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.
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.
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.
There are some rewards and disadvantages to utilizing human reproductive cloning. One advantage would be giving a woman who was not able to find the right person to have a child with, the child she had wanted. In “Mothers by Choice” there are many professional women, who before, would have to settle with ”Mr. Okay” to have a child (Munson 335). Now, marriage is not necessary to allow working women a child and they would not have to settle or put their ambitions to the wayside.
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.
For years, the prospect of human cloning was fodder for outrageous science-fiction stories and nothing more. However, in more recent times, human cloning has moved significantly closer to becoming a reality. Accordingly, the issue has evoked a number of strong reactions, both praising and condemning the procedure. The fact that human cloning not just affects human lives indirectly but actually involves tinkering with human creation has forced human cloning into a position of controversy. The progress of the issue of human cloning, then, has been shaped not only by the abilities and resources of scientists but by public opinion and by governmental regulation that has resulted from public pressure.
8. Pellegrino, Edmund D., “Human Cloning and Human Dignity.” The President’s Council on Bioethics. 22 July 2007
Broadway, Bill. "A RUSH TO JUDGMENT ON HUMAN CLONING? - U-VA. SCHOLAR WARNS NOT ENOUGH IS KNOWN TO BAN PROCEDURE PERMANENTLY." NewsBank. 7 Feb. 1998. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
National Bioethics Advisory Commision. "The Risks of Human Cloning Outweigh the Benefits." Biomedical Ethics Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998. 23-35. Print.
Huitt, W. (2007),Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University, (http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/regsys/maslow.html), [Accessed 29 December 2013].
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
"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.
Vere, Stephen. The Case for Cloning Humans. Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. T. Easton (ed.); McGraw-Hill Publishing, 2000. 1-12.