Cloning
After a 1997 experiment in which a sheep was cloned, the argument of cloning humans came up. The argument surrounding cloning pits the views of two different groups against each other. Similar to the pro-life activists in the abortion argument there is the conservative wing who claim the utilization of cloning would be unjust. Then there are the scientific and progressive left activists on the other wing who believe that society could make great strides in the medicine and other fields through the use of cloning. In the defense of the conservative wing there are some negative effects that could be avoided by banning the research and use of cloning. But it seems the possible positive effects would outweigh the negative. It is a simple risk-reward equation that must be resolved to figure out whether cloning should be used. Although we may have to do some unethical things on the way, unethical is not necessarily unlawful. Therefore all in all the legalization and further investigation of cloning would be beneficial to society. The conservative side points out that the use of cloning will turn the world into a dull and boring place lacking in the diversity we have now. Kluger the author of an article in Time magazine quotes a Boston
College bioethics professor as saying "'It is in the diversity of our population that we find interest and enthusiasm'"(71). Then again Alex Kahn writes in "Clone Mammals...Clone Man?" "part of the individuality and dignity of a person probably lies in the uniqueness and unpredictability of his or her development. As a result the uncertainty of the great lottery of heredity constitutes the principal protection against biological predetermination imposed by third parties including parents" (324). Next, the opposition says that it should be wrong to clone humans strictly for organs and let the clone die. To this end, people could smoke their whole lives knowing that when they develop cancer they can just clone themselves and get a new lung and not worry about what the scientists or doctors do with the clone with one lung. Also, my opposition feels that in a situation like the blood, bone marrow, or organ transplant that people should be kind hearted and understand the beauty of saving a human life. And that if everyone would be kind hearted there would be no need for clones because all of the resources needed to survive are here in humans. Finally, I believe it is unjust to have the ability to do good, and not utilize that ability. John Harris writes in "Is Cloning an Attack on Human Dignity?" "It cannot, from the ethical point of view, be better or more moral to waste human material that could be used for therapeutic purposes than to use it to do good"(330). For example, if someone knew how to cure cancer or had the means to do so and did not disclose it, I think society would find that person's actions morally unjust. What makes this situation any different, it seems we may "have" a cure for some diseases through the use of clones for research and/or blood and bone marrow transplant so why should we not use our resources to their full potential. Think about all of the human lives we could be wasting on the deaths of the ill that could be saved if we stop discussing cloning and take action. In addition the conservative side argues as if there will be a clone made for every person. I do
Some common words found in the essay are:
Medicine IOM, , God Catholics, Human Dignity, Robert Wright, Clone MammalsClone, Boston College, bone marrow, Bill Zimmerman, ability clone, blood bone, blood bone marrow, John Harris, Rights March, opposition wrong clone, opposition wrong, life clone, clone lives, wrong clone, clone people, immoral ability, ability clone people, immoral ability clone, available grandmother, bone marrow transplant,
Approximate Word count = 1422
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
