Human cloning is not only morally repugnant; it is not scientifically viable at this stage. As a news source and a source of public opinion, the Monroe Evening News has a direct responsibility to take a stance on banning human cloning. My personal opinion reflects a broader fear in our society that permission granted to scientific institutes to practice human cloning will have detrimental consequences.
This fear is not, as some would believe, based solely on religious values, although it may be. Religious beliefs should not influence public policy, however. What should influence public policy is science. Many scientists oppose human cloning and do not espouse it just because it is possible. While there are some potential benefits to human cloning, such as organ harvesting, these "benefits" must be weighed and examined in light of their consequences. When a new human being is created in the laboratory, what rights does it have? Does a fully formed clone deserve the right to refuse the harvesting of his or her organs?
Moreover, human clones will not, at this stage, be healthy creatures. The early experiments with animal cloning suggest that human clones would be born with physical defects or mental maladies. This is cruel enough and painful enough to witness in our animal friends. To create a physical, sentient being knowingly prone to illness or defect would be inhumane and destructive. It is also a highly selfish endeavor. Many scientists seem to covet cloning for personal gain. Others seem to desire to create a stash of human clones in a futile search for immortality. Instead of creating clones, scientists should spend more time and research on curing AIDS and cancer. The government, too, can devote money to much greater causes. You as a major media source should take a definite and fearless stand on this controversial issue.
Human Cloning The subject of human cloning was once the stuff of science fiction novels and television programs. As technology and science improves, the creation of clones has become, potentially, a real likelihood in the impending future. For the follow, the definition of human cloning is that which has been designated by the American Medical Association: The term "cloning" will refer to the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear
Legal costs might also haunt governments that allow cloning research. To prevent complications related to direct government investments in cloning research, legislation could open the door for privately-funded cloning research projects while at the same time banning federally- or state-funded research projects. However, most opponents of cloning cite the ethical costs involved in cloning legislation. Opponents of stem cell research sometimes "argue that permitting nuclear transplantation would open the door
Cloning Human Cloning The cloning of human beings is both fascinating and highly controversial. It creates a copy of a human that is genetically identical to one that is already in existence (Russel; 27). When people are born, they are all genetically different from one another, so cloning would produce a very different dynamic between one person and his or her identical clone. The exception to this difference is identical twins, who
Ethics of Human Cloning In 1971, Nobel Prize winning-scientist James Watson wrote an article warning about the growing possibility of a "clonal man." Because of both the moral and social dangers cloning posed to humankind, Watson called for a worldwide ban on any research leading to cloning technology (Watson 8). Until then, cloning had been largely relegated to the realm of science fiction. Scientific research concerning cloning and in vitro fertilization
Cloning has become a very contentious subject. The issue of cloning has moved from the scientific arena into the cultural, religious and ethical centers of debate, for good reasons. The scientific implications of cloning affects a wide range of social and ethical concerns. The theory of cloning questions many essential areas of ethical and philosophical concern about what human life is and raises the question whether we have the right
Thinkers and writers like Jeremy Rifkin, author of the Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World, voice their opposition to cloning. He and others are concerned that cloning with provide unethical incentives. "...we believe that the market for women's eggs that would be created by this research will provide unethical incentives for women to undergo health-threatening hormone treatment and surgery." (Statement in Support of Legislation to Prohibit