Hi there!
Respond to the following questions in your discussion about the two articles that you've just finished reading.
What are some ethical issues with cloning? What is the difference between the two articles? Why would anyone want to clone? How should it be regulated if it were legal to clone others?
Respond to at leasts one of your classmates.
The topic of cloning is very debate-able and has many pros and cons. Some people may say that cloning is unethical. Maybe because you could say that you're creating life unnaturally or with this science and technology you could create a baby factory. However, some scientists say that they aren't destroying or creating any life. Instead, they're taking life and making a newer version of it. As I mentioned before this argument could go both ways. In the 1st article that I read, many ethicists that it was inhumane to clone and reproduce life like that. In the 2nd article many scientists said that cloning can be necessary. People might want to clone because they lost a child that they love or they can't have children. Some couples that can't have children would like to try cloning. In my opinion, cloning should only be allowed for the medical field. The people who want something to be cloned must fill out an extensive form of why and what will be donated to complete the experiment. There should be no other reason to clone other than a medical reason. The views on cloning differ from person to person and many of them have their own reason for what they believe.
ReplyDeleteI think the way that the Vatican's L'Osservatore Romano put it was very interesting. He stated "a tunnel of madness" in response to hearing that lab testing and procedures were being practiced using human embryo and DNA. The first article stated that people over looked the use of rabbit, plant, etc. embryo, but there was still an up rise in the fact that human embryo was being involved. I think that the entire idea of cloning is unethical unless it is used for medical procedures, but it is horrifying that people wouldn’t care about the animals involved in the procedure. I understand that these scientific procedures were practiced before I was born and before people began to get an idea of scientific ethics, but STILL! No one thought to enlighten others on the rights of animals. I admit I am not an animal lover, but to remove DNA from a creature and slowly watch in perish through a lab incubator…WOW! I understand that they had to test to see if the procedures would be successful before they brought it forth to the public, but they couldn’t test it on a plant and then say “we only tested in plants…but we trust it and we sure hope you do to!” Allowing parents that cannot produce children the choice to clone and create children, is wonderful in the familiar type. If they tested it on plants and then told parents that if they wanted children of their own that bad then they can try this little…umm test. The article differ in the points of veiw that the speakers emit. Well that’s all I really have to say on the subject, but OK!
ReplyDelete(in response to Kinjal) I really like your last sentence, because truly the ethics debate of cloning could last for hours. One side might say that cloning should be permitted in every day soceity, because it can help in medicine. Others might argue that cloning is unethical and if those who are fans of coning want to keep it around then they should strically seclud it to the lab. This is my extened way of saying...I agree.
ReplyDeleteMost people want to clone someone or an animal (a pet) that had substantial meaning to them and cannot be replaced. If a mistake is made in actually cloning a human, then the government will probably take serious consideration in banning cloning entirely. In my personal opinion, it seems wrong. Why should there be a technologically engineered copy of a person? Can't we all just be happy because we are all unique? I don't need another one of myself around. If I suddenly die for some reason, I die and I’m dead. Think about what the dead person would want. Do they seriously want another one of themselves around after they really are gone? Also, this could soon lead to overpopulation with a lot of clones. Some may consider them useful in war and other things, but still: take from the dead to bring back to life, and then die again. That was proven by Dolly the sheep, whose clone only lived around 5 years before dying, while the actual life span of a sheep is much more than that. Everyone has a different point of view about cloning and everyone is entitled to their own opinions about cloning. The articles' speakers express their views throughout their writing.
