Should Cloning be banned completely, regulated, or fully legal?
When it comes to the topic of cloning, many writers embrace different views on the use of this technology. Zabludoff the writer of “Cloning: Is It Inevitable?” is against the practice of cloning because according to him cloning would not entirely work, as there is no such thing as a cloned human, hence, the practice of cloning is pointless. On the other hand, Krauthammer also encompasses similar views as Zabludoff in his article “¬Of Headless Mice and Men”, where Krauthammer calls cloning “the technology of narcissism”, and labels it as immoral. Writers like Barbara Kingsolver from the book “Points of Departure”, views cloning as ethically and religiously wrong. Whereas, in the article “Cloning: A Cautious Defense” from the newspaper, Daily Egyptian and the website “Genetic Encores: The Ethics of Human Cloning”, the writers are convinced that cloning is extremely helpful because it sheds insight on the complex predicament of incurable diseases that we are facing in today’s world. My own view is that cloning should not be banned, but should be used for medical purposes, however with regulated laws and monitoring. Cloning would provide an efficient solution to infertility for parents who are not capable of having children. Since, the procedure used currently is not only expensive but also takes extremely long. With the help of cloning, embryos can be implanted into the woman’s body, which would also eliminate the mental and physical pains the parents have to go through. They will not be derided by the society for not being capable of having a child. Nevertheless, I strongly agree with Daily Egyptian’s view that calling clones immoral is similar to saying that test-tubes babies are unethical as well. A test-tube baby is a baby that is developed from an egg that is fertilized outside the body and then implanted in the uterus of the surrogate mother. Similarly, a clone would be a baby that is also...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document