Should human cloning be legal?
Yes
Side Score: 24
|
 |
No
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
|
Human parts or the whole human? Cloning organs for instance, could be an amazing step forward in modern medicine. As for an entire self-aware human. I actually don't see what the difference, in practice, would be between that and say, artificial insemination. So long as there are ethics laws in place. Really though, there are plenty of humans already seems like. I don't see the use of cloning a whole person. Side: Yes
There are many proponents who consider stem-cell research as a big opportunity to treat incurable diseases, built new neurons and organs. Every year millions of people suffer and die from the incurable diseases of the brain, heart, liver and kidney, which treatment could become easier with the use of stem cells. According to Wert and Mummery (2003) those cells, which were derived from embryos, have the ability to form cells of adult tissues and could play important role in its recovery and replacement. Therefore, it could be considered as the key to save lives of many serious ill persons and establish control over the development of cancerous tumours, develop efficient treatment of diabetes, infarct, diseases of bones and blood. Likewise, proponents consider stem cells as unique biological resource for restoration of human neural cells, which have no function to regenerate themselves. It could be argued that people would be able to treat the most widespread neurological diseases with the help of stem cells. In addition, during two decades scientists have carried out medical experiments related to transplantation of embryo's neurons that could open long-term treatment for such heath disorders as Parkinson's disease (Master, McLeod & Mendez, 2007). Furthermore, when a person gets older, the processes of natural regeneration of organs slow down and disease can easily influence on them. However, for some proponents it appears that stem cells could be an ideal material for repairing humans' damaged joints and organs. The regenerative potential of stem cells has been considered by scientists for a long time because of their ability to self-renew and specialize themselves to muscle, cartilage and bone recovery (Jorgensen, Noel, Apparailly & Sany, 2001). Taking this evidence into consideration it could be useful especially in sport, which is closely linked to injuries, because stem cells are able to reduce the duration of treatment and may increase its quality. As a result, it is evident that people with the development of stem cells have acquired a powerful tool through which modern medicine can expand capabilities and increase efficiency of treatment of many diseases. Besides, there are also people who argues that the research of stem cells, which is also supported by some religions, can bring the great impact in investigation of more effective methods of drug trials, decreasing the risk of birth defects and opening ways to rejuvenate organs. Firstly, for many religious people the possibility of using stem cells depends on the answer to a question when a cell becomes a man. For instance, Protestants, Buddhists and Hindus permit the usage of embryos up to 14 days after fertilization; Jews and Muslims allow using human embryo up to 40 days after fertilization (Hug, 2006). Hence, it could be argued that people's faith of these religious movements are not opposed to stem-cell research because they believe that the embryo at an early stage of development is not a man and consider stem cells as important opportunity of human health preservation. Secondly, there are scientists who claim that with the help of stem cells there could be opened new and safer ways to test drugs. Cells of the embryo can be used to test drugs for toxicity before clinical trials on adults (Wert & Mummery, 2003). Therefore, it could reasonably be argued that the use of stem cells for testing medicines could reduce the number of tests conducted on animals. Thirdly, many scientists think that stem-cell research can help effectively observe an embryo on the early stages of development. It could help to identify and investigate birth defects, the causes of miscarriage among young women and the low rate of pregnancy in older women (Wert & Mummery, 2003). Thus, the research of stem cells in vitro could be a more convenient way to study and better understand the reasons of embryo's anomalies on particular level of its development. Fourthly, stem cells can be considered as the way to rejuvenate functional capacity of human organs and maintain muscles in tone. According to Gopinath and Rando (2008) there are special stem cell that are able to replace old muscle cells and have responsibility to form new muscle tissue. It can bring contribution in the recovery of heart muscle after insults and other heart diseases. Side: Yes
In theory should there be some shortage of humans, or shortage of adobptable children for barren parents, why not? As it is though, it would seem silly to clone a whole human when there are so many running around already. I wonder though if this would spur clone-abortion debates? Side: Yes
1
point