ReplyDeletein my opionion cloneing should be allowedin any feid of science. this way we have expendible people to use in dangorous experiments. i know some of youaregoing to be like thats cruel well there a copy of a peson. like if i tore up your report youed be sad but im sure you could printanother one. but scientists are still skepticaland some say do while others say no. by the way sorry about spelling and spaces, my space bar is broken
ReplyDeleteMany people believe that cloning human beings is very unethical, but other people such as scientists think that cloning could actually help many people and save lives. Cloning can be thought of as unethical, because it's scientifically creating a person, and some people believe that cloning is against God's will. The first article talks more about why cloning should not be conducted, while the second article explains why cloning could help many couples who can't have children and how cloning can help certain people. Also, if you've lost a loved one who was very close to you, you might want to clone that dead person, so you'll be able to see him/her alive again. If it was legal to clone others, I think that it should only be used for medicine or just for science. If someone wants to clone themselves or another person, they should have a really good reason to be able to clone, so not everybody will have clones. Because the Earth is already overpopulated, making clones of many people will just increase the population which will be even worse for the Earth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel, because when someone dies, they die. You just need to let nature run its course and not make a copy of that dead person. That would definitely increase the world population, and right now, Earth is already overpopulated. Also, it's true that when a clone is made, it may have many "malfunctions", and then it might die at a very early age just like Dolly the sheep.
ReplyDelete(reply to Sebastian)
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with your approach at viewing cloning. Due to our limited exposure towards clones, we consider them to be the emotionless robots that science fiction suggests. With the advances of modern science, the clones would actually be human beings with emotions, thoughts, hopes, and dreams, just like us. They aren't expendible. Considering them to be so would be like considering your siblings or friends to be expendible. The analogy with the reports presents the same issue. A report is a piece of paper. Not a human life.
(reply to Cindy)
ReplyDeleteI definetely agree with your post and your approach on this topic. I personally think that cloning should only be used for medicine. The Earth is overpopulated which would raise concerns if EVERYBODY wanted to have clones. I think that clones should be used to replace someone that was really loved and is irreplaceable. Basically, all of those words say I AGREE!! :)
(reply to Sebastian)
Why should everyone have clones? Why not just a certain field? Wouldn't it just overpopulate the Earth even more. Pooja's right, a person is not your report. You DO make them seem like robots but they are clones which means that they have HUMAN feelings!
(reply to Rachel)
I somewhat agree with your take on cloning. I still think that cloning should be used to bring people back from the dead. As I mentioned before, it should be to bring back people that you really love and that are irreplacable. But, I still like your argument (even though i don't fully agree w/ it)
The main problem with cloning that most people have is that we are producing human beings in a way that isn't natural. Reproducing and just producing humans are completely different, and many are scared of crossing boundaries. I believe that a lot of people have the misconception that cloning would bring a dead person back to life. Obviously, a clone is just a different human with many similarities to its original copy. I don't think that once people actually think about what a clone is, and how a clone is compared to a original, that people would still want to clone themselves or others.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way to regulate cloning after the technology to clone becomes general knowledge. As with anything illegal, if anybody wants it, they can get it without proper authorization.
*And expendable isn't spelled expindible.
I believe that an argument involving clones could very easily go either way. Many people believe that it is unethical and not the way life should be. But others (mostly the ones who want to bring someone back to life) think that is useful and normal in the progression of science. I think that too, but if all people are going to do with it is bring dead ones back too life just so they can have them again I do believe that it is wrong. Also if is illegal I agree with Nishant on the fact that people will find a way on the black market to get it.
