Human Cloning : An Argument Against Human Reproductive Cloning

The topic of cloning has brought much debate in science and also in society. Many

II. Thesis Statement: Today I will entice you on the myth of human cloning and explain to you why it should be prohibited.

Human cloning is described as “the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human.” Although human cloning has no record of being successful, cloning was demonstrated to be possible when scientists Sir Ian Wilmut and the rest of their research team successfully cloned Dolly, a sheep (Wilmut 12). This demonstration opened up a new area of science ready to be explored. If animals can be cloned, can human beings be cloned too? If successful, scientists would be able to clone human copies and further advance modern medicine, such as using cells for regenerative medicine or harvesting organs for transplants. It is also possible that other fields of medicine and research can be furthered with this supply of human clones. Additionally, couples incapable of reproducing can pursue cloning to create an offspring with their DNA. However, human cloning has never been successful and comes with ethical concerns.The clone can suffer from abnormalities. There are also concerns regarding the treatment of embryos to gather stem cells and the treatment of clones as a person. By further investigating and analyzing this topic through the lens of Catholic moral tradition, I hope to make clear the pros and cons of the subject while also evaluating them with an ethical theory learned from this quarter in order to add to the discussion.

In the argument raised nn the article, What Would a Clone Say? Gary Rosen advances that reproductive cloning is not bad while various factors arise which prompt the need to consider therapeutic cloning as immoral as well. In doing so, he constructs several smalls arguments within the overall argument, rendering the essay to be a ‘complex argument. An important consideration evident in creating the complex argument involves having sentences that play dual roles. This paper constitutes of a critical assessment of the essay. Having sentences that play different roles is particularly fitting in portraying reproductive cloning as desirable and therapeutic cloning as troubling since this is a topic that can be comprehensively addressed by philosophical

The controversy of human cloning has contemplated the reasons it should or shouldn't be allowed. Human cloning is the reproduction of human cells and tissue by creating a genetical copy artificially. Clones contain original characteristics of the individual or cell. There are many dangerous risks and great benefits to human cloning. Many people have an extraordinary reaction to cloning because it creates all sorts of images. Cloning is a medical breakthrough that can help millions of people if it is scientifically proven to be 100% safe. Is science really ready to officially clone a human?

clone is created, and this act of reproductive cloning is regarded with controversy; is it

To introduce the relevance of both his and Ishiguro’s work, he quickly summarizes the political and scientific history of clones in the early twenty first century, thus presenting the ethical debate of creating life for scientific organ harvest. While Jerng admits that the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and President’s Council on Bioethics (PCBE) prohibited cloning, he suggests the fluidity of opinion regarding clones, especially with familial context. When presented as an option to give grieving parents another opportunity with their dead child or to supply extra organs for the insurance of the health of the population, cloning children viewed as a valid, ethical option. However, Jerng warns that the “emphasis on the traditional family installs a normative narrative of individuation that closes off models of what it means to be human” (374). Because cloning threatens individuality, a traditional family cannot be sustained because parents will not treat the cloned child as their own biological child. As a result, the idea of whether clones are “whole” individuals becomes significant in determining their

As years pass, new discoveries are made through extensive research. These discoveries improve the life expectancy of humans, due to the continuous advancements in medical research and equipment. Infact, a main controversial aspect of medicine that has blown minds is said to be cloning. Cloning is the process of creating a genetic duplicate of an organism. It is divided into two branches: reproductive and therapeutic. Reproductive cloning creates an animal genetically identical to its donor, where it is then placed back into the uterine environment for further development. Therapeutic cloning on the other hand is quiet similar in the sense of formation. However, the resulting cloned cells remain in a lab and are not to be inserted into a female uterus to be nurtured into a fetus. These cells are instead used to treat and prevent diseases and conditions. Over time scientists have put forth all their knowledge and research into creating their very first fully cloned animal. But, until this day, “observers say that no reputable scientist is actively attempting to produce a human clone through reproductive cloning.” (“The Science of Cloning”,1) This procedure remains to be an issue worldwide due to the harm it carries along to reach its beneficial goal.

One of the latest scientific breakthroughs has been the success of cloning. Ever since the creation of “Dolly” the sheep at Roslin Institute, there has been increased debates on whether scientists should bump up a notch and try to clone a human. Biotechnology and science evolves day by day. New inventions and discoveries play an important part in order for a breakthrough in science. Scientists are eager to study and dig deeper into the mysteries of life, to them experimenting with cloning is a major step in fully understanding the human body and its limits. But to some, the ethics of cloning has become an important issue. Questions regarding human lives as experiments and the dangerous effects of a failed experiment confronts the issue. There are still many arguable questions regarding to cloning that needs to be answered before the legalization of cloning.

In discussions of Cloning, one controversial issue has been Cloning Humans. On the one hand, Paul Stark argues that Cloning is wrong and shouldn't be done. On the other hand, Simon Smith contends that we could Clone human organs and put them into cloned pigs so that we have more organs for transplants and many more possibilities. My own view is in the middle of the issue. That I believe Cloning is dangerous and uncertain of the outcome. But the number of benefits from cloning is infinite.

Human cloning has been a very controversial topic for many years now. The term human cloning includes numerous methods that are used to produce genetically identical copies of humans. The copied material, which has the same genetic makeup as the original, is referred to as a human clone (National Human Genome Research Institute). Lost in the midst of all the fuss about cloning is the fact that cloning is nothing new: it’s rich scientific history spans more than 100 years (Genetic Science Learning Centre). The first experiments in cloning date back to 1885, when German biologist Hans Driesch split two-cell sea urchin embryos. Once separated, each cell grew into two individual sea urchins. This demonstrated that each cell in the early

This essay will focus on reproductive human cloning particularly whether or not cloning is unethical as the clone would only be a means to the parent(s)’ end. This is a difficult question to answer as I believe there is a significant lack of critical discussion between this proposed Kantian view and other moral theories. This Kantian moral view is known as the duty of ‘human dignity’ and takes on the form of instrumentalism.

In some ways, the never-ending scientific possibilities of our time have continued to exceed our expectations. Within the 20th century there has been new medical research on stem cell research, and we have successfully completed organ transplants—more recently face and skin transplants. Without progressions like this from science, many would not be alive today. But when does science take it too far? Is there a moral reason to continue…or a stopping point? If so, who determines where to draw the line? Science has already made it possible to clone an animal (Solter). Now, the idea of cloning humans is within our

Human Cloning comes with two dangerous processes, reproductive cloning (the creating of a new organism) and the therapeutic cloning (the creation of a new tissues or “other biological products”) which affects the ethics of human society. Scientists perceive cloning benefits all men and women, while religious leaders stress the idea of cloning to be an unethical process. Although human cloning serves as an aid to the children and parents with conflicts, cloning is completely unacceptable to convey human life as a product.

As aptly put by Rosa Beddington, the word “clone” has become one of the most emotive of all the terms coined by scientists which have entered popular vocabulary. I shall add another, and that will be the phrase “Dolly the sheep”. The conception of Dolly, the “baby” of scientist Ian Wilmut and his team has opened the possibility of cloning humans. The mention of Dolly brings to average the person, haunting connotations of “future replicas of living megalomaniacs and the resurrected dead”. Indeed, Dolly has provided misconceptions about cloning, which, to a certain extent is skewed.