Women volunteering to be surrogate mothers, gay couples looking to produce a biological offspring, narcissists who want to clone themselves. Cloning used to be considered the subject of science fiction, at least until four years ago when Scottish scientists cloned a sheep named Dolly. Since then, all sorts of creatures have been cloned. Now a few scientists want to see if they can asexually duplicate a human in a laboratory.
Search Human Cloning and International Law As the science and technology of biomedicine rapidly advances, it poses major ethical issues on which people are seriously divided.
The argument in favor of proceeding with research at unrestrained pace is mainly advocated by scientists and medical experts who would like to see some fantastic therapeutic benefits of 21st century know-how come to daylight.
On the other side of the debate are people, sometimes led by religious groups, who are concerned we may going too far too fast, both in terms of research and the eventual possible widespread use of these technologies.
However, the issue is much more entangled and the division of opinion gets more accentuated in regard to genetic engineering than therapeutic cloning and stem cell research.
There seems to be a good degree of consensus that if cloning technology research advances our ability to heal humans with greater success, it ought to be pursued.
Such research would not require or encourage the destruction of life in the process, though there is the ethical conundrum of destruction of embryos here.
Most people would at the same time agree that cloning research must not be pursued indiscriminately. We must be careful to distinguish between cloning for therapeutic purposes — which ought to be pursued — and cloning for reproductive purposes, which ought to be put under the lid for the fear of unleashing pure chaos.
However, as we shall see, when it comes to imposing legal restrictions there are many countries, including the United States, which tend to favor a complete prohibition of human cloning for both therapeutic and reproductive purposes. The difference between therapeutic cloning using embryonic stem cells and reproductive cloning is the distinction between creating cloned body tissue or organs for therapeutic purposes and creating cloned human beings.
Reproductive cloning is generally viewed as morally abhorrent because it is seen as unnatural and a "commodification" of human life, and it captures public fears about the power of science to pursue a eugenic agenda.
In August ofDr. John Gurdon, a British scientist, reported the first successful cloning of frogs using nuclei from adult frogs transplanted into enucleated eggs. This success generated great enthusiasm among scientists for developing techniques for cloning animals.
Over the next two decades the initial enthusiasm greatly declined because not only did the cloned frogs never develop into adult frogs, but further experiments seemed to indicated that cloning a mammal from either adult or fetal tissue might never be possible.
As scientific interest in cloning waned, so did the apparent need for extensive ethical discussion concerning the possibilities of human cloning. On February 22,Dr. Ian Wilmut and his team of researchers from the Roslin Institute in Scotland regenerated scientific enthusiasm for animal cloning with their announcement of the successful cloning of a sheep.
Around this time, the media and public reignited speculation about human cloning and its moral implications.
In the wake of this renewed interest in human cloning came various proposals concerning what could, might, and should be done with regard to applying this new cloning technique to human beings. The paper published by Wilmut et al.
Thus, although there had been several previous waves of interest in cloning, the cloning of Dolly in unleashed a storm of new controversy Rantala, Milgram The cloning of Dolly has been rightly heralded as a major breakthrough in science.
However, there still remain many obstacles to the application of this technology in other mammalian species, and even to its efficient use in sheep. In fact, there are characteristics of sheep embryological development that may account for the success of cloning an adult sheep while similar attempts in cattle, pigs, and mice have so far been unsuccessful, even over a decade later.
In Novemberscientists in Massachusetts announced that they had succeeded in creating the world's first cloned human embryos, albeit for only a few hours and only at the stage of four to six cells Carrington.An important philosophical issue is whether such a response against human cloning is warranted.
Table of Contents.
Types of Cloning. The Dangers of Cloning. The Argument. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America – Weinberg, Rivka (), “Identifying and Dissolving the Non. The United States Constitution gives us express rights to believe whatever we want when it comes to religion and therefore I could say that my half-chicken, half-monkey god disapproves of cloning and it would be just as valid of an argument.
UNITED STATES STATEMENT - 57 UNGA SIXTH COMMITTEE Agenda Item International Convention Against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings. Last year, the General Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee of the Legal Committee to consider the issue of Human Cloning.
A hot issue in the United States today is if cloning should be banned. Lots of research is done daily around the world in labs and also on university campuses. I am a male college student who is against cloning humans and animals. One vital reason the cloning is not good for our society is because 3/5(5).
Aug 22, · The United Nations General Assembly passed a declaration denouncing human cloning as contrary to human dignity.
argument against human cloning, at . 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.