Monday, April 9, 2012

Blog number four

When it comes to the first contemporary issue human cloning it did in fact clash with the social issues that I thought to be fair, that being the writings of John Locke. John Locke believed in equality for all, equal opportunity and the protection of individual rights. However, I don't believe in cloning humans and I don't believe they should be entitled to more than any naturally born person. I do not have a reasoning for this, it's just my natural reaction towards it.

I believe cloning should only go to the extent where organs can be reproduced, but not a whole human being. My own principles didn't really help in working out my own response to the issue, because my issues tend to be about fairness, as I mentioned in the first blog I believe in treating people how I wish to be treated, but I just wouldn't be able to treat a clone the same, knowing it's just the second edition of somebody else.

I definitely feel as though Kass' opinion towards human cloning coincided with my issues the most in comparison with Tooley. He speaks of repugnance, which is having a automatic aversion to something and that's how I feel at the thought of cloning a full human being, I just don't think it is right. I think it takes away from what it means to be unique as a human being and creates a selfish desire to survive your own death.

This week I commented on:

http://jessbiondi.blogspot.com/

Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. Evon Says Scroll DownApril 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

    I am against human cloning but the reason you stated about organs is a good point. We do need organs to give to others in need to live longer and more organs can save more lives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JavLuqApril 10, 2012 at 7:42 AM

    I am very mixed and baffled on human cloning. Ralph Waldo Emerson did say "Insist in yourself, Never imitate" What these scientists are doing is that they are making imitations of people.

    Don't forget the golden side of cloning is the ability to generate rehection free organs. If I had to be against cloning the reason being is to cite public safety concerns... imagine if a sick f--k(pardon my language)harnessed the DNA of vile humans like the UnaBomber and Osama Bin Laden and decied to use the cloning technology for his/her own malicious being?

    Can't have that!! It does take no more tham common sense on who really is against cloning... BIG PHARMA herself because w/ rejection free organs they begin to lose revenue. BIG PHARMA makes lots of $$$ through the sales of anti rejection medications.

    ReplyDelete
  3. richardsaApril 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

    I completely agree with what you have to say in your blog, cloning freaks me out as well and it could be dangerous in the wrong hands. I also agree with what you say about organs but I think its strongly possible that once organs are allowed to be made eventually full humans would be allowed to be cloned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. dStokesApril 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM

    I completely agree with you point of view. You spoke about not treating a clone the same way you'd treat a human being. So do you think that cloning is actually a form of cruelty despite the existential fact that they're objects? Descartes says: "I think therefore I am". So they might also be viewed as real people. So I don't think it's right to live with a debatable status of being a human. Either you're clearly human or you're not. I agree that stem cell science should stop at individual organs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AshantiSpeaksApril 10, 2012 at 11:47 PM

    I agree that the cloning business should be limited to organs. If this happened then organ donors would be less needed and the recipients will not necessarily have to be denied care. It would be a medical miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CatherineApril 23, 2012 at 1:19 PM

    I can see where you and I make a connection. I also don't agree with cloning but you take the cake for putting it in better terminology than I would. You say that I don't believe they (as in the clones) should be entitled to more than any naturally born person. Since you didn't have a reason for it, I feel that our life cycle is we are conceived, we grow, we age & we die. Cloning destroys the natural order of things. When you mentioned cloning or organs I think you were referring to stem cell created organs. And in that perspective I agree with you. The creation of new organs via stem cells irradiates the need for organ donor thus lowering the mortality rate. Listen I believe in giving second chances and so yeah give a smoker a new pair of lungs but that should be a reality check to stop smoking those that continue to harm their bodies dont deserve another third opportunity to have an organ transplantation

    ReplyDelete
  7. thebrittbloomApril 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

    I agree with you when you said "I do not have a reasoning for this, it's just my natural reaction towards it." that is what i was trying to say in my blog it just did not come out that way. it just seems so wrong, but not in a moral sense just in general.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)