The question of whether human cloning should be permitted

Indeed, pressure from scientists seeking to close in on medical breakthroughs is immense, and they are consistently among the most vocal advocates of "therapeutic" cloning. It is not far-fetched to imagine an unscrupulous multi-millionaire cloning himself in this manner -- in case he should ever need a kidney, heart, eye, bone marrow, etc.

They continually protest that the earth is over-crowded already. Policies that would require genetic testing of every baby upon birth to ensure that he or she is not a clone would likely be regarded as a violation of privacy. Experiments performed on one subject solely for possible benefit to others are never called "therapeutic research" in any other context, and there is no reason to change that in this context.

The moral problem with making embryos for research is that as a society we do not want to see embryos treated as products or mere objects for fear that we will cheapen the value of parenting, risk commercializing procreation and trivialize the act of procreation.

Most people only seem to want to cater to their own needs and do not bother to consider the consequences that society and the clone may have to face.

Creating a human life with just a gene is like taking a big risk, because there are selfish genes, pleasure genes, seeking genes, violence genes, celebrity genes, gay genes, couch potatoes genes, depression genes, genes for genius, genes for saving, and even genes for sinning.

Moreover, the legislative debates over human cloning raise questions about the relationship between science and society, especially about whether society can or should exercise ethical and prudential control over biomedical technology and the conduct of biomedical research.

Moreover, a substantial number of live-born cloned mammals have shown severe abnormalities after birth.

Should Cloning Be Permitted

Some have suggested recently that "America is likely to be [the] most important battleground" in the debate over human cloning. One American company and one American university are known to have attempted to produce cloned human embryos, but at least in early experiments were unsuccessful.

Indeed, if a treatment or cure for a particular disease was developed from embryonic stem cells, researchers most likely would not seek to develop an alternative therapy from non-embryonic stem cells but would instead move on to pursue the development of therapies for other human afflictions.

How is cloning related to somatic cell nuclear transfer? Also, those who could be proven to have cloned e. The Council holds that cloning-to-produce-children would violate the principles of the ethics of human research. This is a nonsense, no poor family is going to be richerI mean how.

It is a matter of morality and spiritually as well. Another would be to produce cloned embryos for research or therapy.

The overwhelming consensus in this country that human reproductive cloning should not be permitted necessitates a ban on both reproductive and "therapeutic" cloning.

Has anyone tried to perform human cloning? But even if there are souls, it seems unlikely to count against cloning. The resulting cloned embryo becomes genetically virtually identical to the individual whose DNA was inserted into the enucleated egg.

Any being that is human is a human being. That is, if it were legal to create clonal embryos for "therapeutic"--but not for reproductive--purposes, the demise of these embryos would be required in order to prevent the illegal practice of reproductive cloning from occurring.

That is a question we must ask ourselves? That is to say, concern for the suffering should extend equally to all who suffer, and therapies should be developed which will not discriminate on the basis of moral convictions. Finally, it is important to recognize that although research on human embryos is widely accepted in the event that it may afford therapeutic benefit to the embryo, so-called "therapeutic" cloning is in no way beneficial to the embryo.

Key terms are defined in Chapter 3 of the report.

Another reason is what could happened if cloning is ban.about Human Cloning and the Council's Report: "Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical especially about whether society can or should exercise ethical and prudential control over biomedical technology and the conduct of biomedical research.

Rarely has such a seemingly small innovation raised such large questions.

Debate: Ban on human reproductive cloning

What does U.S. law. Whether or not popular opinion is the best stand for this controversy is addressed by attempting to answer the above questions and to conclude whether or not human reproductive cloning should be effectively banned.

That is a question we must ask ourselves? On one side of the issue are those who believe that human cloning should be permitted. One thing that shows this, is what human cloning research may bring.

Those who opposed commission to let him know within 90 days whether the new technology should be even. more tightly controlled.

- As technological advancement grow, scientists begin to speculate the realistic doing of human cloning, as this happens opposing groups and organizations raise their voice against it and create the question whether scientists should be allowed to clone humans, the promise of cloning at any level can revolutionize the world, and change it for.

This is an attempt to explore the pros and cons of human cloning and to provide enough information of both sides of the arguments in order for the reader to make their own informed decision on whether human cloning is ethical or not.

The overwhelming consensus in this country that human reproductive cloning should not be permitted necessitates a ban on both reproductive and "therapeutic" cloning.

An overwhelming majority of scientists, lawyers, health care professionals, ethicists and the general public has spoken out strongly against creating a human baby via what is .

Download
The question of whether human cloning should be permitted
Rated 4/5 based on 21 review