Should Human Reproductive Cloning Be Legal 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.

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

The concept of human cloning has constantly blended a debate, raising moral and ethical issues. There are many aspects involving human cloning that would be brought upon us which would affect us negatively, and would be considered morally wrong. Religious Standpoints, the development of the populace, and every human's distinction are a couple of the supporting reasons that remain against cloning and bolster why it ought not be legalized. The revelation of cloning has turned into and issue of science progression as well as an issue of whether people are doing the right thing by continuing the examination on human cloning.

When examining how human cloning can increase reproductive freedom, we must first look at what a clone is by definition. “Clone” in its verb tense means to make an identical copy of or in biochemistry, to replicate a fragment of DNA placed in an organism so that there is enough to analyze or use in protein production. This process can be performed for many different uses such as being used to grow in labs, embryotic treatments, genetic screening, anti-aging processes, and reproduction. It is important to note that “human cloning” of embryos will not produce an exact copy of an individual. Rather, it will replicate the same genotype to create a different individual human. ***As a reliable background, in this paper, I will be consistently referencing two main scientific articles. The first is from John Harris, a professor in the Institute of Medicine, Law, and Bioethics at the University of Manchester. His article “Goodbye Dolly” focuses on the nature and practicality of cloning. The other research article is by Alix Magney, a lecturer at the several universities who focuses on bioethics and medical health professionals, and highlights the investigations of the negative impacts of human cloning.

If a random individual were asked twenty years ago if he/she believed that science could clone an animal, most would have given a weird look and responded, “Are you kidding me?” However, that once crazy idea has now become a reality, and with this reality, has come debate after debate about the ethics and morality of cloning. Yet technology has not stopped with just the cloning of animals, but now many scientists are contemplating and are trying to find successful ways to clone human individuals. This idea of human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. I believe that it is not morally and ethically right

    In our modern day world, the technology of genetic engineering and human cloning for the use of asexual reproduction has reached a point to where we must ask ourselves if it is a good practice for medical purposes, or if it presents issues of ethical and moral concern.  Human cloning is a very cmplex process; it is very multilayered in the promises and threats that are suggested by scientists (Kolata 8).  In the basic definition, cloning is accomplished by removing the nucleus of a mature, unfertilized egg and replacing it with a specialized cell from an adult organism.  The nucleus taken contains most of the hereditary material from the original human source, and it

Infertile couples can use cloning techniques to have a child, but some argue that this is an unethical practice. “The fact that people are already inventing -and endorsing- such scenarios demonstrates the corrosive magic this technology works on the notion of human dignity” (Kontorovich 30). Kontorovich argues that cloning will make us treat cloned humans as manufactured goods, take out the humanity of human reproduction and that in doing so it will rob humans of something that cannot be replaced through artificial means (28-29). People argue that infertile couples should consider other alternatives to increase the size of their family, like adoption, but there are couples that prefer having children with their own genes in the child's genome. Many who are against stem cell research also argue that scientists are killing human beings, however, this is not the case, stem cells have not had the opportunity to develop into a human being when they are harvested to be used for stem cell research. If the stem cells were allowed to develop for a longer period of time they would eventually develop into a human being, but they are not a human being when these are used for research. To address all the ethical oppositions to human cloning, Dehainaut claims, that “US congressional representatives have already announced that they will soon introduce legislation to put strict limits on cloning” (34).

In this age of technology and innovation, what was once science fiction is now becoming a reality. Human reproductive cloning is on the forefront for providing prospective parents with a new mode of reproduction. However, with the concept of reproductive cloning comes an unprecedented set of ethical issues. Issues especially focused on how cloning may affect the child’s right to an open future are highlighted by philosophers such as Dena Davis. Davis takes a neutral stance on reproductive cloning and argues that it is morally impermissible when used for duplicative motives, but permissible when used for logistical motives. Duplicative motives are when “the genetic replication itself… is the attraction” (Davis 160) and the parents wish for their child to be a mere copy of their donor. Logistical motivations are when the parents’ end goal “is simply to have a child” that is genetically related (Davis 159). Davis leaves the evaluation of such parental motives in the hands of healthcare professionals. Philosophers McGee and Wilmut add to Davis’ position, but call for a more holistic evaluation of parental motives and competency by following an adoption model. In this paper, I will support Davis’ argument on the moral permissibility of reproductive cloning under logistical motivations by addressing the main concerns that surround reproductive cloning. First, I shall reconstruct Davis’ argument in favor of reproductive cloning

Both ‘therapeutic’ and ‘reproductive’ cloning techniques create human life. I believe that life is sacred from conception, and must be valued. The embryo is valuable at the time of conception regardless of how the conception occurs. Therefore, therapeutic cloning is morally wrong because it creates life with the sole purpose of use for experimentation and ultimately, destruction. In this method, the stem cells are extracted for research and the embryo eventually dies. Pro-lifers have called this practice “technological cannibalism”.

Of all the potential innovations in medical technology, none have created such an uproar as the concept of human cloning. And concept it is. To date no human clone has ever been allowed to develop past the zygote stage. And of those, none have been true clones, as the mitochondria genes would still be different from that of the original person. Yet the argument remains. Some believe that it could be a beneficial advancement in technology and others believe it is the perversion of man to even attempt it. Neither side will cede the others point of view. In fact most will not even take the time to fully understand the others view point. If they did they might see this technology as it truly is, a possible advancement in healthcare that needs treated

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

The issues concerning human reproductive cloning are shrouded in controversy, perhaps overshadowing the true advantages of cloning technology. Therapeutic cloning, which is often misunderstood as reproductive cloning, is less controversial than the latter as it does not involve the creating of an individual being. Instead, vital stem cells are extracted from human embryos, in order to generate tissues and organs for transplant.

As the advancement of time, the concept of human cloning can become a reality as with the breakthrough of biotechnology. Human cloning can be defined in terms of formation of genetically same imprint of an individual. The child who produced from this process is a new category of human being that is a clone of a person who cloned himself. Many people think that it is not right to cloned human beings. People argued that it is wrong to create identical human being, and this argument is dismissed by stating various other arguments in the favor of human cloning such as there is nothing wrong if monozygotic twins exist, and clone is not the identical copy of the original human being even in those situations where clone is exact genetic copy because those clones are developed in a completely different environment. In this paper, I will discuss the life in shadow argument as well as arguments opponent to it. In addition, I will discuss the ethical considerations of human reproductive cloning regarding this

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.

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