It’s All Good

Summary:
In the article “Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy”, written by Kaiser Editorials it gave a strong opinion that human cloning was wrong. Human cloning has a very high risk of failure. Plus even if we did clone someone we don’t know what would happen even USA Today said “even the most knowledgeable scientists don’t know what would happen a year from now.”(Kaiser editorial paragraph 1). The FDA is even thinking about taking a stance on cloning. USA Today suggested that the FDA take “a more aggressive and public stance”(Kaiser editorial paragraph 1).
Commentary:
I agree with the authors point because human cloning is wrong and immoral. We really don’t know what would happen to clones and it’s just too risky. I’m not saying we shouldn’t clone we should just be careful and we should never clone humans. I understand that some people might think my religion gets in the way of logic and although it shapes it whose doesn’t. I won’t people to get better as long as it doesn’t cross the line. We need to use cloning to help people but not to the extent of giving away our morals.
Analysis:
The author sounds credible because she knows what she is talking about. She uses well know sources and I’m sure if you looked them up you would find them to be real quotes. She also uses pathos to get across her point. She said “to prevent the gruesome death of deformed newborns”(Kaiser editorial paragraph 1). There were also no fallacies.

Summary:
In the article “Cloning outpacing ethics”, written by the Journal Sentinel, it talks about how cloning can hurt mankind. The researchers at Roslin Institute said that the “modern farm is already so advanced, they doubt cloning will improve it.”(”cloning” paragraph 7), so even thought Dolly was suppose to change farming all she really did was nothing. Plus Dolly just ended up being euthanized because of lung failure. Pet cloning could also be seen as a rip-off, because when you clone something, it’s going to look like your old dog but not act like it, because it would be raised alittle different, even if you don’t mean to. Plus even if we did let the clones into farming who’s to say their safe. The FDA even said inderectly that they wanted “livestock producers not to put animal clones and their progeny into the food chain.”(”cloning” paragraph 8).

Commentary:
I agree in some parts and disagree in some parts. I think that we should use cloning to help cure disease and to just help people but when you try to help people by cloning and killing humans your crossing the line. I also didn’t understand why the author didn’t talk about how religion effected cloning.

Evaluation:
The Journal Sentinel sounds credibil because the information looks ligitement and it looks like they did their research. Also they apeal to pathos by saying “Dolly had to be euthanized”(”cloning” paragraph 7) and I didn’t find any fallacies.

“Cloning Outpacing Ethics.” JSOnline. 16 Nov. 2007 .

Summary:

Nancy Gibbs a repoter for Times worte a about the hot topic of cloning.  Her oppinion was that the technology itself is not immoral however immorally it could be used.  Some of the technology can be life saving but cloning doesn’t work miricles, infact “Wilmut, the premier cloner, calls it “criminally irresponsilbel” for scientists to be experimenting on humans today.”.  Also cloning is not very popular today for one thing “90% of respondents thought it was a bad idea to clone human beings.”.  So easily you can see that cloing isn’t perfect ,even if a majority did want to clone humans.

Commentary:

I agree with Gibbs that if cloning was used to a certian extent it could be helpful.  I think that cloning could be used on animals to help us but humans could not.  Because in my religion animals don’t have souls while humans do and who is to say if a clone has a soul I would rather not risk it.  Plus you can uthnized a sheep without feeling bad which is what we did to alot of the failed clones but if you did it to a human it would be murder.  I also wondered why she never addressed the fact of how cloning would effect warfare.

Analysis:

The fact that Gibbs works at Times shows her credibility and the papers ethos by the statisics like “the failure rate is still overwhelming: 98% die” appeals to logos.  When she says that most human clones would come out deformed that really appeals to pathos.

 Gibbs, Nancy. “Baby, It’s You! and You, and You…” Time 19 Feb. 2001. 2 Nov. 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999233,00.html.

 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999233,00.html

Welcome to Learnerblogs.org. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!