The Dignity Behind Human 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.

Unlike some movies, cloning in real life doesn’t produce a full grown exact replica of someone. A type of cloning that occurs naturally is when identical twins are born (“What Is Cloning?”). Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a type of cloning that has to be done in a lab. In SCNT they take the nucleolus out of an egg cell, replace it with the nucleolus of a somatic cell (body cell with two complete sets of chromosomes), and make the egg cell divide into a blastocyst (“What Is Cloning?”).

The idea that all humans are born equal has been something that has been almost installed in our minds. However, in the eyes of Peter Singer, we as humans are constantly violating our own moral code in the way we treat animals. Singer refers to this as speciesism and compares our treatment of animals to the same way sexists and racists treat those who they deem inferior. He also argues that the grounds on which they base their prejudice on are equally fragile. He illustrates this by comparing speciesists to racists. He recalls, “The racists violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of his own race…similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of another species” (53.) He initiates this argument by explaining how our willingness to declare all humans as equal when the opposite is fundamentally true. Singer writes, “Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellect…if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (51). Singer seeks to establish that our push for equality ends once the being in question is no longer human. Once he establishes this, he can quickly draw parallels between our unequal treatment of animals and humans. He evolves what initially begins as a far-fetched claim to a nuanced and

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

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 human race has always boasted its image as the superior species with the ability to think critically, create masterpieces that outlast themselves, and stand on their own two feet; however, when one peers into the true image of human nature, the reality is far from what is portrayed. From discrimination to hypocrisy, the truth has always been exploited to reinforce the “superior species” narrative. Hypocrisy in particular tends to be the most pervasive human flaw and is also “often allied with moral relativism, the personal belief that the moral [,] ethical [, and scientific] standards of others do not necessarily apply to oneself”. Human Beings, or society more

The controversy of human cloning has contemplated the reasons it should or shouldn't be allowed. Human cloning is the reproduction of human cells and tissue by creating a genetical copy artificially. Clones contain original characteristics of the individual or cell. There are many dangerous risks and great benefits to human cloning. Many people have an extraordinary reaction to cloning because it creates all sorts of images. Cloning is a medical breakthrough that can help millions of people if it is scientifically proven to be 100% safe. Is science really ready to officially clone a human?

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.

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.

There are three different types of genetic cloning, Recombinant DNA Technology / Molecular Cloning, Therapeutic (or Research) Cloning and Reproductive Cloning, all with various techniques, purposes and all have differing degrees of controversy. The controversies surrounding genetic cloning are based on moral dilemmas varying from right versus wrong, to right verus right a true decription of a “moral dilemma “. (McConnell, T. c2014) In this paper, each of the various types of normative ethics including virtue ethics, deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics are discussed in relation to answer the questions of moral rightness surrounding the issue of cloning. Finally, the most appropriate form of ethical reasoning is explored to solving

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

Cloning by definition taken from the Oxford Dictionary is a plant or an animal that produced naturally or artificially from the cells of another plant or animal and so the same as it. The first cloned adult mammal is a sheep named Dolly. The aim of research into human cloning has never been to clone people, or to make babies. The original aim of human cloning research is to get stem cell to cure a disease. It is inevitable that one day this knowledge of human cloning would be abused. As time goes by, the scientist started to think deeply and this is how the concept of cloned human being introduced. There are a few reasons why the human cloning is illegal by the laws. Human cloning research faces with many problems since it first announced

In some ways, the never-ending scientific possibilities of our time have continued to exceed our expectations. Within the 20th century there has been new medical research on stem cell research, and we have successfully completed organ transplants—more recently face and skin transplants. Without progressions like this from science, many would not be alive today. But when does science take it too far? Is there a moral reason to continue…or a stopping point? If so, who determines where to draw the line? Science has already made it possible to clone an animal (Solter). Now, the idea of cloning humans is within our

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

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.