Commentary test

Question 1

The article raises the central issue of the large controversy on human cloning, giving the readers a both sides of the argument without making a clear stand on the issue. His points that are against abortion include the possible rise of body-part merchants in our society and the fact that it is unlikely that anyone could succeed in cloning a human being. His points that support abortion include the fact that human cloning would ultimately become accepted in our society.

Question 2: Cloning- should it be allowed?

In 2003, Democratic senators Edward Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein and Tom Harkin announced a legislation making human cloning a crime punishable by law while allowing medical research to continue. The issue of human cloning has been a large global controversy with no clear foreseeable resolution. However, this legislation represents a large step of progress in the cloning debate with the government of US making a definite stand on the issue. The article that I will be discussing in this commentary is “Law war: Attack of the clone debate”. This article provides the reader with two points of view on the topic of human cloning but it does not make a clear stand on the topic. Therefore, I will do the honours by stating my own stand. I agree with the legislation set by the US government because human cloning goes against human ethics and there are still pressing worries of the possible perversion of this technology.

I believe human cloning should not be allowed to be carried out because it goes against human ethics. Using a religious perspective, human cloning is unethical. For example, in the Bible, Psalm 119:73 says, "Your hands made me and fashioned me." As such, Christians see human cloning as playing god because of their belief that man could only be created by God. Many religions view human cloning as an insult to their deities due to this same reason. I feel that we should respect the views of these religions even if we might not believe in them. After all, they are still part of our society.  If this perspective still cannot satisfy, let me present to you a philosophical perspective. Even in the controversy of abortion, whether an embryo should be considered as a human being is highly debated. Many philosophers, who believe that an embryo is a human being, say that the act of extracting stems cells from the embryo in therapeutic cloning is equivalent to the murdering of a human being. What makes this more inhumane is that it is an act of killing a human being to cure another for his or her own selfish needs. Therefore, to prevent the ethics in our society from further degradation, human cloning cannot be allowed to be carried out.

Although the ethical issue of human cloning is quite apparent, some still choose to argue that human cloning should be allowed to be carried out. These people believe that human cloning could offer a new method to preserve and save many lives. For example, a bioethicist, Jacob M. Appel of New York University, argued that "children cloned for therapeutic purposes" such as "to donate bone marrow to a sibling with leukaemia" could even be viewed as heroes in our society.

 I believe human cloning should not be allowed to be carried out because there are worries that instead of being a beacon of hope for a new cure, it is possible for the perversion of this technology to occur. Scientist and lawmakers worry that a black market selling human organs might emerge from the exploitation of human cloning technology. This can happen when merchants illegally carry out mass reproductive cloning to sell the organs of these clones. Although this seems like merely an overly imaginative fantasy, it is highly possible due to the high demand for organ transplants even in Singapore itself. In fact, there are about six hundred medical patients in Singapore waiting for a kidney, with an average waiting time of nine years. For example, Mr Tang Wee Sung, executive chairman of retail company CK Tang, offered to pay two Indonesian men twenty thousand dollars for a kidney to cure his medical condition. As shown, it is indeed possible for a black market of organs to arise that will not only lead to mass murder of clones, but even the exploitation of human life fuelled by money. All human life is sacred and in the future, human clones are no exception. Therefore, before these pressing worries have yet to be settled, human cloning cannot be allowed to be carried out.

In addition, this counter argument is only based on the huge assumption that human cloning will be possible to meet expectations. According to Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, it is unlikely that scientists will succeed in cloning a human being.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my stand stating that I agree with the legislation set by the US government. Let us not let Ira Levin’s chilling novel “The Boys from Brazil” truly become a reality in our society and keep it as it is meant to be- fiction.

Why do I believe human beings are willing to do good to others?

Doing good to others is defined as a sacrificial act of kindness often done without the expectation of any returns in the short term. The rationale of this action has stumped even the great minds of legends such as Darwin and Thomas Henry. I believe one of the many reasons that human beings are willing to do good to others is to express sympathy or support. For example, people choose to donate money to beneficiaries because they feel sympathy for the needy. Sympathy is an important part of human nature and people choose to express it by filling a need in the lives of other people either through the donation of money or simply by providing manpower. Showing support is almost equivalent to expressing sympathy, but in a smaller degree. The article “The Evolution of Goodness” shows that worker bees sacrifice their lives for those of their blood relatives. This can also been seen as a form of showing support to their blood relatives. 

McSpicy

A $40 million makeover of Orchard Road planned by The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has recently been completed. This includes the decoration of Orchard Road with aesthetic features along the theme of nature such as flower totems and flowery glass panels. Set to entice more customers to Orchard Road, the makeover was expected to be the biggest event happening in Orchard Road. Not falling short of this expectation, it did not disappoint. Or rather, it happened to be the event in Orchard Road to attract the largest amount of relentless criticism from both Singaporeans and foreigners alike. I too am not an exception. Although it might have helped in beautifying Orchard Road, I disagree that it was the right decision to conduct this makeover because it affects many businesses in Orchard Road.

Commentary on Orchard Road Facelift

A $40 million makeover of Orchard Road planned by The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has recently been completed. This includes the decoration of Orchard Road with aesthetic features along the theme of nature such as flower totems and flowery glass panels. However, this has invited much critism from the public as to whether it was the right decision to conduct this makeover. Although it helped in beautifying Orchard Road, I disagree that it was the right decision to conduct this makeover because it affects many businesses in Orchard Road. 

The $40 million makeover of Orchard Road affects many businesses in Orchard Road. The main purpose behind the makeover was to attract more visitors to Orchard Road in the hope of improving the businesses set up in Orchard Road. However, instead of doing so, the makeover has even disrupted certain businesses. During the construction works at Orchard Road, many businesses saw a lost in customers. For example, Mr Yeo Tiong Lay, who has been selling ice cream at Orchard Road for three years, noticed that the number of customers had declined because his stall was blocked from the view of pedestrains across the road due to the construction works. Also, there was a drop in the number of cusomers as most wanted to avoid the unbearable noise pollution from the construction works. Even after the makeover was finished, the decorations bring inconvenience to pedestrains and even block some stalls from the vision of window shoppers. These caused businesses to suffer from the lack of customers which defeats the intended purpose of the makeover. Thus, it was not the right decision to conduct this makeover.

However, the makover helped in beautifying Orchard Road. Orchard Road is the main shopping district of Singapore and is frequented by countless of visitors and customers every year. Thus, it is important to constantly improve the quality of our shopping district to ensure that shoppers are satisfied. Through the makeover, Orchard Road has become more beautiful and vibrant, improving the quality of our shopping district. For example, the flower totems and glass panels complement the lush greenery to paint a refreshing and peaceful picture of Orchard Road. This is important to keep up with the global standards of shopping districts, whereby there is a huge demand for the good quality shopping districts. 

Even though the makeover helped beautify Orchard Road to a certain extent, the main purpose of the makeover was not fulfilled due to the sharp decline in the number of customers. Especially during these trying times when keeping up the economy is our top priority, the makeover is certainly not a wise decision. Therefore, I disagree that it was the right decision to conduct this makeover.