Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why should cloning not be allowed
Cloning of humans and animals
Stem cell research and ethical issues surrounding the topic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why should cloning not be allowed
Introduction
The cloning of human embryos for biomedical research has be an ethical issue ever since the opportunity presented itself. To get a better grasp of the issue, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry was read to see what the moral issues were involved with the cloning of human embryos. The paper discusses two main points: the cloning of human embryos should be used for biomedical research and the cloning of human embryos should not be used for biomedical research. The paper has broken the section for the use of cloning embryos into two positions, so there are really three positions provided in reading. I have chosen to agree with position one in the paper.
Position one states that we should be able to go through with cloning as long as there are limitations attached. These limitations include deciding on a length in time in which the embryo has to be harvested, having the government monitor the individuals or groups that engage in the research, a ban on commerce in living cloned human embryos, human subjects will be researched on with the highest standards of ethics, a prior scientific review of the proposed uses of cloned embryos to judge their unique medical and scientific benefits, and research will continue into non-embryonic sources of stem cells. Position one, along with positions two and three will be discussed further in the following paper.
Summary
As mentioned before there are three positions that are involved in this debate. The first two positions state that the cloning of embryos should be allowed. However, position one puts limitations on the cloning while position two has does not. As I had stated earlier, I believe position one to be morally ethical. The last position or the third position...
... middle of paper ...
...o believe that there is no difference with throwing away left over embryos from IVF than there is using cloned embryos for research. If the cloning of embryos for biomedical research is not accepted, then I believe that IVF should be performed so that only one egg is fertilized at a time. This would completely eliminate any embryos that are being discarded by the IVF clinics.
A unanimous decision should be made on when to consider an embryo a human being that has morality. Until then I believe that the embryo is not close to a human life unless it has made it past the fourteen day period in which it is passed the twinning stage. So with this information I come to the conclusion that under specific regulations and laws, including the ones I mentioned in the summary, the cloning of embryos for biomedical research and obtaining stem cells should be deemed acceptable.
This is because I do not see the human embryo as being alive, a view even supported by the Church of Scotland, a group against therapeutic cloning, as they are “unsure about when life begins” in regards to the embryo. As the embryo is not alive, “killing” it to benefit a large number of people who would no longer suffer is morally acceptable. It would also prevent any suffering from anything similar ever again, again justifying using embryos for therapeutic cloning; a contrasting view to this would be the view of the Roman Catholic Church who believe that the human embryo is a part of God, and therefore harming the embryo is harming God. Therefore they completely disallow the collection of STEM cells from embryos and ignore the positive consequences that are a result of using STEM cells from
In my opinion I think that one of the main reasons people are against IVF or cloning of embryos is that there is a higher chance of an abortion. During in vitro fertilization there is a chance of multiple pregnancies and if there are multiple babies a lot of times the doctors will recommend a reduction of babies because of the likely hood of disabilities in the
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.
...ns of a morally questionable nature. It is necessary that our practices remain ethical and that we uphold the value of a human life, as this is the cornerstone of human society. Embryonic stem cell research is one such operation that forces scientists, policy makers, and the larger society to define what constitutes a human life and to find an answer to the crucial question: Is it morally acceptable to violate the rights of a human life for the for the sake of medical progress?
...ting embryos specifically for stem cell research should not be allowed. Continued stem cell research will benefit all of mankind with its promise of medical advances. Opponents’ concerns about destroying human life will be quelled because stem cells will be taken from already doomed embryos. The federal government will be able to regulate the research and ensure that it is lawfully conducted.
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
While many support embryonic stem cell research, some people oppose it say that it is an unethical practice. According to these people, embryonic stem cells require murdering a baby, human life is defined by rational beings, those capable of rational thought or a consciousness. In order to be rational one must have a consciousness, the ability to have thoughts and feel pain, to begin with. “For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness” (Stem). If abortions are allowed within the United States, why shouldn’t embryonic stem cell research be? Another claim against embryonic stem cell research is that it devalues human lives. “Some argue that researching embryonic stem cells will lead us into cloning technology” (Embryonic). While embryonic cloning is a possibility, we already possess the capabilities to clone so cloning is an invalid argument. The final argument against embryonic stem cell research is that there are alternatives, like adult stem cells. While adult stem cells may be utilized, they won’t be as effective. Embryonic stem cells are not only efficient but also renewable. They can be grown in a culture where as adult stem cells are extremely rare, if there are any. They can only be found in mature tissue. Isolating these extremely rare cells is challenging and has a high failure rate if not harvested correctly. “One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become” (Stem). Using adult stem cells we might never understand our development from conception ...
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
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.
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.
Both processes also differ in the sense that reproductive cloning has fewer advantages when compared to therapeutic techniques. Studies have consistently made evident the fact that genetically cloned animals have shorter life spans, as well as an inferior quality of life. Consequently, they also lack in genetic variation, which makes the organism more susceptible to disease, and other obstructive circumstances. Contrarily, therapeutic cloning is employed for medicinal purposes, and therefore, ethical implications are quite easy to justify. The continuing practice of therapeutic cloning in relation to stem cell research, can potentially alleviate and cure many incorrigible diseases, which is a significant benefit. Reproductive cloning on the other hand, could be described as a practice instigated to fulfil the many scientific curiosities mankind possesses, and does not have a legitimate reason as to why it is
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).
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.
Human cloning is also unethical. Cloning, especially therapeutic cloning, requires the use of human embryos. Using these embryos would mean killing unborn children. Therapeutic cloning begins by removing the stem cells from an embryo (Human Cloning). The stem cells are used to grow bone, nerve, and muscle tissue. In the process of therapeutic cloning, an embryo, or a baby in the early stages of development, is taken and parts of it are grown to develop parts of the body including organs and limbs (Human Cloning). Removing these stem cells would kill the embryo. The embryo, which would result in a child if left in the mother’s womb, is separated into parts, which are used for science.
With everything taken into account, cloning is not something that an individual shall do. Your decision about cloning matters and now you must decide if cloning is a good or bad idea? I do hope you make the decision of making cloning illegal for animals as well as humans. It is a matter of ethical and moral issues. It does not make a difference if it is an embryo or not, murdering it is not right and should not even be