The Morality Of Reproductive Cloning

. . concerns can be addressed when reproductive cloning has been shown to be safe in animals, which it has not yet." (Paulson) The success rate by means of reproductive cloning remains pale in comparison to natural procreation, and thus does not justify cloning as a form of procreation for the time being. The current success rate for reproductive cloning stands at one or two viable offspring per 100 experiments, and until the success rate drastically increases, cloning humans would be potentially dangerous and unethical.

Cloning is very unethical. It would be violating the human rights in many ways. It would be violating of the freedom of beliefs and thoughts (Peter Flaherty, and D. Lynn Moore. Civics. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2000) Cloning also reduces human dignity. Humans can be sold as manufactured products. If we allow

It seems to be as if cloning is the new topic society can not stop talking about. Some people do not know what it is or they confuse the difference between the different type of cloning. There are two types of cloning therapeutic and reproductive cloning and there is a big difference between the both. Reproductive cloning is cloning a whole new organism while therapeutic cloning focuses on cloning an organ such as a heart, a kidney, a liver, and so on. Cloning of a body part is extremely helpful and essential to the survival of the human race. Cloning body parts also known as therapeutic cloning is the key to live a longer happy life because this procedure creates vital organs that can help people from suffering, it prevents other diseases, and it is much safer than reproductive cloning.

The most talk about topic today is cloning and if it really matters to us or if we shouldn't do it because there is no meaning to it. Well there is two different types of cloning there is therapeutic that one is when you create a clone outside of a embryo. The other which is reproductive cloning that type of cloning is the one I'm really against for because a lot comes with it. For example in the Article “ Here Kitty-Kitty-Kitty-Kitty” by Carolyn Said in San Francisco Chronicle, April 15, 2004 it quotes that “ It took 87 tries to produce CC, for example, Kraemer said”. It took 87 tries thats a lot of tries and either the test tube did not carry the egg correctly or the implantation wasn't as strong. My point is that cloning is a big

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

Human Cloning could be found as unethical to many people. In “The Question of Human Cloning.”, John A. Robertson addresses the hypothetical scenario of cloned human embryos being put up for sale (2). This would inevitably stop inherent uniqueness and dignity of individuals and create unrealistic parent expectations for their children; these embryos would be created and sold for genetic desirability. There is also the concern of cloned embryos used for future “spare parts” (Elmer-Dewitt, 3). Cloned embryos could be born just for the use of being used to give things needed by someone else; for example if someone was to need a heart transplant a cloned embryo could be born and they would use the heart of the clone, but if clones were to be seen as any other human would that be considered the murder of an innocent life. In “Cloning Where do we Draw the Line.” Phillip Elmer-Dewitt

In this case, reproductive cloning is a controversial topic. The issues that reproductive cloning has are that it would foster an understanding that children are designed and replicated for certain traits and it is considered unsafe. People just see the issues that is has but if they would want to have a child but could not have one because they have no eggs or

The issues behind cloning are many, but the most relevant are religion and ethics. In most religions, a higher power is the only one who can create a human or the process for making one. For example, Christian belief states that God is the only one who can create life.(Putatunda, “The Legal and Ethical Issues of Cloning That Make it Controversial.”) Any way that circumvents God’s plan of creation is considered unnatural. Cloning is also considered unethical, for two basic reasons. The first is that the process has a high failure rate and the second is the belief that a human controlling another’s genes is wrong. (Shapiro, “Ethical and Policy Issues of Human Cloning.”) While these are legitimate concerns, cloning does have many helpful applications. First, cloning can grow healthy cells and organs

While some believe cloning to be acceptable others feel equally strongly that human cloning is completely wrong. With the state of the science as it is at the moment it would involve hundreds of damaged pregnancies to achieve one single live cloned baby. What is more, all the evidence suggests that clones are unhealthy and often have a number of built-in genetic defects, which lead to premature ageing and death. It would be completely wrong to bring a child into the world knowing that it was extremely likely to be affected by problems like these. The dignity of human life and the genetic uniqueness we all have would be attacked if cloning became commonplace. People might be

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.

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

Imagine a future where humans are manufactured, a future where humans are created by science, a future where humans are the new lab specimen. Human cloning is like opening Pandora's Box, unleashing a torrent of potential evils but at the same time bringing a small seed of hope. No matter how many potential medical and scientific benefits could be made possible by human cloning, it is unethical to clone humans.

Some politicians in the United States are now proposing to save us from the horrors of human cloning by a comprehensive prohibition. The interesting thing is that under close analysis there really aren't any serious problems. In the few cases where abuses are likely to occur, these can be avoided by targeted legislation. There is nothing about human cloning per se that justifies its criminalization. The only objection that stands up under analysis is that the technology has not been perfected. This is a justification for further research, not for a prohibition.

Beginning with the moral argument, one must understand reproductive freedom. Most cloning activists say that reproduction, or the lack there of, is a natural freedom given to people (C). Restricting human cloning would be a violation of that right. Just as people can choose not to reproduce using contraception, abortion, or abstinence, people should be allowed to use all means possible within their ability to reproduce, such as through cloning and in vitro fertilization (C). Cloning is the application of this right specifically (C). Another benefit of cloning is the ability to clone someone who has died to console those who are grieving over their lost loved one or to clone the DNA of a person that was known for his of her greatness. Scientists would be able to recreate these people in a new environment (C). A clone's parent may have come from

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.