Summary Of Human Cloning Just Because We Don T By Dana Dovey

Cloning is the process of manipulating DNA and embryonic stem cells to create an identical living organism. The purpose of cloning is to find medical treatments and to reduce human suffering (Rosalyn). Is it wrong? Is it disrespectful toward nature itself? According to Sir John Gordon, cloning is not as playing God it is simply copying “what nature has already produced” (Gordon). This new development established a series of debates because if there are technologies that enable humans to artificially create mammal, sooner or later the same process will be performed on human. This points to the question, should human cloning be banned? (Cloning: An Overview). Even though there are numerous critics who believe human cloning

To start off, cloning is inefficient and a very hazardous procedure. There have been many attempts to clone primates other than humans,

Unlike some movies, cloning in real life doesn’t produce a full grown exact replica of someone. A type of cloning that occurs naturally is when identical twins are born (“What Is Cloning?”). Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a type of cloning that has to be done in a lab. In SCNT they take the nucleolus out of an egg cell, replace it with the nucleolus of a somatic cell (body cell with two complete sets of chromosomes), and make the egg cell divide into a blastocyst (“What Is Cloning?”).

Have we as a society come too far too fast? This is a very applicable question recently asked by senator Roger Bennett, from Michigan, before the Senate on the topic of human cloning. It is speculated that we as a human race have the technology to make a clone of any given human (Jackson 2). If this is done, at what cost is it done? If cloning is allowed it will come at the cost of misguided effort, the creation of a process known as gene selection, and loss of individuality and diversity.

The controversy of human cloning has contemplated the reasons it should or shouldn't be allowed. Human cloning is the reproduction of human cells and tissue by creating a genetical copy artificially. Clones contain original characteristics of the individual or cell. There are many dangerous risks and great benefits to human cloning. Many people have an extraordinary reaction to cloning because it creates all sorts of images. Cloning is a medical breakthrough that can help millions of people if it is scientifically proven to be 100% safe. Is science really ready to officially clone a human?

When examining how human cloning can increase reproductive freedom, we must first look at what a clone is by definition. “Clone” in its verb tense means to make an identical copy of or in biochemistry, to replicate a fragment of DNA placed in an organism so that there is enough to analyze or use in protein production. This process can be performed for many different uses such as being used to grow in labs, embryotic treatments, genetic screening, anti-aging processes, and reproduction. It is important to note that “human cloning” of embryos will not produce an exact copy of an individual. Rather, it will replicate the same genotype to create a different individual human. ***As a reliable background, in this paper, I will be consistently referencing two main scientific articles. The first is from John Harris, a professor in the Institute of Medicine, Law, and Bioethics at the University of Manchester. His article “Goodbye Dolly” focuses on the nature and practicality of cloning. The other research article is by Alix Magney, a lecturer at the several universities who focuses on bioethics and medical health professionals, and highlights the investigations of the negative impacts of human cloning.

Imagine a future where humans are manufactured, a future where humans are created by science, a future where humans are the new lab specimen. Human cloning is like opening Pandora's Box, unleashing a torrent of potential evils but at the same time bringing a small seed of hope. No matter how many potential medical and scientific benefits could be made possible by human cloning, it is unethical to clone humans.

Clones are humans. This statement embodies the crux of the controversy regarding the ethics of human cloning. If clones are humans, then they should receive the same rights as humans who were born ‘naturally’. But how do you determine humanity? The film Never Let Me Go (2010), based on Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel of the same name, helps answer the question “Should we clone?” by establishing that humanity is more than the way one enters the world and by highlighting the unethical issues that may arise from cloning.

In recent years, cloning has been a controversial topic, being highly debated by scientists, politicians, and philosophers alike while invigorating popular culture through works such as Star Wars or Aldous Huxley 's’ Brave New World (Brock E-3). However, the fantastical examples of cloning to increase labor supply or selective cloning to create a caste system as these works depict, are highly irrelevant to problems society faces today with the prospect of cloning. Current medical technology suggests that cloning may be a new alternative to adoption or natural reproduction for couples that may have medical complications in pregnancy and birth, or couples that may be unable to conceive entirely.Yet, because this technology is so new, and admittedly, in an early, undeveloped stage, legislations or established moral standards are still fairly non-existent, making it essential that certain boundaries be formed. Subsequently, this paper will attempt to do so by suggesting and justifying that cloning be permitted and considered morally permissible as a means for reproduction. In this, works by D.Brock, C.Strong, E. Berg, L.Kass, and T.Takala will be used to argue that the overall benefits relative to health would outweigh any possible counter arguments against the use of reproductive cloning as an alternative to natural reproduction.

Joshua Lederberg’s controversial article titled “Experimental Genetic and Human Evolution” promoting human cloning, published in the 60’s sparked the widespread debate on cloning that would continue for decades to come. Leon Kass, leader of the President’s council of bioethics and a prominent figure in this debate, engaged in a lively debate with Lederberg where he argued that the “programmed reproduction of a man would, in fact, dehumanize him.” Lederberg and Kass are arguably the most well-known figures in the debate surrounding the issue of human reproductive cloning, and their hardline views on this matter, to a large extent, reflect the views of most people I have talked to about human cloning. On reading pieces published by various medical ethicists and philosophers, I have had a hard-time distinguishing what pieces of information we can really trust as the process of human cloning and all of its perceived implications because of what they are: perceptions. We still have no real way of knowing what a “developed” process of cloning would look like and the only way we can really discuss this is to make rational assumptions of how human cloning could take place (the duration, whether the child will have a gestation period within the mother, the potential biological impediments of the process, etc). However, even so, we still have no real idea of how it would actually change societal

In discussions of Cloning, one controversial issue has been Cloning Humans. On the one hand, Paul Stark argues that Cloning is wrong and shouldn't be done. On the other hand, Simon Smith contends that we could Clone human organs and put them into cloned pigs so that we have more organs for transplants and many more possibilities. My own view is in the middle of the issue. That I believe Cloning is dangerous and uncertain of the outcome. But the number of benefits from cloning is infinite.

In the summer of 1996, an animal unlike any other was born unto the world. Roughly three feet high and covered in an insulating material, there were countless others that looked nearly identical freely roaming the countryside. But this animal was special; it was precisely identical to one of its brethren. Dolly the sheep was the first ever manmade clone, an exact copy of its genetic donor. In the fifteen years since the birth of Dolly cloning technology has been improving at a steady pace, and now humanity as a whole is at an impasse: human clones. Scientists are very close to being able to clone a human being, but should they? A ban on human cloning issued by the World Health Organization is in place (World Health Organization 1) but it

The journey that human cloning has taken has been one of dramatic highs and lows, heated arguments and confusion about the path ahead. When researchers witnessed the birth of the first cloned mammal, they were ecstatic, but this high ended with the tragic early death of this sheep, Dolly, due to abnormalities (Jaenisch 2004: 2787). The initial success and progress in this field fueled scientists to want to do further research into this technology, which would eventually leading to work with human embryos. This work grew to a high enough profile to be addressed by former president George W. Bush, who decided to take away all funding for human cloning. This cut included both therapeutic cloning that worked with embryos not intended to be

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

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.