Arguements against cloning

Arguements against cloning

In 1997 the world was introduced to a six month old lamb named Dolly, the first successfully cloned mammal, putting everyone around the world into shock. The time has come where our technology in science and medicine have advanced so much that human cloning has left science fiction and has now progressed into science. A high percent of people feel that there could be nothing good we could get out of cloning human beings and “nothing scientifically or medically important would be lost by banning colonal reproduction” (Kass). According to a poll taken by CCN of 1,005 adults in 1997, 69% said they are afraid of the possibility to clone humans, 89% feel it is morally unacceptable, and 74% believe human cloning is against God’s will (Robinson). There are, however, those who support the cloning of humans. A select amount of scientist feel that research cloning will lead to cures and treatments for the sick and cloning would also “allow people to produce or raise a child to whom they are biologically connected” (Wachbroit). Although these are a few hopes of creating a human clone, such processes should be banned not only because they are extremely risky for the clones and the women who would birth them, but it would also diminish our world that is valued for individuality, despite the feelings of cloning supporters on the contrary. Although many scientists who support cloning do so in good intentions to help create cures for those who have diseases that we do not have treatments for, there are other ways of doing so without cloning. It would almost be impossible to restrict some forms of human cloning without banning it completely. The lives of humans are more valuable than to risk one for the benefit of another. Also, once research cloning is allowed and embryos become available, even the tightest regulations would not be able to prevent to birth of cloned babies (Robinson). Instead of using cloning to make progress to he…


Comments are closed.