Would Cloning Make Us Lose Our Identities as Humans - Free Essay Example

Cloning is something that has been a controversial topic throughout the course of time. Many think that cloning would be a great human advancement that would allow us to recreate beloved ones. You would never have to live in fear of being heart broken or lonely. While others believe that cloning would make us lose our identities and our ways of recombination. Some even say it could lead to dangerous makings such as humans with stronger abilities than others, bringing back individuals who were no help to the world, or just wiping out certain individuals. If cloning where to become a reality, what makes a person special would no longer be there. Everyones genes would be the same, would that lead to everyone looking the same one day? I believe that cloning would not be a help to the world. It would just bring consequences that can be prevented without cloning. A lot of individuals also believe that cloning goes against religion. In the bible it states that everything and everyone was and I made by God, but cloning would take away that point meaning going against what the bible states. This issue has been a controversial issue going back all the way to 1997, to when the first cloned sheep Dolly was made by researchers in Scotland. Although many did not think about the possibility of cloning a human being, many soon began to debate and question the idea. Many began to start thinking how human cloning would begin. Researchers started saying how they would start by cloning human embryos. This research idea begin, increasing controversy. According to John H. Evans, he states that the Roman Catholic Church stated that Embryos are to be treated the same as born persons and therefore cannot be used as a means toward an end. Therefore also going with the laws that many are in favor, which are ending abortion. Evans states how embryos cannot be dest royed an even if they were to be used, it would sever human reproduction from sexuality. These ideas challenge the idea of earlier researchers who tend to assume that cloning is just another part of science that does not take into consideration the idea of dealing with actual possible humans beings. In one article Cole-Turner brings up the idea of man being co-creators with God. In continuation with why cloning would just bring wrong outcomes, is that it would carry over into the rights of women. In order to start experimenting with cloning, researchers would have to extract eggs from women in order to continue on their research with the embryos. The question would arise to how they would get the proper acceptance of women to do this. Would women just donate their eggs, would they be payed, or just be obligated. Women would be taken for granted and would not be given their value that they deserve. There is a bill called Hatch/Feinstein, that is not opposed to cloning. The law states that cloning can not be done in the same facility where assisted reproduction occurs. It also states how embryos are not to be planted into the wombs of women, but how would they have permission. While some still argue that cloning is in the wrong, some still believe human cloning is a means for creating life, not destroying. The whole idea brings back the holy side of the argume nt. Richard M. Doerflinger states human beings are treated like objects and not as individuals with their own identities and rights. I agree with the statement that Doerflinger presents. Each human being should not be used as an experiment for the better of other. Sure some might say that cloning could replace deceased loved ones, or even produce a clone copy of oneself, for the use of organs, spare tissues, or just for their own benefits. If this is the case anyone could bring back illustrious people from the past, who do not need to be brought back. Using a clone for your own benefit would seem like a convenience if you ever got sickly ill, but then again you have to think. Thats a actual person who was created and has their own life. Professor Leon Kass of the University of Chicago states human cloning wouldrepresent a giant step toward turning procreation into manufacture, hes stating that that the creation of person would just turn into another man-made item. People would no l onger be creating children out of a loving union, but just be seen as an experiment. Along, with the idea that cloning would stop forming children from a love union, it would also impact the bounds of families. Growing up children would be confused as to how they came to be, or why they were created the way they are. Issues would arise between the bonds of parents and children. Cloning also has risen different questions on how and to what extent would people use cloning for. Some even state that cloning could help produce disease-free offspring. Sure its a great idea to have, but what would happen to the rest of the population that would not arise from cloning. Would they be treated the same, looked at different because they have perfect genes from from diseases, disabilities, or looks. The idea of a new form of discrimination would begin. Generations would soon start to change with possibly new enhancements, traits, and capacities. Over the years many forms of discrimination have taken place, but with cloning that would be a whole nother dilemma. In March of 2001-Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted as survey that went around and asked fellow individuals on their intakes of cloning. The question they they surveyed asked if they strongly in favor of allowing unrestricted scientific research related to human cloning? According to their outcomes, more than 51% strongly opposed, 35% opposed, 12% were in favor, and the remaining percentage strongly favored. This date goes to show that even if researchers did push for human cloning , a big percentage of the public would not be in favor. Many like myself including believe that cloning would only have few benefits, but the cons would outweigh the pros.