essay on cloning essay information essay on information essay

This issue has been a hot topic for the past decade after Dolly the sheep was cloning in Scotland.

There are many incorrect ideas of what human cloning is.

Recent breakthroughs, most renowned the cloning of a sheep from an adult cell in Scotland in 1997, have caused the world to acknowledge that human cloning is indeed possible.

Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another.

There are three types of cloning.

There is actually nothing radically new in the way Dolly was made, since lower vertebrates, such as frogs, had been cloned in 1968 by John Gurdon of Cambridge University.

The first successful clone was in 1997 when scientist Edinburgh cloned Dolly the sheep.

Cloning should not continue because it can be dangerous for a number of reasons and is not morally or socially appropriate, except in cases where it could save the life of a human being.

The purpose and use of cloning, in the scenario the paper is based on, is to save a life.


According to the article ("Cloning Milestones"), Dr.

The cloning of human tissue should be allowed because the fields of medicine benefit from it; however, the full cloning of humans is a mockery of life because it creates a population of people who will not evolve or adapt to changes in the environment.

There is therapeutic cloning, DNA cloning and reproductive cloning.

Reproductive cloning requires a somatic cell, a DNA-less egg, and a surrogate mother; as a result, it creates a new individual with the same genome, or genetic coding.

The result of this was a clone of the larvae.

While cloning is justifiable in certain circumstances, I would want to make sure other healthcare issues were taken care before donating money to research for cloning....

She was the first organism from adult cells ever to be cloned....

It is technically possible to clone a human being. The result of the procedure would be a human being in its own right. Given the current level of cloning technology concerning other animals there is every reason to believe that early human clones will have shorter-than-average life-spans, and will be unusually prone to disease. In addition, they would be unusually at risk of genetic defects, though they would still, probably, have lives worth living. But with experimentation and experience, seriously unequal prospects between cloned and non-cloned people should erode. We shall ignore arguments about cloning that focus on the potential for harm to the fetus or resultant human [End Page 539] being, where harm is understood solely in terms of physical and mental health. Unless the resultant people would generally have lives worth living there is no positive case for cloning, or any other form of reproduction, for that matter. If the resultant beings will generally have lives worth living there is a prima facie case for allowing cloning. We imagine the case in which the resultant beings will have lives well worth living.

Free cloning Essays and Papers - Free Essays, Term …

The idea originated in Germany in 1938, but the first successful research was not conducted until 1967 by scientist John Gurdon, who cloned a tadpole with a frog’s somatic cell....

FREE Cloning pro Essay - Example Essays

Suppose, then, that we had already reached the stage at which human cloning was safe in this sense. Would there be any reason to disallow it? We share the dissatisfaction of defenders of legalizing cloning with most of the standard arguments against cloning. But we believe that the pro-cloning arguments are also problematic, and fail to deal with a potentially important objection. In Section I of this paper we shall briefly explain our dissatisfaction with the standard anti-cloning arguments. In Section II we shall criticize the claim that there is a right to clone when that is either the only feasible, or simply the most efficient way, for someone to reproduce. In Section III we shall build on the critique developed in Section II to develop an anti-cloning argument that we think has more power than those surveyed in part one. We do not claim that cloning is wrong, but that making it available to people might lead to worse consequences than prohibiting it, and that since there is no right to clone it is appropriate to take these consequences into account when considering whether to prohibit it. We should emphasize that although our argument provides a powerful reason for prohibiting cloning even if cloning were completely safe, we are open to the possibility that other reasons in favor of allowing cloning might outweigh our reason against. In section 4, we consider two objections to our argument. Our concluding comments contain reflection on the methodological issues raised by the paper.