Within the novel, Victor is the first person in the world to successfully create life. As his story progresses, we become increasingly aware of Victor's horror at the creature's appearance and his fear of being exposed as a "madman." Victor's main fear seems to be that the monster will wreak havoc upon a society of innocent people; but what about the scientific implications of his creation? Obviously, the fact that Victor discovered a way to reanimate the dead is a HUGE contribution to science. If he were to share his findings, he'd be able to influence an entire area of scientific study.
This point leads me to the modern debate over whether or not cloning is morally acceptable. Scientists made a ton of progress when they were able to successfully clone a mammal, Dolly the Sheep. While this website explains cloning and claims that as of right now it is not possible to successfully clone a bonafide human being, it may very well be possible a few decades from now.
What do you guys think? Do scientists have the right to the pursuit of knowledge, no matter what that knowledge may be? Would cloned human beings still be considered "human"? Should the Universal Human Rights apply to someone who is a clone?
I believe scientists do have the right to the pursuit of knowledge but not "no
ReplyDeletematter what." There are limits. For instance, animal testing and other unethical
procedures are not included in the right of a scientists pursuit of knowledge.
Personally, I have always thought cloning was unethical but now that I think
about it, I don't necessarily have a reason as to why I believe it is. Yes, it's
creepy, but it also has many pros in terms of providing functional organ donors
and new possibilities for adoption.
I do think these clones would still be
considered human for the same reasons I believe the monster in Frankenstein is
human- they have human organs and human thought processes. Although they would
not be produced by conception, they should absolutely be granted human rights.
Especially if we bring them into this world with the intention for them to be
human- they should be granted equal rights. What an awful life though- being
constantly examined as a clone and not a regular human. Not to mention our
society most definitely CANNOT afford to invest in a budget for cloning (nor
will we be able to in the foreseeable future).
Although I do acknowlegde the
pros of such a science, I believe it to be truly unnecessary. And if human
clones existed and had human rights, they wouldn't be treated like "natural
humans." There would be prejudice and discrimination against them. They would
always have watching eyes examining their behaviors. And since that would be
cruel to bestow upon a human, I have answered my own confusion as to why I
believe cloning is unethical. I will not support this scientific advance when it
becomes possible. Nor do I want hear the panicked religious debates that it will
stir.
So just some thoughts.
If humans were to be cloned they would share in human rights. They should be treated just as the original would have been. However, I do not think that cloning is ethical. As humans we have the ability to create new life, but not to replicate life. It is unnatural and there are not enough benefits to the person being cloned to make it worthwhile.
ReplyDelete