I doing a research paper and I need a paragraph that shows the opposing viewpoint? How is this?

Question

With cloning quickly becoming a controversial topic some “supposed” arguments against cloning are that it is wrong to play God, cloning is wrong in that it breaches the individuality of humans, and clones would be considered less than human. In exploring the first of these arguments it is very clear that this ties into faith and religion. The point of many cloning critics is that cloning humans is against the will of Providence. However, it is mentioned in the Bible that man was created in the likeness of God (Bible, 1). In order to be more like God, which is his will, we can duplicate what he created. God will not be displeased, but instead be pleased with this major accomplishment. An even greater controversy are the rights of the clones. Critics of cloning fear that clones would not be treated as normal humans and would thus be subjugated to inferior treatment. The same was said about babies created through in vitro fertilization, babies conceived outside the womb, and babies created by sperm donation. But discrimination did not take place then so why should it be expected now? Also the U. S. Constitution strongly implies that once a human fetus is outside the womb and alive, he has rights. Decisions backing this up give him rights to inherit property, rights not to suffer discrimination because of disability, and rights to U. S. citizenship (Pence 3). Because of these reasons clones would definitely be treated the same way as normal people and will not be rejected by society because of their resemblance

to someone else. Another concern with human cloning is the irrational fear of mass production of clones by a person described inherently evil in history such as hitler. That is not true. We are not only a product of our genes but also of the surrounding environment. This means that even if Hitler was cloned there would be no guarantee that the clone would share his views or even be as prominent as he was. Another common misconception about cloning is that clones will be less than humans that therefore will not have the same rights as them (i.e. the irrational fear that they could be used for spare human parts). Clones are very much human and thus under the U.S. Constitution, they are considered to have rights once outside the human womb.

Can you edit it for me and see if it makes sense at all?

jThanks a lot
I kinda of suck a t english

Answer 1

I have broken up your lengthy paragraph into several different ones, each covering your arguments against :anti-cloning" I've also changed the wording of some of your sentences. However I must take issue with your statement "Clones are very much human and thus under the U.S. Constitution, they are considered to have rights once outside the human womb". Humans have not yet been cloned so how can something that doesn't exit have rights under the U.S.Constiution? I also think the concern ovef "playing God" would be more of a controversy than the one over rights of clones.

Anyway, here's my edit of your original paragraph:

With cloning quickly becoming a controversial topic some “supposed” arguments against cloning are that it is wrong to play God, cloning is wrong in that it breaches the individuality of humans, and clones would be considered less than human. In exploring the first of these arguments it is very clear that this ties into faith and religion. The point of many cloning critics is that cloning humans is against the will of Providence. However, it is mentioned in the Bible that man was created in the likeness of God (Bible, 1). In order to be more like God, which is his will, we can duplicate what he created. God will not be displeased, but instead be pleased with this major accomplishment

An even greater controversy are the rights of the clones. Critics of cloning fear that clones would not be treated as normal humans and would thus be subjugated to inferior treatment. A common misconception about cloning is that clones will be less than humans that therefore will not have the same rights as them (i.e. the irrational fear that they could be used for spare human parts). Clones are very much human and thus under the U.S. Constitution, they are considered to have rights once outside the human womb

The same fears about cloning arose about babies created through in vitro fertilization, babies conceived outside the womb, and babies created by sperm donation. But discrimination did not take place then so why should it be expected now? Also the U. S. Constitution strongly implies that once a human fetus is outside the womb and alive, he has rights. Decisions backing this up give him rights to inherit property, rights not to suffer discrimination because of disability, and rights to U. S. citizenship (Pence 3). Because of these reasons clones would definitely be treated the same way as normal people and will not be rejected by society because of their resemblance to someone else.

Another concern with human cloning is the irrational fear of mass production of clones by a person described inherently evil in history such as Hitler. That is not true. We are not only a product of our genes but also of the surrounding environment. This means that even if Hitler was cloned there would be no guarantee that the clone would share his views or even be as prominent as he was. .

Answer 2

it is so straightforward as introducing the subject rely. The final line of your intro paragraph must be your thesis, which ought to incorporate the factor being made on your physique paragraphs. till now that, must be a customary advent on your subject rely: what air pollution is, and why you're writing approximately it. Why is this significant? Introduce it the comparable way you're able to to somebody who you have been describing your paper to, yet in extra formal phrases. solid good fortune!