The Pros And Cons Of Human Reproduction

The dangers that arise from reproductive cloning are numerous, and are enough to validate the banning of human reproductive cloning altogether. During mammalian reproductive cloning, a large proportion of clones suffered from weakened immune systems, which greatly compromised the animal’s ability to fight off infection, disease, and other disorders. “Animal experiments in cloning all indicate that a cloned twin is at high risk of congenital defects, multiple health problems and perhaps a greatly shortened life span.” (Paulson) In addition, many of the offspring produced through cloning suffer massive abnormalities, such as missing or deformed organs. Approximately 30% of offspring are diagnosed with “large offspring syndrome” and other debilitating conditions. In fact, studies on reproductive cloning have shown that more than 90% of

Infertility is the fundamental lacking of the ability to conceive a baby, and both men and women can have this problem. Dr. Clark, our guest speaker in class pointed out that approximately 30% of men and women are infertile, while 25% of infertility cannot be explain by science yet. Because of that, infertility is no longer considered as a lifestyle problem but a disease instead. According to Dr. Clark, one of the options for the infertility patients today is the use of stem cell therapies to treat infertility, and one of the recent popular stem cell therapies is reproductive cloning. Reproduction cloning is a process to “produce” a next generation of “you” through somatic cell nuclear transfer. In my paper, I will argue that

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

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.

Chile's health system has been evolving rapidly in recent years. The assigned role of the Chilean Medical Association has focused on medical ethics codes, and laws. Social organizations have emerged during the last decade and have been working together with the Chilean Fertility Society to change public health policies and attitudes in order to increase the access of people to modern reproductive technology. The current government has passed the August Law which decriminalizes abortion under three circumstances, the government also signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which establishes safe healthcare as a human right.(6) “Today, women have won, democracy has won, all of Chile has won,” said Bachelet(2). On the other hand, Reproductive technology, assisted reproductive technology (ART), is utilized but faces opposition from factors of social-religious conservatism, and gender-based discrimination. While reproductive technologies can be accessed by those who can afford out of pocket funding, most of the population relies on public healthcare, resulting in less than 4% of the population receiving treatment.(5) In this sense, more research of reproductive technologies, specifically mitochondrial transfer, should be reliant on biomedical research of genetic on bioethical levels, as gene therapy is authorized only for the purpose of treating diseases or preventing their appearance(4). In this sense, the mitochondrial

Six years ago, an event in genetic history changed our perspective on "reproduction" and added to our conscience a new element in the study of biology. On February 23, 1997, the world was introduced to Dolly, a 6-month-old lamb that was cloned from a single cell taken from the tissue of an adult donor. Ever since the birth of this sheep, a question that never before existed now lingers in the mind of many: should human cloning be a part of our society?

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.

New areas of science often raise questions about safety. Reflecting back on the past medical technologies invented, people have always opposed it but often benefit from it later on in life. The use of in-vitro fertilization, for instance, was once a controversial issue. Some people worried that society could discriminate against humans produced as a result of IVF and humans could spread diseases. Furthermore, its usefulness cannot be predicted because it is just a research tool, and so on. Today, those worries and concerns have not manifested, but instead have brought joy and happiness to families. The people born through IVF process are as happy and equal as any other average child. It is

Assisted reproductive technologies is “any fertilization consisting of tampering with of gametes/ embryos outside the female body and then putting the gametes/embryos into the female body.” (Donchin 11) These procedures offers a way for several of families who have spent countless time attempting to have a child of their own, but have drained all other possibilities, to do so. The new advancement in reproductive technologies give significant aid to couples who are unable to reproduce, and make many new reproductive arrangements possible. The different options available for adults considering childrearing in unusual ways under new reproductive methods are two-party and third-party assisted reproduction. Assisted reproduction can raise some ethical

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

Sex is a mode of reproduction and a way for a large number of organisms to reproduce. But is sexual reproduction really advantageous? There are advantages and disadvantages to sexual reproduction.

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.

Many Americans do not understand how risky it will be to clone a human, not to mention how hard it is to clone an animal. Many news article and publications offer this information to the public, because many scientists will not address the media with the real facts. In an article titled, “Creator of cloned sheep, Dolly, says he wouldn’t want to make copies of humans”, Dr. Wilmut stresses that only 1-5% of those embryos used in cloning result in live animals, and survivors are plagued with obesity, kidney problems and other troubles, and even Dolly is suffering from arthritis (1). Most cloned animals, like cows, pigs, goats, sheep, die during embryonic development, and others are stillborn with monstrous abnormalities. Bloated mothers have laborious miscarriages, and occasionally die themselves. The clones usually struggle for air in intensive care units, only to have to be euthanized, the process of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, according to an MSNBC article titled, “Much confusion over cloning” (1). The risks and uncertainties associated with the current technological state of cloning are the basis for why

“The unexamined life is not worth living.” With these words, Socrates stated the creed of reflective men and women and set the task for ethics: to seek, with the help of reason, a consistent and defensible approach to life and its moral dilemmas (Walters 22). Ethical inquiry is important to us when we are unsure of the direction in which we are heading. “New philosophy calls all in doubt,” wrote John Donne in the wake of the Copernican Revolution and of Charles I’s violent death, suggesting that new thoughts had challenged old practices (Donne). Today, new practices in the biomedical sciences are challenging old thoughts: “New medicine calls all in doubt” (Walters 22).

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