Cloning the Debate About Human Cloning Was Term Paper

  • Length: 7 pages
  • Subject: Genetics
  • Type: Term Paper
  • Paper: #6186611

Excerpt from Term Paper :


The debate about human cloning was carried out within the field of science fiction and fantasy, until recently. With the victorious cloning of the sheep Dolly in 1997, it became obvious that earlier or later, scientists might be able to clone human beings too. There is both encouragement and disagreement for this likelihood. Though cloning has been explained by newspapers and magazines as an exhilarating step onward that allows genetic engineers to lessen the qualms of reproduction, they have also made available comments by religious figures, scientists, and others who view human cloning as an assault on human dignity. (Cloning: The science of Controversy)

In Greek the word clone means taking an intersection from a plant. To make a correct genetic copy of an available life form is cloning. In many plants and even a few animals cloning takes place by itself. Except for identical twins, this phenomenon does not occur naturally in mammals and humans. As seen clearly this is very dissimilar from cloning when it comes to the moral side. Dolly has made all that different. She was shaped by a procedure known as nuclear transfer, by which cells from the udder of an ewe was taken and reprogramming was done to make a new embryo and the embryo was placed in another ewe. This is a biological transformation. It was considered impractical to create a mammal from a body tissue. Could it be done in humans, if it is possible in sheep and now cattle and mice also, Should it be, if it could be? (Human Cloning - The Ethical Issues)

In the reproductive technology, cloning is the next sensible move is the squabble by some people. The supporters of cloning argue that the reproductive cloning can be considered as a technological form of a natural course, as identical twins are natural clones. Why shouldn't a couple be capable to create clones of them, if they are sterile? Why shouldn't the couple, if they have lost a child be capable to replace that dear one with a clone if it is possible? It seems like a good thought to produce someone who has made an immense contribution to science, music, the arts or literature in the expectation that we might gain even more from what would productively be a much longer working life. (The pros and cons of human reproductive cloning) The outlook of the people who support human cloning is that a number of amazing profits can be achieved from cloning technology. (Human Cloning is beneficial0

The cloning technology is built-up as a means to advance the production of genetically engineered animals. By growing genetically engineered animals like cows or goats that exude chemicals and proteins of worth to humans and produce human blood clotting agents in their milk, vast financial gains can be made. Scientists must hereditarily maneuver each individual animal without cloning and which results in very little success rates. But with cloning, the option that scientists need only one perfect animal to clone a whole group from that success. The main aim is not to imitate everything about the animal but only the property that has been engineered into it. (Cloning: The science of Controversy) significant advantage suggested out of cloning is that it is a therapy for childlessness. The reasons for sterility are by genetic defects, wounds to the reproductive organs, hereditary defects and contact to poisonous material and waves. Sterile people can have an advanced possibility of success by human cloning. Many people are not sterile, as they cannot produce feasible gametes. For cloning technology a feasible sperm or egg is not required, any body cell will do. This technology will be able to avoid faulty gametes and permits sterile people to have their own biological children. By cloning technology, suicide, separation, clinical gloominess among sterile people can be stopped. The ideal gene treatment is likely by cloning technology, the real alteration or substitution of flawed gene series. The scientists can take a cell that had its genome adapted and use it to create a progeny, by the cloning technology. The resultant child and its offspring would carry the modified gene in every cell. Muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis can be healed by cloning technology. (Human Cloning is beneficial)

The scientists can better appreciate the cell separation by the human cloning which is other's benefit. New medical interference can be got by the study on the basic procedures of cell separation. Sufferers of spinal cord and burn damages can be supplied with synthetically created surrogate tissues. Injuries caused by degenerative disorders like Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease, diabetes can be upturned. With the aid of a meager dead skin cell, biologists might be able to make organs for transplant. The supporters dispute that moral suggestions concerned in human cloning are only momentary. (Human Cloning is beneficial)

Historically, we see that many bio-conservative moralists who fiercely objected many a great medical advancement in their own time are now seen as an approval. This was the instance with anesthesia when people disputed that it was not natural and that it would deteriorate our moral fibers during childbirth and surgery. Another instance was with heart transplantations, how yucky to take a living heart of one person and put it in the chest of another. In vitro fertilization was another instance; these test tube babies would be dehumanized and would be subject to serious mental exploitation. In the present days, the communal support rate of IVF has increased from 15% in the early seventies to over 70%, heart transplantation is seen as one of medicine's supreme victories, and anesthesia is taken for granted. (Human Reproductive Cloning from the Perspective of the Future) This is clearly shown in the development of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). The antagonists of IVF disputed during the 1960s and 1970s that it was opposed to God's will, American families would be shattered or changed, and the children would be malformed. Within a few years, it became a usual medical process. (Human Cloning is beneficial) In human cloning also the case will be the same.

What can one study from these historical incidents? We find out from the supporter's debates that our instant emotional responses to medical improvements are not a dependable guide to their ethics. We can study that we are prejudiced and fail to understand the enduring advantages of technological improvement and are prone to chauvinism. We come to know that yuck aspect should be deeply disbelieved and that it should certainly not be worshiped as a Knowledge of Disgust. With just as much human self-respect as those of us who were considered in other ways, we have to acknowledge a clone with an ethical liability for what she is, a sole human person. The ethical arguments over cloning would have already been long elapsed; by the time the first human clone becomes an adult. The present day antagonists of cloning may have gone off or moved on to being outranged about other things. As we hear today, the clones might be protected having bystanders being referred to by pundits in offensive language. (Human Reproductive Cloning from the Perspective of the Future)

The emotional comfort of the child is another moral quandary. The solitary most significant aspect hurting the quality of a child's life is the affection and attachment he/she gets from parents and not the techniques or conditions of the person's birth, is the argument given by the supporters, which we must keep in mind. There is no basis to imagine that with good counseling support for their parents they will not feel the affection and attention they deserve, as the cloned children are presumably the most wanted children. (Human Cloning is beneficial) Even if human cloning doesn't give huge profits for the world, it's improbable to do any real harm, as said by less intense supporters. Thus instead of prohibition, cloning must be examined carefully. (Human Cloning: Is making people wrong)

People who disagree with human cloning propose that the idea runs contradictory to the evolutionary need to retain a basic level of genetic variety, and the variety God has created in nature. The implication that one organism is the precise copy of another is given by the term cloning. As they have the similar nuclear genes as the contributor, human clones will be the same. But containing the same genes does not end in two identical persons, as seen in natural monozygotic twins. A clone because of the dissimilar surroundings and situation in which he or she formed her or his life turn into a different person from the person from whom he or she was cloned. Twins may be more alike than clones as most twins are formed and taken care of in the same surroundings in utero and frequently during infancy, though human cloning can be considered of as a kind of belated twinning. Human clones will be unlike in terms of individuality and other uniqueness, as background has a deep…

Cite This Term Paper:

"Cloning The Debate About Human Cloning Was" (2004, February 26) Retrieved January 18, 2017, from

"Cloning The Debate About Human Cloning Was" 26 February 2004. Web.18 January. 2017. <>

"Cloning The Debate About Human Cloning Was", 26 February 2004, Accessed.18 January. 2017,