Does the Constitution guarantee the right to clone? Recent scientific innovations, and projected legislation, have raised questions about the character of the constitutional right to fruitful freedom, and above all, concerning whether or not there's a constitutional “right to clone.” (Cass R. Sunstein)
For functions of substantive due process of law, the primary question is whether or not the proper to clone counts as a basic right, one with that the government will interfere solely to safeguard a “compelling” interest. If there is no basic right, the government is required simply to indicate a “rational basis” for its action, a far easier burden to satisfy. I begin with the utilization of biological research technology for functions of replica.
The media manic disorder and widespread give-and-take concerning human biological research began in late February 1997 when the world learned of the first successful cloning of a sheep 1 by somatic cell 2 nuclear transfer 3. This technique involves obtaining genetic material from a differentiated somatic cell of an adult and then transplanting it into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. This egg is then implanted in an adult womb for development. The result is the birth of an offspring with genetic material identical to the original somatic cell, with genetic information from only one "parent." (Heidi Forster, 1998) Previously, this technique had never been successful in 1997 once the globe learned of the primary winning biological research of a sheep one by vegetative cell two nuclear transfer three. This method involves getting genetic material from a differentiated vegetative cell of an associate degree adult and so movement it into associate degree egg from that t...
... middle of paper ...
...reativity
Crew, H. S. (2004). Not so brave a world: the representation of human cloning in science fiction for young adults. The Lion and the Unicorn, 28(2), 203-221.
Sunstein, Cass R. "Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?" Http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.age. U of Chicago, Public Law Research Paper No. 22, Mar. 2002. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
Forster, Heidi, J.D, and Emily Ramsey, J.D. "LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ON CLONING: LEGAL RESPONSES TO THE POTENTIAL CLONING OF HUMAN BEINGS." LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ON CLONING: LEGAL RESPONSES TO THE POTENTIAL CLONING OF HUMAN BEINGS 32 Val (1998): n. pag. Https://litigationessentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action. Spring 1998. Web.
Andrews, Lori B. "Is There a Right to Clone? Constitutional." Http://works.bepress.com. N.p., Jan. 1998. Web.
Human Cloning and Other Ethical Conflicts in The Island (2005)
A. B. Mercadé
Postrel, Virginia. “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress.” In Dynamic Argument. Ed. Robert Lamm and Justin Everett. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 420-23.
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.
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
Conclusion: “Therefore, in most Human Cloning cases it is morally wrong for that person to get an experimenter to create a Human Clone on their behalf”.
In arguing against cloning, the central debate is derived from the fact that this unnatural process is simply unethical. The alleged
This representation of cloning as a means of bringing about the loss of individuality reflects two widespread ideas. The first is...
...ly praised, but science that interferes with the creation of human life is seen by many as entirely different. People are still unsure as to whether or not and to what extent scientists should be involved in such a realm. This is, in fact, the prevailing view. Consequently, the field of human cloning has been shaped by these attitudes. At present, human cloning both nationally and internationally is essentially an unacceptable practice. Whether scientists such as Richard Seed will be successful remains to be seen, but the consensus seems to be that the world is not yet ready for full-blown human cloning. Accordingly, efforts have been made to impede the scientific process and to push human cloning into the distant future.
8. Pellegrino, Edmund D., “Human Cloning and Human Dignity.” The President’s Council on Bioethics. 22 July 2007
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?
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.
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 and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
Seidel, Jr., George E. "Cloning." World Book Student. World Book, 2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. source 19
Wachbroit, Robert. “Human Cloning Isn’t as Scary as it Sounds.” The Washington Post 2 March 1997. 3 October 2001 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/national/science/cloning/cloning6.htm>.