Cloning 6 Essay, Research Paper

Cloning

In recent years the strong debate of human cloning has come into perspective after the cloning of the sheep Dolly , arguing over the ethical and unethical issues has been the main issue. After the cloning of Dolly President Bill Clinton put a five-year ban preventing the use of any or all-federal funding towards human cloning. That does not stop the scientist with his or her own money and courasity to experiment with human cloning. The unethical issue have played a major part in this ban and as well as the opinions of others. This is the hot topic in biology, whether it s morally acceptable to clone people, (Voice of America, 26-Mar-98) as it should be. The Cloning of humans is morally unethical and would violate human dignity.

Cloning humans has many different ethical views and can be seen is different in everyone s views. The value of a child s life can be completely changed. There will always be a profound ethical difference between having a child and making a child. (Moral and Ethical Aspects of Cloning, 1998) A child begotten is always seen as a gift, where as if a child was manufactured or made it would always be seen as a thing or just a product.

The child would not be respected for what he/she is, but priced for what it can do, have or be used for. We re-joice in the God-given genius and applications that have materially improved all of our lives. However, not every scientific application of our century has been put to good use; some have been put to tragic misuse, even catastrophic misuse on a scale no prior century could dream of or realize. Let us conclude and agree with the late Paul Ramsey, who clearly stated: The Good things that men do can be made complet4e only by the things they refuse to do. (Fabricated Man: the ethics of Genetic Control)

Not only would Cloning violate the dignity of the human being cloned but what about the clone itself? The clone s biological destiny will always be previewed in the parent; a Situation that would create numerous ethical problems of it s own. (Voice of America, 26-Mar-98) the clone would see Biologically what happens to you in your parent. As the clone goes and it will know that forty it will become bald, depressed at fifty, and Dead of Stomach Cancer at sixty. The clone involuntary knows a lot more because they are going to have all this biological information thrust upon them. Thus if we knew genetically when and what we were going to die of would the clone be able to get insurance, because as it stands we have a prejudice on people with genetic diseases, imagine if we knew the whole biological clock of a person. In addition to knowing genetically what there future is like they with also fell the agony of living up to other peoples expectations, based on the identity of the person from which they were cloned. (Voice of America 26-Mar-98) For example if Michael Jordan was cloned and at the age of ten years old his clone broke his knee, would we consider him worthless? Or would we put pressure on that clone to become as great of a basketball players as Micheal originally was. However, the clone of a number of different people would not turn out to be like there clone, to begin cloning today, these clones would not turn out to be like there clone, even if the DNA is exactly the same, they like us, were also shaped by genetics and environment alike, with the spiritual capacity to evaluate, disregard, and at times to overcome either or both, Each clone would be subject to a unique set of environment influences.

The problem with cloning is not the mere fact the technology is involved. (Moral and Ethical Aspects of Cloning, 1998) Technology never merely represents human mastery over nature; it also involves the power of some people over other people. (John F. Killer, Stop Cloning Around 28-April-97.) This is true in the genetic revolution. As it is in the industrial revolution. When human cloning becomes technically possible, who will control who clones whom and for what means? Like nuclear weaponry, the power to clone in the wrong hands could have devastating consequences. There is Wisdom in President Clinton s immediate move to forestall human cloning research until the public debate and expert testimony have been digested and policies formulated, But there is even greater wisdom in never setting foot on a path that leads from brave new sheep to made-to-order organ donors, industrial drones, and vanity children.

The five-year ban set by President Clinton, was an excellent decision but that doesn t stop the privately funded scientist who has the technology to do whatever they please. Currently there are no national laws prohibiting the pursuit of human cloning with private funds. But there are proposals before the U.S. congress and no fewer than twenty state legislatures that would either ban or severely restrict human cloning and related research, regardless of funding source. A permanent ban on human cloning is the best solution. As we enter the 21st century we look back on the years spent in the 20th century and realize that we have spent a century trying to have sex without babies and now we are trying to have babies without sex.

