The debate on Cloning all began in 1997 with the birth announcement of a sheep named Dolly. Dolly was the first mammal to be cloned from an individual cell. Since then, the debate over human cloning has dominated the bioethics community and almost all industrialized nations have banned human cloning in one form or another. The European parliament pushed through a resolution on cloning. The preamble states:
The cloning of human beings… cannot under any circumstances be justified by society, because it is a serious violation of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the principle of equality of human beings as it promotes a eugenic and racist selection of the human race, it offends against human dignity and it requires experimentation
…show more content…
Leon Eisenberg defines cloning as "the aggregate of the asexually produced progeny of an individual organism" (Eisenberg, 471). Human cloning is dangerous to society two for very important reasons. It has serious moral implications. Furthermore, the cloning of human beings could have serious psychological and ramifications toward clones and their progenitors. The actions and conclusions of leading experts in the field of bioethics have proven it as a field of very little substance. While most fields related to ethics have a very solid foundation bioethics stems from the current views and opinions of society. There is only one absolute in bioethics. The welfare of the patient is paramount to all other aspects of treatment. However, this is a statement that can be molded and manipulated to fit the desires of patients, doctors, and scientists in the arena of genetics and cloning. Soon after the announcement of Dolly's birth President Clinton formed The National Bioethics Commission. The goal of this commission was to examine the issue of cloning and make policy recommendations from their findings. The commission recommended a five-year moratorium on cloning. Their findings and recommendations had several …show more content…
If so, then should it not apply also to the right of informed consent, reproductive choice, and the reprehensibility of slavery? Should the Nuremberg Code, for instance, now just fifty years old have had a sunset clause? If not, it is hardly evident why such a provision is more pertinent to cloning (18). One of the major ethical roadblocks in the debate over human cloning is that cloning would take away one's sense of individuality and significantly devalue what it means to be human. A cloned person would spend his or her entire life with the knowledge that there is someone else in the world with the exact same genetic makeup as him/her. This could go so far to cause the clone to view him or herself as a mere replacement. This would be a far greater danger if a child were cloned to replace a child who had died early in life. Scenarios similar to this paint a portrait of a human life as something easily replaced. This would mean that being human would not have nearly the significance it does today. If a human being can be replaced by a small amount of genetic material, that person could be viewed as insignificant and disposable (Annas
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.
In the past, cloning always seemed like a faraway scientific fantasy that could never really happen, but sometimes reality catches up to human ingenuity and people discover that a fictional science is all too real. Such was the fate of cloning when Dolly, a cloned sheep, came into existence during 1997, as Beth Baker explains (Baker 45). In addition to opening the eyes of millions of people, the breakthrough raised many questions about the morality of cloning humans. The greatest moral question is, when considering the pros against the cons, if human cloning is an ethical practice. There are two different types of cloning and both entail completely different processes and both are completely justifiable at the end of the day.
Genetic cloning has become an issue in these past years, and many questions have arisen due to this scientific breakthrough. As with any new technology, ethical and moral ideals have clashed between those who support it and those who favor the opposing side. The dispute involves what to do with our ability to clone and manipulate DNA of human beings, plants, and animals, and whether it is ethical for us to pursue research and experiments with genetics or whether it is people just playing "God". Genetic cloning is a problem because it splits the country and for many of its questionable natures causing people not to trust it. Yes, it is a proven fact that people are scared of what they do not know about, and with genetic cloning, they have a very good reason to be both scared and relieved.
...e pressing issue that will question our morals, ethics, and view on human dignity. As a society, we must come to a decision regarding Human Cloning and stand by it, whether it is the right decision or not. Our actions will have a profound impact on the methods of reproduction used by future generations.
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.
Position one states that we should be able to go through with cloning as long as there are limitations attached. These limitations include deciding on a length in time in which the embryo has to be harvested, having the government monitor the individuals or groups that engage in the research, a ban on commerce in living cloned human embryos, human subjects will be researched on with the highest standards of ethics, a prior scientific review of the proposed uses of cloned embryos to judge their unique medical and scientific benefits, and research will continue into non-embryonic sources of stem cells. Position one, along with positions two and three will be discussed further in the following paper.
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 recent years our world has undergone many changes and advancements, cloning is a primary example of this new modernism. On July 5th, 1995, Dolly, the first cloned animal, was created. She was cloned from a six-year-old sheep, making her cells genetically six years old at her creation. However, scientists were amazed to see Dolly live for another six years, until she died early 2005 from a common lung disease found in sheep. This discovery sparked a curiosity for cloning all over the world, however, mankind must answer a question, should cloning be allowed? To answer this question some issues need to be explored. Is cloning morally correct, is it a reliable way to produce life, and should human experimentation be allowed?
The concept of cloning has been around since the 1800’s, although, in the field of scientists, it has slowly been evolving into a vigorously debated topic, throughout the last 3 decades. Cloning is essentially defined as the process of artificially reproducing genetically identical organisms. Scientists all around the world, through research, are still learning more about the topic, but the fascinating process officially gained awareness as a result of a 1986 experiment conducted by Ian Wilmut, scientist at the Roslin Institute in Scotland. The project was essentially centred around a sheep referred to as “Dolly” that was cloned in a lab using a frozen mammary cell from another adult sheep. At the time, this was a significant milestone in the field, as all cloning up to this point had been done using embryos, and never actual adult cells. The Dolly experiment served as a catalyst for additional intensive research, which consequently resulted in a myriad of new benefits and uses for cloning. From that point on, we have made many advancements, and currently, in our modern day society, scientists are more capable of putting their research into practice, with the assistance of the constant improvements in technology. The method of cloning has already been implemented as a solution to infertility, and plants and animals can be cloned for the purpose of creating new possible food alternatives. The main benefit of cloning revolves around health, as lives can be saved or prolonged, thanks to a theoretically simple process known as organ transplantation, where for example, the parts from a cloned pig can be used to replace those malfunctioning, in a human. If scientists keep doing research on the topic at the current rate, and conducting e...
Cloning is defined as the process of asexually producing a group of cells, all genetically identical, from a single ancestor (College Library, 2006).” Cloning should be banned all around the world for many reasons, including the risks to the thing that is being cloned, cloning reduces genetic differences and finally it is not ethical. Almost every clone has mysteriously died even before they are born.
Cloning is a process by which genetically equal organisms are created with the same DNA. In simplest terms, clones are like twins born at different times. This procedure poses various dangers to society and humankind. One of the greatest threats this procedure creates is among
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.
Bioethics is a reflection of controversial moral choices or decisions pertaining to medical and healthcare fields. There have always been ethical standards in healthcare handed down within each profession. Although ethical decisions of the past were followed without question, bioethics today is constantly debated among those in the medical field, the general public, and those in governmental positions. Technological advances within the last century have opened the door to discussion about the ethics surrounding the last medical and technological advances. The decisions are influenced by culture, religion, philosophy, and personal preference. Bioethical decisions are always open for questioning. It is even possible for issues to be ethical during one decade and upon review, deemed unethical several years later. It is the job of the medical community and the public to question these issues, debate them, and accept or reject them. Although there have been hundreds of people who have influenced bioethics through their technological advances, Sir Robert Edwards’ invitro- fertilization techniques have changed the way many women today can become a mother.
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.