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. The first argument in support of human reproductive cloning is that it could be used to provide children to those who cannot have them through biological means. Infertile or same-sex couples who wish to have children face a dilemma: other people must always be involved in order to have a child. Adoption is the obvious choice, but the child is not genetically related to either parent. Those who wish to have a ... ... middle of paper ... ... 10.(2005): 50-55. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. Choi, Charles Q. "Cloning of a Human." Scientific American 302.6 (2010): 36-38. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. Havstad, Joyce C. "Human Reproductive Cloning: A Conflict of Liberties." Bioethics 24.2 (2010): 71-77. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 24 Feb. 2011. MacDonald, Chris. “Yes, Human Cloning Should be Permitted.” Apocalypse:Bright Future/Dark Future. Ed. Patrick F. Bolen. New York: Pearson, 2011. 325-328. Print. Simons, Janet A., Donald B. Irwin, and Beverly A. Drinnin. "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs." Psychology: the Search for Understanding. St. Paul: West Pub., 1987. Print. World Health Organization. "Reproductive cloning of human beings: status of the debate in the United Nations General Assembly." WHO.int. World Health Organization, 2004. Web. 23 Feb. 2011.
Kass, Leon, and James Q. Wilson, eds. The ethics of human cloning. American Enterprise Institute, 1998.
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
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.
The matter of human reproductive cloning is a complex topic, in which there are many issues that must be addressed before any actions take place. Any decision based on reproductive cloning will not be clear-cut, and instead will host a multitude of ideas. In this paper, I will determine, through philosophical thinking, if human reproductive cloning is morally appropriate.
How should we think about cloning as philosophers and feminists? Reproduction by cloning is not, in itself, morally inferior to human sexual reproduction. Moral criticism of cloning rests on condemnation of its "unnaturalness" or "impiety," but this kind of criticism should not persuade non-believers. I evaluate cloning 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 sexual reproduction. A liberal feminist may welcome the possibility of human cloning as an expansion of the range of reproductive options open to women. The second phase argues for a shift in the framework of analysis in order to get a more complete evaluation of the ethical implications of human cloning, including questions of distributive justice and the ideology of reproduction.
Herbert, Wray. The World After Cloning. U.S. News and World Report. March 10, 1997: 59-64.
Although the issue of human cloning has received the most attention within the last two years, cloning techniques have existed since the late 1970s. The cloning technique used at this time was a process called artificial twinning which involved split ting a single fertilized ovum into what are then considered new embryos and then implanting each into a female to be carried to term (religioustolerance.org 1). These experiments, however, were limited to animals. By the 1980s and early 1990s, during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, restrictions had been placed on the research of the cloning of human beings. The pro-life groups, which have considerabl e influence in the Republican party, held many concerns about the experimentation and destruction of human embryos, which they consider people with rights, thus they pressured the administration for restrictions on research (cac.psu.edu 1). A series of measures prohibiting federal funding for human cloning were thus implement...
Stephens, Patrick. ?Human Cloning is Good for All of Us,? The Objectivist Center. April 3, 2001.
8. Pellegrino, Edmund D., “Human Cloning and Human Dignity.” The President’s Council on Bioethics. 22 July 2007
A growing controversy in the world today is cloning. One stance is that cloning and cloning research should be banned altogether. Another position is in support of no restrictions of cloning and that scientists should be able to test on animals if they deem it necessary. Many other views are squeezed into different gray areas on the topic. It would be beneficial to explore the methods, benefits, moral and ethical conflicts involved with human cloning to fully understand the pros of cloning. The methods of human cloning and the research that accompanies them can provide a great deal of benefits. The benefits of human cloning include important medical breakthroughs, reproduction, and morality issues.
1) Robertson, John A. “Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 339, no. 2 (July 9, 1998), pp. 119-122.
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>.
"See you in two years with your cloned child," says the doctor to his patient. Such a statement sounds so bizarre and futuristic, but scientists believe cloning "is no longer the realm of science fiction" (Virginia, Sirs). Its "just a matter of time before the first cloned [humans]" (Virginia, Sirs). Although this practice does not seem dangerous, cloning should be banned because it takes away the individual importance of human beings, is too risky, and also morally wrong.
Cloning in today’s modern society has evolved into a very sophisticated practice of making identical copies of an organism. Scientists are able to clone different animals and plants exceptionally better than they were years ago, which leads many to wonder if humans will be next. Cloning has tremendous medical and economic pros; however, the morality of cloning does raise many conflicts on whether or not it should be performed throughout the world.