Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why cloning should be banned
Why cloning should be banned
The role of genetics in modern society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why cloning should be banned
An Argument Against Cloning
Increase in genetic knowledge has created challenges in our society. Daniel Callahan focuses on these challenges and expresses his worry about the society (soil) on which this genetic knowledge is growing. Callahan asks the question of what kind of society (soil) is most likely be hazardous and introduces three patterns: 1) societies that demonize death and illness; 2) those societies that want to find biological solutions to social problems; and 3) societies with postmodern theory that there is no common social good, only a plurality of individual goods. In his essay Callahan is concerned about what kind of society we out to be and become before genetic technology can be used. I will use Callahans argument that we need to think about what kind of society we want to become to argue against using the genetic technology of cloning. I will use a deontological approach to argue that cloning should be banned because: 1) in our society that cares about individual rights (negative rights, non-interference) and is obsessed with control over death, disease and social behavior, the use of cloning has dangerous implications; and 2) cloning is de-humanizing because it leads to the loss of human dignity and what it means to be human (parts of Hollands argument will be used to support my second claim here).
What sort of society ought we to become? This question is Callahans main concern. After all, the main problem is not with the genetic knowledge, but in what kind of soil (society) that knowledge grows. Callahan argues that “it was not just bad genetic knowledge that led the Nazis astray: it was their culture of racism and anti-Semitism that allowed that knowledge to flourish and take root” (Callahan in Thomas...
... middle of paper ...
...rference) and is obsessed with control over death, disease and social behavior. Not until we are a society that cares about communal goods and learns to deal with death can we introduce human cloning. Second, I have argued that cloning is de-humanizing because it leads to a loss of human dignity and what it means to be a human. I want to leave the reader with the question of “why are we pursuing human cloning? Are our motives pure? Are we really thinking of communal good or are we focused only on our individual needs and desires? Do we even care about losing our human dignity and what it means to be a human?”
Bibliography:
Citations
1. Thomasma, David C. and Thomasine Kushner, eds., Birth to Death: Science and Bioethics (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
2. Holland, Suzanne, Why Biotechnology Should Listen to Ethics: The Issue of Human Cloning (1998).
Silver’s argument illustrates to his audience that reproductive cloning is permissible, but most people in 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.
Beauchamp, T. 1999, ‘The Beginning and End of Life’ in Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, eds Walters, L. & Beauchamp, T., Wadsworth, Belmont CA, pp. 94-98.
Children grow up watching movies such as Star Wars as well as Gattaca that contain the idea of cloning which usually depicts that society is on the brink of war or something awful is in the midsts but, with todays technology the sci-fi nature of cloning is actually possible. The science of cloning obligates the scientific community to boil the subject down into the basic category of morality pertaining towards cloning both humans as well as animals. While therapeutic cloning does have its moral disagreements towards the use of using the stem cells of humans to medically benefit those with “incomplete” sets of DNA, the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the disagreements indubitably due to the fact that it extends the quality of life for humans.
“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.
Michael, T. (1998) 'Personhood' in Kuhse & Singer (eds.) A Companion to Bioethics. New Jersey:
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.
Life and death represent a dyad; their definitions inherently depend on one another. Simply defined, death is the cessation of life. Similarly, life can be defined as not death; however, not everything not alive is dead. Boniolo and Di Fiore explain this dyadic relationship well, and other authors have cited this interdependency to better define life and death.1-6 The academic literature contains multiple definitions for both terms depending on which discipline or interest group attempts the definition. Nair-Collins provides a thorough discourse on this diversity in terms of death, differentiating between “biological death, death of the person, death of the moral agent, death of the moral patient, legal death, and the commonsense notion of death.”2(p.667,668,675) Through the dyadic relationship, similar groupings could be arrived at for defining life. Whether or not one accepts Nair-Collins’ categories, at least some differentiation of this type is necessary given the complexity of these concepts. I propose a simplified categorization of the definitions of life and death: (1)scientific/biological, (2)medic...
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.
Not so far in the future, a young boy of the age of six, dying a heart-wrenching death, will only be able survive with a bone marrow transplant. His parents will have searched near and far for a match, but none will come to their aid. The only possible way that they can produce a perfect match for their son's bone marrow is to clone their son. Unfortunately, at this time this topic is still being discussed and debated upon with the government. Their only child that has been their treasure for six years might die. A clone of their son becomes their apple of aspiration to keep the treasure from being buried.
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.
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).
Burley, Justine, ed. The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 24 September 2001 <http://emedia.netlibrary.com/ reader/reader.asp?product_id=27508>.
... In: Thomasma D, Kushner T, Eds. From birth to death—science and bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.