Cloning is a recent innovative technique the National Institute of Health defines as a process employed to produce genetically identical copies of a biological entity. Depending on the purpose for the clone, human health or even human life can be improved or designed respectively. “Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the most common cloning technique. SCNT involves putting the nucleus of a body cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed."^1 From this technique, an embryonic cell is activated to produce an animal that is genetically identical to the donor. Today, human cloning still remains as a vision, but because of the success of Dolly, the lamb, researchers are becoming more confident in the ability to produce a genuine …show more content…
human clone. Although reproductive cloning can possibly provide infertile couples a chance to breed a genetically related baby or grieving families a chance to replace the lost of a loved one, it generates numerous significant bioethical issues. Cloning presents questions that cannot be clearly resolved. In addition, arguments advocating for our diversity, uniqueness, and safety must be justified due to the adverse effects that cloning endures. Reproductive cloning may produce positive outcomes, but unfortunately, I do suppose that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Weaknesses of cloning include: an excessive failing rate, a shorter life span for the clone, and declines in the diversity of our society. Therefore, it is not morally right for our society to encourage future reproductive cloning. I believe that it should be prohibited because it is a threat to our society according to the principles of nonmaleficence, natural law, and Kant’s categorical imperative theory. Nonmaleficence Reproductive cloning may cause more harm than benefit to our society. On the positive side, it would be most beneficial in providing infertile couples the opportunity to have a child. Not to mention, it is even a chance for gay couples to finally reproduce a baby that is genetically related to one of them. Therefore, how much harm can be associated with reproductive cloning? According to CBS News, a company called Clonaid, announced that they had successfully produced the first human clone in 2002 and named her Eve. However, Clonaid refused to give the whereabouts of the family or the clone for their protection. Unfortunately, this company was ridiculed, pilloried, and interrogated for further updates on this baby until their announcement was debunked. The CBS news reported that Clonaid was a fraud. They knew how much people were willing to pay millions of dollars to clone oneself or even the dead. A popular physician from London, named Patrick Dixon, explained in his article how people responded to Clonaid’s astounding statement, “The only reasons people want to clone are for selfish reasons. They are totally obsessed with their own right to have a clone or to clone dead relatives, without any regard to the welfare of the child, and this is the whole thrust of it〖."〗^2 Clonaid, currently, still disagrees with being entitled as fraudulent and confidently states how the first clone is living amongst our society. With no evidence or proof, other researchers cannot support their claim. Instead, Clonaid’s announcement only increased the request for cloned babies and gave researchers a new founding hope to win “the first human clone” race. Not only does this signify how reproductive cloning will be a popular market among our society, but it also foreshadows the establishment of a black marketing business for human eggs. The scientists at the Roslin Institute performed nuclear somatic cell transfer 277 times before Dolly, the lamb, was successfully cloned. Therefore, the scientists went through almost 300 embryos to produce one animal. If a great deal of people wants to be cloned, then there will be a need for huge amounts of human eggs. The Human Genetics Alert, an independent public interest overseer group located in London, has warned people from their press publications about the advancement in biomedical research for reproducing human clones. They specified, “If a market in cloning were to develop, it would require a huge supply of eggs, which would most likely come from poor women, in the same way that such women are already exploited in the US surrogacy market. These women would have to undergo the risks associated with hormone treatments〖."〗^3 A black market for human eggs will discernibly degrade women’s dignity and equality. It would force them to abandon their plans for a normal childbirth fulfilled in its proper origin through matrimonial love. Above all, Dolly died at a very young age due to high instability effects of cloning. Most successfully cloned animals are born with severe abnormalities and suffer early deaths. Knowing that cloned animals are born with terrible defects can only raise my concern for the well being of a human clone. In other words, reproductive cloning will not be as much of an advantage to our society, and according to the principle of nonmaleficence, advancements in health or medical related technology are considered as moral only if the improvements benefit society and inflict the least amount of harm. Natural Law Since humans are naturally influenced by faith or belief in a higher entity, reproductive cloning is typically perceived as unnatural. According to the natural law theory, human life is valued for its complex creation and is highly considered as a gift from God. Therefore, a natural, human clone is defined as an identical twin of another individual that shares the same genetic information and mother. However, babies born from reproductive cloning can have as many as four ‘genetic’ parents and be developed years after the identical twin. This raises concerns for family generations and relationships because reproductive cloning could dangerously exacerbate our society’s current relational situations. “For example, a woman who has a child conceived through cloning would actually be the twin of her child and the woman's mother would, genetically, be its mother, not grandmother〖."