All discussions are usually started with positive sides of coin that is why I want to begin with pros of cloning. The first one is that cloning can be a solution to infertility. This is the key point that advocates argue for cloning. About 15% (www.buzzle.com) of Americans are infertile, and doctors are usually cannot help them. Women that are infertile can have their own babies with the help of this technique by implanting the cloned embryos into their bodies. This can eliminate the mental and physical pains among the infertile couples. Side: Yes
1
point
No! bu I thnik, Cloning gives parents the opportunity to choose what characteristics they want their children to have. For instance, the parents want their child to have Albert Einstein’s IQ or the extraordinary athleticism of Michael Jordan. Some scientists think human cloning is a good matter because human being can control their evolvement, so that we can ‘create’ more artists, athletes, and scientists. If we can choose in this way, we can enhance human’s achievement. There is also another very important advantage is the healthiness of infants. Cloning can eliminate all the worrying regarding the child’s health. Scientist can alter the genes to ensure a healthy child. For example, if a mother has given birth to two children which suffered from Down’s syndrome. Doctors can manipulate and balance out the number of Chromosomes in the embryo to give the mother a normal and healthy child. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
If God wanted us to fly he would have given us wings <---Airplanes are immoral If God wanted us to swim underwater he would have given us gills<----Scuba-diving is wrong If God wanted us to live in homes he would have given us turtle shells<-----Housing is wrong. "If God wanted us to..." arguments are unequivocally and undeniably bullshit arguments. It assumes that any natural limitation is an indication of what is immoral or wrong, and therefore we should never overcome any natural limitation. This argument is invalidated by the fact that you are arguing it on the fucking internet. Can I get a hallelujah? Side: Yes
1
point
No offense but that is the most stupid 'reason' anyone can ever imagine. The question here is if it should be legalized and if it would pose a danger to our society, it is a question if we want it or not. God has created us but we should not be dependent on him to provide us things that we want. Look at it this way do you think that if your parents would have wanted you to have a macbook they would have bought it for you? NO! You go out and earn money to pay for it. By the logic you are using you should not have a laptop because if god wanted you to have a laptop he would have given you one. Please enlighten me on how you justify using a laptop and dispute cloning. Cloning is not for people to look the same but to save people's lives. If God did not want us to create human clones he would have made it physically impossible. What if God has created us so we can use cloning to save species? Side: Yes
1
point
It is a very disturbing topic. Maybe we could consider human cloning for medicine, but is it worth cloning the entire body ? isn't better to clone only the parts of the body which are necessary ? If we authorize human cloning (the whole body) we would consider these human beings only as bodies, not as human beings. It would be a kind of slavery. On the other hand, cloning for reproduction can be considered. But cloning is not reproduction but creation, a production in which we can choose the characters ; there's a risk of eugenics (huh not sure for the spelling, sorry I'm not an English native speaker). finally, there are risks for the clones : mortality is very high amongst animals, and a lot of them have malformations and die sooner thant the "original". So we shouldn't legalize it till we don't control this technique. Side: No
1
point
Your argument is invalid, their personality cannot be cloned!Plus, you have the CHOICE to clone yourself, if you would rather die than clone yourself then go ahead. (Cloning can help save lives via cloning of organs and dna scans) You have the right to talk people out of cloning themselves but you do not have the authority of forcing them to not be able to clone themselves. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
human cloning must not be legalised as in future these little cloning techniques will lead to impersonification and duplicates of all the people will be available there will be no value for the original ....... imagine you go to office and your clone will be in bank writing cheques on your name ...... this leap to legalise cloning must not be taken Side: No
First of all, You cannot be cloned without your permission and secondly there will be a value for the orignal as personalities cannot be cloned only the physical features can be. Plus the person should have the right to decide for himself if he wants to clone himself or not. Side: Yes
1
point
Everybody would not be cloned. Heard of copyright? You can copyright your body and only you would have the right to clone yourself. It would also only be allowed to bring back a dead member of your family or to recover by organ transplant. Who is the government to steal the liberty from the people? Side: Yes
|
