Tags: Example Of Problem Solving Using Scientific MethodPersuasive Satirical EssayAp English Language And Composition Compare And Contrast EssayDiscussion Research Paper TenseGood Thesis Statements For Assisted SuicideSummary And Response EssayHow Do U Write A Business PlanCreative Writing Titles Ks1Paper On Greenhouse EffectRandom Assignment Experiment
Most scientific, governmental and religious organizations oppose reproductive cloning.The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and other scientific organizations have made public statements suggesting that human reproductive cloning be banned until safety issues are resolved.Proponents claim that human reproductive cloning also would produce benefits to couples who cannot otherwise procreate.
Opponents have also raised concerns about how cloned individuals could integrate with families and with society at large.
Religious groups are divided, with some opposing the technology as usurping God's place and, to the extent embryos are used, destroying a human life; others support therapeutic cloning's potential life-saving benefits.
The World Council of Churches, representing nearly 400 Christian denominations worldwide, opposed cloning of both human embryos and whole humans in February 2006.
The United Methodist Church opposed research and reproductive cloning in May 2000 and again in May 2004.
Perspectives on human cloning are theoretical, as human therapeutic and reproductive cloning are not commercially used; animals are currently cloned in laboratories and in livestock production.
Animal Cloning Essays
Advocates support the development of therapeutic cloning in order to generate tissues and whole organs to treat patients who otherwise cannot obtain transplants, to avoid the need for immunosuppressive drugs, and to stave off the effects of aging.For example, a female DNA donor would be the clone's genetic twin, rather than mother, complicating the genetic and social relationships between mother and child as well as the relationships between other family members and the clone.Proponents of animal rights argue that non-human animals possess certain moral rights as living entities and should therefore be afforded the same ethical considerations as human beings.Yes, that is a valid argument, but tampering with life is not something I want scientists interfering with.It is not our place as humans to create and destroy life.Cloning of animals is opposed by animal-groups due to the number of cloned animals that suffer from malformations before they die, and while food from cloned animals has been approved by the US FDA, its use is opposed by some other groups concerned about food safety.There have been numerous demands for all progress in the human cloning field to be halted.The Islamic Fiqh Academy, in its Tenth Conference proceedings, which was convened in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in the period from June 28, 1997 to July 3, 1997, issued a Fatwā stating that human cloning is haraam (sinful).Cloned-animal products were said to be indistinguishable from the non-cloned animals.This would negate the exploitation of animals in scientific research on cloning, cloning used in food production, or as other resources for human use or consumption.The Roman Catholic Church, under the papacy of Benedict XVI, condemned the practice of human cloning, in the magisterial instruction Dignitas Personae, stating that it represents a "grave offense to the dignity of that person as well as to the fundamental equality of all people." Other Christian denominations such as the United Church of Christ do not believe a fertilized egg constitutes a living being, but still they oppose the cloning of embryonic cells.