There are many pros and cons of cloning and how to ensure that the technology is used to enhance, rather than limit, individual freedom and welfare. Human cloning is a plausible way to solve many medical problems we haven’t dealt with and we shouldn’t completely ban it.
Theoretically, cloning would enable rich or powerful persons to clone themselves several times over. Current reproductive techniques can also be abused, and existing laws against selling children would apply to those by created by cloning. What is the bizarre or horrific scenarios in the first sentence of third paragraph?
Cloning humans won’t cause many people to turn to cloning when other methods of reproduction would enable them to have healthy children. Infertile couples don’t have to rely on sperm, egg or embryo from anonymous donors; instead, they might choose to clone one of the partners.
A couple at high risk of having offspring with a genetic disease is faced with selecting a way to have a child. If cloning were available, some couples in line with prevailing concepts of kinship might clone one of themselves or another family members.
Through gene therapy, the child wouldn’t have been born healthy but been made healthy after birth. If the child’s disease was not genetic, a couple might prefer to clone the affected child to be sure that the tissue would match. Is it unethical that we clone another child to cure affected one?
Do you agree with human cloning? Why or not? Nowadays, selling own or others’ organs is illegal. Cloning must be incredibly expensive. So if we clone organs as medical therapy to cure a terminally-ill patient, do we constitute a crime? Give some examples of the challenge of regulation or ethics that human cloning brings.
By Robert Lee Hotz The Wall Street Journal May 21.2010
Scientists for the first time have created a synthetic cell, completely controlled by man- made genetic instructions. Synthetic biology seems to have wonderful potential future and profits, but it also brings some opposing arguments. JCVI-syn1.0
The development, may stir anew nagging questions of ethics, law and public safety about artificial life. Leery of previous moral and ethical debates about whether it is right to manipulate life forms. Environmental groups called for fully regulating all synthetic biology experiments and products and a global moratorium on synthetic biology.
Several companies are already seeking to take advantage of the new field, called synthetic biology to breed industrial life forms that can secrete fuels, vaccines or other commercial products like algae that can capture carbon dioxide and make fuel.
If we can make new strains of bacteria, plants or animals what problems or benefits we may face? Many debates of new technology haven’t come to a consensus. In this situation, do you think that we should temporarily halt it or continue to develop it?