首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Part Ⅱ Reading Comprehension (Skimming and Scanning) Directions: In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage q
Part Ⅱ Reading Comprehension (Skimming and Scanning) Directions: In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage q
admin
2010-11-02
34
问题
Part Ⅱ Reading Comprehension (Skimming and Scanning)
Directions: In this part, you will have 15 minutes to go over the passage quickly and answer the questions on Answer Sheet 1.
For questions 1-7, mark
Y (for YES) if the statement agrees with the information given in the passage;
N (for NO) if the statement contradicts the information given in the passage;
NG ( for NOT GIVEN) if the information is not given in the passage.
For questions 8-10, complete the sentences with the information given in the passage.
Should We Ban Human Cloning or Not?
The world was stunned by the news in the summer of 1995, when a British embryologist named Ian Wilmut, and his research team, successfully cloned Dolly the sheep using the technique of nuclear transfer. Replacing the DNA of one sheep’s egg with the DNA of another sheep’s the team created Dolly. Plants and lower forms of animal life have been successfully cloned for many years, but before Wilmut’s announcement, it had been thought by many to be unlikely that such a procedure could be performed on larger mammals and life forms. The world media was immediately filled with heated discussions about the ethical implications of cloning.
Some of the most powerful people in the world have felt compelled to act against this threat. President Clinton swiftly imposed a ban on federal funding for human-cloning research. Bills were put in the works in both houses of Congress to outlaw human cloning because it was deemed as a fundamentally evil thing that must be stopped. But what, exactly, is bad about it? From an ethical point of view, it is difficult to see exactly what is wrong with cloning human beings. The people who are afraid of cloning tend to assume that someone would, for example, break into Napoleon’s Tomb, steal some DNA and make a bunch of emperors. In reality, infertile people who use donated sperm, eggs, or embryos would probably use cloning. Do the potential harms outweigh the benefits of cloning? From what we know now, they don’t. Therefore, we should not rush placing a ban on a potentially useful method of helping infertile, genetically at-risk, homosexual, or single people to become parents.
Do human beings have a right to reproduce? No one has the moral right to tell another person that they should not be able to have children, and I don’t see why Bill Clinton has that right either. If humans have a right to reproduce, what right does society have to limit the means? Essentially au reproduction done these days is with medical help at delivery, and even before. Truly natural human reproduction would make pregnancy-related death the number one killer of adult women.
Some forms of medical help are more invasive than others. With in vitro (体外的) fertilization, the sperm and egg are combined in a lab and surgically implanted in the womb. Less than two decades ago, a similar concern was raised over the ethical issues involving "test-tube babies". Today, nearly 30,000 such babies have been born in the United States alone. This miracle has made many parents happy. So what principle says that one combination of genetic material in a flask is acceptable, but not another?
Nature clones people all the time. Approximately one in 1,000 births is an identical twin. However, despite how many or how few individual characteristics twins have in common, they are still different people. They have their own identities, their own thoughts, and their own rights. They enter different occupations, get different diseases, and have different experiences with marriage, alcohol, community leadership, etc. Twins have different personalities as would cloned individuals. Even if someone cloned several Napoleons, each would be different and even more unique than twins; the cloned child would be raised in a different setting. Therefore, cloning does not rob individuals of their personality.
Perhaps the strongest ethical argument against cloning is that it could lead to a new, unfamiliar type of family relationship. We have no idea what it would be like to grow up as the child of parents who seem to know you from the inside. Some psychological characteristics may be biologically, or genetically, based. The parent would know in advance what crises a cloned teenager could go through and how he or she will respond. Because the parents may understand what the child is going through, to greater degree than most parents, it may produce a good and loving relationship in the long run. On the other hand, most children want to have their own space. Simply because a family relationship is new and untried is no reason to automatically condemn it. In the past, many types of family relationships were considered harmful, but later showed to cause no harm to the children. Among these is joint custody after divorce, gay and lesbian parenting, and interracial adoption. As with adoption, in vitro fertilization, and the use of donor sperm, how the child will react to the news about his or her arrival in this world will depend on how the parents feel about their mode of reproduction. Parents and children may adjust to cloning far more easily than we might think, just as it happened with in vitro fertilization.
One recurring image in anti-cloning propaganda is of some evil dictator raising an army of cloned warriors. But who is going to raise such an army. Clones start out life as babies. It is much easier to recruit young adults than to take care of babies for twenty years. Remember that cloning isn’t the same as genetic engineering. No one can make another superman and his super powers might have a slim chance of being genetically determined, but nothing is certain.
