The Ethics Of Cloning-To-Produce-Children

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.

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 soon as you mention the word cloning, you are most likely to ignite a debate. This is because people are greatly divided on whether it's good or bad. A way to reach a conclusion is to look at cloning from ethical, risk, and religious perspectives. The reality is, cloning is unethical, very risky, and irreligious. The arguments I will make will hopefully convince you that cloning is not good for the future.

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

There are many arguments against cloning. Leon R. Kass bases his argument on repugnance in his article The Wisdom of Repugnance. He is a well-known physician, educator and scientist. Kass perceives cloning as offensive, grotesque revolting, repulsive and wrong. To establish his argument he states, “Most people recoil from the prospect of mass production or human being, with large clones of look-alikes, compromised in their individuality.”1 His rationale is cloning is unnatural, because it is asexual and requires only one parent. Kass believes that cloning turns natural procreation into a manufactured process, which is not natural or moral. In his essay he also points out that cloning will also change the way we see ourselves through our

Cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves complex maneuvering. A cell is first taken from the body of the person or animal to be cloned. It is then inserted into an egg cell whose nucleus has been removed, thus creating the equivalent to a zygote, or fertilized egg. After certain chemical adjustments, the cells of the zygote divide and multiply, as if it had been created from an egg and sperm. The zygote becomes a blastocyst, an early-stage, five-day-old embryo consisting of about 150 stem cells. If the blastocyst is placed into a surrogate mother’s uterus, it could possibly develop into a fully grown person, a replica of the original cell’s donor.

As there are a few different schools of thought around whether the balance of good outcome relates to the individual agent, everyone involved, or everyone except for the individual agent, if we narrow the perspective down to a utilitarian consequentialist the moral way to handle this is to apply the principle of “the greatest balance of good over harm to everyone involved.” As there are many unknown risks and dangers to children and the human population in reproductive genetic cloning resulting in births, the answer here would be that it is not morally right to clone humans in this situation. A utilitarian may also weigh up the outcome of IVF in terms of the consequences of an additional 4 million children being born artificially (Ajayi, R.A and Dibosa-Osadolor, O.J. September 2011) and the effects of this on everyone in the world. In a population of 7 billion with rapid acceleration of population growth, this puts added pressure on finite world resources so affects a lot more people than the individual happiness of a person wanting genetic children (Haub, C. & Gribble, J. 2011, July). On the other hand, therapeutic or research cloning has more medical benefits to existing human beings, so the balance of good over harm to people tips this in the favour of allowing cloning for this

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

These controversial issues can benefits us humans greatly but there is also a side effects to these benefits. Cloning has its benefits, cloning can be used to be find many genes in the body that cause diseases. It can also help with infertility, infertile couples are able to have children. Due to the current infertility treatment there is an estimate of less than 10% that it would be successful. With

Cloning is a number of different processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of a biological entity; in short it is an identical duplicate of something living. Cloning does occur naturally by single celled organism through asexual reproduction, they make a new individual from themselves not having to use a partner, so if cloning is already done by these single celled organisms; why is artificial cloning portrayed so badly in movies and media? Most of the problem lies with artificial cloning being done on humans and the morals it “destroys”, testing can be done on anything else except for humans and that’s a problem because no other organism can be used for testing that is like us humans. There are similarities between some, but nothing that can be for sure without the use of humans. Religious, societal, and the destroying of human embryos are some of the ethical standpoint of cloning, reproductive cloning is highly against moral code but hasn’t even been proven to have been used. Yet there is actually a field of genetic cloning that has been working for some time gene, cloning has aided greatly in the medical field and therapeutic cloning may not be that far behind.

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.

Early in 1997, Scottish scientist Dr. Ian Wilmot revealed to the world that he had successfully cloned an adult sheep, Dolly. With this invention, the world made a aggregate astonishment at the realization that cloning was no longer an aspect of a Science Fiction movie. Since then, human cloning has become one of the most expressing divergent topics in the world, discussions began regarding the ethic consequence of human cloning. In several recent opponents argue that it 's unethical and that it won 't benefit humans in anyway but cause harm. At variance, I believe that human cloning can have many benefits for the human race in terms of helping infertile couples and people with genetic problems. As well as being really helpful for a person with diseases such as kidney and liver defects or cancer. Nevertheless human cloning can have it defects such as being immoral and unethical to clone human beings for both religious and humanitarian reasons.

Religious views are prevalent, so too are numerous ethical concerns. The issue of whether or not the government should ban cloning has gained progressive attention, as the science of animal cloning is further perfected. BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Animal cloning is the process of creating a biological replicate of another organism with the

Scientific experimentation has led us to many great discoveries such as: Chemotherapy, heart surgery, and bone marrow transplants. Recently scientists have discovered a new way to heal humans. This is known as cloning. Although they have yet to clone a human they have cloned sheep. Cloning has brought up a huge controversy among the American people. There are two sides to the story. Either you agree with cloning or you don’t. The only way to help make that decision is to look at the good and bad points of cloning.

No one knows why these attempts failed and why one succeeded.” (Kolehmainen, 2017) To see something as valuable as an embryo carelessly destroyed in the process of reproductive cloning is a travesty, in numerous ways, not only does it further prove that cloning unable to safely provided a stable live product, but more so destroys a multitude of potential lives to create one possible abominate one. In accordance to Dr. Tanja Dominko’s reports, in the New York Time article “In cloning, Failure far exceeds success”, her three years of experimenting, and going through 300 attempts with monkeys, the only result she has come up with are some of the most grotesquely abnormal embryos containing cells that have little to none chromosomes whatsoever. Some even bare resemblance to that of cancerous cells as opposed to animals with healthy cells. (Kolata, 2001) But, the most promenade one, which has been over looked the most by far, would be the indefinite hazardous consequences cloning would have on our gene pools. “The process of cloning would inevitably invite the use of other genetic technologies, specifically genetic manipulation of cloned embryos, and this could result in permanent, heritable changes to the human gene pool.” (Kolehmainen, 2017) Such practices of artificially creating a human being only spills disaster in the laboratory, in more ways than one. Materials and funds go to waste with each failure, and those clones that do indeed exist do not last