In “Never Let Me Go” by Kazuo Ishiguro we see cloned human beings that are raised in a boarding school so that they can grow up and become organ donors. The main purpose of these kids was growing up and donating their organs one by one till they finally die at an early age. These kids were not treated as human beings. They were created in a test tube just to be a donor. The main character who was also a donor is the narrator of this story. Life should be controlled by the person that owns it and that person should make decisions how to live and where to live, clones are still human beings with soul and flesh there for they deserve human right. If they cannot get the right they deserve then cloning should be illegal unless there is understandable reason. These kids are raised in a place called hailsham, where they are taken care of so that they can stay healthy but they were not allowed to leave the school and socialize with the world till they turn eighteen and graduate.
If clones are the exact copy of their originals then they are humans because saying that clones are not human’s means denying that their originals are humans because they are the same. Clones should have the same human rights as their original and the freedom to make their own decision. The clones kids in the movie were not counted as a human being and this particular school, halisham was a school opened trying to prove the world that these kids are like human beings and carry a soul but everybody including the kids accepted their purpose in life and nobody seems to fight or try to change the fact that they have to die for others life. These three kids were no different from regular teenagers. They have emotions, they can fall in love, they get sad, annoyed, ma...
... middle of paper ...
...hat is going to be saved is important, the clones are as important also. People die every day so instead of taking the rights of the people that are alive, it is better to take the right of the ones that are already dead and use their organs to save people. If using dead people’s organ is not enough then we can work on creating artificial organs that will work like the original one because cloning for donation is not an option.
Works Cited
"Genesis 1:27." The New Testament in Four Versions: King James, Revised Standard, Phillips Modern English, New English Bible. Washington: Christianity Today, 1963. N. pag. Print.
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
Rosen, Gary. "What Would A Clone Say?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Nov. 2005. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
Kass, Leon, and James Q. Wilson, eds. The ethics of human cloning. American Enterprise Institute, 1998.
Children grow up watching movies such as Star Wars as well as Gattaca that contain the idea of cloning which usually depicts that society is on the brink of war or something awful is in the midsts but, with todays technology the sci-fi nature of cloning is actually possible. The science of cloning obligates the scientific community to boil the subject down into the basic category of morality pertaining towards cloning both humans as well as animals. While therapeutic cloning does have its moral disagreements towards the use of using the stem cells of humans to medically benefit those with “incomplete” sets of DNA, the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the disagreements indubitably due to the fact that it extends the quality of life for humans.
In the summer of 1996, an animal unlike any other was born unto the world. Roughly three feet high and covered in an insulating material, there were countless others that looked nearly identical freely roaming the countryside. But this animal was special; it was precisely identical to one of its brethren. Dolly the sheep was the first ever manmade clone, an exact copy of its genetic donor. In the fifteen years since the birth of Dolly cloning technology has been improving at a steady pace, and now humanity as a whole is at an impasse: human clones. Scientists are very close to being able to clone a human being, but should they? A ban on human cloning issued by the World Health Organization is in place (World Health Organization 1) but it is non-binding in nature, and individual governments must come up with their own cloning policies. For the United States, the choice is obvious: the federal government should not place a ban on human reproductive cloning. There are numerous reasons for this, such as the notion of cloning as an alternative to adoption, the elimination of disease, the possibility of continuing life after death, and the possibility of an improved quality of life for the clones themselves. At the same time, there are arguments against human cloning, mostly centering on moral issues, that must also be addressed.
In this case, this will be the beginning of human degradation because clones will be treated as commodities or purchased products. Although couples commonly have babies for purposes such as improving a marriage or continuing a family name, human clones can possibly serve as savior siblings or replacements. Savior siblings will only function as spare parts, while a replacement child stands in a shadow of their deceased clone. They represent means to an end by being forced into existence for a sole purpose to alleviate pain and misery from the preexisting. In my opinion, reproductive cloning will turn into a game for the countless number of egotistical people that our society obtains. As irrational as this may be, human cells will eventually be sold, so other people can produce babies that resemble past legends, or current superstars, and even dead geniuses. From the article by Philip Kitcher in the Science, Ethics, and Public Policy of Human Cloning book, the author recognized how prevalent cloning will become when commenters ventured how legitimate it would be to clone Einstein. He indicated, “Polls showed that Mother Teresa was the most popular choice for person-to-be-cloned, although a film star (Michelle Pfeiffer) was not far behind, and Bill and Hilary Clinton obtained some support〖."〗^7The quote signifies how cloning will eventually convert into a luxury to please peoples’ irrational means, increasing the chances for people to be equated to their genetic determinism. Kant identifies humans as authors to the moral law because of our possession of human dignity. According to Devolder’s article, “UNESCO's Universal
In conclusion, it is clear to see that cloning is not the taboo it has been made out to be. It is a new boundary that humanity has never encountered before and so it is understandable that people have qualms about ‘playing God’ by shaping a life. Although some might argue that it is immoral to clone human beings, the truth is that it is unethical not to. Given that such technology has the potential to save millions upon millions of lives, not tapping into that industry would have dire consequences on the future. In this case, the ends more certainly justify the means.
