регистрация / вход

Is It Right To Clone Humans Essay

Is It Right To Clone Humans? Essay, Research Paper After reading an essay entitled Is it right to clone a human?, I felt like I should give some information along with a more realistic view on the topic. This essay, written by Charlie Cho, is about the new technology of cloning and gives a lot of misconceptions as reasons to ban its research and future use forever.

Is It Right To Clone Humans? Essay, Research Paper

After reading an essay entitled Is it right to clone a human?, I felt like I should give some information along with a more realistic view on the topic. This essay, written by Charlie Cho, is about the new technology of cloning and gives a lot of misconceptions as reasons to ban its research and future use forever. The essay makes many clear points as to why we should ban cloning. Cho states that we would be unable to decide whom these people belong to and if we use them for organ donation, what will we do with them? Do we just kill the cloned humans? He also brings up the possibility that a new form of racism for cloned humans could be created or humans could be made by the millions to fight for an army. What if this technology causes humans to hate each other or leads to the demise of the human race? The biggest reason that he gives is the idea that God created us and to take over his job would be sinful. Cho says that God never intended for us to do that.

One of his points about whom would take care of these people was one not well thought out. Consider the example of the couple who wants to replace a child who has died. The couple doesn’t seek to have another child the ordinary way because they feel that cloning would enable them to reproduce, as it were, the lost child. Also, what about a couple looking to start a family of their own. Another possibility is the person who wants to clone different parts in order to have acceptable “spare parts” in the case when he or she needs an organ transplant. But regardless of the reason that someone has a clone produced, the result would nevertheless be a human being with all the rights and protections that accompany that status. Humans would not be cloned just because we can.

Another point he made was the possibility that armies could be formed. The chance of this happening is pretty much out of the question. Because of the extra steps involved, cloning will probably continue to be riskier?that is, less likely to result in a live birth?than in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer. (It took more than 275 attempts before the researchers were able to obtain a successful sheep clone. While cloning methods may improve, we should note that even standard IVF techniques typically have a success rate of less than 20 percent.) So why would anyone go to the trouble of cloning?

A good point he brought up was the possibility that another form of racism could emerge for the cloned humans. It truly would be a disaster if the results of human cloning were seen as less than fully human. But there is certainly no moral justification for and little social danger of that happening; after all, we do not accord lesser status to children who have been created through IVF or embryo transfer.

Finally, the point that he claims is the biggest reason to ban cloning is the idea that taking the process of human creation into our own hands is against God?s will and is very sinful. We should remember that most of us believe people should be allowed to decide with whom to reproduce, when to reproduce and how many children they should have. We do not criticize a woman who takes a fertility drug so that she can influence when she has children?or even how many. We also don?t have a problem with people having an embryo transfer or in vitro fertilization. Why, then, would we object if a woman decides to give birth to a child who is a clone of someone else?

So why object to a ban on human cloning? What is wrong with placing a legal barrier in the path of those with desires perverse enough to seek cloning despite its limited potential and high cost? For one thing, these are just the people that a legal ban would be least likely to stop. But more important, a legal barrier might well make cloning appear more promising than it is to a much larger group of people. The technology does not seem to require sophisticated and highly visible laboratory facilities, so cloning could easily go underground.

By arguing against a ban, I am not claiming that there are no serious ethical concerns to the manipulation of human genes because there are. For example, if it turned out that certain traits regarding intellectual abilities or character could be realized through the manipulation of human genes, which of these enhancements, if any, should be available? But such questions are about genetic engineering, which is a different issue than cloning. Cloning is a crude method of trait selection: It simply takes a genetic combination of traits that?s already there and replicates it.

I do not wish to dismiss the ethical concerns people have raised, but we should acknowledge that those concerns will not be resolved by any decision we make to ban cloning. So hopefully this essay has demonstrated that to ban cloning would be an uneducated decision. This new technology is not the possible destroyer of human civilization that it?s thought to be. Charlie Cho has not even given cloning a chance, so his view on the topic is an uneducated one.

The Dictionary of Art. Macmillan Publishers Limited. pgs 856-961.

c 1996

Danto, Ginger. ?Van Gogh Slept Here?. Art News. v 89. March 1990.

pgs 148-55

Bonafoux, Pascal. Van Gogh. Barrie and Jenkins Ltd. c 1989

Callow, Philip. Van Gogh: A Life. W. H. Allen & Co. Plc. c 1990

ОТКРЫТЬ САМ ДОКУМЕНТ В НОВОМ ОКНЕ

ДОБАВИТЬ КОММЕНТАРИЙ [можно без регистрации]

Ваше имя:

Комментарий