The rapid development of the technology for cloning has led to moral debates around the world on whether or not to ban breathing human clones. While the potential benefits of genetic engineering are considerable, so may be the potential dangers. We have come to believe that all human beings are equal, but even more firmly, we are taught to believe each one of us is unique. Is that idea undercut by cloning? That is, if you can deliberately make any number of copies of an individual, is each one special? Cloning could provide a way for infertile couples to produce children genetically similar o themselves.
Human cloning may provide numerous benefits to mankind. This is the new world of cloning, and thanks to a 7-month-old sheep named Dolly, a new science has been born. As with every new science, there are those who believe in it, and those who oppose it.
By reviewing the articles, they will tell the audience which has better claim by how well it s written. The first article talks about the negatives of cloning, but doesn t back up the information. For example, The survey found virtually no support for cloning for reproductive purposes, even in those groups which might have been expected to be sympathetic, such as infertile couples. (BBC NEWS, p. 1) This article basically is just stating how segments of the population feels about cloning and not backing it up with data and other forms of evidence.
Throughout the whole article, evidence is very hard to find. It sounds like the editor felt that everyone knew what was going on in cloning and not explaining in detail and backing up those claims from people. The editor did not really have a strong thesis and did not have good rhetoric. This article brings up the point that many do not agree with the use of cloning for human purpose in order for parents to choose their child.
The article should have gone further and written up some more information such as, by reproducing characteristics that parents desire would foul-up the diversity of society. If everyone was able to choose hat characteristics his or her child would have, most people would opt for the characteristics of famous people who are either extremely smart or who are incredibly good looking. The generation of the clone people would be so similar in ways of thinking and in personality that the world would become a very boring place, if that were the case.
The replication and copying of DNA can cause damage to the genetic code. In this case, it is possible for genetic disorders arise. If a sample of DNA is taken from a younger person to copy, that person could be carrying a code for some sort of disorder hose symptoms would not show until later in the person s life. Therefore, the exact code that would be copied to make another human carries that disorder. There are many things that need to be sorted out such as who can use cloning and how it will be controlled so it does not cause problems.
This would have been a good detailed explanation with evidence. The second article supports cloning and is very well written. The thesis is completely in support of cloning, Like many others, we believe that any plan to ban research on cloning human cells is seriously misguided. New England Journal, p. 1) and back it up with lot of scientific evidence. This article also states how genetic defects could also be cured with cloning technology and gives good backing to it.
A genetic defect is a mutation in which the DNA has been altered and caused an abnormality in the body. People who wish to have a child, could be tested for possible mutations in the DNA, and a genetic solution could be created and injected into the still developing egg. Mutations are natural, but when it causes an abnormality it is a hard thing for a person to live with. Through cloning technology, genetic defects could be treated to the point where the person affected could live a normal life.
A mixture between two people s genetic structure could provide a way for infertile couples or homosexual couples with a way to create a genetically related child. The author also talks about the public s view and the respected views of many distinguished scientists, biotechnology companies, and medical organizations in support of cloning and then backs up cloning by saying how people could be hurt by not looking into cloning and the benefits. The difficult ethical judgments about how to apply this new technology can be made only with full knowledge of the scientific facts.
The author talks about the need to really study this concept and also puts pressure on his fellow colleagues to educate the public about the benefits of cloning. This article is also well written in a professional sense with good wording and grammar. The first article was okay, but didn t seem to really sway the reader with the lack of evidence and professionalism. The rhetoric in the second article is very strong nd clearly sways the audience by reading it.
The first article only stated opinions and couldn t really sway people toward accepting their view because there wasn t enough evidence to prove it. The second article distinguished people from the scientific community backing up this article, but the first article seemed to only have some opinions of the public. Judging by the quality of the two articles in persuading me to choose a side, the second article in support of cloning really got me thinking toward their side. I liked their professionalism and evidence backing up their claims.
By having prestigious people back up the subject, I really opened up my eyes. Then all the evidence just made sense also due to the fact that it was written with a lot of professionalism. The thesis was also well outlined in the second article. The rhetoric was so much better in the second article because they sounded like they really believed in what they were saying and backed it up, while the first article just had some views from the public without much evidence. The second article was just written so much better and with more evidence to sway my opinion in support of cloning.