That's not fluffy...

After reading the article on Pet cloning I took a minute to think about what I hope I would do in the scenario with the couple and their beloved cat. Although I am not a pet owner I came to the conclusion that I do not like the idea of cloning. Not in people nor in animals. There is a natural order to life and when disturbed it can wreak havoc on the people involved, emotionally and spiritually. We are born and we die, simply put. As for the companies developing this technology, I know it an obvious interest of theirs, however, financial gain is their priority. How do they get the money to develop these endeavors? From the families, of course. They need "backing" and so they prey on families who are in mourning. Maybe i am a cynic, but making money off of someone's vulnerability is ethically wrong. Lastly, the companies can NOT bring back the same pet that passed on. For someone who loved/loves their pet and would like to have them live on in the form of an almost identical one, to that I say, " mourn, go to the SPCA, and adopt a new one!" I'm sure if fluffy were still here, that is what she/he would have wanted.

Insurance claims and qualms

Within the issue of Insurance companies knowing our medical status, the question arises, "should they have access to our genetic make-up?" In my opinion, if my insurance is affected by what could be a possible health defect or weakness, of course I'd say no. Since, however, they already know medical history and other information, and it does affect our policies, I don't really know what can be done to pursuade them otherwise. It doesn't seem fair that people who may need the insurance sooner are often denied it and that people who are considered healthier have higher access to it. Unfortunately that is the paradox within the insurance industry...

Embryo Testing

This week's blog topic challenged me a lot. In terms of testing Embryo's for certain diseases I do believe that it depends on the fatality percentage of the unborn child. The question is: Is it worth discarding a human life in the early stages of development if the chances are slim for certain diseases? I think the use of this technology could be a positive if it will either save the mother or the baby. On the other hand, I think it is completely superficial to use it to choose eye color and other characteristics. My belief is that life starts at conception so destroying embryos is not an option for me. I would hope that if my unborn baby had a chance of surviving, I would give it that chance. In my belief, we should not be playing God.