Banning of Human Cloning in the United States and Internationally Essays

Banning of Human Cloning in the United States and Internationally Essays Banning of Human Cloning in the United States and Internationally Paper Banning of Human Cloning in the United States and Internationally Paper The banning of human cloning in both the United States and other countries has become a main topic of concern since the development of Dolly, the first cloned sheep. Issues of morality and personal beliefs conflict, causing many discussions to become irrational and non-objective while other issues arise that cross borders such as religion, science, and social concerns that effect the moral and ethical aspects of the world. We have no long-term effects for it at this time nor a large number of case studies. The field of human body parts and scientific technology has already led to conflicts over adult and embryonic stem cell research, along with human and animal cloning. . The final decision regarding the banning of human cloning, and whether the cloning is beneficial to humanity or not, will not be an easy one. In â€Å"Human Cloning† by author Rob Weekes and â€Å"Mohler Argues Human Cloning Should Be Banned† by Michael Foust, both authors present two excellent views regarding human banning in their articles, stating both the pro and con side while attempting to be objective in the sense that we, as the reader, can understand better what it is we want. Robert Weeks states that there are more than one reason for human cloning therapeutic, DNA, and reproductive cloning – which all needs to be fully understood before making any type of decision or judgment call. The thing to remember is that by allowing human cloning, many things will be effected, not just one. According to author Rob Weekes and his pro views, those who are against cloning feel it is unsafe and intervening in God’s plan for humanity. The â€Å"creation of a new and wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction† is the act of playing God by our scientists, whose reproductive cloning does very little good for the family core which is already in trouble. The argument he makes with the most impact is when he refers to the fact the unborn children will not have a normal family life, with only one parent to care for it, or two parents of the same sex. The facts have been recognized that parents who are childless will eventually utilize this technology to get a child. And while this may be true, cloning will also be used for other reasons other than reproductive cloning. The life of the embryo will be started in a cold and unfeeling laboratory which will be hard to deal with – especially when the child’s most memorable thoughts and feelings will occur during these early moments. Which is why Michael Foust in his article states that human cloning is â€Å"inherently wrong, has no ethical basis and should be banned by Congress†. With a 98% failure rate in animals, he feels that human cloning is considered unethical as human experiments, while stating that there will be a complete breakdown of medical ethics and human personhood if it goes on. The fact many countries destroy the embryoes after 10 days of life is even worse, with no thought of the lives involved in the destruction. This view is parallel by the Catholic church, having made it very clear that they consider cloning is morally wrong also. A supporter of the human cloning, John Greeny in his article, â€Å"In Support of the Argument for Human Cloning,† feels that human cloning is acceptable and is important for the scientific work, that needs to use the cloning to study ourself with for many reasons. The article states that nothing has been done to humanity to harm them through this practice of cloning. In Bob Weeke’s article he also sides with Greenery in his pro side. His top of the list shows that cloning is no different than any other medical technology of today. He states that many other countries are practicing embryonic studies and human cloning without any problems, feeling that the â€Å"spare† embryos could be used to do human research.  ¬ In his article, several panelists mentioned that they had an issue with the reproduction cloning, yet would accepted the therapeutic cloning. Mohler told the panelists that one or the other would be accepted. With human cloning possibly being banned in the future – we as intellectuals now may lose the ability, through technical growth and science, to contribute through direct intervention for diseases and unknown fields of science. Yet, science and technology have never been able to successfully study the other side of the picture God and the natural process of evolution that is still an unknown factor in the total picture not being able to disprove or prove it. And because of this, human cloning should not be able to run rampant in the world as part of a scientific factory for perfect babies, in a world that can so easily throw away what is not politically correct or needed. 1 Foust, Michael. [2001]. â€Å"Moler, on TV panel, argues human cloning should be banned. † BP News. [Online]. Available at World Wide Web: bpnews. net/bpnews. asp? ID=10667 2 The Human Cloning Foundation: John Greeney. . â€Å"In Support of the Argument for Human Cloning. † Available at World Wide Web: humancloning. org/essays/john3. htm 3 Weeks, Rob. [2000]. â€Å"Human Cloning†, Debate Topics and Debate Motions. Available at World Wide Web: idebate. org/debatabase/topic_details. php? topicID=26