Human Cloning Is It Etical? Essay, Research Paper

Human cloning is the ability to take a cell from a human donor, take out the nucleus and place it in a unfertilized human egg. Finally the egg is placed into a female body in which the egg delelvops into a younger duplicate of the nucleus donor (sex depending on where the nucleus originated). However, in society such as ours which divides church and state, laws governing human cloning will have to reflect ethical positions that are not based on any God or set of religious beliefs. Issues that have been introduced are of the following:

1.possible harm to the embryo

2.degradation of the parent and family life

3.objectitivation of children and social harm.

The possibilities of the embryo being harm are extremely high. For example, before scientists actually achieve the species Dolly it took a recorded 277 experimental tries. In case of humans, being a more complicated mammal, it would undoubtedly prove more in deaths and lethal birth defects. Suggestions to improve these complications are to use a large controlled pool of mammals so one can reduce the margin of error until it equals the normal risks of miscarriages and infant deaths.

Secondly, the degradation of the quality of parenting and family life is also put into play. Meaning parents will began to value their expectation of the child instead of accepting the being for what it is a, beautiful innocent child. This kind of family transition can be described best in the Hollywood film Gattaca, in which genes were altered for a more desirable child/citizen.

In addition to, The objectification of the children could arise as a result of an ?unhomely? environment. Clones might be used to donate organs or replace a lost loved one. Such acts promote psychological damage that lasts a lifetime with the child feeling a lack of individuality and constrained by the history of their gene donor.

Lastly, the possibility of social harm would be the final deteoriation of the clone?s well being. An encouragement for a form of eugenics in which society decides which traits are desirable.

Many predict that if cloning is accepted it would become ?a almost preferred practice?; parents using the old fashion ?natural way? will be considered irresponsible or plain ignorant! Once again the film, GATTACA, is practically bung to life.

In contrast, there are others whom are very optimistic about human cloning. They believe that we would benefit from the following improvements:

1.medical breakthroughs/tragedies

2.infertility

3.immortality

4.leads to saving endangered species/plants for medical purposes

Human cloning is an event of several miraculous medical breakthroughs. Under this method they believe we could find leads to cures for heart attacks, a better understanding of cell differentiation, organs for organ donation. Statements such as, ?What about a revolution for cosmetic surgies for deformities, hope for a burn victim or a father who?s lost his son can be happy again? It can be the answer for sterile men and women? Feeling like ?barren vessels?, these people can be exonerated from the expensive, painful and heartbreaking options that are currently available?, are some of the solutions that the scientists of this field proclaim.

Moreover, scientist such as Dr. Richard Seed wants to able to reverse the DNA age to 20 years or whatever age we want to be. He suggests that we could give a better life to these spawns or better?. give us the fountain of youth. Dr Seed also says if a process was perfected we could save endangered species and other helpful plants by making copies.

MY OPINION

I concluded after extensive exploration in the pros and cons of human cloning experiments that I am still not for that type of research. Patrick D. Hopkins of Hastings Center best describes my feelings in his short report:

? The ability for humans to create humans without the normal process of fertilization and to create copies virtually at will has almost a sci-fi or better yet, a Frankenstein odor?.

In addition to, researches have these semi- organic ?blank cells? for creating clones. These cells are not really real but act as organic cells to produce antibiotics and other secretions. If then clones are not actually completely human, do they have equal constitional rights? Dred Scott in 1857 was ruled 3/5th of a human, thus property and not a citizen. Will clones fall into this field of shame? In reverse, let say the ?other you? proves to be a more efficient employee, family member and citizen than you.

However, the clone becomes sick. Should the clone be allowed to die or is it appropriate that you donate an organ or life since it has proved to be the worthiest party?