ReplyDeleteI am very torn when it comes to the issue of cloning. I see many advantages to it, but I also see how unethical it is to clone another living thing. We also have no idea what the effect on humans could be, it could be a complete failure, a total disaster, or a huge success for all mankind. Who knows? I also think it's kind of creepy to bring people (or animals) back to life. Sounds like some freaky sci-fi show that comes on late night tv. Anyways, I'm agreeing with Cindy on the fact that the Earth is already overpopulated and if everyone had a clone the Earth as a whole would suffer. Clones can be useful for scientific research and medical purposes, but it would be a living, breathing human life we would be dealing with. Personally, I don't think that scientists should be playing God here.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with cloning is that, it is like an unnatural way to create or recreate life. Reproducing naturally is much different from just cloning and creating another baby. People mainly believe that cloning is unethical and life should not be this way. The first article was basically saying how cloning is not right and inhumane. In the second article scientists were saying that cloning could be necessary in order to cure people and for other medical reasons. I also agree with Nishant about the fact that one the technology for cloning is out, there will be no way that the government or anyone can actually regulate it, and if it becomes illegal, people are still going to find a way to do it without needing proper permission.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the idea of cloning at all. Cloning is not and ethical way to create new humans or prevent them from dying. I think that almost everything has to pass away and nothing should be able to get away that. I also think that there is only one you and nothing else should look exactly like you or have similar traits to you(except for identical twins). In the first article, the article gave many convincing examples of cloning being unethical and bad for humans, but the second article was supporting the fact that cloning could become useful in the future. I wouldn't want to clone myself or anyone because it is wrong to do that. But, if cloning were to become legal, then people should only get cloned if they wanted to be cloned.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachels comment about her saying "can't we just be happy we're all unique?" Everyone in this world should just be themselves and have their own style, personality, traits, and feelings. Why would some people even want to be exactly the same as someone else?
ReplyDeleteIn my perspective, cloning appears to be something that should be entirely avoided. When I read the second article, I found a quote mentioning that parents could replace deceased children if cloning was approved. I was immediately horrified at the moral implications of that statement. I doubt the author had any idea of what was being conveyed to me as a reader behind those words. The day that a parent can easily replace a dead child, and feel nothing of it, is the day that I will officially label our species as emotionless. An appropriate word for this moment might be "eejit" in the words of Nancy Farmer. The other article was more supportive of my opinion, that cloning is a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteAs for how cloning, if ever made legal, should be regulated, the method described in "The House of the Scorpion" seems to be the most plausible, though it sounds completely inhumane. If the awareness of pain and unjust treatment is removed from the clones, than how can they suffer? Because, in essence, pain is simply the awareness of pain. If the clones are mindless, they cannot feel the horrors they are experiencing. Thinking about this method ethically, however, it is horrible. How can a human embryo, which is created by nature to think for itself, follow its dreams, etc, be condemned to such an animalistic life? To me, it seems like this method turns human beings with full potential into mute, brainless, quadriplegics. If this isn't evil, then I don't know what is.
Cloning is a completely unethical thing but it is all situational. if clones are used to help clean up the earth then what is the harm but if they are used to create an army ,and i am being completely fictitious here, then of course it would be a bad thing. more than 20 species of animals have already been cloned and they are working on cloned meat (thank god i am a vegitarian). people have tried to stop this especially meat eaters because they are scared that they will get sick by eating bad meat. This is a very debabteable topic but i am decided of course there are ethical needs and they need to be kept. but what if we cloned a scientist or a world peace leader. this was just a counterargument that i was thinking of but i still think that it would be stupid to start cloning things. if this isnt bad then neither are terrorists.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of cloning is interesting. Though some might think it would be unethical to clone another human, which I agree, because that could really could cause harm. Some crazy people might clone another Hitler or some evil scientist would make an army of clones. But I believe it is good that we keep researching and developing new ways of cloning the organs of people that need transplants and for other medical purposes. It sounds evil to do that, but thinking about it, it could save a lot of lives. If we get it safe enough we could solve world hunger and transplant problems in a snap.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel cloning is okay but not everybody's cup of tea.Ethical issues with cloning include premature death, organ taking, cloning history's famous villians and creating baby factorys. I feel the second article was much more pro cloning than the first article. The first focused on the cons and the second focused on the pros.People may want to clone if they cannot reproduce naturally or if they need a clone for medical reasons or if they want to keep themeselves or a deceased love back or around longer. I think it should be regulated by only leting peoplewith benevolent intents to clone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel that when someone dies you should not try to get them back through cloning. Though the people said they know they will not be the same I think they subconciously hope they are. When the clones are diffrent they will be sad.
