In England, for example, the House of Lords recently voted to 92 in favor of promoting experiments which will attempt to clone human beings — even though a conglomerate of religious leaders Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs petitioned the politicians to pause and study the ethical issues involved in such an ambitious enterprise.
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: The result of the procedure would be a human being in its own right. Given the current level of cloning technology concerning other animals there is every reason to believe that early human clones will have shorter-than-average life-spans, and will be unusually prone to disease.
In addition, they would be unusually at risk of genetic defects, though they would still, probably, have lives worth living. But with experimentation and experience, seriously unequal prospects between cloned and non-cloned people should erode.
We shall ignore arguments about cloning that focus on the potential for harm to the fetus or resultant human [End Page ] being, where harm is understood solely in terms of physical and mental health.
Unless the resultant people would generally have lives worth living there is no positive case for cloning, or any other form of reproduction, for that matter.
If the resultant beings will generally have lives worth living there is a prima facie case for allowing cloning. We imagine the case in which the resultant beings will have lives well worth living. Suppose, then, that we had already reached the stage at which human cloning was safe in this sense.
Would there be any reason to disallow it? We share the dissatisfaction of defenders of legalizing cloning with most of the standard arguments against cloning. In Section I of this paper we shall briefly explain our dissatisfaction with the standard anti-cloning arguments.
In Section II we shall criticize the claim that there is a right to clone when that is either the only feasible, or simply the most efficient way, for someone to reproduce. In Section III we shall build on the critique developed in Section II to develop an anti-cloning argument that we think has more power than those surveyed in part one.
We do not claim that cloning is wrong, but that making it available to people might lead to worse consequences than prohibiting it, and that since there is no right to clone it is appropriate to take these consequences into account when considering whether to prohibit it.
We should emphasize that although our argument provides a powerful reason for prohibiting cloning even if cloning were completely safe, we are open to the possibility that other reasons in favor of allowing cloning might outweigh our reason against.
In section 4, we consider two objections to our argument. Our concluding comments contain reflection on the methodological issues raised by the paper.
I The Failed Case Against Cloning Note that, in order to justify prohibition of cloning without having to take into account any possible benefits it might have, arguments have [End Page ] to establish that it is very seriously wrong. While some of the arguments we have seen against cloning may suggest that it constitutes, or would result in, something bad, none comes close to establishing a serious enough wrong to justify prohibition in all circumstances.
First, consider the argument that because clones and their genetic predecessors lack unique genetic codes, cloning undermines individuality and thus, personal dignity. We doubt that this argument has any weight at all.
The genetic essentialism on which this argument rests is false; it is unable to account for the vast influence that environmental factors have on individual development.
For example, though most sets of monozygotic twins share much of their nurturing environment, no twin will have exactly the nurturing environment of her genetically identical sibling. Similarly, clones would be raised in a different nurturing environment from those who share their genotype and would normally have the added environmental variation of being raised a generation later than their genetic predecessors.
Further, clones would have a different host egg and birth mother than their genetic predecessors. As Ronald Bailey notes, this 'maternal factor' ensures that the clone will not be a mere 'carbon copy' of its predecessor.
If you would like to authenticate using a different subscribed institution that supports Shibboleth authentication or have your own login and password to Project MUSE, click 'Authenticate'. You are not currently authenticated.The Ethics of Human Cloning.
by Wayne Jackson “Cloning” has been a volatile topic in the news of late. In England, for example, the House of Lords recently voted to 92 in favor of promoting experiments which will attempt to clone human beings – even though a conglomerate of religious leaders (Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews.
CMI holds the position that an embryo is a human being, for both biblical and scientific reasons. The information above is not necessarily ‘good’, but this part is even worse: there are no known technological limits that are preventing the cloning of human beings.
Arguments Against Reproductive Cloning. 1. Reproductive cloning would foster an understanding of children, and of people in general, as objects that can be designed and manufactured to possess specific characteristics.
2. Reproductive cloning would diminish the sense of uniqueness of an individual. The identity argument is not an argument against cloning; rather it is an argument against placing unnecessary and unwarranted pressure on an individual, regardless of how they were conceived. Cloning is a threat to human diversity.
Jul 15, · Six arguments in favor of and against cloning. Updated on July 14, HTOE. more. I will be posting two articles, this one dedicated to providing 6 strong arguments in the favor of cloning and another which provides 6 arguments against cloning.
Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal They state that human embryos can not be used Reviews: Arguments Against Cloning QUESTION: What are some arguments against cloning?
ANSWER: There are plenty of arguments against cloning - especially against cloning humans - ranging from scientific issues, to the practicality of cloning, to religious objections. On the scientific side, we see that a large percentage of cloning efforts end in failure.