I used to think most cloning was wrong but, as with any grey-area issue, there are positives and negatives. I think that the cloning used to help patients is a good thing because there could be life-saving effects. But I do understand that it could be seen as harvesting humans for our own gain. I’m honestly torn between the two sides and I don’t think I’m in a position to say whither it is “right” or “wrong”.The use of cloning to protect endangered species is one type I’m for. But I think that only species who are endangered or extinct because of our doing should be candidates for cloning. If we bring back naturally extinct species we will be messing up the natural order of nature. I know the opposition to this kind of cloning says that people will feel less guilty about destroying habitat knowing the animals that live there can be cloned, but I think those people will destroy habitat no matter what. The only real problem with this is the fact that the cloned animals might not have any habitat or niche to return to in the wild anymore.
As for the cloning of humans, I am completely against that. Call me conservative on this one but I just think that humans weren’t made to be duplicated in that way. I also don’t think that pets should be cloned for no reason. Cloning is a scientific tool that has a lot of power and I don’t think it should be used lightly.
Who knows? The future might look like Brave New World. For now though I think there are a lot of moral and ethical questions that need to be answered before cloning takes the next step to humans. Then again, everyone’s moral and ethical range and tolerance is different so human cloning might not be very far off.
No comments:
Post a Comment