Baby, It’s you and You and You:
1. Yes, in my opinion, new genetic technology is eroding our definition of what it means to be human. The reason is that since cloning enables people to make exact copies of themselves, or others, it undermines one of the key components of what it means to be a human: being an individual.
2. No, if I could clone a loved one if I knew it could be done without risks, I would not choose to do it. The reason is that I believe that cloning undermines the value of human life.
Me, My Clone, and I:
1. I think that many people oppose cloning because of the health risks it presents, as seen in the case of Dolly the sheep. I do not believe that many people see it as intellectually upsetting, because it helps provide insight into the wonder of life. As for me, I also oppose it because of potential health risks.
2. No, I would not clone myself or a loved one, even if it were for a medical purpose. I justify this opinion with two reasons. The first one is that there may be health problems associated with the clone, which may later affect me. Another reason is that even though the cloned individual is a clone, they are still human, and don’t deserve to be harmed in order to benefit myself, even for health related reasons.
The Genetic Bill of Rights:
1. A bill of rights is a document that lists basic rights that are entitled to some group of people or other living entities. What probably motivated the creation of this document was the group’s concern that we may take genetic engineering to far, and the negatives that are discussed in the document would become immanent. It reflects current issues connected to genetic engineering that are already occurring, such as the patenting of certain organisms.
2. In my opinion, the document is written from the point of view of society in general, excluding groups who would benefit genetic engineering. I do not believe that Colvin would support this document, since it places many...