English IV Composition Katelyn Decker
Argumentative Paper March 14th, 2016
Imagine a world where ranchers get replaced by scientists to create thousands of cattle herds in petri dishes, and where beloved pets get resurrected from the dead in the form of a twin animal. Though humankind has dreamed of cloning animals and its own beings, they need to come to the realization that cloning does not help the world, but in fact hurts it. Animal cloning, which damages the life and health of the animal, does not have good moral values and will not have a good effect on the future of humankind. With cloning, first and foremost, the individual cloned does not turn out as healthy as expected. The success rate for cloning animals ranges …show more content…
Humans have grown into a very self-serving society, and don’t seem to care or want to understand the way nature works. Science now works with the money the economy pays them, not the moral values of the people. Science also doesn’t consider how natural selection has neatly organized mammalians since the beginning of time, and try to make nature cooperate with ideas that seem the polar opposite of how things used to work. But though people complain about the unnatural views of cloning, they don’t stop to understand the meanings of it all. People assume that what has come before them will always remain good, and that things foreign to them should not have as much attention drawn to it as it does now (“Reproductive Cloning”). Some also believe that cloning needs more involvement with the animals in the way they reproduce than the ways used since the beginning of time. For example, several religious groups do not support animal cloning, as they believe it undermines God’s power over all animal and people groups (“Ethnics: End Animal Cloning”). With ethics lastly comes the argument of commodification. Many believe that cloning treats animals like simple machines just for the enjoyment and pleasure of human beings, and that cloning animals who mainly work for humans gives them health problems (“Ethics: End Animal Cloning”). For humans to better understand cloning, they need to take into consideration that …show more content…
Cloning of animals has already sparked the interest of cloning human beings here in the near future (“Ethics: End Animal Cruelty”). It could also later include using genetics to change embryos before birth, which could cause irreversible change to the human gene pool (Kolehmainen). Cloning not only could change the gene pool, but also the differences from person to person. If a society allows cloning of humans, it would hint that uniqueness of the individual no longer matters. The United States has rich and diverse cultures from all across the globe, and using a method that made people feel unimportant and alike to everyone else could have major consequences in the end (Kolehmainen). Also, cloning could bring back the idea of eugenics, used during World War II by the Nazis to ‘improve human beings, not by improving the economic, social and educational opportunities, but by altering the genes with which they were born’. It would let scientists use techniques to create the ‘perfect human’ and therefore originality and parent genes would not longer have a factor in the child’s appearance or mannerisms (Kolehmainen). Safety also tends to skip the eyes of scientists nowadays, though it should have much importance while cloning. Cloning has many hurdles dependent upon the species-or in this case, dependent upon the human-and they do not seem to realize that every person has
Argumentative Paper March 14th, 2016
Imagine a world where ranchers get replaced by scientists to create thousands of cattle herds in petri dishes, and where beloved pets get resurrected from the dead in the form of a twin animal. Though humankind has dreamed of cloning animals and its own beings, they need to come to the realization that cloning does not help the world, but in fact hurts it. Animal cloning, which damages the life and health of the animal, does not have good moral values and will not have a good effect on the future of humankind. With cloning, first and foremost, the individual cloned does not turn out as healthy as expected. The success rate for cloning animals ranges …show more content…
Humans have grown into a very self-serving society, and don’t seem to care or want to understand the way nature works. Science now works with the money the economy pays them, not the moral values of the people. Science also doesn’t consider how natural selection has neatly organized mammalians since the beginning of time, and try to make nature cooperate with ideas that seem the polar opposite of how things used to work. But though people complain about the unnatural views of cloning, they don’t stop to understand the meanings of it all. People assume that what has come before them will always remain good, and that things foreign to them should not have as much attention drawn to it as it does now (“Reproductive Cloning”). Some also believe that cloning needs more involvement with the animals in the way they reproduce than the ways used since the beginning of time. For example, several religious groups do not support animal cloning, as they believe it undermines God’s power over all animal and people groups (“Ethnics: End Animal Cloning”). With ethics lastly comes the argument of commodification. Many believe that cloning treats animals like simple machines just for the enjoyment and pleasure of human beings, and that cloning animals who mainly work for humans gives them health problems (“Ethics: End Animal Cloning”). For humans to better understand cloning, they need to take into consideration that …show more content…
Cloning of animals has already sparked the interest of cloning human beings here in the near future (“Ethics: End Animal Cruelty”). It could also later include using genetics to change embryos before birth, which could cause irreversible change to the human gene pool (Kolehmainen). Cloning not only could change the gene pool, but also the differences from person to person. If a society allows cloning of humans, it would hint that uniqueness of the individual no longer matters. The United States has rich and diverse cultures from all across the globe, and using a method that made people feel unimportant and alike to everyone else could have major consequences in the end (Kolehmainen). Also, cloning could bring back the idea of eugenics, used during World War II by the Nazis to ‘improve human beings, not by improving the economic, social and educational opportunities, but by altering the genes with which they were born’. It would let scientists use techniques to create the ‘perfect human’ and therefore originality and parent genes would not longer have a factor in the child’s appearance or mannerisms (Kolehmainen). Safety also tends to skip the eyes of scientists nowadays, though it should have much importance while cloning. Cloning has many hurdles dependent upon the species-or in this case, dependent upon the human-and they do not seem to realize that every person has