It is true that God is the creator of human beings. He gives life to the human beings by making them be conceived and be born. The normal process is known to involve biological processes as a result of the fertilization of the ovum by a sperm. However, it is not obvious that every person will be fertile. To solve the problem of sterility among people who would wish to have children, human cloning has become an option (Pros and Cons of Human Cloning – HRF, 2013).It is a form of external fertilization.
One of the merits of human cloning is that defective genes could be eliminated. There are progressions that genetic illnesses would cause massive deaths in the future. The continuous reproduction by human beings damages the DNA lines causing mutations and defective genes. However, the problem could be eliminated through cloning where healthy human cells may be developed (Pros and Cons of Human Cloning – HRF, 2013).
Cloning is also significant promoting faster recovery from traumatic injury. Therefore, cloned child would have high resistance to traumatic injuries, which may have long-term effects on a human being (Pros and Cons of Human Cloning – HRF, 2013).
Also, cloning could be highly effective in eliminating the element of infertility (Pros and Cons of Human Cloning – HRF, 2013). The cloning process is usually successful and would save a couple the agony of living without a child.
However, there are demerits that go with cloning. The first demerit is that cloning exposes the human beings to extensively fast aging. There lacks normal growth for such beings. They develop various premature traits and may lead to premature death. Also, the cloning process reduces the sense of individuality in the cloned being. Since a clone is usually a twin of another person, there are high chances of loss of identity. The other demerit is that cloning may reduce the exclusive value of human life. There are high chances that the cloned beings would become a commodity instead of an individual (Pros and Cons of Human Cloning – HRF, 2013).
Capital punishment
All human beings have equal chances to life. It is not fair when other people are subjected to unfair judgments. Capital punishment is not the most conclusive decision when one is on the wrong. However, the decisions could be reliable if it takes place at the right time based on exclusively analyzed case (Primoratz, n.d.).
Every human being has a right to live. Therefore, no one should take the responsibility of denying him or her the opportunity. The person who allegedly takes another person’s life through murder should face the highest punishment in the land. If the highest punishment is murder for a murder case, then it should be executed accordingly (Primoratz, n.d.).
However, the quote may not apply if the person who killed of unsound mind. The individual might have been unconscious of his action. It would be wrong to judge the instinct of a person whereas he is in an unstable mind to defend his action (Primoratz, n.d.).
Also, a person may have been under the influence of a substance. Sometimes an individual may unknowingly consume a drug or a substance that will affect his thinking or reasoning. In such a case, the person may undertake an action that he would regret forever. If such a person is reported of murder, he should not be subjected to such capital punishment as murder (Primoratz, n.d.).
There are high chances that the person who committed murder is a toddler. There are injuries that are likely to occur following the activities of children, and they may cause death. It would be extremely unfair to sentence such an individual to murder if he or she did not willingly commit the alleged murder. The mind of a toddler is not aware of the ill action that he commits (Primoratz, n.d.).
Animal rights
It is good to recognize that animals have equal rights to live as human beings. It is the duty of human beings to protect the well-being of the fellow beings as well as animals. The ethical standards do not allow any animal to be hurt or put to unnecessary death (Guthrie, 2009).
Therefore, in moral ethics the decision by the legislature to hunt the bobcats is unethical. The human being does not have the right to decide the kind of animals that live and which ones should die (Guthrie, 2009). Instead, he or she must work towards protecting the animals.
At all costs, the animals should not be hurt by a human being. Every human being should ensure that his or her action does not affect the animal in any way (Guthrie, 2009).
Animals also have living rights. There should be a group of people who advocate the rights of the animals. It is right to protect the animals from the abuse of human beings. It means the right to life should be subjected to the animals (Guthrie, 2009).
However, the protection for animals may not always work accordingly. There are instances when the animals may be killed. For example, if the animals are harmful to the environment of a human being they may be killed. Also, they may expose the human being to extensive life risk, which may call for their murder (Guthrie, 2009). If the animals are risk to the wellbeing of the human beings, they may be subjected to the action that the legislature recommends.
References
Guthrie, R. (2009). Anthropocentrism.Animal Liberation and Environmental Justice, 60(1), 451-456.
Primoratz, I. (n.d.). A Life for a Life. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from http://www.empty-suit.info/phr/index.cfm?method=main.notes&semester_id=4&cat_id=102&course_id=phr-102&sub_cat_id=3&article_id=10231Top of Form
Pros and Cons of Human Cloning - HRF. (2013, December 6). Retrieved December 20, 2014, from http://healthresearchfunding.org/pros-cons-human-cloning/
