- Download PDF
67 Answers | Add Yours
I think cloning can be beneficial to produce organs used for transplant. Cloning certain plants for beneficial characteristics to use in agriculture has been done for generations. Cloning particular genes to use in gene therapy is a great idea.
...not every zygote gets to be President. Sorry. Cloning and abortion raise the same moral objections. So the same answer rebuttal applies: If you don't like it, don't have it. I wonder how many of those, who have scruples about cloning, when faced with the immediate choice of living or dying, would refuse the man made organ.
Cloning is definitely not a good development. We should leave human nature how it naturally develops on its own. If we genetically altered clones and developed people to be exactly what we thought we wanted them to be, there would still end up being problems, just other ones than what we were trying to avoid.
Also, a world cannot grow and develop if it is full of genetically altered, 'perfect' people. The way we learn from our surroundings is by having to deal with conflict and growing from the difficulties we deal with. If we make a world full of 'perfect' people, we cannot grow and develop the way we are meant to, the way nature intends.
But would a clone of Gandhi have the same moral character as Gandhi. That's the unknown factor. Could the clone possibly turn out to be a radical extremist, based on his upbringing and the society into which he would be born? Is it only the physical attributes that get duplicated, or do intelligence, memory, and wisdom get copied over to the clone as well?
Cloning can be beneficial when it comes to cloning specific cells and organs to help with growing transplants, but when it comes to cloning a full being that can be dangerous.
"The fault is not within the stars, it is within ourselves!" What we do with this technology will be determined by what individuals decide what is "moral" for themselves. Maybe some will see it as an abomination of nature to have a cloned organ. So be it. They won't have to buy one. Business will certainly drive the process, since it will supply what is in demand, but whatever "morally grey" areas that are created will only be so when people decide how to use the technology, and others disapprove of that method of useage. Certainly, creating an army of grunts through malgenics would threaten individual rights, and the appropriate government response is to forbid that, since government, when working, is supposed to defend rights.
Eugenics, on the other hand, has less of an argument--who wouldn't want to see the race improved? (but now we're into "The Wrath of Khan...." and guaranteed there will be pitfalls along the way, but that's no reason to not do it.)
Hopefully, cloning will continue to develop without moral objections, and the useage and development of such technology will remain and individual choice, as moral choices can only be, as only individuals can assign a value.
I agree with #3. Just because we are capable of doing something doesn't mean that we ought to go ahead and do it. I have to admit that while it scares me, cloning also fascinates me. The potential of growing new organs for transplant from your own cells somehow "feels" more humane than using a cadaver organ. At the same time, I fear tampering with nature so much. We don't know the long-term consequences. Could we have a time when whole humans are cloned to be living organ donors? Ugh!
Technological breakthroughs are a double-edged sword. The benefit usually is apparent immediately; the drawbacks may take some time to discover. Consider the steam engine -- the device that launched the Industrial Revolution--and created air pollution. Consider the Internet -- unprecedented ability to communicate and disseminate information -- and create social isolation. In the case of cloning, the benefits appear at hand -- increased food supply, tissue and organ regeneration, to name two obvious ones. Will the drawbacks include an even bigger population explosion, because there's more food, and will my cloned heart, kidney, or lung fail without warning? In short, there are variables we don't know about, and unfortunately will have to stumble upon through the emergence of the problems these technologies create. Such is the price of progress.
Cloning to me seems the unnecessary utilization of scientific knowledge and resources. Why would we seek to multiply ourselves? Are there not 7 billion people on the planet already? Instead of using resources to clone ourselves, we must use it our tools to develop path-breaking medicines and cures to diseases that ail our world.
And besides, wouldnt you want to be the Only type of YOU in this world?
cloning is wrong..
both. Depending on the situation. The cloned might be disfigured, and that would be bad. If humans eat the cloned, then we might be having chemicals pumped into our body. That would be bad too. That's why we should eat organic, and don't eat cloned animals.
Cloning has already been used for thousands of years to help people. The simplest form is by using cuttings from a plant and planting them. The cuttings will form a genetically identical separate plant. The problem with this method may be that a genetically identical crop can be wiped out by an introduced disease, whereas a genetically variable crop would stand a chance against it. Moreover when an organ is transplanted from another person, the body will react to it as a foreign object and naturally will try to reject it. The transplanted organ also has chance of failing faster than a normal organ. If they could clone their own heart, lung, liver, kidney, eyes, ears, etc. they wouldn't have to worry about medications, rejection, or being on a seemingly endless waiting list. They could live normal lives. This does not involve having to clone an entire human being for organ "harvesting". Experiments are being made where entire organs are being grown by using special stem cells (that don't necessarily come from fetal tissue) which differentiate into any cell when given the right chemical directions. Perhaps the biggest reason that cloning should never be explored is because of where it may lead society.If there are people that need organs, then there are always donors. Or we can find other ways, such as somatic stem cells. If cloning is a step onto advancements in medicine, then the world is better staying ignorant.
dolly was the first sheep to be cloned .....!!
It depends why you are cloning for good or bad? And who or what you are cloning.
good as you can clone a genetically superior species
We’ve answered 320,479 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question