Some who oppose the idea that the clones are human because they have a desire to have sex, would claim that they are not human because they cannot reproduce. Yes this ture the clones cannot reproduce, but there are also humans in the real world who cannot reproduce, so they depend on other methods like adoption. Humans who cannot reproduce still desires sex, like the clones in the novel that desire sex but cannot reproduce. This idea and the fact that there are real humans who can relate helps prove their humanity and not deny it like some may think.
Human nature is built on the foundation of morals, integrity and ethics, therefore we must protect the last shred of innocence us humans possess using strict guidelines called “Human Rights”. If we were able to clone human beings, would our clones be considered human beings? Considering the fact that the clones will possess every quality of a human being, they should be subjected to human rights as well. However, though they contain the qualities of a human being, they also contain genetic information that came from one specific person. If that genetic information belongs to that one specific person, the clone would belong to that one specific person. If the clone belongs to another human being, that would directly conflict with human rights because the clones no longer have the right to be free. To state it in a simpler form, they are simply slaves to their genetic owners. Being under one’s ownership would decrease the value of ones life. Given that the clones would be put under ownership, they no longer practice the right of freedom, and they are no longer equal to any other human being. C...
Theologians contend that to clone a human would violate human dignity...But why suppose that cloned persons wouldn't share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us? ...There's the fear...that parents might clone a child to have 'spare parts' in case the original child needs an organ transplant. But parents of identical twins don't view one child as an organ farm for the other. Why should cloned children's parents be any different? ...Even if human cloning offers no obvious benefits to society why ban it? (64)
Farnsworth, Joseph. "To Clone or Not to Clone: The Ethical Question." To Clone or Not to Clone: The Ethical Question. Web. 22 May 2016.
In the novel Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, a group of clones take a unique journey through adolescence. These clones are modeled after real humans, and they grow up with the knowledge that they will one day die donating their vital organs to the aforementioned. In their early lives, the clones are quarantined in a boarding school from which they are not allowed to leave. As the group grows older though, they split up and move to separate houses where they are given more freedom. Most of the clones spend their last couple years in these houses before they are summoned to begin donating. Strangely, none of the clones attempt to counterattack any of this. They willfully follow all directions and accept what is told to them. The clones in
A clone is a genetic replica of a cell, plant, and animal. One may ask what the controversy on this topic is or why is this topic important? The supporters of cloning see many reasons to continue and develop this form of creating children. Supporters believe everyone should have the right to have a child and cloning will help with certain conditions requiring transplants or rid humans of certain diseases. Arguments against the process of cloning believe the process is dangerous and that morally we should not create individuals with the same genetic material as another. In relation, John Stuart Mills believed in utilitarianism which overall is happiness for the greatest number of people based on utility. With Mills’ ideals of utility or the greatest happiness principle, I will argue in support for cloning.
Last of all, Cloning is not ethical, many religious groups look down upon cloning and think it’s not proper because they think it’s like playing God. Many scientists were mainly thinking about cloning animals and, most likely, humans in the future to harvest their organs and then kill them. “Who would actually like to be harvested and killed for their organs?” “Human cloning exploits human beings for our own self-gratification (Dodson, 2003).” A person paying enough money could get a corrupt scientist to clone anybody they wanted, like movie stars, music stars, athletes, etc (Andrea Castro 2005),” whether it be our desire for new medical treatments or our desire to have children on our own genetic terms (Dodson, 2003).
John A. Robertson, “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 119-122.
Seidel, Jr., George E. "Cloning." World Book Student. World Book, 2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. source 19
Wachbroit, Robert. “Human Cloning Isn’t as Scary as it Sounds.” The Washington Post 2 March 1997. 3 October 2001 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/national/science/cloning/cloning6.htm>.