Human Cloning - Individualistic vs. Communitarian

1603 Words4 Pages

Human Cloning - Individualistic vs. Communitarian

In many controversial topics around the world, we can

find differing positions, and opinions. Many of these arguments, can be narrowed

down to two different views, or constructs: individualistic and communitarian

(an image of collectivism). An individualistic viewpoint "stresses the rights of

the individual as a unique being" (class review). A communitarian viewpoint is

more concerned with the good for the greatest number, "even if an individual

must suffer or sacrifice" (class review). These different elements do not

necessarily label the people as opposed to, or in favor of the topic here. They

just show where your motivations lie, is your involvement for self fulfillment

or for the good of society? Within the contents of this paper, I will analyze

the elements of individualism and collectivism that exist in the controversial

topic of cloning.

When Dr. Ian Wilmut, a 52-year-old embryologist at the Roslin

Institute in Edinburgh announced on that he had replaced the genetic material of

sheep's egg with the DNA from an adult sheep, and created a lamb (Dolly), the

topic of cloning "created" many new questions of its own. None were as

controversial as: Will they apply this to humans as well? According to Dr.

Wilmut, the answer was "there is no reason in principle why you couldn't do

it"(clone humans), but he added, "All of us would find that offensive."(Wilmut

as quoted by NYTimes, Daniel Callahan, 02/26/97).

From an individualistic viewpoint, those in favor of cloning human

beings, do not see it as morally, or ethically wrong. Many see it as an

opportunity to have children, or possibly to "re-create" a child who is dying

from a terminal illness. Using a deterministic argument, many infertile couples

are worried that any "government restrictions on human cloning might hurt their

chances some day for bearing children through new medical technology" ( Newsday,

Thomas Maier, 03/14/1997). In a form of expressive individualism, Tom Buckowski,

from Studio City, California said, "It's my body, my choice, right? But what if

I want my body cloned and warehoused for spare parts? Upon what basis can

government decide what I can or cannot do with my body?"(Los Angeles Times,

3/07/1997). In both examples, the predominant voice is that of the first

language of individualism. The first language refers to the "individualistic

mode that is the dominant American form of discourse about moral, social, and

political matters" (Bellah et al, Habits of the Heart, pg.334).

Anita Manning, a writer for USA TODAY revealed another

individualistic argument in favor of cloning. In her article "Pressing a

"right" to clone humans," Manning interviews a group of gay activists, who see

Open Document