Human cloning and Immanuel Kant

Embryonic stem cell research is important for further development in the medical field. It strongly supports the idea that every life has value, an idea known as human dignity. Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and thus, are all equal. The idea of radical equality before God leads us to think no less of someone regardless of their physical appearance, religious beliefs, cultural background, or anything else. It is through virtues such as charity, mercy, and justice that our human dignity is preserved. By living through these virtues and realizing how to effectively instill them within us, we are able to live a virtuous life. This paper argues that although issues involving embryonic stem cell research are controversial, research in this area is typically permissible for further development in the medical field when looking to preserve human dignity. In order to defend this thesis, this paper will be structured into three sections as followed: the description of embryonic stem cell research, the development of a moral lens, and the moral argument and analysis of this case.

The 21st century however forecasts an astonishing increase in innovation in another direction. While previously overshadowed by its larger cousins, physics and chemistry, it seems likely that the biological sciences will steal the limelight in the future. Mapping the genome, reversing the aging process, and finding a cure for terminal illnesses, all represent primary objectives for science. Unfortunately, the ethical questions posed by innovations in biomedicine are far greater than those posed by advances in the physical sciences. Reproductive cloning is one of these innovations, and one that arguably poses the greatest threat to the world as we know it. The universal truth, blindly accepted by man for millennia, held that a human could only be born through the sexual union of a male and a female, to be exact, of an egg and a sperm. By cloning, however, a human life can be created in the laboratory. This is done by taking human DNA and inserting it into an egg cell, sans genetic material. The resultant cell is identical to the original, and can then be inserted into a uterus, either a human or an animal one, and be grown to term, to produce a baby, while circumventing nature’s means of reproduction.

The dawn of the process of splitting and recreating cells began more than 50 years ago, but more recently a sheep named Dolly was born that brought many things to light in this side of science. Although Dolly the Sheep was born from a cloned cell instead of pieced-together body parts, she and Frankenstein’s monster are reminiscent of each other by their controversial, odd births and critical impacts left on the world. Being the first ever successfully cloned mammal brought fame to Dolly’s

The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.

Zubin Master and G. Crozier in “ The Ethics Of Moral Compromise For Stem Cell Research Policy” try to explain, and inform anyone that is interested in knowing more about the stem cell research, and the ethics involved in that subject. The main idea of this Journal Article is to analyze some of the scientific proposals of using stem cells, and which methods are more ethically corrects for the research. In the article, Zubin and Crozier talk about new techniques that can derive stem cells without having to destroy embryos. One of those techniques are to “use a non-human animal source of ova or ova created from the differentiation of human embryonic stem cells”(53), so the researchers can keep doing experiments without having to use humans embryos,

In the essay, titled "Building Baby from the Genes Up?" Ronald M. Green proclaims his approval of genetic selection and extraction of human genes. He gives reasons that support his outlook on the matter, that this will be useful to civilization. Ronald M. Green is in violation of several ethical codes, with his view on genetic modification. I am against genetically modified humans, and I will explain to you, why this is my stance on the subject. First, I will summarize exactly what Ronald M. Green says in his article about his view on genetic modification and why practicing it is vital. Second, I will describe research

Through change and uttermost struggle, the people who care about a subject always seem to push through for what they believe in. For the sake of Embryonic Stem Cell research, the advocates tried their best to show the advancements stem cells may withhold, and for the people who disagree with the research, always seemed to put a new light on the subject, simply humanizing the research. Although the destruction of a human embryo is not something many people would view as ethical, it is something that could hold much promise for those who suffer from terminal illnesses (Sherley). When the miracle of assisting those who could not reproduce children through In Vitro Fertilization transpired the world of stem cell research was acquired (Tauer 924).

In the article, “Stem-Cell Research Utilizing Embryonic Tissue Should Not Be Conducted”, Bertha Alvarez Manninen argues on the basis that it is unethical to allow the destruction of embryos in order to further stem-cell research, by relating it to the destruction of human life. Manninen explains the different stages of the human embryo and how it can be legally justified as a human. Therefore, an embryo can be defended by basic human rights. She supports this using Kant’s formula of humanity, which, in summary indicates that humanity should never be treated as a means to an end.

The results of the 1996 experiment of cloning Dolly and many other unsuccessful trials have influenced many people to infer that the drawbacks of cloning substantially surpass the benefits. After two hundred and seventy-seven attempts to clone a sheep, many have concluded that cloning has a high failure rate. Moreover, the death of the sheep clone, Dolly, depicts that cloning a mammal can result in arthritis, a virus-induced lung tumor, premature aging, and/or premature death, to a list a few effects of cloning. Although scientists and researchers have justified Dolly’s medical diagnosis, they are still uncertain as to why Dolly’s chromosomes had shorter telomere lengths than normal sheep. Nevertheless, cloning mammals, particularly humans, should be proscribed due to the severity of the side

The dream of perfect offspring, and the nightmare of genetic tyranny. Cohen thinks that there are two errors committed with new genetics, “worrying too much too early and worrying too little too late,” (40-41). Cohen suggests that the way to approach this new technology is critical. He mentions three different approaches that could be taken: a scientific approach, “the transfer of genetic knowledge into medical technologies,” (7-8); a social approach,” seeking to understand the economic incentives that drive the genetic research agenda, or surveying public attitudes toward genetic testing,” (9-12); a public safety approach, “reviewing different genetic tests and therapies for safety and efficacy,” (15-16). Mitchell believes that all these approaches are valuable. The idea of genetics being used for human re-engineering is bit farfetched. Eric Cohen declares that there are five dimensions of new genetics: (1) a route to self understanding; (2) route of new medical therapies; (3) potentiel human re-engineering tool (an eccentric idea); (4) biological destiny of the human future; (5) screening traits of the next

The society is not at an agreeable point when it comes to the research of stem cells obtained from human embryos. The disagreement narrows down to a clash between the two fundamental principles of ethics: The duty to prevent and alleviate suffering, and the duty to respect the value of human life. In most situations, both principles can be satisfied. However, in the research of embryonic stem cells, it might not be inherently possible.

Imagine a world where everyone looked like you and was related to you as a sibling, cousin, or any form of relation, wouldn’t that be freaky? Although cloning is not an important issue presently, it could potentially replace sexual reproduction as our method of producing children. Cloning is a dangerous possibility because it could lead to an over-emphasis on the importance of the genotype, no guaranteed live births, and present risks to both the cloned child and surrogate mother. It also violates the biological parent-child relationship and can cause the destruction of the normal structure of a family. The cloning of the deceased is another problem with cloning because it displays the inability of the parents to accept the child’s

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

One field of genetic science which is crucial in society today is medicine where cloning is now possible. The need for moral reasoning is essential in this field because with greater power society must “[recognize] not only the limits of our knowledge but also our vulnerability to being misguided” with an evolving world (Dalai Lama 140). Humans have kept high moral responsibilities over the century when faced with new developments in knowledge. The Dalai Lama suggests that “our technological capacity has reached a critical point” during the past decade and the gap between knowledge and human ethics when making decisions has grown farther apart as new biogenetic science has arose (133). The issue is not whether

Cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves complex maneuvering. A cell is first taken from the body of the person or animal to be cloned. It is then inserted into an egg cell whose nucleus has been removed, thus creating the equivalent to a zygote, or fertilized egg. After certain chemical adjustments, the cells of the zygote divide and multiply, as if it had been created from an egg and sperm. The zygote becomes a blastocyst, an early-stage, five-day-old embryo consisting of about 150 stem cells. If the blastocyst is placed into a surrogate mother’s uterus, it could possibly develop into a fully grown person, a replica of the original cell’s donor.