〗^4As unstable as parenting can be for a child in today’s society, reproductive cloning apparently will only intensify complications between a parent and child. In addition to complicating relationships, cloning is highly classified as “playing God”, but what does this mean? How can this apply to everyone? Reproductive cloning is unnatural because it differs from earlier human reproduction interventions such as contraception, legalized abortion, ultrasound screening, and even surrogacy. “Cloning differs decisively from these earlier interventions in reproduction, which work with, and overcome blocks to, natural sexual reproduction: cloning forces something that never happens naturally, and thereby invents a form of reproduction which is entirely unnatural for humans, ie. asexual reproduction."^5 Overall, reproductive cloning has the power to transform the diversity of mankind to a compelled uniform system. There can possibly be a dominant production of an identical genetic animal or human being, coercing our society into pure uniformity. Human Genetics Alert argued that natural sexual reproduction yields genetic variety, uniqueness, and unpredictability for a reason, while cloning offends our deepest value for individuality.^6 Although reproductive cloning has the authority to supply infertile couples a baby or replace the loss of a loved one, the release from infertility or suffering respectively does not justify the means. Also, in my opinion, bringing a child back from the dead is beyond disturbing, and would force someone to live in a shadow of a previous human being. Therefore, the risk of cloning is not worth the sacrifice of our society. It only has the potential to benefit the minority and fulfill everyone else’s greed. Decisions are considered as morally right in support and conformity of the natural law theory, but cloning cannot conform to our complex and diverse human formation. It could strip away our complexity and change life, as we know it. Reproductive cloning lacks the respect for our complexity and is trying to repair life that is naturally flawed. Human existence will always be valued for its spontaneity. It will always be our gift from Him, and that it should remain. Categorical Imperative Lastly, Immanuel Kant’s core moral theory of the categorical imperative in respect for all of humanity is expressed as: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never as a means only."^7Essentially, Kant’s theory forbids any person to be used for egotistical desires.
In this case, this will be the beginning of human degradation because clones will be treated as commodities or purchased products. Although couples commonly have babies for purposes such as improving a marriage or continuing a family name, human clones can possibly serve as savior siblings or replacements. Savior siblings will only function as spare parts, while a replacement child stands in a shadow of their deceased clone. They represent means to an end by being forced into existence for a sole purpose to alleviate pain and misery from the preexisting. In my opinion, reproductive cloning will turn into a game for the countless number of egotistical people that our society obtains. As irrational as this may be, human cells will eventually be sold, so other people can produce babies that resemble past legends, or current superstars, and even dead geniuses. From the article by Philip Kitcher in the Science, Ethics, and Public Policy of Human Cloning book, the author recognized how prevalent cloning will become when commenters ventured how legitimate it would be to clone Einstein. He indicated, “Polls showed that Mother Teresa was the most popular choice for person-to-be-cloned, although a film star (Michelle Pfeiffer) was not far behind, and Bill and Hilary Clinton obtained some support〖."〗^7The quote signifies how cloning will eventually convert into a luxury to please peoples’ irrational means, increasing the chances for people to be equated to their genetic determinism. Kant identifies humans as authors to the moral law because of our possession of human dignity. According to Devolder’s article, “UNESCO's Universal
Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997) was the first international document to condemn human reproductive cloning as a practice against human dignity〖."〗^8 One of the articles in the declaration specifically declared reproductive cloning as a threat to human significance. Other international documents such as the World Health Organization, the World Medical Association, and the European parliament has also agreed to the harmful effects cloning can provoke. Human dignity should be respected in all aspects including the advancement in medical technology. However, people question whether dignity alone can justify ethical issues, but in this case, I believe that human dignity or a person’s worth is enough to support an argument on any ethical issues. Human dignity is important for our humanity, and it is stolen when people are used as a means to an end. According to Kant, humans should always be the end, but reproductive cloning does not comply. Therefore, the categorical imperative theory does more than justify my argument; it reinforces it by promoting the respect of all humanity and noticing that we are essential and worthy of our value. Rebuttals Now, promoters of reproductive cloning assume that the benefits do outweigh its disadvantages. In fact, they claim how commonly society disagrees with unnatural entities just to subsequently accept them. In the supporters’ perception, “human cloning is the next step in human evolution; the gateway to the genetic self-improvement of mankind; and the desirable continuation of modern civilization's mastery of nature for the relief of man's estate."^9 As a result, cloning is believed to agree with all of the core values humans attain such as the various freedoms humans have to reproduce, to invent, to progress, or improve. Furthermore, cloning could advance a person’s estate, which agrees with man’s desire to prevent and treat diseases, to improve our genetic determinism, or advance human life. Lastly, cloning is believed to comply with the love of oneself, the love between a spouse, and the love for an expecting child. I can agree with the share of advantages cloning may possess, but however, this procedure purposefully creates and destroys human life. It antagonizes and degrades the basic dignity of our uniqueness and value. How can this comply with all of our core values when cloning questions our faith? As Melanie Pike quoted in her review over this ethical issue, “human beings were created with a distinct and unique capacity to know, reverence, worship, and glorify the Creator. God made human beings, male and female, of his own good pleasure, in his own image, and to his own sovereign purpose."^10 Therefore, reproductive cloning does not agree with all essential values humans attain. The argument that cloning may provide infertile couples a chance to have a baby is very well flawed, because the percentage of infertile couples is rather small, which therefore, would only serve or benefit a small number of people. This also applies to the nontraditional gay and lesbian relationships as well. Everyone besides the infertile couples are left to only desire a clone for selfish reasons; leading to the destruction of our spontaneity. Supporters’ also claim how cloning is a reproductive right that provides reproductive freedom and choice. However, there aren’t any rights that were ever established for a person to clone oneself, and no one should have the right to create a baby that will be born with abnormalities and a shorter life. There are still serious risks associated with cloning that haven’t yet been resolved, so it shouldn’t be practiced until further research has been made. Finally, my opponents declare cloning as a relief from the pain accompanied by the loss of a loved one or genetic diseases, but people have suffered through and overcame unfortunate events for a very long time. We are strong individuals that can withstand any alarming circumstance; therefore, cloning someone to relieve pain will only degrade us as humans and unfortunately dehumanize the clone. No human should be considered as a means to end because we are all worthy enough to be the ending result. Reproductive cloning would fail to comprehend our worth, degrade us as individuals, and end our spontaneity. Therefore, reproductive cloning has endless possible threats to our society, and I do not believe that they are worth losing the key values of human life. According to the principles of nonmaleficence, natural law, and Kant’s categorical imperative theory, cloning is considered as immoral and should overall be banned. Causing potential life threatening harm due to the instability of reproductive cloning is unethical. Disturbing natural processes of human nature is disdained, and allowing for people to hypothetically be a means to an end is no other than intolerable. People are imperfect. Life is also imperfect, and several new innovative advancements in medical technology are trying to be the answer for our imperfections. Even though it is generally accepted when these advancements are able to cure the sick or promote life; it shouldn’t degrade our worth and value along the way. Some properties of human life should not be tampered with because we are unaware of the possible effects it can contribute to our society. However, reproductive cloning did give birth to the infamous Dolly, the lamb to only stimulate the beginning of agitation and concern for human life. The disadvantages clearly outweigh the benefits; so therefore reproductive cloning should not be allowed amongst our society that is already so complex. Our value is worth more than cloning because the human form is created through the power of God. Life is given through His will, and as I previously declared, that is how it should remain.
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.
