Get help from the best in academic writing.

The Cloning Debate

The Cloning Debate

Not so far in the future, a young boy of the age of six, dying a heart-wrenching death, will only be able survive with a bone marrow transplant. His parents will have searched near and far for a match, but none will come to their aid. The only possible way that they can produce a perfect match for their son’s bone marrow is to clone their son. Unfortunately, at this time this topic is still being discussed and debated upon with the government. Their only child that has been their treasure for six years might die. A clone of their son becomes their apple of aspiration to keep the treasure from being buried.

With a scenario as presented above, cloning might seem like the answer to hundreds of lives taken at the expense of uncontrollable forces. But is there another side to the story? Isn’t there always? Professor Kevin Williams of Georgetown University is still depicting the ambiguity of this topic when he states, “Like Adam and Eve, we want to be God, to be in control. The question is, what are the limits?” (U.S. News World Report). Making an identical copy of another human being is a rather drastic move, a move that in most people’s eyes can only be carried through by God. Some deem that cloning would put us in the shoes of God. They believe that instead of God creating life, we would. Some professors beg to differ, like David Fletcher of Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL who argues, “It is still only God who creates life.”

Perhaps cloning is not the answer and our society should leave reproduction up to the natural ways. But then one must ask themselves the question of ‘why not’. Is there some horrible outcome that will back fire due to the aberrant ways of creating a child? Is bring…

… middle of paper …

…volunteers, would we misuse it like Green thinks? Are we capturing the phenomenon or is it destined to engross us?

Sources Cited

Coghlan, Andy. “Reprogram Your Body.” (16 April 2001).

Decker, Christine. “OSU Ethics Specialist To Provide National Report On Religion,

Cloning.” (17 April 2001).

Green, Ronald M. “I, Clone.” (17 April 2001).

Herbert, Wray. “The World After Cloning.” (16 April 2001).

Vere, Steven. “The Case for Cloning Humans.” (17 April 2001).

Wachbroit, Robert. “Genetic Encores: The Ethics of Human Cloning.” (17 April 2001).

The Sins of Cloning

The Sins of Cloning

“See you in two years with your cloned child,” says the doctor to his patient. Such a statement sounds so bizarre and futuristic, but scientists believe cloning “is no longer the realm of science fiction” (Virginia, Sirs). Its “just a matter of time before the first cloned [humans]” (Virginia, Sirs). Although this practice does not seem dangerous, cloning should be banned because it takes away the individual importance of human beings, is too risky, and also morally wrong.

The process of cloning scientifically means to genetically copy an organism and create a ‘replica’ that has the same DNA, whose cells time have been turned back, yet the two are not exactly the same; not a ‘xerox’ (Virginia, Sirs). The process of cloning was first tried in 1938 by a German embryologist, Han Spemann, yet it failed. It was not until 1970 when cloning became possible. The first animals to be cloned were frogs. Over the few decades, cows, pigs, a sheep (only Dolly), and monkeys have successfully been cloned. The major reason why humans and other animals have not been cloned yet, aside from the acceptance of society, is because every organism’s egg is different: its size, shape, and the stages of its ‘life’. This has been proved over and over and therefore, there is no certain procedure or ‘ingredients’ for a clone (Virginia, Sirs).

Admittedly, “to say that human cloning is forbidden won’t stop the science [for some]” (Virginia, Sirs). If cloning is successful, it will help homosexuals and infertile couples for biological offspring. This will help lesbians, or women in particular, more than men since only females are capable of birth. In order for men to have a clone, he must buy an egg and ‘buy/re…

… middle of paper …

…just not meant to play as God, for it is too much of a responsibility. We are sinful people, and the ability of cloning places too much power in our sinful hands, so therefore it is not meant to be for us; Only for God.

Works Cited

Gribbin, August. “Human Cloning Draws Nearer as Ethics Seek to Draw Rules.” Washington Times, 9 November 1998. Newsbank: Cloning February 10 (1999).

Hurbert, Wray. “The World after Cloning.” New and World Report, 10 March 1997. Newsbank: Cloning February 10 (1999).

“Is Cloning Mastermind playing God?” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 11 January 1998. Newsbank: Cloning February 26 (1999).

Morell, Virginia. “A Clone if one’s own.” Discover, May 1998. Sirs: Cloning February 12 (1999).

Robertson, John A. “The Question of Human Cloning.” Discover, March/April 1994. Newsbank: Cloning February 10 (1999).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.