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.
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.
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.
The act of cloning a human being comes dangerously close to human beings acting as God. Do human beings have the right to tamper with nature in this way? This essay explores the various ethical issues related to the cloning debate, and seeks answers to this deep philosophical question at the heart of bioethics. As a student of genetic biology and future biologist, this question also has personal relevance. Our science is evolving at a rapid pace. As human cloning becomes increasingly possible, it is important that we analyze the ethics of cloning so that judicious public policy can be created. It is therefore my position that research into cloning should continue to fulfill the fundamental goals of scientific exploration and to explore the possibilities that cloning might have in terms of benefitting human society; on the other hand, there are certainly ethical limits to the practice of cloning. It is important to define those ethical limits, so that scientists understand the best ways to proceed.
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.
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
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
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
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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