When an individual think of cloning, one usually thinks of the Storm Troopers in Star Wars or of an evil scientist in a dark laboratory full of scary instruments and test tubes everywhere, when actually the word clone means, A cell or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which was derived (Dictionary, 2018). For the past 50 years scientist have found different variations and solutions for cloning. The perfect example would be Dolly the sheep. Dolly the sheep was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell, and is by far the world’s most famous clone. Dolly was the only lamb born from 277 separate attempt (institute, 2014). Many individuals believe that cloning should never be done or should never be attempted, while others believe that it should be allowed due to it possibly helping find multiple cures for different types of diseases.
In Elizabeth Price Foleys article she goes on to discuss the multiple reasons on why the United States should not ban human cloning. She uses logos to explain her first point of how the bans would violate the first amendment. Thus, the First Amendment protects ideas, not because of their substantive merit but simply because ideas stimulate thought, which in turn breeds the courage and boldness necessary for effective self-governance(Foley). What she is arguing is that the first amendment protects a person’s ideas because the ideas can change the world. Foley goes on to use pathos and logos to explain her other point on how we have the right to procreate and how scientific actions are expressions of ideas. She tries to connects to the readers by giving valuable information on firstly how all scientific actions cloning being one is an expression of ideas . Followed with how everyone has the right to procreate and she aimed for the emotional side of her readers while also backing up her information by various research from different sources as well.
The text of the First Amendment protects the rights to free speech, a free press, religious liberty, the ability to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Elizabeth Price Foley stated, Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….”” It is well accepted, of course, that the First Amendment is not absolute. Even protected speech may be regulated, provided the law in question is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest. It is necessary, therefore, to determine whether scientific research”such as human cloning”constitutes “”speech,”” and, if so, to what extent such speech is protected. What she is trying to argue is that cloning itself is a form of free speech and should not be violated. The real threat that human cloning represents is one that. how are we likely to regard the child who isn’t cloned or customized? What about the child who is born with a “”disability””? Will the rest of society view that child with tolerance or come to see the child as an error in the genetic code”in short a defective product? is what one Jeremy Rifkin states in his article Human Cloning Would Lead to a Loss of Empathy. Foley is arguing that though they may be clones they have rights just like the rest of us, and deserve to be treated with respect and not looked down upon, while Rifkin states that being a clone will result in discrimination or biased opinions based on their generic code and/or the way they were conceived. He believes that people will look at the individual as a freak of nature and look down upon that individual. What both of these articles have in common is that both are talking from the viewpoint of a clone, such as their rights or hw they would be looked upon in society.
Weldon states, While most cloning advocates want to create cloned embryos for embryonic stem cell research (and oppose the creation of clones who would be implanted and carried to term), others are racing to produce the world’s first cloned human baby (pg#1). Weldons point is that while most people are trying to use cloning for cell research purposes, they are trying to create the world’s first full grown organism, rather than just a cell. This ties into what Elizabeth Price Foley is trying to say in her work on in The United States Should Not Ban Human Cloning under the section Rights to Procreate, she states that The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit, respectively, federal or state governments from depriving any individual of “”life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”” What she is implying is that no matter how people look at cloning they can’t stop someone’s right to procreate or to bring life into the world. Both of these articles show that cloning can be used for much more than creating small organisms but can also be used to bring new life and a new outtake on the world.
Did you like this example?
Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?
Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!