Cloning Technologies Essay Research Paper Humans have

7 July 2017

We will write a custom essay sample on
Cloning Technologies Essay Research Paper Humans have
or any similar topic specifically for you
Do Not Waste
Your Time

Only $13.90 / page

Cloning Technologies Essay, Research Paper

Worlds have within their appreciation the ability and engineering to

create life. Many believe that this cognition will take to

farther debasement of the human spirit. But others, like

Prometheus and his gift of fire, believe that new engineering is

the key to a new, and better, world. Familial technology and,

specifically, cloning, of human life has become an issue of

utmost gravitation in the age of engineering where anything may be

dreamed and many things are possible. Cloning is a world in

today & # 8217 ; s universe: & # 8220 ; Three months ago, Gearhart and Thomson announced

that they had each isolated embryologic root cells and induced them

to get down copying themselves without turning into anything else.

In so making, they seemingly discovered a manner to do root cells

by the one million millions, making a biological feedstock that might, in

bend, be employed to bring forth bran-new, healthy human tissue.

That is, they discovered how to manufacture the material of which

humanity is made & # 8221 ; ( Easterbrook 20 ) .

Leon R. Kass proposed three positions that serve to

sort the ways people think of cloning as good:

The technological position & # 8220 ; will be seen as an

extension of bing techniques for helping

reproduction and finding the familial make-up of

kids. Like them, cloning is to be regarded as a

impersonal technique, with no built-in significance or

goodness, but capable to multiple utilizations, some good, some

bad. The morality of cloning therefore depends perfectly

on the goodness or badness of the motivations and

purposes of the cloners & # 8230 ; by the manner the parents

raising and rise up their ensuing kid and whether they

bestow the same love and fondness on a kid brought

into being by a technique of aided reproduction

as they would on a kid born in the usual manner. The

broad ( or libertarian or liberationist ) position

sets cloning in the context of rights, freedoms and

personal authorization. Cloning is merely a new option for

exerting an single & # 8217 ; s right to reproduce or to

hold the sort of kid that he or she wants & # 8230 ; For

those who hold this mentality, the lone moral restraints

on cloning are adequately informed consent and the

turning away of bodily injury. The reformer & # 8230 ; see in

cloning a new chance for bettering human

existences & # 8211 ; minimally, by guaranting the prolongation of

healthy persons by avoiding the hazards of familial

disease inherent in the lottery of sex, and maximally,

by bring forthing & # 8220 ; optimal babes, & # 8221 ; continuing outstanding

familial stuff, and ( with the aid of soon-to-come

techniques for precise familial technology ) enhancing

congenital human capacities on many foreparts. Here the

morality of cloning as a agency is justified entirely by

the excellence of the terminal, that is, by the outstanding

traits or persons cloned & # 8211 ; beauty, or muscle, or

encephalons & # 8221 ; ( Kass PG ) .

The disparagers of cloning mention the loss of human self-respect as

the primary inauspicious consequence. The procedure of cloning includes

extraction of human cells from early life & # 8211 ; the usage of aborted

foetuss. Many people find this repugnant and kick from the

possible utilizations such cognition could be put to & # 8211 ; like Frankenstein

and his creative activity, is Man playing God? and what are the unanticipated


God created life from the celestial sphere. Dr. Frankenstein

created life from what was one time living affair. The scientists of

today propose to make life from life. Frankenstein harvested

his constituents from the charnel houses of Ingolstadt, whereas the

seeds of life are now reaped from the unborn dead. Possibly the

hope of cloning is like the want of Dr. Frankenstein that he

could return to life those nearest and dearest when they are

killed by his creative activity in retaliation for world & # 8217 ; s rejection of him

and Frankenstein & # 8217 ; s devastation of the half-finished female.

