Argumentative Essay: The Cloning Debate
"What we call process is the exchange of one nuisance for another nuisance." This quote by Henry Havelook Ellis describes the outcome of cloning that the world has seen so far and will continue to see if strict laws regulating cloning research are not set into place. Due to governmental regulations, cloning research has slowed down. If such legislations continue, the process of cloning will continue to demolish. If these laws proceed, the creation of the human race will remain in the hands of God -- not in the hands of scientists. Cloning has shown few positive outcomes and many negative. Cloning research is not something of the recent past, but something that has been a controversial issue for over 50 years (Cloning). If no laws are set into
…show more content…
A clone is defined as a group of organisms, all of which are descended from a single individual through asexual reproduction, as in a pure cell culture of bacteria (Cloning). The main source of the problem, somatic cell nuclear transfer, is actually something far more complex. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the process by which Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned, was created. DNA coming from a single cell in her mother 's egg, was fused with the mammary cell. The fused cell then developed into an embryo, which was implanted in a "surrogate" sheep. The embryo grew into a lamb, which was genetically identical to the donor sheep (The Cloning Process). This same process could be performed in a human, and a human clone would be formed. A study of the American people states that 33% of Americans believe that cloning should be banned completely while the other 66% favor research to continue with in reason until something goes wrong (By The Numbers). This shows that Americans are willing to see what cloning has in store for us, but not willing to sacrifice human lives. Raymond Flynn, president of the National Catholic Alliance states that "Human and animal reproduction is now in the hands of men, while it rightfully belongs in the hands of God; …show more content…
There would be no costs coming from the cloning standpoint, but the prosecution standpoint would have great costs. When a researcher is found and enough evidence is present, then the researcher would be put into a chair and have a gun pointed to their head and killed. Their organs would be given to the ones that need it. This is not ethical what so ever, but it would cut down on the amount of research at an extreme rate. The human race would become scared and bitter towards the governmental body that is overseeing such a horrible act so the quality of life would start to diminish. Americans especially would never stand for this type of punishment because of their belief in the Bill of Rights, Amendment V and VI. The only ethical part would be that a family would still have its roots and nothing would be changed. Is this solution truly feasible? No, it will never happen. Humans do not see this as a viable plan of action. It would massively change the world in the way humans think about the government and how humans deal with controversial issues. This is an example of a policy that Saddam would be running under his government, and the world is seeing what his people are thinking about
A clone is defined as a group of organisms, all of which are descended from a single individual through asexual reproduction, as in a pure cell culture of bacteria (Cloning). The main source of the problem, somatic cell nuclear transfer, is actually something far more complex. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the process by which Dolly, the first mammal to be cloned, was created. DNA coming from a single cell in her mother 's egg, was fused with the mammary cell. The fused cell then developed into an embryo, which was implanted in a "surrogate" sheep. The embryo grew into a lamb, which was genetically identical to the donor sheep (The Cloning Process). This same process could be performed in a human, and a human clone would be formed. A study of the American people states that 33% of Americans believe that cloning should be banned completely while the other 66% favor research to continue with in reason until something goes wrong (By The Numbers). This shows that Americans are willing to see what cloning has in store for us, but not willing to sacrifice human lives. Raymond Flynn, president of the National Catholic Alliance states that "Human and animal reproduction is now in the hands of men, while it rightfully belongs in the hands of God; …show more content…
There would be no costs coming from the cloning standpoint, but the prosecution standpoint would have great costs. When a researcher is found and enough evidence is present, then the researcher would be put into a chair and have a gun pointed to their head and killed. Their organs would be given to the ones that need it. This is not ethical what so ever, but it would cut down on the amount of research at an extreme rate. The human race would become scared and bitter towards the governmental body that is overseeing such a horrible act so the quality of life would start to diminish. Americans especially would never stand for this type of punishment because of their belief in the Bill of Rights, Amendment V and VI. The only ethical part would be that a family would still have its roots and nothing would be changed. Is this solution truly feasible? No, it will never happen. Humans do not see this as a viable plan of action. It would massively change the world in the way humans think about the government and how humans deal with controversial issues. This is an example of a policy that Saddam would be running under his government, and the world is seeing what his people are thinking about