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
27
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://jikaoti.com/ti/1LZFFFFM
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
TodayAmericanparentsarefindingthemselvesina【B1】______abouthowtodealwithteenagedrinking,aserioussocialproblem.
Directions:Forthispart,youareallowedthirtyminutestowriteashortessayentitledInternet.Youshouldwriteatleast15
RiversByoriginalusage,ariverisflowingwaterinachannelwithdefinedbanks.Modernusageincludesriversthataremu
A、Lackofvariety.B、Fullofvarieties.C、Freshbutnotdelicious.D、Attractiveandnutritious.A选项和特点有关。本题是细节题。从Americaistrad
Aresomepeoplebornclever,andothersbornstupidly?【S1】______Orisintelligencedeveloped
Somepeoplecannotlearninordinaryschools.Oftensomephysicalor【B1】______handicappreventsachildfromlearning.Ineduca
A、Takemorefrequentbreaks.B、Improvehiscomputerskills.C、Drinkmorecoffee.D、Gotoseeaneyedoctor.A本题是细节题。从Butthebes
A、Acamera.B、Afilm.C、Photo.D、Picture.A
A、Eliminatingtheoriginalvegetationfromthebuildingsite.B、Markingthehousesinanareasimilartooneanother.C、Deciding
Somepeopleclaimthathealthiswealth,becausetheyconsider____________________(身体的健康比钱财或物质财富更有价值).
随机试题
测得某一蛋白质样品中氮含量为0.40g,此样品约含蛋白质
医疗机构对其医疗废物暂时贮存的时间不得超过
A公司向B公司签发并交付一张票据,B公司又向C公司背书转让了该票据,后C公司再次向D公司转让了该票据。经银行审核,B公司在向C公司转让该票据时,其签章不符合规定。对此,下列说法正确的是( )。
不属于要约邀请行为的是( )。
石膏制品的物理性能有( )。
如果以前年度未分配利润有盈余(即年初未分配利润余额为正数),在计算提取法定盈余公积的基数时,不应包括企业年初未分配利润;如果以前年度有亏损(即年初未分配利润余额为负数),应先弥补以前年度亏损再提取盈余公积。()
Dinosaurswerereptileswhichbecameextinctabout65millionyearsago.Themost【C1】______questionaboutdinosaurshasalwaysb
LookatthenotesbelowaboutdetailsintheMarketReport.Someinformationismissing.Youwillhearpartofthe2008
A、Hehascanceledhistrip.B、Heisarrivingthisafternoon.C、Hehaschangedhisplan.D、Heforgottoarrangehistrip.CW:Sha
Whensomebodycalls,firstofall,the【B1】______wouldofferhimacigaretteandacupoftea.Inthecountryside,【B2】______,old
最新回复
(
0
)