The Controversial Debate Of Cloning

Imagine if you lived in a world where everyone was the same and had no physical differences. Everyone would have the exact same DNA. There would be no diversity within the population. If we continue to clone then this may be a possibility for the future. As of now there have been no cloned humans, but we are not too far away from being able to do so. Scientists have been cloning since as early as 1886, and have been cloning animals since 1996 with the birth of Dolly the sheep. Dolly the sheep was created by using reproductive cloning which is used to produce copies of whole animals (Cloning Fact Sheet NHGRI). Furthermore, there are two other types of cloning; therapeutic cloning and gene cloning. Therapeutic cloning is used to produce embryonic stem cells for medical research (Cloning Fact Sheet NHGRI). Gene cloning is used to produce copies of genes or segments of DNA (Cloning Fact Sheet NHGRI). Cloning should not be allowed because it is inhumane and unethical, results in more failure than it does results, and is unfeasible.

I will outline the concept of human reproductive cloning, what the issues are and evaluate it under the Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Theory.

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.

I believe that cloning would be a major moral controversy 50 years from now just, because if that kind of technology gets into the wrong hand it could be dangerous. Yes, it could be beneficial in some way, but I think the consequence that could result from it would over power the purpose. For example, if cloning technology gets into the hands of one of our enemies they would then have the ability to create an army of cloned

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.

What if individuality and diversity no longer existed throughout our world? What if everyone was so similar to each other one could not tell the difference between people? This could very easily be a true statement at some point in the future due to human cloning. Human cloning can be done but not actually performed yet, as in a human clone being born. At first it started with animals, but then it moved to human embryos. Scientists figured out a way to make it possible to clone a human being. Scientists do this through stem cells as well as harvesting women’s eggs. Scientist grow these embryos in petri dishes and once they are done experimenting, scientist destroy these embryos that could be human beings. This is where a big controversy begins

Although there are many benefits to cloning and stem cell research, there is much to debate on the ethics. Many people feel that the scientific community are attempting to play “God”, while others do not see the harm if such research and experiments are used to benefit the well-being of man-kind. I will attempt to draw a conclusion on the ethics of stem cell research with this essay. Are cloning and stem cell research ethical?

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

This page discusses how philosophers come up with persuasive reasons to allow or prohibit human reproductive cloning. Some philosophers agree that local and temporary, it should implement the relevant cloning forgiveness, which should be rejected. Production or analysis in some of the main arguments put forward by philosopher cloning debate, as well as some of their most important no convincing arguments against universal opposition philosophers of different kinds of human cloning. This. Conflict between the school of thought suggests that philosophers can not be trusted to provide the public agency, or the general public, human reproductive cloning of moral unity, universal point of

Although the idea of cloning in and of itself is not a particularly new idea -- the first animal cloned was in 1997, almost twenty years ago -- in our society today, attention and discussions over human cloning specifically are consistently growing, whether it is in regard to cloning for reproductive purposes, or for research purposes, also known as “therapeutic” cloning. However, there are ethical dilemmas in either case. What I will be discussing in this paper relates to cloning for purposes of biomedical research. In these cases, the aim is to acquire new knowledge that will help inform the medical community and change our ways of healing through the use of embryonic stem cells. The ethical conflict here is that the cloned embryo will be

Technology has enabled people to realize many things their ancestors would not have even dreamed of. Cloning is absolutely one of them. Having identical twins without being born on the same they is like a dream come true. But what is cloning exactly? Cloning ,particularly in biotechnology, is the process used to create copies of DNA fragment, cells, or organisms. Attempts at cloning might go back to much earlier times such as the attempt made by Hans Dreisch in the late 1800’s to clone a sea urchin, but it was not until 1951, when the first successful clone of frog egg was created, that goal was finally achieved. Still, the world had to wait for another 44 years before the first mammal was cloned. It was certainly sensational when the first cloned mammal, a sheep named Dolly was born on 5th July 1996. Since it was a milestone in human story, Dolly gained a world-wide fame overnight and took its place in the front pages of many newspapers and even tabloids next to celebrities. However, there is a painful twist to this otherwise happy story because the death of Dolly at the age of six brought about an intense debate particularly about the ethical side of cloning and it has been a controversial issue ever since. Despite of all the debate it has caused among

Human cloning is the process of taking an emptied human embryo and inserting the human DNA or the DNA of any living creature. After all this the embryo will grow and form as if it were in the womb and conceived normally. Human cloning is not just some make believe idea, it is here. Human cloning can save countless lives through stem cell research or by finding cures for diseases. Human cloning is not just cloning people depending on the cells in the embryo the embryo will grow to become those selected cells; like stem cells.

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.

The first animal ever cloned was a sea urchin in the 1880’s by German biologist, Hans Driesch. Today, 22 various animals have been clones. As the years passed new discoveries were made and improved through extensive research improving the life expectancy of organisms. In fact, 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 quite 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.

Kass does not give moral permissibility to human cloning. Kass often refers to a feeling of repugnance that people feel towards the idea of cloning other humans. Kass, then, takes that feeling of repugnance and says that that feeling comes from deep wisdom was as a people have, the same type of wisdom that leads us to feel repugnance towards things like, incest, cannibalism, rape, and bestiality. Kass focuses on three of the top arguments given in support of human cloning, The Technological Approach, The Liberal Approach, The Melorist Approach. The Technological Approach, argues that cloning should be viewed as an extension of already existing scientific methods to help couples struggling with