Possibly the advocates, like Frankenstein, will run in fright

from the room after they have found they are successful in

making a new Being. The repugnance seen in the Acts of the Apostless of the

Doctor are mirrored in the response of modern Man to the construct

of cloning. The Being, one time brought to life, is monstrous,

unacceptable to others of world. Is this what we fear in the

hereafter of familial technology? Has modern scientific discipline, like

Prometheus and Pandora, unlocked a secret for which the control

does non yet be? Frankenstein admits that & # 8220 ; the different & lt ;

/p >

accidents of life are non so mutable as the feelings of homo

nature. & # 8230 ; now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream

vanished and dyspneic horror and disgust filled my bosom & # 8221 ; and

is later struck down with physical unwellness brought on by

the confusion of moral determination devising. Once Frankenstein is

immobilized by his ain moral quandary, his creative activity flights and in

the act of being unbound, brings about the devastation of

Frankenstein, all that he loves and the universe as he knows it. Is

there a lesson in this for modern Man? If we, in our moral

confusion are immobilized and the creative activity takes on a life of

it & # 8217 ; s ain & # 8211 ; will we necessarily be destroyed? Is this the built-in

repulsion that is felt but non able to be elucidated in the

affair of cloning? Is the fright of a loss of self-respect the same as

the animal & # 8217 ; s irresponsible rejection by society?

These inquiries serve as accelerator for comparing between the

creative activity of life that was Frankenstein & # 8217 ; s autumn and today & # 8217 ; s

scenario of technological promotions that allow the creative activity of

life through cloning. In the book, the creative activity knows his

beginnings and places the incrimination for his differences and isolation on

the moral irresponsibleness of Dr. Frankenstein. Like a kid, he

wants to hold the Doctor & # 8217 ; s life mirror his ain and begins to

slaying the people for whom the Doctor attentions. The reply seems to

be to make a comrade for the animal. A being that portions

his differences from the remainder of society. In the procedure of

making the comrade the Doctor realizes that such a species

could germinate beyond the ability of the current society to command

it and decides to destruct the female. This action brings about

more devastation and hurting by the creative activity and the Doctor has to

happen a manner to destruct the animal. The creative activity is besides cognizant

that it is non clip for him to be accepted, that he will non happen

company among these people who are so different from him

and yet, made from the same stuff. The narrative ends with the

creative activity destructing the Godhead and so himself.

The caption to Mary Shelley & # 8217 ; s Frankenstein is The Modern

Prometheus. In one version of the myth, Prometheus defends the

human race against Zeus and, as a effect, suffers greatly

for a long period of clip. Prometheus someway feels responsible

for the existences for whom he has defied the Gods to convey new

cognition and new tools. Looking at Frankenstein as Prometheus

the natural comparing is the cognition of life from decease and

the cognition of Fire. Like Pandora & # 8217 ; s box, one time opened,

unleashed or unbound, the Godhead loses control of it & # 8217 ; s creative activity.

Like Frankenstein, the scientists of today must face the

world of success in an enterprise that may well unleash cognition

the effects of which are unknown. The feeling of repulsion

that has been described as a consequence of contemplating the cloning

of worlds may good be prescient information garnered from the

narratives and beliefs of the yesteryear. There is by and large some truth

to the myths and narratives that are perpetuated through clip.

The same statements that are used by advocates of familial

technology and cloning techniques could hold been raised in

defence of the experiments of Dr. Frankenstein. Learning the

secrets to making life necessarily provides lessons to widening

and bettering life. The job becomes the ethical or moral

considerations of creative activity. There is a point where the Godhead

must take duty and where the created additions liberty.

Like a parent with a job kid, the determinations are by and large

made with the best purpose but may non run into the demands or satisfy

the impulses of the new person.

The narratives of the past, such as Frankenstein and

Prometheus, are the precursors to the hereafter. The cardinal subject

and incidence were plausible and are now on the brink of world.

The inquiry that society is left with is the moral quandary that

incapacitated Frankenstein: To what degree do we, as a society,

trust in the moral effects of past imaginings when

sing the present worlds?

Easterbrook, Gregg. & # 8220 ; Will Homo Sapiens Become Obsolete? : Medical

Evolution. & # 8221 ; The New Republic, ( 1999 ) : March, p20 ( 1 ) .

Kass, Leon R. & # 8220 ; Why We Should Ban The Cloning Of Humans. & # 8221 ; The New

Republic, ( 1997 ) : June, pp. PG.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus. Hindle,

Maurice, Ed. , ( London, ENG: Penguin, 1992 ) .

A limited
time offer!
Get authentic custom
ESSAY SAMPLEwritten strictly according
to your requirements