In "Cloning Is Moral" Alex (Something else) comes across as an advocate for therapeutic and reproductive cloning and argues that it is immoral to be against it, which I disagree.The He states cloning represents "the desire to exert our will over every aspect of our surroundings." I believe we were put on the earth to be stewards and keep the earth, not to dominate every aspect of it.Tags: Sight And Blindness In King Lear EssayShaved Ice Business PlanMy Identity EssayWrite Literary Essay Lesson PlanBusiness Plan For Startup Business TemplatesTools Of Evaluation In Critical ThinkingEssay Writing As AExecutive Summary For Research PapersSimple Argumentative Essay
(Something else) then makes an argument for reproductive cloning saying when it becomes safe to perform that it will prevent the transmission of genetic diseases. How many possible lives will have to be lost before reproductive cloning is considered safe?
A child produced by cloning would be the genetic duplicate of an existing person.
It is not our place as humans to create and destroy life.
It is understood that advances in technology have made man's life happier, longer, and healthier, and I am all for advancing but destroying life to create life is unjustified.
Other research, like experiments on the cloning of non-human primates, will also bring us closer to cloning-to-produce-children.
But the cloning of non-human primates (something that the authors of the recent cloning paper have worked on in the past) is not in itself a violation of human dignity, and a strong case can be made for pursuing the cloning of non-human animals for medical purposes.Anyone interested in the ethical questions surrounding human cloning could do worse than to read In his excellent NRO article about last week’s news, Samuel Aquila makes the important point that the commonly heard distinction between “therapeutic cloning” and “reproductive cloning” is disingenuous, since the creation of a cloned human embryo creates a new human being, and therefore deserves to be called a form of reproduction.(That is why eschewed those terms and instead settled on the terms “cloning for biomedical research” and “cloning to produce children.”) The fact that cloned embryos have largely the same DNA as an existing human being should not distract us from the fact that they are new and unique human organisms, by virtue of their organic and developmental unity as living beings.Rebuttals to Arguments in Favor of Reproductive Cloning 1.The number of men and women who do not produce eggs or sperm at all is very small, and has been greatly reduced by modern assisted-reproduction techniques.But we must draw a bright line around any form of human cloning and vigorously oppose it as a morally illicit instrumentalization of human life.One Head is Better Than Two The question of cloning has been one of the most recently controversial issues of the past decade.If cloning could be perfected and used for this limited group, it would be all but impossible to prevent its use from spreading.Further, this argument appropriates the phrase "genetically related" to embrace a condition that has never before occurred in human history, one which abolishes the genetic variations that have always existed between parent and child. Even if cloning were safe, it would be impossible to allow reproductive cloning for lesbians or gay men without making it generally available to all.Arguments offered for and against reproductive cloning are given below.A summary comment follows at the end of the arguments. Reproductive cloning would foster an understanding of children, and of people in general, as objects that can be designed and manufactured to possess specific characteristics. Reproductive cloning would diminish the sense of uniqueness of an individual. At least 95% of mammalian cloning experiments have resulted in failures in the form of miscarriages, stillbirths, and life-threatening anomalies; some experts believe no clones are fully healthy.