Question: Consider the types of Cloning. Should all types be ethically/morally/legally permissible? Should some types be allowed, while other types are not?

Task: Response to the two statements separately with a minimum of 100 words each. Respond to each statement with whether you agree/disagree and include one quote and reference citation from an attached reading and reference provided with each statement and also based on the question stated above.

Statement 1

“In the Mid-1990s, headlines around the world announced that British scientists had produced a fully cloned, whole animal” (Clausen, Jens). They named this sheep Dolly. Dolly was a female domestic sheep, and the first mammal cloned from an adult somatic cell. This isn’t new technology, but is it ethical? For what purpose I may ask? I believe that our food supply has more than enough food to feed millions and that world hunger is a result of misuse of power in government. Cloned animals should not be used as a source for food. People have numerous health problems that exist already for many unknown reasons. Why would scientist try and substitute something natural for that of unnatural when it comes to our food? I think that Stem-Cell Cloning is promising and can provide a hope for people who need organ transplant but lets not misuse that purpose for full human or animal development.

References

Stem Cells, Nuclear Transfer and Respect for Embryos. (UMUC Library One Search) Clausen, Jens. Human Reproduction & Genetic Ethics. Mar2010, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p48-59. 12p. DOI: 10.1558/hrge.v16i1.48.

Statement 2

I see full-human cloning as morally wrong. My basis for this claim is that of a simple question. How would the world benefit from cloning humans? We probably wouldn’t. Sure cloning might produce an individual that may physically appear the same as another, but it won’t recreate the person exactly, so whats the point. I also think that one of the greatest attributes of the human race is that we are all different and unique in our own way. Trying to artificially create people would take away from that.

If cloning was initially accepted at what point would it stop? Would people then want to further engineer the process and try to create superhumans? Would this ultimately lead to seeing children as a commodity or build by design product?

If we engage in cloning, this objection goes, we run the risk of inserting our will too much into our procreative decisions; we would get to choose not just to have a child, but what kind of child to have. In doing so, we run the risk of relegating children to the status of mere possessions or commodities, rather than regarding them as beings with their own intrinsic worth (Harakas, 1998; Kass, 1998; Meilaender, 1997).

Being a father, one of the things I love most about my children is how unique they are. I’m accepting of their similarities to me and their mother, but I also enjoy their differences.

“Cloning would deliberately deny by design the cloned human being a set of loving and caring parents. The cloned human being would not be the product of love but of scientific procedures. Rather than being considered persons, the likelihood is that these cloned human beings would be considered ‘objects’ to be used,” Harakas, Stanley (1998, 89).

On the contrary, I also see many benefits of Therapeutic Cloning. Giving medical researchers the capabilities to repair or regrow stem cells or organs that could potentially extend one’s life would be very beneficial to society. This could potentially allow people to regrow organs or tissue from their own cells, which would be less likely rejected by their bodies. Overall I see the benefits of cloning as a way to sustain human life, not as a means to replace it with custom built humans.

Harakas, Stanley (1998), “To Clone or Not to Clone?” in Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. Edited by Michael C. Brannigan. New York, NY: Seven Bridges Press, pp. 89-90.

Kass, Leon (1998), “The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans” in Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. Edited by Michael C. Brannigan. New York, NY: Seven Bridges Press, pp. 43-66.

Meilaender, Gilbert (1997), “Begetting and Cloning.” First Things, 74: 41-43.

Note: Responses should be based on attached reading. Statement one response should have a minimum of 100 words and statement two should have 100 word response as well. Both responses should be separate and should have separate references.