Understanding the facts as well as procedures between the many different types of cloning is very crucial. When everything boils down there are three types of cloning known as DNA cloning, therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. DNA cloning is the copying of a gene in order to transfer it into another organism which is usually used by farmers in most of their crops. Therapeutic cloning is the use of stem cells used to help take the place of whatever cell is missing which is potentially used to help the ill. Stem cells contain the potential to grow and help replace the genes that are missing in order to fix whatever is genetically wrong with your body or any genes that you may be missing. Reproductive cloning actually produces a living animal from only one parent. The endless possibilities and perhaps hidden motives of using genetic engineering are what divide as well as destroy the scientific community’s hope for passing laws that are towards pro cloning. Many people within soci...
Human cloning is the process by which genetic material from one person would be artificially transferred into a human or animal egg cell, thereby beginning the life of a new human individual who has only one parent and who is genetically identical to that parent. The once impossible idea of cloning became a reality in 1997 when Scottish embryologist Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced that a cloned sheep named Dolly was born. Dolly was created by removing the nucleus from a sheep egg cell and replacing it in the nucleus of a cell taken from the udder of another sheep. This said might sound good, but there are other pieces of information that need to be known about this process. ...
...eir own image of a human and defying the Bible’s moral standards. Scientists are becoming more knowledgeable and taking the place of God and taking away the use of sexually reproducing. There is no guarantee that cloned humans will be normal, they may have diseases that are unknown to scientists now. Cloned humans may have half the life of a normal human, and there is no guarantee that the clone will have the same personality as the original person, for example, if Abraham Lincoln was cloned there is no way to know if he will become a serial killer, or be pro slavery.
In the Second Analogy, Kant argues that we must presuppose, a priori, that each event is determined to occur by some preceding event in accordance with a causal law. Although there have been numerous interpretations of this argument, we have not been able to show that it is valid. In this paper, I develop my own interpretation of this argument. I borrow an insight offered by Robert Paul Wolff. In Kant's argument, our need to presuppose that the causal determination of each event rests not upon our need to impose a 'necessary' and 'irreversible' temporal order upon representations of the states of an object, as Kant is usually interpreted, but upon our need to generate a comprehensive representation that includes a certain a priori conception of events in the world around us. Although the argument I attribute to Kant is valid, it cannot compel the Humean skeptic to accept the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event: Kant has not successfully responded to Hume in the Second Analogy.
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.
However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The
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.
Ever since the successful birth of Dolly on July 5, 1996, the scientific community as well as the public have been engulfed in the idea of reproductive cloning, its benefits, and its potential threats. This well-publicized event was a giant steppingstone in understanding and using the techniques of gene cloning and reproductive cloning. By using a technique known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, scientists at the Roslin Institute removed the nucleus from an oocyte (unfertilized egg), and then fused this newly enucleated cell with a donor cell (with complete nucleus). This new embryo was then implanted into the womb of a surrogate mother ewe. In total, out of 277 fused cells, 29 successfully developed into embryos, while only one of these resulted in a successful live birth (a total success rate of 0.4%) (Wong, 202). Dolly was the first living mammal to be cloned by this fast and accurate process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, but was by no means the first animal to be cloned. The first...
There are many questions surrounding the concept of cloning. Is it morally correct? Are clones
“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.
Recent discoveries involving cloning have sparked ideas of cloning an entire human body (ProQuest Staff). Cloning is “the production of an organism with genetic material identical to that of another organism” (Seidel). Therapeutic cloning is used to repair the body when something isn’t working right, and it involves the production of new cells from a somatic cell (Aldridge). Reproductive cloning involves letting a created embryo develop without interference (Aldridge). Stem cells, if isolated, will continue to divide infinitely (Belval 6). Thoughts of cloning date back to the beginning of the twentieth century (ProQuest Staff). In 1938, a man decided that something more complex than a salamander should be cloned (ProQuest Staff). A sheep named Dolly was cloned from an udder cell in 1997, and this proved that human cloning may be possible (Aldridge). In 1998, two separate organizations decl...
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.