The creation of a human being, animal or plant with a genetic makeup similar or strictly identical to a previously existing living thing or a currently living thing is commonly referred to as human cloning. The question in debate is human cloning. Researchers and scientists successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly in 1997 and therefore producing genetic copies of human beings is a possibility. Many questions are being asked about human cloning. My paper seeks to answer such questions as who the parents of the human clone are. Does human cloning support the moral dignity of human beings? The act of producing people without their consent to serve other people’s needs even if entails production for good intended purposes is no frivolous matter, and therefore I support and maintain my stand that cloning should not be supported and any research going on must be abolished entirely.
Researchers have argued that cloning may violate, for example, a child’s right to an open future (Feinberg). A child replicated as a genetic copy of another may feel unwarranted pressure to become like or different from its originator (McGee). A right to an open future is trying to authenticate by common law or likeness to ethical scrutiny about parenthood. What is parenthood, after all, but the teaching of values and knowledge to children in the act of stewardship? Perhaps children do not ever have fully open futures. Society must look for ways to resolve alterations among the many kinds and degrees of parental control and improvement of children. While it is enticing to describe cloning as either a profoundly new form of parenting or as linking, either analysis fails to consider the need for new ways to join in the problem of cloning into social establishments before it becomes an acknowledged form of reproductive medicine.
Potential physical harms for humans is possible due to cloning and humanity should be worried. The animal cloning tests using somatic cell nuclear transfer showed that the efficiency of reconstructed eggs developing to generate a single live birth is currently low. This was seen in the case of Dolly, the sheep where 277 eggs were used 29 eggs started to divide (Shiells 316). The large offspring syndrome where offspring are born with significant internal and un-proportionate body organs and therefore causing difficulties in their circulatory, respiratory and other functions of the body.
The moral status of an embryo is that it can’t just be referred to as a “thing” because it is still a human being only in a different form. The implication is that harvesting stem cells from less than ten days old blastocyst is morally wrong and is more like harvesting organs from a baby. The proposed fine as stated by the US anti-cloning legislation is a one million fine and not less than a decade in prison. However, the punishment recommended by the legislative body is not enough since the act is equivalent to a terrible form of murder. Researchers, scientists, and other interested parties who perform such actions should face death penalties or a life imprisonment penalty.
Human beings have a right not to be created for purposes of experimentation. The legalization of cloning which is an unethical practice could be on the offing, and the United States has a bill that permits therapeutic cloning while prohibiting reproductive cloning. This would tolerate the demise of human embryos created for experimental purposes (Gilbert). Just as mentioned before these acts must be stopped regardless of the outcome for medical gain. Destruction of some individuals must not be tolerated in the name of medical science which in return is a threat to humanity.
The concept of cloning brings religion and science into conflict. God, the Supreme Being, is the giver of life according to religious views (Turner). Through reproduction cloning, human beings are going against the moral authority and obligation of life. Life takes three popular routes that are; birth, living, and finally death, replicating the genetic similarities of a dead person is morally wrong and against biblical teachings.
However, some individuals support cloning. Their arguments are centered on the medical benefits of cloning (therapeutic cloning). Moreover, some scientists argue that reproductive cloning can help couples who have difficulties in having children and cannot be treated by fertility medicines have a chance of having their child. Parents who have a lost a young child in an accident can resort to reproductive cloning seek redress for their lost child. Others argue that cloning is a reproductive and should be allowed once it is determined to be safer than natural reproduction.
I would like to ascertain that the facts in support of both therapeutic and reproductive cloning are wrong. For instance, the argument in favor of seeking redress of a lost child is false since throughout history parents find consolation from friends and families. Cloning the child would be dehumanizing and against moral society norms. The number of parents who cannot reproduce are very minimal in the world and have been further assisted by modern reproduction techniques. Cloning would be impossible for this small group of people spreads all over the world. Rights in the society are socially negotiated and no reason to clone one’s self-has ever been established.
In conclusion, the prospect of human cloning carries a high potential to impact humanity in ways previously only imagined, firmly believe that human beings should not be created for purposes of experimentation because this is so unethical in all concepts. The government should ensure only ethical medical and scientific research be promoted and not just other research.
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.