. Some people say that you can literally save a person's life and create an exact replica of person by cloning. But some people say it’s not humane and it would be weird if there is 2 of the exact same person in the world. People are also concerned because nobody knows how these clones will act. We don’t know if the host will be harmed and we also don’t know if the clones will become evil and destroy the world. I believe that we shouldn’t clone humans simply because we don’t have enough information on cloning.

     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.

In 1885, there was the first ever demonstration of artificial embryo cloning of a sea urchin. While that is a relatively noncomplex organism, by 1996 scientist in Scotland where able to clone a sheep, a mammal, through somatic cell nuclear transfer. Everyday there is some kind of scientific break through but they are not all good. It took them two hundred seventy seven failures to create the sheep. The ethical issues are not where it stops; if government where able to clone humans it could lead to the construction of super soldiers, genetically modifies humans, which could lead to war on a global scale. So the United States should have stricter laws on research into human cloning to avoid a war the could wipe out the entire planet.

There is plainly a huge measure of moral and good stresses as for human cloning. Human life is acknowledged to be important and blessed. Cloning certainly is now and again successful the principal gone through, which infers that human creating leaves will fail miserably. Most would concur that cloning is like murder or manslaughter in any occasion. For the people who don't assume that life is holy, it is basically tissue being disposed of. Cloning is hostile. The most vital piece of a man is their soul, soul or psyche and cloning does not enable one to accomplish this, it rather enables one to endeavor to accomplish some hereditary standard. There is no hobby for cloning, it is inhumane to the point that there are people on this planet with to a great degree cruel desires and human cloning would take into account military utilize. For instance, a country that could clone people could make a massive outfitted power that could attempt to expect control distinctive countries and provoke boundless wars of emotionless men. Individuals should be made through an exhibition of love and not a show of science. One that is cloned can never again be seen as a man, as your identity isn't generally essentially yours; you are giving it to someone else. Another case for instance, if mental oppressor seats had the ability to clone then the world would be an extensively all the more startling spot reliably in fear of being ambushed at any dark time. This, and in addition human cloning could

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 think cloning a deceased pet is a terrible idea because, it seems extremely disrespectful. To me it seems like you’re replacing your pet, and if you don’t mind replacing a pet with a genetic copy the original pet must not have met that much to you. If a beloved family member died would you create a copy of them? I know I wouldn’t. How would you feel if one day you die and are immediately replaced by a genetic copy of yourself. Doesn't that take away from who you are? Every human on earth is different from each other and creating an exact replica of any living thing makes it less like a living creature and more like something that can be mass produced in a factory. Everyone is special and I think cloning takes away from that. Another reason I’m against cloning recreationally (cloning for your enjoyment not to cure diseases and sniff out bombs and such) is if you have a younger child that’s dog dies and you decide to clone it, doesn’t that take away the perpetuity of death for this child? If someone close to this child dies and they think they can just replace them than the shock of that being untrue will be much worst than their grief over a deceased dog. To conclude my complicated opinion, when something/someone is dead leave it to rest! Horror movies have taught that messing with others lives (or deaths) only ends bad for you.

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

One reason I think it is wrong is because it is morally incorrect. You are sacrificing someone unwillingly for an other. Even if it is just an exact copy of you are they not still human. Do they not still have a conscience and a will to live. Do they not still have emotions and feelings. Do they not still hurt and feel pain. They are people too, and deserve every right and privilege as the next person. Not providing these rights would be unconstitutional. Therefore cloning is unconstitutional. It goes against all the things we stand for in this country. If we all dropped dead and all that was left was clones of ourselves, how do you think the government would treat them. You would think like people right, but if this bill passes they could have the right to treat us all as sub-human. We could be the right to vote. We could be denied freedom of speech. We could be denied freedom of expression. All basic rights provided in the bill of rights.

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

Some politicians in the United States are now proposing to save us from the horrors of human cloning by a comprehensive prohibition. The interesting thing is that under close analysis there really aren't any serious problems. In the few cases where abuses are likely to occur, these can be avoided by targeted legislation. There is nothing about human cloning per se that justifies its criminalization. The only objection that stands up under analysis is that the technology has not been perfected. This is a justification for further research, not for a prohibition.

     Some people say limit cloning of humans to just research or for medical reasons, but it’s the same thing. Producing clones for research or to use their parts is unethical. Cloning for just medical research is still harming another human being to save another. That is wrong in my mind, ethically and morally. Its ethically wrong because I fell that a humans morals aren’t to kill other human for body parts. It’s morally wrong because it’s not the right conduct of a human to do such a thing. Even if cloning is limited to medical research, there is still the risk of cloning humans. We simply cannot play God and create life because it is ethically wrong and sinful, and most importantly, dangerous. It would be against the code of ethics of a doctor to harm a clone. Harming a clone would be such using one of its organs to save the original life. The question shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that makes them all human. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is ethically wrong. The clone would be a human being and deserve

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

In the USA, human cloning is illegal. Bill Clinton signed into effect a law stating that human cloning was unethical and immoral.

There are also many negative aspects of cloning. To create different organs or limbs in order to help a person to live longer or more comfortably seems to go against nature. The way human life should be created is through sexual intercourse. Harmond Varmus, a schoolteacher, said it best; “Human cloning represents a grave attack on the dignity of conception and on the right an unrepeatable, unpredetermined set of genes.” To clone an animal is almost the same thing. We are playing with the way humans and animals have reproduced for years. Is it fair that we clone and then kill an animal just for its organs in order to save a person’s life? Scientists are not even sure that the animal’s organs will be compatible with the human body. According to the Medical Research