Cloning

In recent years the strong debate of human cloning has come into perspective after the cloning of the sheep Dolly , arguing over the ethical and unethical issues has been the main issue. After the cloning of Dolly President Bill Clinton put a five-year ban preventing the use of any or all-federal funding towards human cloning. That does not stop the scientist with his or her own money and courasity to experiment with human cloning. The unethical issue have played a major part in this ban and as well as the opinions of others. This is the hot topic in biology, whether it s morally acceptable to clone people, (Voice of America, 26-Mar-98) as it should be. The Cloning of humans is morally unethical and would violate human dignity.

Cloning humans has many different ethical views and can be seen is different in everyone s views. The value of a child s life can be completely changed. There will always be a profound ethical difference between having a child and making a child. (Moral and Ethical Aspects of Cloning, 1998) A child begotten is always seen as a gift, where as if a child was manufactured or made it would always be seen as a thing or just a product.

The child would not be respected for what he/she is, but priced for what it can do, have or be used for. We re-joice in the God-given genius and applications that have materially improved all of our lives. However, not every scientific application of our century has been put to good use; some have been put to tragic misuse, even catastrophic misuse on a scale no prior century could dream of or realize. Let us conclude and agree with the late Paul Ramsey, who clearly stated: The Good things that men do can be made complet4e only by the things they refuse to do. (Fabricated Man: the ethics of Genetic Control)

Not only would Cloning violate the dignity of the human being cloned but what about the clone itself? The clone s biological destiny will always be previewed in the parent; a Situation that would create numerous ethical problems of it s own. (Voice of America, 26-Mar-98) the clone would see Biologically what happens to you in your parent. As the clone goes and it will know that forty it will become bald, depressed at fifty, and Dead of Stomach Cancer at sixty. The clone involuntary knows a lot more because they are going to have all this biological information thrust upon them. Thus if we knew genetically when and what we were going to die of would the clone be able to get insurance, because as it stands we have a prejudice on people with genetic diseases, imagine if we knew the whole biological clock of a person. In addition to knowing genetically what there future is like they with also fell the agony of living up to other peoples expectations, based on the identity of the person from which they were cloned. (Voice of America 26-Mar-98) For example if Michael Jordan was cloned and at the age of ten years old his clone broke his knee, would we consider him worthless? Or would we put pressure on that clone to become as great of a basketball players as Micheal originally was. However, the clone of a number of different people would not turn out to be like there clone, to begin cloning today, these clones would not turn out to be like there clone, even if the DNA is exactly the same, they like us, were also shaped by genetics and environment alike, with the spiritual capacity to evaluate, disregard, and at times to overcome either or both, Each clone would be subject to a unique set of environment influences.

The problem with cloning is not the mere fact the technology is involved. (Moral and Ethical Aspects of Cloning, 1998) Technology never merely represents human mastery over nature; it also involves the power of some people over other people. (John F. Killer, Stop Cloning Around 28-April-97.) This is true in the genetic revolution. As it is in the industrial revolution. When human cloning becomes technically possible, who will control who clones whom and for what means? Like nuclear weaponry, the power to clone in the wrong hands could have devastating consequences. There is Wisdom in President Clinton s immediate move to forestall human cloning research until the public debate and expert testimony have been digested and policies formulated, But there is even greater wisdom in never setting foot on a path that leads from brave new sheep to made-to-order organ donors, industrial drones, and vanity children.

The five-year ban set by President Clinton, was an excellent decision but that doesn t stop the privately funded scientist who has the technology to do whatever they please. Currently there are no national laws prohibiting the pursuit of human cloning with private funds. But there are proposals before the U.S. congress and no fewer than twenty state legislatures that would either ban or severely restrict human cloning and related research, regardless of funding source. A permanent ban on human cloning is the best solution. As we enter the 21st century we look back on the years spent in the 20th century and realize that we have spent a century trying to have sex without babies and now we are trying to have babies without sex.