Cloning Is Bad – one Head Is Better Than Two
Essay title: Cloning Is Bad – one Head Is Better Than Two
One Head is Better Than Two
The question of cloning has been one of the most recently controversial issues of the past decade. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make them all human. . Scientists have debated the implication of human and non-human cloning since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly. Compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects. In “Cloning Is Moral” Alex (Something else) comes across as an advocate for therapeutic and reproductive cloning and argues that it is immoral to be against it, which I disagree. The cloning of any species whether they are human or non-human is morally wrong no matter how beneficial to humanity as it may be.
(Something else) begins his argument stating that therapeutic cloning is pro-life technology, saying an embryo which is used in therapeutic cloning is not a human being, but has the potential become human. Considering myself pro-life I believe that life begins at the moment of conception and with that said destroying an embryo is the complete opposite of pro-life. How is destroying an innocent, defenseless form of life to aid another pro-life? It simply is not. It is understandable that this new break-through could have a huge impact in the world in which we live, but when you begin to meddle with the most delicate structure of life that is where it should stop.
(Something else) does go on to say that he does believe in one anti-cloning position. He states cloning represents “the desire to exert our will over every aspect of our surroundings.” I believe we were put on the earth to be stewards and keep the earth, not to dominate every aspect of it. (Something else) then disputes the idea as he sees every advance in human history as part of a “technological project”, and asks the reader where would we be without the men who “exerted their will” over surroundings? Yes, that is a valid argument, but tampering with life is not something I want scientists interfering with. It is not our place as humans to create and destroy life. It is understood that advances in technology have made mans life happier, longer, and healthier, and I am all for advancing but destroying life to create life is unjustified.
With the results of cloning possibly curing Alzheimers disease, diabetes, and heart disease who could possibly be against it? I believe that if we were capable of pro-longing everyones life we would then overcrowd the earth because as bad as it may sound we need people to pass on as a form of population control.
(Something else) then makes an argument for reproductive cloning saying when it becomes safe to perform that it will prevent the transmission