Posts filed under ‘Document 1: definitions and arguments’

Gramar point on 1st document

To allow to do something : this form permit to not employ modal, it give a impression of impersonality: you're not allowed to smoke: that's a fact, the law, and I can't do anything about this…®The teacher decided to allow Josh to enter later in the class (but he has to be punctual, because of the school’s rules.
To consider it to be….when done on….: Sorry, I didn’t find anything about this … If YOU find, just let a comment ! To prevent from: this preposition is always employed with "prevent" : you prevent somebody from doing something (do not employ TO !) .. if you want to work your prepositions … click on the site : ® My parents prevent me from going to a party (that’s not fun at all, but this is the only example I found ! :D)
To prohibit… while preserving :in fact, while shows a period which last in the history, and the -ing that it is a general act, we could translate it by "tout en preservant". It gives an impression of global activity, which won't stop.®Ecologist try to make government to change their legislation while do illegal actions.


March 13, 2006 at 6:42 pm Leave a comment

Vocabulary about the 1st document

Dire : horrible, terrible

® The plague was a dire desease.
Ovum : the « egg » of women.
® When they are fertilized, ovums evolute until the creation of baby.
Ewe: it’s an animal, easily recognizable by its cry: “bee bee”. More seriously we employ its wool to creat pull-over.
Overwhelming: terrible, crushing.
®The weight of a cow is overwhelming compared to the one of a baby.
To be scheduled: to be program for a date.
® His operation is scheduled for monday.

March 13, 2006 at 6:39 pm 1 comment

Some arguments from the 1st document

Morality of Human Cloning.
My point of view on these arguments are written in italic
Arguments against Human Cloning are really more numerous than those in favour of Human Cloning.
Arguments which say that Human C. is moral:
         Instead of leaving the talent of somebody die with him, we can clone him because some talents are contained in the DNA, so the majority of the population will benefit of H.C. In fact talents are just subjective. Everybody can think that he has a talent and wishes to have a clone. Without definition of “talents”, every person can deviate this argument to have a child. If somebody think that Hitler had the talent of being a leader, should we have to clone him ?? It is dangerous to leave the choose of cloning or not people to everybody. Clear reasons have to be defined.
         If a couple is sterile just because of the husband, both can participate in the creation of their child thanks to H.C. instead of using the sperm of another man. This argument can be removed to the case of couple of lesbians.It is an egalitarian argument. It permits to everybody to have a child, even if they can’t naturally. Having a child won't be a problem for many couples, but for the moment legislation hasn’t permit homosexuals to adopt children so it’s difficult to imagine that they could have cloned children.
Arguments against the morality of H.C.:
         for the moment, we have no guarantee about the medical aspect of cloning. Who knows how he will grow and if he won’t suffer from new diseases ?That’s true that in fact, humankind love doing experiences, but we oftently don’t know where they will lead us, such as the H. Bomb. Before permitting to everybody to have a cloned child, we have to be sure that his life won’t be in danger, but to know that, we need experiences and time…
         Relationship between parents and clones will be different than the one between parents and natural child because the clone will be as one  of his parents, instead of being a “mix” between the 2, so it can create some problems.That’s true again that it can be a little bit strange to know that “you are your father or your mother” … Children will probably have difficulties to find his own identity.
Contestable arguments:
         Clones are “built” thanks to a cell which have its own age. So maybe the baby will just born and his cells will already be aged of the year of the first cell. In fact this argument is contestable because Dolly grow up normally. Even if we saw that Dolly grown up normally, we don’t know how, in long term, will “live” the cells… Dolly lived 6 years, just as a lot of her racekind, but we don’t know how human cell will grow, maybe the life time of cloned cells is limited (more than the life of naturally created cells) and we don’t know it.
         If Clones can be “created” for every one, women won’t need men anymore… In fact this argument comes from a man’s essay…I think that’s just a macho argument. Reproduction is not the only reason of the existence of men, why would we delete them ?
         If people are cloned instead of created naturally, genetical diversity will decrease and the natural evolution of races will be in danger. But in fact, cloning will probably not be used for everybody and very oftently, even if it can be a solution to many couples so this argument is useless.This argument can be pertinent if cloning is a mass solution to create babies. If cloning just go on being an odd solution we won’t have to fear about biodiversity, but if cloning is used in all the cases, it will become a problem.
Religious arguments against H.C.:
         some religious people who are against abortion are against H.C. because they think that all fertilized ovule are already somebody, so wanting to take off the fertilized part to put the cell of somebody elses is a murder.I think that it is an extreme argument. How could we think that a cell, which is not formed at all, can be somebody?When the child's organes are formed, I consider that he is already somebody but considering that he is somebody before is extreme.
         A business can be created around the selling of embryos.This is an argument not only religious but economical. And it is serious I think, because we see nowadays traffic of human organes and some people just think that embryos are a way to earn easy money.
      –    Some people think that clones won’t born with a soul.I don’t know what to think about this argument. What is soul exactly ? Who can judge ? During slavery, white people thought that Black didn’t have souls, which is just stupid. If we extend this, we can think that everything that is alive have a soul … and plants too ? So I consider that clones would have a soul, but it can’t be prooved !!

March 13, 2006 at 4:48 pm Leave a comment

Definitions about Human Cloning

This document is published in a religious website dedicated to human cloning.
It is built in 2 axes, the 1st one in favour of human cloning and the 2d one against.
It also gives definition of the different human cloning which exist.
In fact, we can determinate 3 classes of human cloning, depending of the goal purchased:
     –   therapeutic cloning: it creates new cells, identical from the one of a sick person, to be able to transplant tissue or organ without risk for the person who suffers of illness.

     –   reproducing cloning: it creates, from the DNA of an adult, a new person with the identical DNA. In this case, the goal is only sentimental.     

–   embryo cloning: it creates from a fertilized embryo twins or triplets

February 27, 2006 at 8:38 am Leave a comment


June 2018
« Apr    

Posts by Month

Posts by Category