Human Cloning
In the first text, ‘Narcissus Cloned’, author reveals all negative facets of therapeutic cloning. He examines all pros and cons of cloning, overviews moral and professional sides, which can be used in favor to his point of view. The author claims that our unique identity is determined by our somatic constitution, pays attention to medical ethics that proved by doctor’s oath. Also, he views the question about whether pre-embryo of few-week age could be considered as a human being or only a merge of spermatozoid and outbid. Further, he argues would this process of childbearing be brought to just a something rarely noticed in future. Another question that was proposed for a reader to provide his arguments is whether human cloning …show more content…
The author appeals to our moral feelings, and addresses to initial fundamental human conceptions of a family, marriage, happiness to bear a child in mother’s womb, continuity of the parents and their scions. He claims that very process of therapeutic cloning undermines all these values. In a specific manner he stressed that frivolous approach to this question is inadmissible. While we debate among us and provide our discussion with suitable facts, evidences and instances, we have to ponder them before scoring. Conley tries to reveal the impoverishment of our culture’s categories and raise ethical issues, rejecting any subjectivism. Eventually, he prefers to be objective and consecutive in his …show more content…
He narrates more softly, tries to avoid keen confrontation and provides his text with a great number of recent researches that proved his viewpoint. His style is perceived very kindly because of marvelous frankness he used to communicate with potential reader. Obviously, we notice he is executive enthusiast of human cloning and makes his best to convince us to support this absolutely right position. Unlike other author, this one appeals to far-reaching, so desirable benefits of a treatment owing cloning, that it is difficult not to agree with him. He argues with the opponent of human cloning by highlighting that, actually, there is nothing reprehensible in producing stem cells. We simply must abstract from comprehension of this process as destruction of human embryo.
As to say about similarities between both texts we should underline next: at the beginning each authors make an introduction where he addresses to his reader with background due to the topic and tell us what issues he will reveal. Both writers enriched their texts with a wide amount of scientific numbers, theses and thoughts of other scientists and thinkers. All articles are good structured, all them contains necessary arguments and consider contradictory views on this problem. It would be reasonably to admit that both text end up with a logical conclusion, where both authors make their