SAR: continue their research; however, as soon
SAR: Human Cloning – Is It a Viable Option? The topic of cloning has grown in recent years due to the steady increase in technology and innovation. Ms. Angela A.
Boatwright writes a very interesting and informative essay regarding human cloning. After reading her article, I recognize that my personal viewpoint on this subject is fairly close to what Boatwright has clearly communicated in her paper. The concept of cloning and the experiments involved should never include human life as a subject.These experiments should solely serve as a way to learn more about the cloning process, which would in turn, perhaps give beneficial results concerning human life. Boatwright begins her essay stating that due to “the historic announcement in Scotland of the existence of a cloned sheep named Dolly”, the argument of what is ethical regarding cloning research has become a colossal debate (212).
She goes on to give a brief anecdote of how the sheep was cloned and conveys to the reader that most scientists now see human experimentation as “the next logical step” (213).The author claims some valid justifications for those who oppose her view. Ones in favor of humans becoming part of the cloning research suggest that the benefits involved with the experiments exceed the risks, therefore making it ethical.
Soon, supporters say, the public’s idea of human cloning will be compared to the everyday “normalcy” of biological transfusions that are made today (213). At this point in the essay, the author then begins to support her claim, responding that there should not be a ban on cloning entirely.We, as humans, have made remarkable findings in recent years due to the exponential growth of technology.
Scientists should still be able to continue their research; however, as soon as the research begins to involve human life, it is then considered unethical. Boatwright uses three main points when supporting her claim – the unethical idea of genetically breeding humans, religion, and personal experience of being a mom. Boatwright closes by reiterating her viewpoint that cloning should be used and viewed as a potential gateway of knowledge of how its research can improve human life.Humans should not be the subject in these experiments and instead of a complete ban on cloning research; the author states “a moratorium might be a better solution” (214). I really enjoyed the organizational structure of Boatwright’s essay.
I think it is a very powerful way to write a synthesis paper, especially an argumentative one. She states her claim in the introduction and instead of proceeding to support her opinion; she first talks about the viewpoint of people who oppose her thesis.The author gives influential evidence of why some people are pro-human cloning. The main and most effective evidence includes the benefits that could result from using humans as test subjects in cloning experiments. Boatwright communicates that some benefits would even relate to curing cancer, treating infertility, and the possibility of erasing genetic defects (213).
By using evidence that most people would agree as being beneficial to mankind, Boatwright then shows how the opposition’s strongest argument actually supports her thesis.She adds that though research is imperative for our future, she “does not believe research should be at the expense of the dignity of human life” (213). She used evidence that refuted her opinion but, at the same time, acted as a transition to her claim.
Another powerful addition to the author’s essay include a personal example that further supported her. I strongly believe that the most successful example when trying to win an argument is a personal one.The author conveys a sense of authority when she writes that her experience as a mother has further solidified her viewpoint on the topic. Authoritative examples and responses are very effective on winning an argument, especially when the topic involves human life, considering that mothers is its key component. In response to this essay, as stated previously, I am in favor of Ms. Boatwright’s thesis.
Although my credibility and authority does not compare to the authors’, my main reason why I believe human cloning is unethical is based on religious beliefs.As Boatwright briefly mentions, God should be the only entity to create human life. As soon as “mortals” begin to abuse this right and in fact become the creator, out goes the backbone of humanity. The idea of genetically engineering humans erases the idea of diversity and introduces a concept of super humans. Both of these concepts are unnatural and should be left in the hands of God. I also believe research and science is imperative to human survival. We need experiments in order to learn about the possibilities our technology can breach.
This is why I also agree with Boatwright on the idea that research on cloning should not be banned, but yet regulated. The tests involved in these experiments should not involve humans, but yet animals or other subjects. The idea that the results from these tests could benefit human life in such a way that we could find the cure to cancer, as stated in the essay, is purely remarkable. As long as humans are not involved in the experiments, I believe the benefits do exceed the risks because having the opportunity to achieve certain feats, such as curing cancer, would save millions of lives.
In conclusion, I fully agree with Angela A. Boatwright’s claim that it is unethical to use humans in the experimentation of cloning. Research should not be banned, but should be continued and regulated because results may arise that could greatly benefit our future. One can only imagine the possibilities of the unknowns we could uncover. Work Cited Boatwright, Angela A.
“Human Cloning: Is It a Viable Option? “. First-Year Writing: Perspectives on Argument. Custom Edition for UTA (2010): 212-215.