ReplyDelete@Sebastian
ReplyDeleteYour take on clones seems to be that they are just a duplicate of the person that they're cloned from.
Clones are exactly like humans with the only difference being the way that they are made.
Each clone will also be as different personality wise as any twin would be to another.
So you can't just have an endless amount of clones to have at your disposal.
I don't agree with the idea of cloning human beings or animals because it is completely unethical. It is a very debateable topic because some scientists find cloning a good thing because it can help save the lives of many people. Saving someone's life isn't always nessecary because everything has to pass on one day or another. The main difference between the two articles is that in article one, the author views cloning as inhumane while the second article says that cloning could be neccessary. Cloning should be regulated and in my opinion should be only allowed for medical needs. The thought of trying to bring people back to life is mortyfing is just not right because everyone has there time to leave this world. I am very against cloning because it is very harmful and just not right for obvious reasons.
ReplyDelete(reply to sebastian)
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with your point of view on clones. I mean they are human beings just like us with a life and feelings and what not. They are not expendable. And what up with that analogy. I don't think you can compare a human life to a piece of paper. Humans are muuch more than a piece of paper. You make them sound like robots but they are much much more than that Not everyone on Earth would need a clone.
I don't think humans should be cloned because then the clones are automatically second class citizens. As history shows, normally when one ethnicity or race is superior to another, the other rebels and starts a war. The problem with a clone war is they have access to the weapons we use and our knowledge from living in our society. Plus if the clone got to its owner before its owner got to them, then they would become that person and could sabotage the opposing side.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between the articles is one is the positive side or idea of cloning and the other is a controversial side from scientists' research.
People would want to clone to breed a more perfect human race.
It would be like sci-fi movies where the humans are like lab rats and kept in cages and used only for experiments. This is a little extreme, but it's hard to tell where society would draw the line, especially if it got into the wrong hands. I'm not saying that America would do that, but America could do that. This brings me to my next point.
Regulation of cloning. It would be similar to the US government. It would have three branches with checks and balances on each other so one branch doesn't get all the power. The branches would be the government, therapists/counselors for parenting and grieving, and the scientists that do the cloning. If someone wants someone/something cloned they have to start at one branch and go through all 3. It is kind of like passing a bill to a law, but the difference would be that it only has to pass 2 of the 3 immediately for it to be done.
I agree with meghana.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of ethical issues with cloning that many people are protesting right now. For one, there is a debate about whether an embryo is actually a human yet. A lot of people say that the embryos are human from the moment they are conceived, and that experimenting with them is murdering a baby. In my opinion, they aren't actually people yet because they aren't fully developed.
ReplyDeleteThe first article is about two scientists who cloned a few embryos just to experiment, and their work became highly controversial. All they wanted to do was test a theory, they had no intention of putting it inside a mother or anything. The second article was about cloning dead babies/children, mainly for grieving parents who wanted a duplicate of their dead child.
People might want to clone for a lot of different reasons. Some might want a clone of themselves so when they die, they can leave everything to their clone. Others might want to clone because they miss their dead child or they have a child who is dying from cancer, so they want a duplicate of the dead or dying child. People could also want to clone someone else they love like their mother if she were dying.
If it were legal to clone others, there should be a law that you are not allowed to clone someone without their written permission. It would create a lot of chaos if people could just clone anyone they wanted.
(reply to sebastian)
ReplyDeleteI seriously disagree with you. A report is an innacurate comparison to a real person. Just because they are cloned doesn't mean they're not people. They have real thoughts and feelings just like people who aren't clones. Yes, you could tear up a report, but that wouldn't mattter because reports aren't alive; they're paper. You can't tear up a cloned human the same way you would tear up a piece of paper, because there is a HUGE difference. The person would actually have feelings and pain if you tore it up. Therefore, you really can't compare those two things and say they are similar.