Both Liberals and Conservatives Oppose Human Cloning
The reporting of the debate over human cloning is usually portrayed as a contest between religious opponents of abortion and medical researchers striving to benefit humankind. The stereotype was epitomized in a January 17, 2002, Washington Post story by science reporter Rick Weiss. Implying that opponents of human cloning are the moral equivalent of the Taliban, Weiss wrote:
"In November, researchers announced that they had made the first human embryo clones, giving immediacy to warnings by religious conservatives and others that science is no longer serving the nation's moral will. At the same time, the United States was fighting a war to free a faraway nation from the grip of religious conservatives who were denounced for imposing their moral code on others."(Washington)
The Post ombudsman gently rebuked Weiss for his "real or perceived bias," but the fact that he made the comparison, and that no editor removed it, is revealing.
In reality, the opponents of human cloning are not so easily categorized. For one thing, they include many secular activists associated with the pro-choice left. Last year, in a lopsided bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives passed the Weldon bill (H.2505), which would outlaw both research and reproductive human cloning. Among those supporting the ban were 21 House members whose voting records on abortion were at least 75 percent pro-choice as scored by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).
Now, 68 leftist activists have signed a "Statement in Support of Legislation to Prohibit Cloning." Among them are such notables as activist Jeremy Rifkin, New York University professor Todd Gitlin, novelist Norman Mailer, Commonweal editor Margaret O'Brien, Abortion Access Project director Susan Yanow, New Age spiritual leader Matthew Fox, and Judy Norsigian, author of the feminist manifesto "Our Bodies, Ourselves."
Among arguments against the cloning of human life, these leftists stress the "commercial eugenics" that the new technologies threaten to unleash. They write:
"We are also concerned about the increasing bio-industrialization of life by the scientific community and life science companies and shocked and dismayed that clonal human embryos have been patented and declared to be human "inventions." We oppose efforts to reduce human life and its various parts and processes to the status of mere research tools, manufactured products, commodities, and utilities."(Prepared)
These are points that conservative opponents of cloning have been making for a long time, with limited effect thanks to the media's obsession with the politics of abortion.
Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments.
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.
Kass, Leon, and James Q. Wilson, eds. The ethics of human cloning. American Enterprise Institute, 1998.
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.
“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.
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.
Smith, Shannon H. “Ignorance is Not Bliss: Why a Ban on Human Cloning is Unacceptable” Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine. Summer 1999. Vol. 9 issue 2. p311. web. 4 Apr. 2011
Stephens, Patrick. ?Human Cloning is Good for All of Us,? The Objectivist Center. April 3, 2001.
Macklin also states that in a democratic society we don't usually pass laws outlawing things before there is actual or probable evidence of harm. The same laws that now protect human rights should govern human cloning. "A world not safe ...
With the successful cloning of animals, many people have reacted with frightening and usually uninformed ideas about what cloning is and what researchers hope to achieve through it. Many wish to ban all cloning without even looking at the positive things that cloning will be able to provide for us in the future and with continued research. Like any new technology, people are at first afraid, but this is no excuse to abandon research that could one day save millions of people through cloned organs or give an alternative and safe means of reproduction to sterile couples. This fear has only been furthered by the media sensationalizing the advancement and tossing "Brave New World" into every headline. The uninformed also look to popular culture instead of facts to argue against cloning. Jurassic Park, Frankenstein and The Island of Doctor Moreau have shown to the majority of American the dark, evil side of cloning, which is not the aim of scientists and at present not technologically possible. It is obvious that we must act now and set guidelines, both ethical and legislative, but we should not ban cloning completely without further research.
Imagine living in a society where the ideology of human cloning is accepted. Envision being able to practice the procedure of taking a genetically identical copy of a biological entity and copying it to create an exact replica of the same genetic makeup. Today, in the field of genetics and developmental biology, the American Medical Association (AMA) has defined cloning as “the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)”. The idea of cloning surfaced in 1997 when Dr. Ian Wilmut, a British scientist, successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly. This turned the scientific world upside-down and was a prodigious success in the advancement of biotechnology. The success of the experiment was the starting point to animal cloning and further progression of cloning in general. In bioethics, the dissimilar notion of human cloning has been a very controversial yet sensitive issue which essentially questions the morals and principles of cloning as well as the merits of Science and Biology. Due to the breakthroughs in science, researchers have made outstanding advancements in biological science; however, the ideology of cloning is still a strong provocative issue. It not only provokes worry on the ethical issues and concerns of the use of biotechnology, but it also promotes the question is contemporary artificial cloning justifiable?
think tank called The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, was cited explaining; While there are well-founded reasons to be skeptical of Dr. Antinori’s claim that a woman is due to give birth to a clone soon, he reminds us that there are those who would continue this dangerous, unethical quest. Such experiments subject human beings produced through cloning to a high risk of death and deformity. The best way to ensure that cloning is not pursued is to pass a comprehensive ban on human cloning. The United States should do this as soon as possible and continue to press the case for a comprehensive ban treaty in the United Nations. (CNN.com)
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.
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>.