An Argument Against Cloning
Increase in genetic knowledge has created challenges in our society. Daniel Callahan focuses on these challenges and expresses his worry about the society (soil) on which this genetic knowledge is growing. Callahan asks the question of what kind of society (soil) is most likely be hazardous and introduces three patterns: 1) societies that demonize death and illness; 2) those societies that want to find biological solutions to social problems; and 3) societies with postmodern theory that there is no common social good, only a plurality of individual goods. In his essay Callahan is concerned about what kind of society we out to be and become before genetic technology can be used. I will use Callahans argument that we need to think about what kind of society we want to become to argue against using the genetic technology of cloning. I will use a deontological approach to argue that cloning should be banned because: 1) in our society that cares about individual rights (negative rights, non-interference) and is obsessed with control over death, disease and social behavior, the use of cloning has dangerous implications; and 2) cloning is de-humanizing because it leads to the loss of human dignity and what it means to be human (parts of Hollands argument will be used to support my second claim here).
What sort of society ought we to become? This question is Callahans main concern. After all, the main problem is not with the genetic knowledge, but in what kind of soil (society) that knowledge grows. Callahan argues that “it was not just bad genetic knowledge that led the Nazis astray: it was their culture of racism and anti-Semitism that allowed that knowledge to flourish and take root” (Callahan in Thomas...
... middle of paper ...
...rference) and is obsessed with control over death, disease and social behavior. Not until we are a society that cares about communal goods and learns to deal with death can we introduce human cloning. Second, I have argued that cloning is de-humanizing because it leads to a loss of human dignity and what it means to be a human. I want to leave the reader with the question of “why are we pursuing human cloning? Are our motives pure? Are we really thinking of communal good or are we focused only on our individual needs and desires? Do we even care about losing our human dignity and what it means to be a human?”
Bibliography:
Citations
1. Thomasma, David C. and Thomasine Kushner, eds., Birth to Death: Science and Bioethics (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
2. Holland, Suzanne, Why Biotechnology Should Listen to Ethics: The Issue of Human Cloning (1998).
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.
Beauchamp, T. 1999, ‘The Beginning and End of Life’ in Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, eds Walters, L. & Beauchamp, T., Wadsworth, Belmont CA, pp. 94-98.
The objective of this essay is to inform the reader(s) about human cloning. I believe that human cloning is morally wrong because one should not have the right to avoid daily responsibilities by getting someone else to handle them. There will be four sections of this paper that will be discussed. Firstly, there is an argumentative section, which will have premises along with a conclusion for an argument made against human cloning. Secondly, an explanation section, which explains how the argument against human cloning obeys the rules for a good argument. Thirdly, an objection section to where there are arguments that violates mine in order to demonstrate how objectors might object to the argument. Lastly, there will be a conclusion where I discuss
“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” (Kass) The concept of cloning continues to evoke debate, raising extensive ethical and moral controversy. As humans delve into the fields of science and technology, cloning, although once considered infeasible, could now become a reality. Although many see this advancement as the perfect solution to our modern dilemmas, from offering a potential cure for cancer, AIDS, and other irremediable diseases, its effects are easily forgotten. Cloning, especially when concerning humans, is not the direction we must pursue in enhancing our lives. It is impossible for us to predict its effects, it exhausts monetary funds, and it harshly abases humanity.
What is immoral about saving lives? Therapeutic cloning is a realistic opportunity for patients suffering from a number of diseases. Murnaghan states:
Cloning is not new; experiments with frogs and toads go back to the 1970’ with the experiments concerning animal and plant embryos have been preformed for
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.
Cloning has been a controversial topic since the time it was introduced, prompting questions of ethics. Although it has been unintentionally in use for thousands of years, it was first brought about in the 1960’s. As more and more discoveries have been gained since then, numerous uncertainties continue to be raised among scientists, politicians, and anyone interested in the issue. While the idea of cloning is intriguing and polarizing, there is a fine like that defines what is and isn’t ethical; it is moral to clone cells for research development and plants for agricultural desires, but it is in no way acceptable to clone humans and animals for reproductive reasons.
How should we think about cloning as philosophers and feminists? Reproducing by cloning is not, in itself, morally inferior to reproducing by human sexual reproduction. Moral criticism of cloning in itself rests on condemnation of cloning's "unnaturalness" or "impiety," but this kind of criticism should not persuade non-believers. In this paper, cloning is evaluated in two phases. First, some hypothetical situations involving private choices about cloning are examined within a liberal framework. From this individualistic perspective, cloning appears no more morally problematic than is sexual reproduction. A liberal feminist may welcome the possibility of human cloning, as expanding the range of reproductive options open to women. The second phase argues for a shift in framework of analysis to get a more complete evaluation of the ethical implications of human cloning, including questions of distributive justice and the ideology of reproduction.
For years, the prospect of human cloning was fodder for outrageous science-fiction stories and nothing more. However, in more recent times, human cloning has moved significantly closer to becoming a reality. Accordingly, the issue has evoked a number of strong reactions, both praising and condemning the procedure. The fact that human cloning not just affects human lives indirectly but actually involves tinkering with human creation has forced human cloning into a position of controversy. The progress of the issue of human cloning, then, has been shaped not only by the abilities and resources of scientists but by public opinion and by governmental regulation that has resulted from public pressure.
Human cloning is an artificial reproduction process in which the offspring is created identically to its original down to their genetic level. This is accomplished by destroying a fertilized egg’s genetic component and inserting it with the replicated DNA sequence which the egg may accept and multiply. Once accepted, the fertilized egg will multiply to an embryo. During the early stage of development, an embryo is mostly made of stem cells. Stem cells attract scientist due to the fact that a stem cell can be grown into most organs and parts of the human body. The primary goal for human cloning is to use these stem cells to grow organs and chemicals in a lab to aid the original person’s life in medical condition. In defense of the Catholic Church
Most people argue that human cloning is not morally and ethically acceptable due to both religious concerns and long-term health problems. The notion of cloning organisms has always been troublesome because of unpredictable consequences. “Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture” (C...
... In: Thomasma D, Kushner T, Eds. From birth to death—science and bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Burley, Justine, ed. The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 24 September 2001 <http://emedia.netlibrary.com/ reader/reader.asp?product_id=27508>.