Some might think that cloning is playing God. However, can you really say that you know God’s intentions? There is substantial disagreement as to what God’s will is. Armstrong wrote, anyone who has truly proved that God exists, that God isn’t only Creator, but Life-giver, Designer, Sustainer, and Ruler over all his creation, knows that the human family began with one man, and that together with him a wife, miraculously created from his own body and as unique and original a creation as Adam himself, formed the first family. Though God’s miraculous creation of Eve was far from cloning, it is interesting to note in passing that God’s own Word says He used Adam’s rib—physical bone and tissue—to create Eve.
Another argument against cloning is that it would only be available to the wealthy and, therefore, would increase social inequality. What else is new? This is the story of American health care. We need a better health care system, not a ban on new technologies. Hopefully our new president will help us with this problem as well.
The U. S. Federal Government should not deem human cloning and cloning research illegal. It may provide a way for completely sterile or homosexual individuals to reproduce, and will probably provide valuable basic research and possible spin-off technologies related to reproduction and development. Our society has respected general rights to control one’s body regarding reproduction, and finally prohibiting it would violate the fundamental freedom of scientific inquiring.
Will human cloning be done? Undoubtedly. The technique used in sheep cloning does not require a highly sophisticated laboratory. Since the United States government does not support research on human cloning, and the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have banned it, the research making cloning possible may take place in Asia, Eastern Europe, or the East. Much cloning may also take place in secret, and will occur regardless of United States policies. Approximately eighty percent of Americans feel that cloning is wrong. However, the vast majority of people, including those who rail against cloning research, owe their lives to previous medical discoveries. Don’t let the forces of ignorance and fear turn us away from new types of research.
We should be informed of the potential harm about cloning.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
C
解析
根据题干关键词无法具体定位相关内容。本文是针对克隆技术发表自己的观点,有些人认为克隆技术有其潜在的危害,作者对这些观点一一反驳,认为克隆也是一项新技术,其带来的好处多于其潜在的危害,但对于我们是否应被告知克隆技术的潜在危害,文中并未论述。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/MVs7777K
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
TodayAmericanparentsarefindingthemselvesina【B1】______abouthowtodealwithteenagedrinking,aserioussocialproblem.
Ingeneral,oursocietyisbecomingoneofgiantenterprisesdirectedbyabureaucratic(官撩主义的)managementinwhichmanbecomes
Lessthanayearago,anewgenerationofdietpillsseemedtoofferthelongsoughtanswertoourchronicweightproblems.Hund
A、BecauseitwasbuiltbyEnglishmen.B、Becauseitcouldworkforman.C、Becauseitcouldbeusedwheneverandwhereveritwasn
A、Heisaplumber.B、Heisanelectrician.C、Heisacarpenter.D、Heisaninteriordecorator.B选项和职业有关。从switch,socketforthep
Inadditiontoredistributingincomes,inflationmayaffectthetotalrealincomeandproductionofthecommunity.Anincreasei
A、Lowerprices.B、Morechoices.C、Morecompetition.D、Morecompanies.A综合推断题。男士说美国现在有五千到一万家长途电话公司,竞争虽然是好的,但有时却让人觉得选择太多了,在八十年代早期取
A、Philipwasarudeboy.B、Philipwasaskedtoleavethelibrary.C、Philipwasnotoldenoughtoreadinthislibrary.D、Philip
Somespeciesofanimals__________________(因为不能适应环境的变化,所以已经灭绝了).
Theownershipofpetsbringsavarietyofbenefitsthattheuninitiatedwouldneverbelieve.Foreverytaleofshreddedcushion,
随机试题
A.平肝潜阳,清肝明目B.平肝潜阳,清肝明目,镇惊安神C.平肝潜阳,软坚散结,收敛固涩D.平肝潜阳,镇静安神,化痰软坚石决明的功效是
关于渗出性体腔积液细胞分类的意义,正确的是
高位小肠梗阻患者除腹痛外,主要症状是
其中不属于纳米粒的制备方法的有
[2009年第8题]等于()。
球罐焊接完成后应立即进行焊后热处理。焊后热处理的主要目的有()。
罗杰斯认为,人类精神世界中两个不可分割的有机组成部分是()。
某项调查研究表明,80后和90后的年轻人更喜欢通俗唱法的歌曲,而对美声、民族等唱法不感兴趣。美声、民族等唱法正逐渐被时代所淘汰。下列哪个正确,最能对以上结论构成有效的反驳?()
公民自觉履行法定义务就应该做到()。
(1)利用快捷菜单设计器创建一个弹出式菜单one,菜单有两个选项:“增加”和“删除”,两个选项之间用分组线分隔。(2)创建一个快速报表app_report,报表中包含了“评委表”中的所有字段。(3)建立一个数据库文件“大奖赛.dbc”,并将“歌手表”、
最新回复
(
0
)