Justifying Reproductive Cloning For Logistical Motives Essay

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.

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

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.

New areas of science often raise questions about safety. Reflecting back on the past medical technologies invented, people have always opposed it but often benefit from it later on in life. The use of in-vitro fertilization, for instance, was once a controversial issue. Some people worried that society could discriminate against humans produced as a result of IVF and humans could spread diseases. Furthermore, its usefulness cannot be predicted because it is just a research tool, and so on. Today, those worries and concerns have not manifested, but instead have brought joy and happiness to families. The people born through IVF process are as happy and equal as any other average child. It is

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

While we have the state of the art technologies and the result of a successful cloning of the infamous lamb known as Dolly, should we take the next step and begin human cloning? If I were to carry the super DNA that scientists are wanting to explore in the lab, would I allow myself to be duplicated? Absolutely not! Replicating a human is not only wrong on ethical grounds but also a threat to our existence! The biggest concern is how far will humans attempt to control nature? Therefore, I do not believe that cloning should be allowed based on my teleological outlook.

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

A mad scientist stands in one part of a double-chambered machine, leaving the other empty. As he presses a button, gears begin to whir and smoke. A bright light flashes, and out of the empty chamber steps a perfect replica of the scientist, complete with clothes and command of the English language.

(McConnell, T. c2014) If parents use cloning as an instrument of achieving their desired outcome of a genetic child and embryos are considered as a form of human life at fertilisation before being destroyed in medicine, then the moral way to handle this is to ban all forms of genetic cloning. In all cases of cloning, the embryo life form is a tool for a human to get what they

Cloning is defined as the “creation of an exact copy of a living matter, such as a cell or organism” according to Encarta encyclopedia. The copies produced through cloning have identical genetic makeup and are known as clones. Scientists use cloning techniques in the laboratory to create copies of cells or organisms with valuable traits.

Science today is developing at warp speed. We have the capability to do many things, which include the cloning of actual humans! First you may ask what a clone is? A clone is a group of cells or organisms, which are genetically identical, and have all been produced from the same original cell. There are three main types of cloning, two of which aim to produce live cloned offspring and one, which simply aims to produce stem cells and then human organs. These three are: reproductive cloning, embryo cloning and therapeutic cloning. The goal of therapeutic cloning is to produce a healthy copy of a sick person's tissue or organ for transplant, and the goal of both reproductive cloning and embryo cloning is to

The first problem that human cloning encounter is it is one of unethical processes because it involves the alteration of the human genetic and human may be harmed, either during experimentation or by expectations after birth. “Cloning, like all science, must be used responsibly. Cloning human is not desirable. But cloning sheep has its uses.”, as quoted by Mary Seller, a member of the Church of England’s Board of Social Responsibility (Amy Logston, 1999). Meaning behind this word are showing us that cloning have both advantages and disadvantages. The concept of cloning is hurting many human sentiments and human believes. “Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and that attempts to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical”, as quoted by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Since human cloning deals with human life, it said to be unethical if people are willing to killed embryo or infant to produce a cloned human and advancing on it. The probability of this process is successful is also small because the technology that being used in this process is still new and risky.

Many people have asked, "Why would anyone want to clone a human being?" There are at least two good reasons: to allow families to conceive twins of exceptional individuals, and to allow childless couples to reproduce. In a free society we must also ask, "Are the negative consequences sufficiently compelling that we must prohibit consenting adults from doing this?" We will see that in general they are not. Where specific abuses are anticipated, these can be avoided by targeted laws and regulations, which I will suggest below.

Many ethical and moral dilemmas arise when discussing human cloning, and one can have many positions for and against each. To understand the issues surrounding human cloning, one must have a basic

Essay Question (2): Explain in full the ‘life in the shadow’ argument against human reproductive cloning. How might the argument be objected to? Do you regard the argument to be morally decisive, in the sense that it establishes that human cloning for purely reproductive purposes must never be permitted? Explain and defend your answer.