Term Paper on Human cloning

This essay has a total of 1471 words and 6 pages.

human cloning

Human Cloning: Are You For or Against It?

In today's society there are many new technological advances in science that have allowed
us as humans to recreate some of life's essentials, people and animals. In the new modern
age of science there has been much controversy over this sensitive subject. For example,
why should anyone have the right to clone another human being for their own benefit? Or
perhaps even on animals? Others may argue that human cloning should be used in order to
better ones life. I look at it as god creates everyone to be a certain way, if he wanted
there to be clones of everything, he would have made everything the same. I truly believe
that there are certain fields of cloning that may actually better our world as a whole. It
is our job as a society to decide which type of cloning is right and which type of cloning
is wrong.

When the topic of cloning is brought up during a conversation there are always going to be
some raised eyebrows. Most people associate cloning with humans, and that is why there are
way more people against the practice of cloning then there is for it. What people need to
take into consideration is that cloning can be used to save things instead of always
enhancing them. "Scientists will most likely find a way to save endangered species using
the benefits of cloning. Our national bird has always been one to make us all proud. Its
beauty and majestic character makes it a shame that it is almost an endangered species"
(Malcolm 12) This is only one of many cases that can be argued. If we look at things this
way I'm sure that there will be a significant amount of people that would change their
minds and views on cloning.

Human cloning on the other hand is a much more delicate topic than the cloning of animals.
I know when I hear the phrase "human cloning" it makes me think of stubbornness and
selfishness. Maybe that's because I haven't fully learned, or understood all the benefits
of human cloning, and just choose to point out all of the negatives. I have to believe
that the reason why most people object to the idea of cloning has to be because they
assume stubbornness in most cases. Human cloning can be a treatment for infertility. That
alone should standout in the eyes of many to encourage the practice rather than discourage
it. Infertility is caused mainly by genetic defects, so it's not like the women made a bad
choice to inherit this defect, it was genetically given to her. If Cloning could give
women higher percentages to have babies, then why not allow this? Another strong point
that has been pushed over the years to try and allow human cloning is cloning technology.
"Cloning technology can help "perfect" gene therapy, the actual correction or replacement
of defective gene sequences. Gene therapy is currently limited because of inefficient
vectors, or viruses that convey new genes into cells" (Lovell). Due to the inefficient
positive outcome of this, the only way to enhance gene therapy is to allow this new
technology of cloning. "Cloning technology would allow scientists to take a cell that had
its genome modified and use it to produce an offspring. The resulting child and its
descendants would carry the corrected gene in every cell" (Lovell) If you look at these
positives influences that human cloning can produce then is human cloning in today's
society really that bad?

Is cloning really a good thing or do some people just make it out to be that
way? Recent studies show that the animal rights groups are outraged with the
idea of testing animals for cloning. They believe that any experimentation or
unnecessary distress to a living animal is completely inhumane. This protest
has to be taken and considered strongly when discussing this matter. Why
should anyone have the right to clone animals in order to see if it will better
humans? The animal rights groups are trying to save these innocent animals
from being potential science lab tests. With the idea of human cloning being
debated day in and day out, The National Bioethics Advisory Commission wonders if a cloned
human will be "regarded as less of a person" and treated as a scientific specimen rather
than a human being. This is has been reported as

one of the most argued points against the practice of human cloning. When a
clone is born, if we regard them as any less of a person than you or me, then
why even clone? It is unfair to the child that is born if society doesn't
accept him the way that it should. The clone itself was not part of any
decision or experiment that resulted in their cloning. How in the world can we
hold them accountable for someone else's actions? For this argument I can
obviously see the controversy that it is sure to stir up. This argument alone
could be the sole reason that human cloning will never be accepted as morally
Continues for 3 more pages >>