In “Jennifer and Rachel,” Lee M. Silver argues that reproductive cloning deems permissible to those who encourage it, as opposed to those who reject it and don’t want to run the risk of how they’ll look in the eyes of society. Jennifer, an independent career driven woman, believes that the best way to have a baby of her own at her age is by cloning. Silver’s description of the cloning procedure is done by retrieving cells from the willing adult; prepare the cells for merging to unfertilized eggs, and then the embryos that develop successfully will be introduced to the uterus of the willing adult. Jennifer partakes in the cloning procedure and it was successful. Nine months later on March 15, 2050, Rachel was born.
Silver believes that Rachel will grow up just like any other child, but she will be “special.” Until the day that reproductive cloning is accepted in society, Rachel will be known for being “special.” Genetically, Jennifer isn’t Rachel’s mother. Jennifer is in fact Rachel’s twin sister. Rachel’s grandparents not only have the title of grandparents, but of Rachel’s genetic parents as well. Therefore, when considering cloning, reconsideration of the roles of relatives should be taken into account.
According to Silver, William Safire, columnist of The New York Times, views cloning as a way of taking someone’s identicality away. The uniqueness of the cloned person would be lacking, thus evolution would be restricted. Silver says that Safire is wrong because evolution and the progress of mankind don’t intertwine, and is unpredictable. Safire, along with almost everyone, cannot prove arguments of religion because religion is simply not provable. Silver thinks that some religious people are concerned that clonin...
... middle of paper ...
... Silver’s motive behind surreptitious cloning is that most people will still look down upon it even if they accept other practices of the cloning procedures and technology. Those who will participate run the risk of intruding upon someone else’s reproductive rights. Silver thinks surreptitious cloning will occur, but the question is when and where that will take place.
Silver’s argument illustrates to his audience that reproductive cloning deems permissible, but most people of today’s society frown upon reproductive cloning and don’t accept it. He believes that each individual has the right to whether or not they would want to participate in reproductive cloning because it is their reproductive right. However, those who participate in cloning run the risk of other’s imposing on their reproductive rights, but the risk would be worth it to have their own child.
Therapeutic cloning is the process whereby parts of a human body are grown independently from a body from STEM cells collected from embryos for the purpose of using these parts to replace dysfunctional ones in living humans. Therapeutic Cloning is an important contemporary issue as the technology required to conduct Therapeutic Cloning is coming, with cloning having been successfully conducted on Dolly the sheep. This process is controversial as in the process of collecting STEM cells from an embryo, the embryo will be killed. Many groups, institutions and religions see this as completely unacceptable, as they see the embryo as a human life. Whereas other groups believe that this is acceptable as they do not believe that the embryo is a human life, as well as the fact that this process will greatly benefit a large number of people. In this essay I will compare the view of Christianity who are against Therapeutic Cloning with Utilitarianism who are in favour of Therapeutic Cloning.
In 2001 scientist attempted to create a cloned human embryo, they had consulted all the necessary sources before getting the “ok” to begin “creating”. Then they had to find a female subject to donate eggs. To start the process of cloning they need to use a very fine needle and get the genetic information from a mature egg. Then they inject it into the nucleus of a donor cell. The female donors were asked to take psychological and physical tests to screen for diseases and what not.
Cameron, Nigel, (2003) Cloning at Christmas: a reflective commentary. The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network. Retrieved October 3, 2004 from: http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/research_display.php?id=43
In arguing against cloning, the central debate is derived from the fact that this unnatural process is simply unethical. The alleged
.... Until a successful attempt of creating life emerges in upcoming history, the possibility of cloning may never reveal its truth. Matters of opinion judge the positive and negative outcomes of artificial animal reproduction, and numerous instances prove its everlasting positive outlook for world community, science, and theology.
His act of science would question if cloning was a practical and morally acceptable thing to do. Firstly, even attempting to clone insults God's role as a creator. Showing full determination, Aldona says, "Christian, however, feel that we have no right to play the role of God, because He is the only one Creator and act of creation depends on Him." (Zbikowska 13-16). We know God's role is to create men, women, animals and nature in his image in the way he sees perfect, not the way we see ourselves as perfect. God has the intention of making us, and when others try to mimic him it deteriorates his role in the world. Aside from the idea that cloning is insulting to God, it can also hurt others. Even though cloning has been developing for the past few decades, it is still a fairly unsuccessful procedure. In most cases, cloning is successful only less than one percent of the time. Moreover,
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.
Imagine a world where everyone looked like you and was related to you as a sibling, cousin, or any form of relation, wouldn’t that be freaky? Although cloning is not an important issue presently, it could potentially replace sexual reproduction as our method of producing children. Cloning is a dangerous possibility because it could lead to an over-emphasis on the importance of the genotype, no guaranteed live births, and present risks to both the cloned child and surrogate mother. It also violates the biological parent-child relationship and can cause the destruction of the normal structure of a family. The cloning of the deceased is another problem with cloning because it displays the inability of the parents to accept the child’s death and does not ensure a successful procedure. Along with the risks, there are benefits to Human Reproductive Cloning. It allows couples who cannot have a baby otherwise to enjoy parenthood and have a child who is directly related to them. It also limits the risk of transmitting genetic diseases to the cloned child and the risk of genetic defects in the cloned child. Although the government has banned Human Reproductive Cloning, the issue will eventually come to the surface and force us to consider the 1st commandment of God, all men are equal in the eyes of god, but does this also include clones? That is the question that we must answer in the near future in order to resolve a controversy that has plagued us for many years.
In the essay, Cloning Reality: Brave New World by Wesley J. Smith, a skewed view of the effects of cloning is presented. Wesley feels that cloning will end the perception of human life as sacred and ruin the great diversity that exists today. He feels that cloning may in fact, end human society as we know it, and create a horrible place where humans are simply a resource. I disagree with Wesley because I think that the positive effects of controlled human cloning can greatly improve the quality of life for humans today, and that these benefits far outweigh the potential drawbacks that could occur if cloning was misused.
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
With a scenario as presented above, cloning might seem like the answer to hundreds of lives taken at the expense of uncontrollable forces. But is there another side to the story? Isn't there always? Professor Kevin Williams of Georgetown University is still depicting the ambiguity of this topic when he states, "Like Adam and Eve, we want to be God, to be in control. The question is, what are the limits?" (U.S. News World Report). Making an identical copy of another human being is a rather drastic move, a move that in most people's eyes can only be carried through by God. Some deem that cloning would put us in the shoes of God. They believe that instead of God creating life, we would. Some professors beg to differ, like David Fletcher of Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL who argues, "It is still only God who creates life."
In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of “Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?” John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjustified and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the flip side of this issue Attorney and medical ethicist George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be implemented upon it. Both express valid points and I will critique the articles to better understand their points.
Although the purpose of therapeutic cloning is not to manufacture a new individual, there are still debates on whether it is morally acceptable. There are different perspectives on all matter of this subject. Most contrasting are a fetalist and a feminist perspective. The details are extremely complex in the way both assess the topic of instrumental use of embryos, but the opinion on research is still debatable. Our generation is facing heavy involvement in this dispute as the future
Robinson, Bruce. “Human Cloning: Comments by political groups, religious authorities, and individuals.” 3 August 2001. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 1 October 2001 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/clo_reac.htm>.
This dialogue is between two students at the university. Steve is a little uncomfortable about cloning, while Sally presents many valid arguments in favor of it. Steve presents many moral questions that Sally answers.