Cloning Madness Essays -- Science Genetics Biology Papers

Cloning Madness Cloning, a topic that has recently caused mayhem all over the world, is possible, but will it be here to stay? The astonishing news that scientists had cloned a sheep a couple of years ago sent people into panic at the thought that humans might be next. "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity" (Macklin 64). Since most of the opposition is coming from the pure disgust of actually being able to clone species, it makes it difficult for people to get away from the emotional side of the issue and analyze the major implications cloning would have for society. To better understand this controversial issue, the pros and cons of cloning will be discussed. In "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," Ruth Macklin states that while human cloning might not offer any benefits, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm either. Theologians contend that to clone a human would violate human dignity...But why suppose that cloned persons wouldn't share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us? ...There's the fear...that parents might clone a child to have 'spare parts' in case the original child needs an organ transplant. But parents of identical twins don't view one child as an organ farm for the other. Why should cloned children's parents be any different? ...Even if human cloning offers no obvious benefits to society why ban it? (64) Macklin also states that in a democratic society we don't usually pass laws outlawing things before there is actual or probable evidence of harm. The same laws that now protect human rights should govern human cloning. "A world not safe ... ... March 10, 1997: 59-63. Kluger, Jeffrey. "Will We Follow the Sheep?" Time March 10, 1997: 69-72. Kolata, Gina. "Scientist Urge Senators Not to Rush to Ban Human Cloning." The New York Times March 13, 1997. Lewis, Thomas. "The Hazards of Science." The Presence of Others. Eds. Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. 236-242. Macklin, Ruth. "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No." U.S. News & World Report March 10, 1997: 64. Nash, J. Madeline. "The Age of Cloning." Time March 17, 1997: 62-72. Savage, David. "3 to 5 Year Ban on Any Human Cloning Is Urged." The Los Angeles Times June 8, 1997. Shelley, Mary. "Frankenstein." The Presence of Others. Eds. Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. 230-235. Stipp, David. "The Real Biotech Revolution." Fortune March 31, 1997: 54. Cloning Madness Essays -- Science Genetics Biology Papers Cloning Madness Cloning, a topic that has recently caused mayhem all over the world, is possible, but will it be here to stay? The astonishing news that scientists had cloned a sheep a couple of years ago sent people into panic at the thought that humans might be next. "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned that it might threaten human society and dignity" (Macklin 64). Since most of the opposition is coming from the pure disgust of actually being able to clone species, it makes it difficult for people to get away from the emotional side of the issue and analyze the major implications cloning would have for society. To better understand this controversial issue, the pros and cons of cloning will be discussed. In "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No," Ruth Macklin states that while human cloning might not offer any benefits, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm either. Theologians contend that to clone a human would violate human dignity...But why suppose that cloned persons wouldn't share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us? ...There's the fear...that parents might clone a child to have 'spare parts' in case the original child needs an organ transplant. But parents of identical twins don't view one child as an organ farm for the other. Why should cloned children's parents be any different? ...Even if human cloning offers no obvious benefits to society why ban it? (64) Macklin also states that in a democratic society we don't usually pass laws outlawing things before there is actual or probable evidence of harm. The same laws that now protect human rights should govern human cloning. "A world not safe ... ... March 10, 1997: 59-63. Kluger, Jeffrey. "Will We Follow the Sheep?" Time March 10, 1997: 69-72. Kolata, Gina. "Scientist Urge Senators Not to Rush to Ban Human Cloning." The New York Times March 13, 1997. Lewis, Thomas. "The Hazards of Science." The Presence of Others. Eds. Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. 236-242. Macklin, Ruth. "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No." U.S. News & World Report March 10, 1997: 64. Nash, J. Madeline. "The Age of Cloning." Time March 17, 1997: 62-72. Savage, David. "3 to 5 Year Ban on Any Human Cloning Is Urged." The Los Angeles Times June 8, 1997. Shelley, Mary. "Frankenstein." The Presence of Others. Eds. Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. 230-235. Stipp, David. "The Real Biotech Revolution." Fortune March 31, 1997: 54.