Conley comes out with a harsh and firm tone that human cloning should not be practiced as it does interfere with God’s creation. Professor Ian Wilmut is polite and puts himself on the hot seat to defend the practice. He remains objective and asks hard questions that if couples have been denied the right to procreate naturally what would be the ill effect of trying out new technology like human cloning. (Wilmut,2007). The topic on human cloning has brushed shoulders with the high political icons and religious leaders.
The ethical part has hit many headlines in media world and eye brows rose on in its interference with the natural process of human creation. Wilmut has remained extremely aggressive and has an ego driven attitude towards the whole process and the perception on human cloning as opposed to Conley in his view on the interference with natural process (Conley,1994).
Human procreation has been through the natural process since time immemorial. With the current advancement of technology and research, morals of human cloning were brought to task. Conley has well addressed the burning issue and has made great strides in evaluating the challenges that couples face when they have the challenge of conceiving and bearing children (Conley, 1994).With his deep rooted roman catholic arguments, he remains a close minded author as to the effects of human cloning unlike Wilmut who is polite spoken learned author with an aim to kill the stigma. The research that has been done was to solve some these issues. Couples have been genetically challenged to have the right to live, a life like any other normal human being (Wilmut,2007).
The pervasiveness of this discourse concerning the dignity in today’s Western world has given it a mask of the subject matter that has been highly contested and made it vague. As our educated writer Wilmut has observed in his sixth edition. This concept has become totally ubiquitous. Conley has claimed ...Show more