Why Is Cloning Wrong

Ethics are what society accepts. Some people say, that Charlie Gordon's doctors did not act ethically when they performed the surgery to make him smarter. I think that Charlie Gordon's doctors acted ethically he they performed the surgery to make him smarter. First, Charlie wanted to do the research. Charlie said himself that he wanted to be like his best friends in his own life.

Firstly, eugenics violates humanity and kills human diversity. Eugenics allow the engineering of the genetic material of a fetus to prevent negative heredity thus the health condition of the child can be improved. Yet, some scientists use eugenics as a tool try to change the genetic makeup, for instance, the skin color, IQ, blood type etc. in order to create a better person and fulfill the need of the society. Once the fetus was checked illness or disable, it was then immediately killed.

Basically, the difference between the two is that in reproductive the cloned embryo is implanted in the womb and is going to develop into an organism and in the therapeutic, the embryo will never develop beyond a chunk of cells. In this matter, although some people think that therapeutic cloning is wrong, I believe that is beneficial because it will cure for a lot of diseases and it will reduce organ transplants. Although, I have to agree with many scientists when they say that reproductive cloning shouldn’t be done in humans because it would likely result in a lot of problems for the cloned as an individual and for the society in general. According to Australian Stem Cell Lab Centre, “Therapeutic cloning refers to the removal of a nucleus, which contains the genetic material, from virtually any cell of the body (a somatic cell) and its transfer by injection into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has also been removed. The newly

But, the argument is still wrong. If this argument is applied to my normative ethical theory, it falls flat. A fetus, or a baby, is created by God, so killing the baby dishonors what God has created. While God does give us the ability to choose how we live our lives, He does not want us to make choices that will destroy what He has created to share with us or made to make us enjoy life. If I was told the only way I could keep on living was to have an abortion, I would let my baby have a shot at life.

Leibniz keeps that an all things are good, powerful God had made the world and that, consequently, the world necessity be faultless. When human existences observe something as incorrect or evil, it is simply because they do not know the final good that the so known as evil is destined to help. Alike Candide, Pangloss is not a realistic character; to some extent, he is a one-sided, overstated image of a certain substantial of philosopher whose character is close from his philosophy. Pangloss Supporter of optimism. He upholds that the whole thing happens for the best and for adequate

Science also points in this direction, and many doctors agree that brain dead patients should be removed from life support because they are technically already dead (Rubin). Even so, it is difficult for families to make this choice because they don’t want to “kill” their loved ones if they

Other issues arise when a person is declared dead when they really aren’t because sometimes mistakes can be done in authentication. Living donors are not left out either in ethical discussions. Some think it is wrong to mutilate a person for the sake of another. For instance, the catholic denomination consider organ transplantation unethical because it goes against the totality principle which states that one part of the body can be sacrificed for the well-being of the rest of the body. No one is obliged to give their organs as a donation and therefore the informed consent has also been an ethical issue.

Doctors recommend that patients do not use their own stem cells to treat or fight off a disease as their body could be producing the wrong stem cells that will complicate things and have the same defect on the body. This is like extracting a seed of a disease from on area of the body and placing it at another area of the body, which would be useless. Whilst many religions might be against the process of cord blood banking, we do have to look at the scientific side of it all. With the confusion between embryonic stem cells and cord blood banking, many are

They were mainly doing the surgery for their own benefit. In the story "Flowers for Algernon," Charlie overhears the doctors talking about the release date for the surgery results. This tells readers that the doctors did not care what happened to Charlie; all they cared about was getting the title of being the first doctors to be successful in a surgery like this. They also cared more about seeing the effects of the surgery on a human so they could use it for their own benefit. Therefore, the doctors surely could not be ethical if all they cared about were themselves.

I both agree and disagree. I agree because xenotransplant is another way that we can aid people to live another day, where they don 't have to suffer in pain or struggle with day to day activities. It gives them a chance to enjoy life 's opportunities before it is too late. On the other hand, I also disagree because there are many risks that can take place, and not just to the recipient of the organ or tissues, but also to the people around them. So by trying to save one person, one ends up killing much more.