Message
boards
Essays
Books
People
News
Archive
Reviews
Feedback
Donate to
Human
Cloning.org
Links
Sitemap
About Us
Contact Us |
|
Human Cloning: the Scientific Revolution of the Future
by Tom W. |
Those who oppose human cloning believe that it is "unethical" and "immoral". This is a valid argument presented to the issue of whether human cloning should be banned or not. I say "valid" because many reasons on banning human cloning are misconceptions --an invalid argument. Three common misconceptions people have with clones are that they could be produced as slaves, they are not real people, and they are an exact copy of the donor with the same mental characteristics and personalities -- which would supposedly cause confusion.
It is important to understand that if a human clone is produced, a whole different person with a separate soul (http://hyperion.advanced…)
would also be produced, having the same rights as a naturally born
person; the only difference being the method of conception (Kendall 8).
With this in mind, you should also consider a separate person to have
different mental (personality, interests, etc…) and physical make-up
(DNA, fingerprints, etc…). The Constitution states, "All men are created
equally". By taking this basic right literally, it can be concluded that
any being put under inhumane conditions would be in contradiction of our
country's founding laws. Since a human clone is essentially a twin
separated by time, putting them in conditions such as slavery would be
illegal. The same actions would be brought on the person responsible for
the inhumane actions as if the being were not a clone. The main argument
in support of banning human cloning is its "unethical" and "immoral"
means. These reasons to ban human cloning can quickly be disproved in
the following paraphrase by Lloyd McCoy. "The point of many cloning
critics is that cloning humans is against the will of Providence.
However, it is mentioned in the Bible that man was created in the
likeness of God (Bible, 1). In order to be more like God, which is his
will, we can duplicate what he created. God will not be displeased, but
pleased with this major accomplishment.".
For those who do not believe in a God, consider this analogy between vegetarianism and human cloning. "Vegetarianism is the practice of subsisting on a diet composed primarily or wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products" (Microsoft Encarta 98). In simple terms, vegetarians do not eat meat or anything that comes from animals, because they consider it unethical. If this is true, should vegetarianism be forced upon everyone because of vegetarians' ethical or non-ethical standards? Not everyone believes in vegetarianism, just as everyone does not believe in human cloning. If a group of people do not believe in something, should it automatically be banned? If this were the case, then many things in our country would be illegal, resulting in a less pleasurable living environment.
Through analyzing my opinions and views on the issue of human cloning, I hope to have impacted your judgment on whether human cloning is something that should be further researched. President Clinton, if you are reading this magazine, I urge you to reconsider the law you have passed pertaining to the banning of research on human cloning. After all, wouldn't you like to see Charlie Parker play his saxophone in person once again?
Tom wrote the following essay for a freshman English class at Pennsylvania State University. |
|
|
