Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
cloning ethical and moral debate
cloning moral debate
morals and ethics of human cloning
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: cloning ethical and moral debate
El Patron in The House of the Scorpion
What if there was a world with clones? There would be a way to live for up to 100 years effortlessly, have easy transplants, and maintain a precise memory. But, the recipient would be taking organs from someone else. "So what", he or she may justify, "they're clones, they are inferior. They don't matter because they are stupid." But what if someone had the power to allow them to be of normal intelligence? He or she might think that he or she is doing the clone a favor, but when the clone is killed for spare parts it's an even worse situation than with a retarded clone. Not for this "bandido" (Farmer 37). El Patron is a cruel, selfish, heartless man who clawed his way to power in his youth and rules people with fear, though he is powerful, he is always nagged by the fact that he may lose everything. There is no way on earth he would let that happen.
El Patron believes he is doing the clones a favor by allowing them to be smart, but in the end he uses them just like all the other clones in the world - for his own personal use. Esperanza, a fierce No Drug activist, once wrote that a more evil, vicious, and self-serving man (than El Patron) could hardly be imagined (Farmer 170). Though the practice of murdering clones is widely accepted in the book, it is morally wrong, and most people would at least have second thoughts about killing someone. Even with his dragon hoard, which he just lets sit there untouched and deeply protected, El Patron becomes outraged with even the slightest of a suggestion towards giving anything away. He is so self-centered, in fact, that at his death greed took over and all of the people inhabiting his part of Opium were silenced and added to his hoard.
Power is what El Patron has worked for and what he fears of losing. Unthinkingly describing the drug lord word for word, Tam Lin once said that Power is a drug, and people like me crave it (Farmer 243). Though his business is illegal to the rest of the world, he never seems to show any concern about what everyone elses laws are and he proceeds with what he had planned. Matt and all of the other clones he had created are mere examples of this.
First, Matt and El Patron's experiences and backgrounds differ dramatically. El Patron is an unloved orphan, who, through careful manipulations and deceit, became one of the most powerful men alive. Everybody at the Alacrán estate treats Matt like he is less than human, a disgusting animal. María treats him kindly most of the time, but as if he were
We witness this when Celia takes care of Matt, the clone. Also, we see this when Maria wants to be Matt, even though she knows what he is. Finally, we view this when El Patron saves his clone from an abusive caretaker.
Matteo Alacrán is the clone of El Patrón and is the only clone with a brain. El Patrón is the drug lord of a country known as Opium. Opium is a strip of poppy fields found in between the borders of the U.S and what was once known as Mexico. Matt cells split in a petri dish and then placed in the womb of a cow where his cell matured to baby. Matt is considered to be a monster by most people around him, but El Patrón loves because he considers it to be a reflection of himself as matt is derived from El Patrón that matt the scientist has made. He is considered a monster in home town matt struggles to understand his existence. His very existence is threatened by the town and El Patrón power hungry family. Matteo wonders if he will become twisted like El Patrón. El Patrón’s clone is surrounded by thousand of dangerous army bodyguards.
If people lived for over a hundred years, they would be no change in the political office. In the story, Caught in the Organ Draft, there is a world where people are drafted to donate their organs to ensure the elders live longer and healthier lives. Since the younger people are forced to donate to the elders, “... We could hope that our crazy old leaders would die off or at least retire for reasons of health, stumbling away to their country villas with ulcers or shingles or scabies or scruples and allowing the new young peacemakers to take office. But now they just go on and on, immortal and insane, our senators, our cabinet members, our generals, our planners” (Silverburg 3). With the cloning of different organs, people may almost become immortal and evil leaders that run countries may never die out. The world may overpopulate and run out of resources to support everyone on Earth. Also, some people may say that cloning is unethical because it messes with the natural body or God’s “will”. In the article, Gayin, the author, proposes an important question, “And if we do attempt human cloning, what will we do with the “debris”, the discarded messes along the line? (Gaylin 224). The “debris” refers to the failed cloning attempts of cloning human body parts. Since they are human parts, would it be murder if we killed them? Many people argue that cloning is unethical because scientists would be obligated kill the messed up clones since nobody has perfected the art of cloning. Also, people argue it’s unethical because scientists are simply messing with the “will” of
In arguing against cloning, the central debate is derived from the fact that this unnatural process is simply unethical. The alleged
...cloning can be divided into two broad category: potential safety risk and moral problems, and these concerns overweigh its achievement.
successful clones often have problems with their body and are subject to a short lifespan ridden with health problems. This hurts the person or animal cloned rather than to help them, making cloning an immoral
What is immoral about saving lives? Therapeutic cloning is a realistic opportunity for patients suffering from a number of diseases. Murnaghan states:
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
... opportunity to save the original, why not? If one of my siblings ever needed a kidney or a bone marrow transfer, I would not hesitate to assist. Who would not save a family member given the opportunity?
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.
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
In “Never Let Me Go” by Kazuo Ishiguro we see cloned human beings that are raised in a boarding school so that they can grow up and become organ donors. The main purpose of these kids was growing up and donating their organs one by one till they finally die at an early age. These kids were not treated as human beings. They were created in a test tube just to be a donor. The main character who was also a donor is the narrator of this story. Life should be controlled by the person that owns it and that person should make decisions how to live and where to live, clones are still human beings with soul and flesh there for they deserve human right. If they cannot get the right they deserve then cloning should be illegal unless there is understandable reason. These kids are raised in a place called hailsham, where they are taken care of so that they can stay healthy but they were not allowed to leave the school and socialize with the world till they turn eighteen and graduate.
Imagine a world in which a clone is created only for its organs to be transplanted into a sick person’s body. Human cloning has many possible benefits, but it comes with concerns. Over the past few decades, researchers have made several significant discoveries involving the cloning of human cells (ProQuest Staff). These discoveries have led to beneficial medical technologies to help treat disease (Aldridge). The idea of cloning an entire human body could possibly revolutionize the medical world (Aldridge). However, many people are concerned that these advancements would degrade self-worth and dignity (Hyde and Setaro 89). Even though human cloning brings about questions of bioethics, it has the potential to save and recreate the lives of humans and to cure various diseases without the use of medication (Aldridge, Hyde and Setaro).
Kazuo Ishiguro’s critically acclaimed 2005 Novel Never Let Me Go was influenced by cloning and stem cell research in the late 20th century. Many ethical discussions were raised, and Ishiguro displayed his perspective from his about clones that demonstrate the human experience to the core. The story was adapted into a film by the same name in 2010, directed by Mark Romanek. The novel explores plot, setting, character, literary techniques and themes by telling the story of cloned organ donors, forced to die for the good of humanity, all of which are well represented in the film adaptation.